“Believe then in Allah and His Messenger, and in the light which We have sent down. Allah is fully aware of all that you do.”(Qur’an 64:8)
﷽
There is no denying the light that cascades across the floor. Indeed, many cathedrals are beautiful and breathtaking. Yet, no Muslim would deny that the teachings that take place in such buildings are teachings that mix light with darkness. It mixes haqq with batil. It mixes truth with falsehood.
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)
“They say, The Most Compassionate has offspring. You have certainly made an atrociousclaim, by which the heavens are about to burst, the earth to split apart, and the mountains to crumble to pieces. in protest of attributing children to the Most Compassionate.” (Qur’an 19:88-91)
There is a shared conceptual structure between Christian Logos theology, Neo-Platonic emanationism and the Sufi/Shi’i doctrines of Nūr i Muḥammed.
This is something alien to Islam.
Nūr i Muḥammed is a concept primarily within Sufi and some Shi’i traditions, designating Prophet Muhammed (saw) as the first creation and the primordial light from which the universe was created. It represents his inner, transcendent reality and spiritual essence rather than his physical humanity.
We see in the sacred text of the Christians the following beliefs.
Part of the Nicene Creed reads as follows:
“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”
“For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 2:16-17)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. (John 1:1-8)
Contrary to what people think that the Qur’an being created is from Greek philsophy far from it. It is quite the opposite.
The position of the Sunni/Neo-Platonists. The Monad & the Logos
An uncreated ‘Kun’ by which everything else is created. The ‘kun’ acts as the intermediary between Allah, the transcendant and the material world.
However, the Sunnis believe that this uncreated ‘kun’ is not identical to the essence of Allah nor other than Allah’s essence. In our view, this is a step away from monotheism and a bridge towards Christology and logos theology.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:3)
In our article here, we have shown that Jesus is not the eternal word of Allah. Jesus is the created word of Allah. Created from nothing “dust” and that which is created from dust or nothingness is not an attribute of Allah at all.
It is historically accurate to say that Christian theology has been heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy. We know this was the downward road in regard to their creed. So we now want to look at how such beliefs influenced certain strands of Islam.
As a reminder, our aqidah needs to be built upon the verses of the Qur’an. Those that are clear. Or it needs to be built upon the tawatur from the hadith.
And it dazzles the mind how those Muslims get accosted who say that Muhammed (saw) is only a man. They get accosted by those who hold fast to batini and esoteric doctrines. Well, if Muhammed (saw) is not only a man, then what is he? An angel? A demigod? A deity?
The same people do not seem to mind when we say about Jesus (as) that he is only a man. Even though Jesus (as) was born without a father.
“Say, “I am only a (basharun) man (mith’lukum)like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.” (Qur’an 18:110)
“But now you seek to kill me, a man (anthropos) who has told you the truth which I heard from.” (John 8:40)
Question: What does the word Anthropos mean?
Answer: It means a mortal human being, full man. It distinguishes man from the animal kingdom on one hand and distinguishes man from a deity and divine essence on the other.
Anthropos is where we get the word anthropology, which means the study of man.
So this has not deterred those who wanted to bring Platonic Philosophy into Islam. In fact, it emboldens them. They reason well, Jesus (as) is anthropos, but he pre-existed as the word. So they reason that even if Muhammed (saw) is bashar, they can make him pre-exist as some eternal light.
What is interesting to note here is that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus (as) say: “I am a man like you.” However, the text of the Qur’an is explicit. Muhammed (saw) is a man like us.
“And We sent not before you except (rijalan) men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the people of the message if you do not know.” (Qur’an 16:43)
And We sent not before you, except men(rijalan) to whom We revealed [the message], so ask the people of the message if you do not know. We gave them not bodies that would not eat food, nor were they (khālidīna)immortals. (Qur’an 21:7-8)
khālidīna -this also means eternal. Jesus (as) is not the eternal word. Muhammed (saw) is not eternal light. Neither of them is eternal.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. messengers had gone before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both ate food. See how We make the signs clear to them, yet see how they are deluded!” (Qur’an 5:75)
“And they say, “What is this messenger that eats food and walks in the markets? Why was there not sent down to him an angel so he would be with him a warner?” (Qur’an 25:7)
In fact, if we do not accept the fact that Muhammed (saw) is a man like us, then we are accepting the belief of the Mushriks, who are surprised that Allah (swt) sends a man that eats food and walks among them.
“They say, “Why has no angel come with him?” Had We sent down an angel, the matter would have certainly been settled, and they would have never been given more time. And if We had sent an angel, We would have certainly made it a man—leaving them more confused than they already are.” (Qur’an 6:8-9)
The verse above has the Mushrik asking why no angel was sent with Muhammed (saw). So they are making a contrast between the two.
If Allah (swt) sent an angel, there would be no more room to debate about anything. This clearly tells us that Muhammed (saw) is not an angel. Angels are those beings which are created from light.
And nothing has prevented people from believing when guidance comes to them except their protest: “Has Allah sent a (basharan) human as a messenger?” (Qur’an 17:94)
“They challenge, “We will never believe in you until you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us, or until you have a garden of palm trees and vineyards, and cause rivers to flow abundantly in it. Or you should cause the heaven to come down upon us in pieces as you think, or bring Allah and the angels face to face (with us). Or you have a house of gold or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read.” Say, “Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?” (Qur’an 17:90-93)
They asked Muhammed (saw) the following:
Bring a spring to gush forth from the earth.
Bring forth gardens, palm trees and vineyards.
Cause rivers to flow.
Bring the heavens down.
Bring Allah and the angels face to face.
Have a house made of guild.
Ascend into the sky. -it is clear that Jesus did not do this either.
Bring us down a book.
Muhammed (saw) replied to this by saying: He was only a human (basharan) messenger.
“Say: I am no (bid’an)new thing among the messengers (of Allah), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.”(Qur’an 46:9)
If Muhammed (saw) is the first creation and primordial light, then he certainly is a new thing among the messengers, as this cannot be said about any of the messengers who have come before him.
Verses from the Qur’an that are used to try and prove Nūr Muḥammed.
“O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” (Qur’an 5:15)
mina l-lahi nurun wakitabun mubinun yahydi bihi from Allah a light and a book clear guides with it
The Qur’an is the light and a clear book. Allah guides with it, not with them(plural)
You may see how disparate translations render the Arabic into English.
“O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light.” (Qur’an 4:174)
bur’hanum min rabbikum wa-anzalna ilaykum nuran mubinan convincing proof from your Lord sent down to you a light clear
The Qur’an never references nazzala (sending down) to a human being ever! For example:
“Indeed, We have anzalna sent down to you the Book, in truth. So worship Allah , [being] sincere to Him in religion.” (Qur’an 39:2)
Rather, when speaking about prophets as messengers, Allah (swt) uses the word arsala (sent).
See: Qur’an 21:07Qur’an 33:45 and Qur’an 47:2
Allah (swt) tells us that the Qur’an is that light from Allah.
“And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, you guide to a (siratin mus’taqimin) straight path.”(Qur’an 42:52)
“Believe then in Allah and His Messenger, and in the light which We have sent down. Allah is fully aware of all that you do.”(Qur’an 64:8)
Notice the text says believe in Allah and his Messenger and in the light. The text does not say believe in Allah and his Messenger, who is the light! Just as the wa distinguishes the Messenger from Allah, the wa also distinguishes the nur from the Messenger!
First it should be said that the Qur’an is sufficient in this regard. Anything that one would bring from the hadith would come to clash with the overwhelming flood of evidence that the Qur’an has established.
Secondly, it should also be stated that none of the evidence brought from the hadith amounts to tawatur and, therefore, it cannot be established as an aqidah point.
Nonetheless, we will look at the evidence one tries to establish from the hadith for Nur-Muhammed. The idea of Muhammed (saw) as the first creation and/or the primordial light from which the universe was created.
It would also clash with other lone narrator reports.
Umm Salamah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Indeed you come to me with your disputes, and I am only a human being, perhaps one of you is more eloquent at presenting his argument than the other. If I judge for one of you, giving him something from the rights of his brother, then it is only a piece of the Fire that I am giving him, so do not take anything from it.”
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said prayer and he omitted or committed (something). Ibrahim (one of the narrators of this hadith) said: It is my doubt, and it was said: Messenger of Allah, has there been any addition to the prayer? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily I am a human being like you. I forget just as you forget so when any one of you forgets, he must perform two prostrations, and he (the Holy Prophet) was sitting and then the Messenger of Allah (saw) turned (his face towards the Qibla) and performed two prostrations.
It also contradicts other information from the Blessed Prophet (saw) about what was the first created thing.
Abdul-Wahid bin Sulaim narrated:
“I arrived in Makkah and met ‘Ata bin Abi Rabah. I said to him: ‘O Abu Muhammed! The people of Al-Basrah speak about Al-Qadar.’ He said: ‘O my son! Do you recite the Quran?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then recite Az-Zukhruf to me.’” He said: ‘So I recited: Ha Mim. By the manifest Book. Verily, We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic that you may be able to understand. And verily, it is in the Mother of Book with Us, indeed exalted, full of wisdom. Then he said: ‘Do you know what Mother of Books is?’ I said: ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said:’It is a book that Allah wrote before He created the Heavens, and before He created the earth. In it, it is (written): Fir’awn is among the inhabitants of the Fire, and in it is: Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!’Ata said: ‘I met Al-Walid the son of ‘Ubadah bin As-Samit the Companion of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and asked him:’What was your father’s admonition when he died?” He said:”He called me and said: ‘O my son ! Have Taqwa of Allah, and know that you will never have Taqwa of Allah until you believe in Allah, and you believe in Al-Qadar- all of it-its good and its bad. If you die upon other than this you shall enter the Fire. Indeed I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. So He said: ‘Write.’ It said : ‘What shall I write?’ He said : ‘Write Al-Qadar, what it is , and what shall be, until the end.’”
The Pen is presented as a created instrument for recording destiny. That is all.
The very first of what Allah created was the Pen.
None of the information that has been supplied mentions anything about spatiality.
So this leaves us with some points of discussion.
If spatiality is not a creation but something that co-exists with Allah. Then who or what creates spatiality? How do we square this with the belief that Allah creates all things?
If spatiality is a creation and the first thing that was created before spatiality was either the Pen or the Throne. This means that the Pen or the Throne existed prior to spatiality. Since we do not posit a place for Allah (swt), then one could conclude the Pen is like Allah (swt) in existing without a place.
The unresolvable tension in Neo-Platonic emanationism.
Neo-Platonic emanationism: The One is absolutely transcendent, beyond being, beyond space, beyond time. The first emanation (the Nous/Intellect) is the first thing that has being, but it exists in a framework of emanation that presupposes the One’s transcendence.
The Islamic doctrine of tawhid: “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an42:11). Allah alone is eternal, uncreated, without beginning. Everything else—everything—is created, contingent, and shares no attributes of divinity.
If the Muhammedan Light or the Pen was created before space and time, then:
It exists in a state of non-spatial, non-temporal existence.
This is precisely the definition of divine transcendence—existing without being located in space or time.
Something now shares this attribute with Allah.
“There is nothing like unto Him” is compromised.
When the Nūr Muḥammed doctrine claims:
“The first thing Allah created was the light of Muhammed”
It must then answer: Where did this light exist before space and time?
There are three possible responses, all of them problematic.
It existed in Allah. Something created existed within the divine.
It existed in a place. Which mean space is either uncreated (co-eternal with Allah) or the light created its own container (nonsensical).
It existed in no place and no time. The light shares with Allah the attribute of existing without spatial or temporal location. There is nothing like unto him now has an exception. The light is, in this crucial respect, like Allah.
There is no escape.
The Neo-Platonic Framework Collapses Under Islamic Premises
Neo-Platonism works because:
The One is beyond being, beyond even the category of “existence”
The Nous is the first being—but being is already a category that the One transcends.
The Nous is divine, and the system is not radically monotheistic.
But Islam does not allow:
Degrees of divinity.
A hierarchy of being where the first emanation shares in transcendence with that which is beyond being.
Anything that shares attributes with Allah.
When Sufi metaphysicians attempted to import the Neo-Platonic structure while claiming to preserve tawhid, they created an unstable hybrid.
Evidences from the hadith that are used to try and prove Nūr Muḥammed.
The first hadith evidence that is used.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
“They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw)! When was the Prophethood established for you?’ He said: ‘While Adam was between (being) soul and body.'”
This above hadith mentions nothing about when the Prophet (saw) was created or what he was created from. It simply establishes that the office of Prophethood was ordained for him.You are right. Th is the more straightforward and textually responsible reading. The plain sense of the text is about foreknowledge and divine decree, not ontological pre-existence.
The second hadith that is used.
He relates from Jabir ibn Abdullah who stated:“I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw)! May my mother and father be sacrificed for you, tell us of the first creation which Allah created before everything?’ The Prophet saw answered, ‘O Jabir! Indeed Allah created before everything the light of your Prophet from His light.”
Source: (Al-Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, pp. 63, Hadith 18)
This hadith is fabricated (mawḍūʿ)
The consensus is that it has no sound chain of transmission (sanad) and was falsely attributed to the Prophet (saw).
Bring us an authentic chain for this hadith.
The most dangerous aspect of the above hadith is the wording, “from His light” (min nūrihī). This can be dangerously understood to imply that the Prophet (saw) is a part of Allah or that Allah’s essence is divisible—a concept fundamentally opposed to Islamic monotheism (tawhid).
It is challenging to take seriously the claims of anyone who says they defend (tawhid) and expresses the above view.
Such groups who advocate this are like the mysterion cults. They hold that such sacred truths are revealed but cannot be fully understood by reason. They need esoteric (obscure) explanations or can only be explained via esoteric rituals that are not within the grasp of the uninitiated. The contradictory nature is laid bare for all to see. If that is the case, then you do need recourse to proof text. You simply need aprior convictions.
One of our team members was introduced to a Sufi Tariqa in which one of its members approached them asking about how they understood Nur i Muhammed. The follower of this Tariqa said: “The light of Allah is Allah!”
So how does this Nur of Muhammed (saw) actually work?
If you are involved in Sufism or Sufi Metaphysics, it is usually taught that this light enters into Adam.
Then it is passed from Adam to his son Seth. It goes all the way to Nuh. Then, at this point, something crucial happens. The light is passed onto Nuh’s son Sam (Shem). The Semetic people and his other son, Ham (Hamitic) people, receive a curse—physically portrayed by being black-skinned.
It continues until it reaches Abrahams son (Isma’il). Now we get into a conundrum here. It cannot go through the son Ishaq because this line stops at Jesus (as) who had no children.
So it now passes through (Isma’il). But now we face another problem.
Historically speaking, there is a span of approximately 2,500 to 2,700 years between Isma’il, peace be upon him (born c. 2000s B.C.E.) and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him(born 570 C.E.). While Islamic tradition holds that Muhammed is a direct descendant of Isma’il, historians and early genealogists note that there is no continuous, verified, or documented written record for this connection.
Also, on top of that, it must be affirmed that for that span of 2,500 years, that entire line maintained a belief in perfect monotheism.
Critique of Esoteric Cults and Genealogy
Where this becomes a source for cults and manipulation. If you continue to hold that this nur i muhammed travels through his descendants, then not only are the descendants superior to you via bloodline, but they are metaphysically superior to you based upon this esoteric reality.
This has become a source of manipulation and abuse in many circles. A person who is claimed to possess such attributes becomes a deity in their circle. Unchallenged and unquestioned. The least infraction can bring wrath and damnation down upon one. If the Imam, Qutb (or Ghawth) is caught up in sexual impropriety, molestation, physical abuse and or squandering of funds, any whistleblowers would be shamed into silence.
The Ibadi school shuts the doors to these esoteric beliefs which have no firm basis in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Exploitation of people cannot come about through presumed superior metaphysical personages.
Put yourself for a moment in the position of a 7th century Bedouin hearer, the idea that Muhammed (saw) pre-existed as a cosmic light, or that there exists a “Muhammedan Reality” that is the first emanation and the instrument of creation, would have sounded unfamiliar—perhaps dangerously close to what they had just been taught to reject about Arab polytheism (where lesser deities mediated between the high God and the world) and Christianity (where the Logos became flesh).
In the end, what is needed for the Muslims is a return to purity in creed. A creed based upon the firm and clear text of the Qur’an and the mass transmitted testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
Remember in school how we were taught that there were these big fantastical reptilian creatures known as dinosaurs? That apparently, when they died, they decided to dig big deep holes and just ya know …die there.
Notwithstanding the nasty asteroid that hit the Yucatán Peninsula and seemed to do them in, via a worldwide winter.
This book is an eye-opener. There is a growing body of evidence to support this. Such as why some oil wells seemingly become dry only to then refill.
There is also possibly the world’s largest ecosystem buried deep in the ocean’s crust and/or under the ocean “floor”.
This book sets forth a set of truly controversial and astonishing theories:
First, it proposes that below the surface of the earth is a biosphere of greater mass and volume than the biosphere, the total sum of living things on our planet’s continents and in its oceans.
Second, it proposes that the inhabitants of this subterranean biosphere are not plants or animals as we know them, but heat-loving bacteria that survive on a diet consisting solely of hydrocarbons, that is, natural gas and petroleum.
And third and perhaps most heretically, the book advances the stunning idea that most hydrocarbons on Earth are not the byproduct of biological debris (“fossil fuels”), but were a common constituent of the materials from which the earth itself was formed some 4.5 billion years ago.
The implications are astounding.
The theory proposes answers to often-asked questions: Is the deep hot biosphere where life originated, and do Mars and other seemingly barren planets contain deep biospheres? Even more provocatively, is it possible that there is an enormous store of hydrocarbons upwelling from deep within the earth that can provide us with abundant supplies of gas and petroleum?
However far-fetched these ideas seem, they are supported by a growing body of evidence, and by the indisputable stature and seriousness Gold brings to any scientific debate. In this book we see a brilliant and boldly original thinker, increasingly a rarity in modern science, as he develops potentially revolutionary ideas about how our world works.
Hopefully, this book as well as the research contained will be an eye-opener into how global markets, as well as we the people, are being manipulated.
“Wherever you are, turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque. And wherever you are, face towards it, so that people will have no argument against you, except the wrongdoers among them. Do not fear them; fear Me, so that I may perfect My favour upon you and so you may be guided.” (Qur’an 2:150)
﷽
Introduction: The Qur’anic Framework and the Principle of Non-Accountability
“That was a community that had already gone before. For them is what they earned and for you is what you have earned. And you will not be accountable for what they have done.” (Qur’an 2:141)
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Quran 59:10)
These verses from the Qur’an should be very important for us. Sometimes, when reading these reports about what happened among the companions, people’s faith can be shaken. It shouldn’t. What can be shaken are false doctrines likeʿadālah aṣ-ṣaḥābah’. What we can say is that the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) did their job and Islam is here. None of them worshiped a golden calf. None of them declared Muhammed (saw) the son of Allah or even worshiped the Blessed Prophet (saw).
In general, the issue of the Caliphate of Uthman is historical, though a controversial one, but should not be the cause of discord in the Muslim community today. It is irrelevant because none of the existing sects took part in it. But enemies of Islamic unity keep recalling it repeatedly and putting the blame on the Ibadis as if they were the ones who killed him. The Ibadis recognizes the Caliphate of Uthman and have no dispute with him in the matter of religion. In fact, in the collection of hadiths by Imam Rabi’ which Ibadis rely on has recorded several traditions narrated by Uthman.
The Ibadi Methodological Distinction: Politics vs. Theology
Uthman, like Ali and Muawiyah, are narrators of hadith in the Al-Jami’i Al-Sahih (Musnad Al- Imam Al-Rabii).
Despite these political dissociations (which are a matter of barā’ah, or disassociation), we do not equate a political error with being a liar in religious matters. This allows us to accept a hadith from Ali or Uthman if its chain of transmission is sound by our own standards .
In short, the Sunnis find it strange because their ilm al-rijal (science of narrators) methodology is more intertwined with a narrator’s political and theological affiliations, whereas the Ibadi approach is to judge a hadith’s authenticity based on a separate set of criteria that can accept narrations from figures we politically disagree with.
As Shaykh Soud H. Al Ma’awaly (May Allah continue to benefit us by him) mentioned above that Uthman, Ali and Muawaiyah are dissociated on political grounds, not theological grounds. So you will find transmissions from them.
The above are taken from Shaykh’s book: Ibadhism: The Cinderella Story of Islam.
The Two Ibadi Positions: Wuqoof vs. Barā’ah al-Dhāhir
So, in regard to Uthman, there are two positions held among the Ibadi.
Wuqoof. Suspend judgement. That is not to put Uthman in wilayah or bara’ah. To leave his matter to Allah.
Bara’ah al-Dhahir – The apparent dissociation. This is a matter of jurisprudence. Uthman committed kufr ni’ma and there is no indication that he repented of his sins.
The Ibadi position on Uthman is that during the first part of his reign he was upon guidance, and it was good. However, gradually Uthman gave way to nepotism and corruption. Uthman was counseled many times by the believers.
The believers felt that he, as commander of the faithful, was duty-bound to be in service. From the perspective of those who revolted, so tone-deaf was Uthman to the cries of those who were suffering, those who were calling out inconsistencies in his administration that everything came to a head.
What started off as a protest became a full-blown insurrection. Once seen as a commander and servant of the faithful, Uthman, now a despot in the eyes of some of his companions, was violently deposed.
Ibadi authoritiesbased upon their research have report divergent attitudes held by companions concerning Uthman.
Those who held that Uthman deserved to be killed by Muslims for his innovations. The Muslims tried for six years to make him change and keep the path of his predecessors or resign. When he refused to agree with them they kliled him. Among this group were the companions: Abdullah bin Masud, Ammar binYasir, Abu Dharr, Al-Ghifari, Abdul Rahman bin Awf, Amr bin Muhammed bin Maslamah, and Zaid bin Thabit as well as most of the Ansaris. (Bara’ah al-Dhahir)
Those who held that the question of civil war (fitna) was a matter of personal judgement (ijtihad) some even say that both sides were correct. (Wuqoof)
Those who say that Uthman had repented for his innovations, and that he was killed after he repented, therefore his opponets were wrong. This was the opinion of the companions Talha, Al-Zubair and A’isha. (Walayah al-Dhahir)
Those who reserved their opinion on the civil war and refused to take part in it. Among those were Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas, Abdullah bin Umar, Muhammed bin Maslamah and others. (Wuqoof)
Finally, the attitude of Mu’awiya and Amr bin Al’As who held that Uthman was right all the way and claimed revenge for his death. In fact, one thing you are not told is that those who went to fight Ali felt that he (Ali) had a hand in the death of Uthman. (Walayah al-Dhahir)
It is important to note there are no Khawarij at this time. The Ibadi school did not come about until much later.
A person has to be truly lacking in intelligence to think anyone alive today took part in that revolution. That was 1400 years ago. Which person alive today is that age? Secondly, what of the people who convert to Islam and adopt the school? What possible part did their non-Muslim ancestors play?
In the case of the Caliph Uthman, there were no sects when he was killed; but there had been general complaints from all the spectrum of society in the Islamic state. The Ibadi historians reiterated what those complaints were, which happened to be shared by many of the companions.
One of the secrets of the history of the people of truth and integrity is that if they appointed an imam after the advice of the people of the solution and the contract, the imam was their servant, and if he erred, they replaced him with another imam, and they never sanctified him and did not put him before the command of Allah.
This certainly seems to be the attitude of the sahabah, the first generation of Muslims.
The Imamate as a Servant-Leader.
First and foremost, it should be understood that the office of the Imamate or Caliphate has never been proven to be a position or post (for life).
For us, the office of the Imamate or Caliphate is like being the CEO of a company. If the CEO does well and manages the company well, it is good for everyone. If the CEO mismanages the company, it is unfortunate for everyone.
Part of our faith is an-naseehah (sincere advice). It is to be given to all Muslims, including the leadership. Thus, in the case of the CEO, he is advised by his board members, senior members and if he changes course, that is a good thing. It has khayer (goodness) and baraka (blessings) in it.
If he, the CEO, does not change course, he is asked to step down (peacefully) and if he does, no harm comes to him nor his family. Why should it?
Lastly, if the CEO does not change course after advice and after being asked to step down, then he is forcefully removed from office. We should add here that Ibadi scholars have stated this also depends upon the will of the people and their initiative to remove such a one. Otherwise a stale mate with civil war is not considered practical or pragmatic.
Two points of consideration and refutation of the lies said against this school.
Ibadis do not encourage revolts against the Imams. This is in order to avoid the obvious bloodshed that could result from such an undertaking.
The proof of the above is that the Ibadis had the third-longest running continuity of leadership in the history of the Muslims.
Which are the top 3 longest lasting Muslim empires/dynasties in terms of longevity & stability?
1. 1299-1922 Ottoman/Sunni/Hanafi = 623 years
2. 750-1258 Abbasid/Sunni/Hanafi = 508 years
3. 1154-1624 Nabhani/Ibadi = 470 years
The massive lie that Uthman was not removed by the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Do not be fooled by those who would lead you to think that Uthman was killed by some secret clan of ninjas, or delta force etc. It was the very companions of the Prophet (saw) that removed him.
In fact, one famous Salafi—Athari Shaykh—had choice words for a companion that stabbed Uthman in the chest 9 times. When that same Salafi-Athari Shaykh was informed that it was a companion who stabbed Uthman, he walked back his words!
(May Allah be pleased with them all) is the doctrine. At least of the Abbasid Sunnis, not so the Umayyad Sunnis.
Ibadis are the first group among the Muslims to accept the following as the first four caliphs: Abu Bakr-Umar-Uthman-Ali.
For the proto-Sunni -Umayyads, the first four caliphs are Abu Bakr-Umar-Uthman-Muaviya. None of the Umayyads put anyone after Uthman other than Muaviya. The proto-Sunnis kept the original Tashahhud, which did not include sending blessings upon the household of Ali.
The Abbasid Sunnis (those who are the majority today) the caliphs are: Abu Bakr-Umar-Uthman-Ali (in line with the Ibadis). These latter Sunnis accepted a modified Tashahhud which includes sending blessings upon the household of Ali.
Narrated by Ibn Mas`ud:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) taught me the Tashah-hud as he taught me a Sura from the Qur’an, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashah-hud was) all the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allah. Peace and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allah. I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and I also testify that Muhammed is Allah’s slave and His Apostle. (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw) , but when he had died, we used to say, “Peace be on the Prophet.”
The same happened over the meaning of the Āl Muḥammed
Interpretation
Meaning
Broad / General
Āl Muḥammed refers to all believers, the ummah (community) of the Prophet. This interpretation is sometimes supported by the idea that the “family” of a prophet includes his followers in a spiritual sense. Thus, they are covered.
Specific / Narrow
Āl Muḥammed refers specifically to the Prophet’s blood relatives: ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, and their descendants (Ali’s children), often excluding those who were not part of the household, such as the Umayyad branch. This usually intends to exclude the Prophet’s descendants through his other daughters.
You can imagine which version the Abbasis favoured.
The Historical Grievances: A Categorized List of Complaints
Uthman was besieged by his companions.
Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman narrated:
When ‘Uthman (ra) was circled (by the rebels), he looked upon them from above and said, “Ias you by Allah,I ask nobody but the Companions of the Prophet (saw), dont you know that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, ‘Whoever will (buy and) dig the well of Ruma will be granted Paradise,’ and I (bought and) dug it? Don’t you know that he said. ‘Whoever equips the army of ‘Usra (i.e., Tabuk’s Ghazwa) will be granted Paradise,’ and I equipped it ?” They attested whatever he said. When ‘Umar founded his endowment, he said, “Its administrator can eat from it.” The management of the endowment can be taken over by the founder himself or any other person, for both cases are permissible.
Dear readers. These words that you see in red: (by the rebels) are not in the Arabic text at all! The people who translate this are trying to deflect the fact that those who are besieging Uthman were the companions of the Prophet (saw). Think about it. He (Uthman) was alive. He is speaking to his companions.
It was narrated by Nafi` from Ibn `Umar, that Uthman (رضي الله عنه) looked out at his companions when he was under siege and said:
Why do you want to kill me? I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: `It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim man except in one of three cases; a man who commits zina after being married, so he is to be stoned, or a man who killed deliberately (committed murder), so he is to be killed in retaliation, or a man who apostatised after having become Muslim, so he is to be executed.” By Allah, I never committed zina either during the Jahiliyyah or in Islam, I never killed anyone such that my life should be taken in retaliation; and I never apostatised since [became Muslim bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammed is His slave and His Messenger,
It is a wonder that Uthman did not shout from his house: “Oh, people who here remembered the Hadith of the ten promised paradise?”
The fact that Uthman appealed to his actions (digging the well, equipping the army) rather than a prophetic pronouncement about his status is itself revealing about what the community recognized as authoritative.
The besieging Companions—many of whom were themselves among the ten (Talha, Zubayr, Sa’d, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Ali)—did not reference it either in their criticism of him or in his defense
This failure to do so raises legitimate historical questions about the provenance and circulation of this tradition at the time of the siege.
Talha and Zubayr—both among the ten promised Paradise according to Sunni tradition—were part of the opposition to Uthman. Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas and Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, also among the ten, adopted a position of wuqoof (suspension) rather than actively defending Uthman. The behavior of these figures toward a fellow member of the ten is itself a historical problem for those who insist upon this tradition.
As our article shows: “Ali did not wash Uthman for burial nor did he pray the funeral prayer over him.”
If Ali believed Uthman was among the ten promised Paradise, his refusal to perform the funeral prayer is significant.
While Sunnis hold that Uthman was among the ten promised Paradise, Ibadi historians note that Uthman himself did not invoke this promise during the siege, suggesting this tradition may have been a later Umayyad-era attribution.
Ali ibn Abi Talib also did not invoke the “ten promised Paradise” tradition during his conflict with Mu’awiya. There are many questionable hadiths that inflate the status of Ali as well.
Some of the historical collections have been very careful in how they try to narrate events. Observe the following:
Source: Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti’s Tarikh al-Khulafa’ (تاريخ الخلفاء) History of the Caliphs
Nepotism and the Appointment of Relatives
The Case of the Governor of Egypt: Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh
Let’s talk about this Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh for a moment. Uthman in his prudent wisdom, gave control of the governorship to Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh.
Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh. This companion embraced Islam than left Islam and claimed that he was actually a Prophet! So not only was this a matter of leaving Islam, the man was clearly involved in the sedition of the highest magnitude for the fledgling community.
Source:(Abd al-Ghani al-Ghanimi al-Maydani, Sharh al-‘Aqida al-Tahawiya. Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 1988, p. 124)
Narrated Sa’d:
“On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Messenger of Allah (saw) gave protection to the People except for four men and two women, and he named them. Ibn Abi Sarh was one of them. He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn Abi Sarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Messenger of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his head and looked at him three times, denying him every time. After the third time he received his oath. He then turned to his Companions and said: Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We do not know, Messenger of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us a hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye.”
So out of all the people that Uthman ibn Affan could have appointed governor of Egypt he appointed his own brother (Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh) (through breast feeding), and one whom the Blessed Messenger (saw) would not have minded at all if he was killed for his treachery.
The Case of Al-Walid ibn Uqba.
He is also Uthman’s maternal half-brother. Al-Walid ibn Uqba converted to Islam only after the Blessed Messenger (saw) conquered Mecca. When it was obvious that Islam was the victor over the polytheist.
Uthman appointed al-Walid bin Uqba b bi Mua’ayt over Kufa Al-Walid led the people in the morning prayer while drunk, making four prostrations; then he vomited in the mihrab and turned to those praying behind him and said, Shall I give you more?”
“When al-Walid arrived (in Medina) , Uthman said, “Who will flog him?” The people held back due to al-Walid’s kinship. He was Uthman’s half-brother on his mother’s side. ‘Ali then rose up and flogged him. Later Uthman sent al-Walid to be in charge of collecting the alms payments (sadaqat) from the tribes of Kalb and Balqayn.”
Source: (The works of Ibn Wadih Al-Yaqubi An English Translation volume 3 pg. 800-801)
What is interesting is the report from Al-Yaqubi, a Shi’i historian, as well as the hadith in Bukhari (a Sunni hadith collection).
Now, of course, a big difference is the chains of transmission.
Woefully absent from Yaqubi’s telling. In Yaqubi’s telling, Ali is decisive and doesn’t hesitate to whip Uthman’s brother. Whereas in the Hadith, Ali refuses a direct order from the commander of the faithful. Ali passes the order to his eldest son Hasan, who refuses the order of his father (this annoys Ali), until finally Ali instructs Abd Allah ibn Ja’far (Ali’s nephew) to flog him.
In Yaqubi’s telling, Al-Walid ibn Uqba increases the rakats to 4, whereas in the hadith transmission the number is not disclosed, if any. Also, the way Al Walid presents himself is as if he is mocking the well-known occasion where the Blessed Messenger (saw) accidently performed an extra rakat in prayer.
The Shi’i don’t narrate this because it comes back to damage to their doctrines.
The case of Al Hakam (Uthman’s paternal uncle)
“Uthman wrote to al-Hakam b [Abi]l-As that he should come to him. Al-Hakam had been a man expelled by Allah’s messenger. When Abu Bakr came to power, Uthman and a group of the Banu Umayya came to Abu Bakr and petitioned him concerned al-Hakam, but Abu Bakr would not grant permission for him to return. When Umar came to power, they did the same thing, but Umar would not grant him permission. Therefore the people disapproved of Uthman’s permission to al-Hakam. One of them said: I saw al-Hakam b. Abi -‘As the day he arrived in Medina; he was wearing a tattered old garment and driving a Billy goat. He entered Uthman’s residence while people gazed at his evil state and that of his companions; he came out wearing a silk tunic (jubba) and a shawl (taylasan)
The reason for the Blessed Messenger (saw) expelling al-Hakam to al-Ta’if is given variously as his eavesdropping on the Blessed Messenger (saw), and relaying to his Qurayshi opponents his sayings about them or his mocking imitation of the Prophet’s gait. He would mock the way the Blessed Messenger (saw) would walk. Al Hakam had accepted Islam after the conquest of Mecca on 8/30. He was Uthman’s paternal uncle.
Sources: (Al Baladhuri, Ansab, 5:27; Ibn al-Athir, al-Usd al-ghābah fi ma‘rifat al-sahabah, 2:35)
Treatment of Companions
The case of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud
Of the tribe of Hudhayl. This is the companion whom the Blessed Messenger (saw) spoke about when he said:
Narrated Masriq:
`Abdullah bin `Amr mentioned `Abdullah bin Masud and said, “I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur’an from four: `Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Salim, Mu`adh and Ubai bin Ka`b.’ “
Uthman Ibn Affan withheld the pension and salary of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud for two years.
Source: (History of Ibn Kathir 7/163 and al- Mustadrak 3/13)
“Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud entered the mosque while Uthman was giving the sermon. Uthman said, “Truly an evil beast has come to you!” When Ibn Mas’ud spoke harshly to Uthman, Uthman gave orders, and he was dragged away by his foot, so that two of his ribs were broken. When A’isha spoke up and said many things, Uthman sent her to the Ansar.”
Source: (al-Baladhuri, Ansab, IV/1, 524-526, and The Works of Ibn Wadih Al Ya’qubi volume 3, pages 810-811)
Abu Dharr had begun his agitation in Medina after Uthman had given 500,000 dirhams to Marwan I, 300,000 to al-Harith ibn al-Hakam, and 100,000 to the Medinan Zayd ibn Thabit from the khums of the booty seized in Africa in 27/647. He then quoted relevant Qur’anic passages threatening the hoarders of riches with hell-fire. Marwan complained to Uthman, who sent his servant Natil to warn Abu Dharr, but to no avail. Uthman displayed patience for some time until, in the presence of the caliph, Abu Dharr launched an angry verbal attack on Ka’ab al-Ahbar, who had backed Uthman’s free use of public money. Uthman now chided Abu Dharr and sent him to Damascus.
Historians have recorded Uthman’s letter to Mu’awiya. When Mu’awiya sent a report against Abu Dharr from Syria, Uthman wrote to him, “Send Jundub (Abu Dharr) to me on an unsaddled camel, alone, with a harsh man driving it day and night.” When he reached Medina, Abu Dharr’s legs were bruised and bleeding.
Sources: (Ibn Sa’d, in his Tabaqat, Volume IV, page 168 & Ibn Athir’s al-Nihayah fi Garib al-Hadith wa al-Athar)
“Words were exchanged between Ali and Uthman on account of this, so much so that Uthman said, As far as I am concerned, you are no better than he!” -and they spoke coarse words to each other. People criticized what Uthman had said and intervened between the two until they made peace.” Source:(Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, IV/1, 544)
“When Uthman learned of Abu Dharr’s death, he said: “May Allah have mercy on Abu Dharr.” Ammar b Yasir replied: “Yes, may Allah have mercy on Abu Dharr more than us!” This annoyed Uthman. Source:(Al-Baladhuri Ansab, IV/1,545)
Was Abu Dharr subtly accused of being a deviant by Mu’awiya?
Notice Abu Dharr’s ingenious way he deals with it. So Mu’awiya asked Abu Dharr to list down the deviants in Damascus. Abu Dharr knows that the only people who know them are those who associate with them. Hence, his reply: “What do I have to do with the deviants of Damascus and how would I know them?”
Hadith reports where Abu Dharr chided Uthman and those who hoard wealth.
Narrated Zaid bin Wahab:
I passed by a place called Ar-Rabadha and by chance I met Abu Dharr and asked him, “What has brought you to this place?” He said, “I was in Sham and differed with Mu’awiya on the meaning of (the following verses of the Qur’an): ‘They who hoard up gold and silver and spend them not in the way of Allah.’ (9.34). Mu’awiya said, ‘This verse is revealed regarding the people of the scriptures.” I said, It was revealed regarding us and also the people of the scriptures.” So we had a quarrel and Mu’awiya sent a complaint against me to `Uthman. `Uthman wrote to me to come to Medina, and I came to Medina. Many people came to me as if they had not seen me before. So I told this to `Uthman who said to me, “You may depart and live nearby if you wish.” That was the reason for my being here because even if an Ethiopian had been nominated as my ruler, I would have obeyed him.
While I was sitting with some people from Quraish, a man with very rough hair, clothes, and appearance came and stood in front of us, greeted us and said, “Inform those who hoard wealth, that a stone will be heated in the Hell-fire and will be put on the nipples of their breasts till it comes out from the bones of their shoulders and then put on the bones of their shoulders till it comes through the nipples of their breasts the stone will be moving and hitting.” After saying that, the person retreated and sat by the side of the pillar, I followed him and sat beside him, and I did not know who he was. I said to him, “I think the people disliked what you had said.” He said, “These people do not understand anything, although my friend told me.” I asked, “Who is your friend?” He said, “The Prophet (saw) said (to me), ‘O Abu Dharr! Do you see the mountain of Uhud?’ And on that I (Abu Dharr) started looking towards the sun to judge how much remained of the day as I thought that Allah’s Messenger (saw) wanted to send me to do something for him and I said, ‘Yes!’ He said, ‘I do not love to have gold equal to the mountain of Uhud unless I spend it all (in Allah’s cause) except three Dinars (pounds). These people do not understand and collect worldly wealth. No, by Allah, Neither I ask them for worldly benefits nor am I in need of their religious advice till I meet Allah, The Honorable, The Majestic.”
Abu Dharr said that he came with his stick in his hand and asked ‘Uthman for permission to enter and this was granted. ‘Uthman then told Ka‘b that ‘Abd ar-Rahman had died leaving some property and asked what he thought about it. When he replied that if he had given what was due to God on it there was no harm in it, Abu Dharr raised his stick and struck Ka’b and said he had heard God’s messenger say, “If I had a quantity of gold equivalent to this mountain which I could spend and have accepted from me, I would not like to leave six uqiyas behind me.” He then adjured ‘Uthman three times to tell him if he had not heard him, and he replied that he had. Ahmad transmitted it.
As for Ammar’s case, Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi mentions a report related by Al-Tabari which suggests that there was some friction between Ammar and Abbas ibn Utbah. Uthman felt that the two needed to be disciplined by physical punishment. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi states that this is within the right and jurisdiction of the Caliph. Umar used to do that with many people, several of whom were of a higher standing than Ammar.
Source: (Al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad)
When Miqdad b ‘Amr died he appointed Ammar as his executor and Ammar prayed over hm without notifying Uthman. Uthman became furious at Ammar and said: “Woe to me from that son of a black woman! Yes, I know of his hidden antagonism towards me.”
Sources: (Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Isti’ab, 4:1863; a& Khalil ibn Aybak al-Safadi, Kitab al-Wafi bi’l-Wafayat, 15:457)
Fiscal Policy and Distribution of Public Funds
The case of Al Hurmazan and Ubayd Allah ibn Umar
“The people talked much about the blood of al-Hurmuzan and Uthman’s withholding of Ubaydallah b Umar. Uthman therefore ascended the pulpit and addressed the people. He said: I am indeed the guardian (wali) of al-Hurmuzan’s blood: I have granted it to Allah and to ‘Umar, and have relinquished it for ‘Umar’s blood.”
Al-Miqdad Bin Amr rose up and said: “Al-Hurmuzan was a client (mawla) of Allah and His Messenger. it is not up to you to grant that which belongs to Allah and His Messenger.” Uthman said, “We see things our way and you see things your way.” Uthman then sent Ubayd Allah ibn Umar out of Medina to Kufa and settled him in a residence; the place came to be called: “Kuwayfat Ibn Umar” after him.
This became a huge grievance against Uthman Ibn Affan. Al-Hurmuzan was killed without judicial process and he was a Muslim!
By withholding of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar from punishment for having killed al-Hurmuzan, the Persian general who been granted protection as a Muslim. Ubayd Allah ibn Umar killed al-Hurmuzan because he suspected him of involvement with his father’s assassin. Because al-Hurmuzan’s involvement was not proved, and because he had no heirs to take vengeance on his behalf, the onus fell on Uthman as head of the community. Uthman’s decision not to exact blood vengeance by killing Umar’s soon, and to accept blood money (which he paid himself) caused controversy.
It is also little wonder that Ubayd Allah ibn Umar fought on the side of Muaviyah at Siffin, against Ali. Rather or not, that was loyalty/treachery for Uthman, sparing him depends on whose side you were on and how you look at it.
Sources: (al-Tabari, Tarikh,1:2795-2797 & Al-Baladhuri Ansab, IV/1, 510 (where Ali is mentioned as explicitly demanding the death of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar via qisas.).
Apparently it’s O.K. for Al Miqdad Bin Amr to say to Caliph Uthman: “Al-Hurmuzan was a client (mawla) of Allah and His Messenger. It is not up to you to grant that which belongs to Allah and His Messenger.“
However, for some reason, it’s not O.K. for the Sahaba to say to Caliph Ali: “It is not up to you to grant which belongs to Allah,” at the battle of Siffin. Double standards much?
Al-Miqdad bin Amr also had a famous Qira’at of the Qur’an that is attributed to him. The Qira’at of Miqdad! He married Duba’ah Bint Al-Zubayr, the relative of the Blessed Messenger (saw), the daughter of his (saw) paternal uncle.
Analysis of the Assassination: Deconstructing the “Mysterious Letter” Narrative and the Role of Key Figures
The Most Shocking Account of Historical Events.
The following account from al-Suyuti is presented not as an objective fact, but as a narrative preserved in Sunni historiography. It contains literary motifs—such as the ‘mysterious letter’ and the forensic identification of handwriting—that warrant critical examination.
“Ibn Asakir narrated by another route that az-Zuhri said: I said to Sacid ibn al-Musayyab, ‘Can you tell me how was the killing of Uthman? What were people up to and what was he up to? And why did the Companions of Muhammed (saw), fail to help him? Ibn al-Musayyab said, ‘Uthman was killed unjustly, whoever killed him was wrongdoing, and whoever failed to help him is free of blame.’ I said, ‘How was that?’ He said, ‘When Uthman was appointed, a group of the Companions disliked his appointment, because Uthman used to love his people. He ruled people for twelve years. He used to appoint people from Bani Umayyah who had not kept company with the Prophet (saw). His amirs used to produce matters which the Companions of Muhammed (saw) would repudiate. Uthman used to ask people to have good will for them and he would not remove them.”
“In the year 35 AH. During the six last years he chose in preference the tribe of his paternal uncle. He appointed them and did not let anyone share with them. He ordered them to fear Allah, he appointed Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh in charge of Egypt and he remained in control there for years. The people of Egypt came to complain of him and to complain of his wrongdoing. There had been slights before from Uthman to Abdullah ibn Masud, Abu Dharr and Ammar ibn Yasir. Banu Hudhayl and Banu Zuhrah had what they had in their hearts because of the state of Ibn Masud. Banu Ghifar, their allies and whoever was angry because of Abu Dharr, had in their hearts what they had in them. Banu Makhzum were furious at Uthman because of the condition of Ammar ibn Yasir. ‘The people of Egypt came to complain of Ibn Abi Sarh, so he wrote a letter to him in which he threatened him, but Ibn Abi Sarh refused to accept what Uthman forbade him, he struck one of those of the people of Egypt who came to him from Uthman, one of those who had gone to Uthman, and he killed him. Seven hundred men left Egypt and dwelt in the mosque (of Madinah). They complained to the Companions at the times of the prayers about what Ibn Abi Sarh had done. Talhah ibn Ubaydullah stood and addressed Uthman very severely. A’ishah (ra) sent a message to him saying, “The Companions of Muhammed (saw) came to you and they asked you to remove this man and you refused? This one has killed a man from among them so treat them with justice (in their complaint) against your governor.”
“Ali ibn Abi Talib came to him and said, “They are only asking you for a man in place of (in retaliation for) a man and they have claimed from him (retaliation for the spilling of) blood. Remove him from over them and give a (just) decision between them. If there is anything due against him, be just to them.” He (Uthman) said to them (the Egyptians), “Choose from amongst yourselves a man whom I shall appoint over you in his (Ibn Abi Sarh’s) place.” The people indicated to him Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr. They said, “Appoint Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr over us.” He wrote his covenant and appointed him. A number of the Muhajirun and Ansar went with them to look into that (dispute) which was between the people of Egypt and Ibn Abi Sarh. Muhammed went and those with him. When they were about three days’ journey from Madinah they came upon a black slave on a camel beating the camel so much that it was as if he was pursuing or being pursued. The Companions of Muhammed (saw), said to him, “What is your story? What is your business? It is as if you were fleeing or pursuing someone.” He said to them, “I am the slave of the Amir al-Mu’minin and he has directed me to the governor of Egypt.” A man said to him, “This (Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr) is the governor of Egypt.” He said, “It is not this one I want.” Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr was told of his affair and so he sent a man in search of him who took him and brought him to him. He said, “Slave, who are you?” He began to say, one time, “I am the slave of the Amir al- Mu’minin,” and another time, “I am the slave of Marwan,” until one man recognised that he was the slave of Uthman.”
“Muhammed said to him, “To whom are you sent?” He said, “To the governor of Egypt.” He said, “With what?” He said, “With a message.” He said, “Do you have a letter with you?” He said, “No.” They searched him and didn’t find a letter with him. He had with him an ewer which was dry, in which was something which moved about, so they moved it about to bring it out but it didn’t come out. They broke the ewer and there was a letter in it from Uthman to Ibn Abi Sarh. Muhammed gathered those with them of the Muhajirun, the Ansar and others, then he opened the letter in their presence. There was in it, “When Muhammed, so-and-so, and so-and-so come to you, then find a way to kill them, and declare this letter to be false. Uthman ibn Afan ( Consider yourself confirmed in your governorship until my advice on it comes to you, and imprison whoever tries to come to me to accuse you of wrongdoing. My advice on that will certainly come to you, if Allah wills.” ‘When they read the letter they were terrified. Then they became resolved and returned to Madinah. Muhammed sealed the letter with the signet rings of the group who were with him, and then entrusted the letter to a man who was with them.”
“Then they went to Madinah. There they gathered together Talhah, az-Zubayr, Ali, Sa’d, and whoever there was of the Companions of Muhammed (saw). He broke (the seals of) the letter in their presence, and told them of the story of the slave. They read out the letter to them, and none of the people of Madinah was left who was not enraged at Uthman. It only increased those who were angry because of Ibn Masud, Abu Dharr and Ammar ibn Yasir in fury and rage. The Companions of Muhammed rose and kept to their houses. There was no-one among them who was not incoherent when he read the letter. The people besieged Uthman in the year 35 AH, and Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr raised Bani Taym and others against him.”
“When Ali saw that, he sent for Talhah, az-Zubayr, Sa’d, Ammar and a group of the Companions, all of whom were at Badr. Then he went in to Uthman, with him the letter, the slave and the camel. Ali said to him, “This slave is your slave?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “And the camel is your camel?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “Then you wrote this letter?” He said, “No,” and he swore an oath, “By Allah I did not write this letter, I did not order it, and I had no knowledge of it.” Ali said, “The seal is your seal?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “How does your slave go out on your camel, with a letter upon which is your seal, and you know nothing about it?” He swore again, “By Allah, I did not write this letter, I didn’t order it, and I never directed this slave to go to Egypt.” As for the handwriting, they recognised that it was that of Marwan, and they came to doubt as to Uthman. They demanded that he should give them Marwan and he refused, while Marwan was with him in the house. The Companions of Muhammed (saw) left him in anger, and in doubt about his affair. They knew that Uthman would not swear an oath that was false, but people said, “Uthman will never be free of guilt in our hearts unless he hands Marwan over to us for questioning, so that we know the situation of the letter, and how he could order the killing of a man of the Companions of Muhammed (saw) without right. If ‘Uthman wrote it, we will remove him from office. If Marwan wrote it as if it had been written by Uthman, then we will have to look seriously at what we shall do in the case of Marwan.”
“They stuck to their houses, and Uthman refused to send Marwan out to them, for he feared that he would be killed. People continued laying siege to Uthman, and they prevented water (from reaching him). He looked over the people (from an upper floor) and said, “Is Ali among you?” They said, “No.” He said, “Is Sa’d among you?” They said, “No.” He was silent and then he said, “Will no-one reach Ali and ask him to get us water to drink?” That reached Ali, so he sent him three water-skins full of water, but they almost didn’t reach him. Because of them a number of the freed slaves of Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah were wounded in the course of the water getting to him. ‘It reached Ali that it was intended to kill Uthman, and he said, “We only want Marwan from him. As for the killing of Uthman, no!” He said to al-Hasan and al-Hussein, “Go with your two swords and stand at the door of Uthman and allow no-one to reach him.” | Then az-Zubayr sent his son, Talhah sent his son and a number of the Companions of the Prophet (saw) sent their sons to prevent people getting to Uthman, and to demand the surrender of Marwan.”
“When people saw that, they shot arrows against the door of Uthman until al-Hasan ibn ‘ Ali was reddened with blood at his door, an arrow struck Marwan while he was in the house. Muhammed ibn Talhah was smeared with blood and also Qanbar, the freed slave of Ali, was wounded in the head. ‘Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr was afraid that Banu Hashim would become angry because of the state of al-Hasan and al-Hussein and provoke a tumult. He took the hands of two men and said to them, “If Banu Hashim come and see blood on the face of al-Hasan they will remove these people from around Uthman and what we wanted will be rendered useless. Let us go and scale the wall of the house and kill him, without anyone knowing about it.”Muhammed andhis two mengot over the wall from the house of a man of the Ansar and entered Uthman’s house, without any of those who were with him (Uthman) knowing, because everyone with him was up above the houses (on the roofs). There was no-one with him but his wife. Muhammed said to the two of them, “Stay where you are, because his wife is with him, until I first enter. When I have taken hold of him, then you come in and strike him until you have killed him.” Muhammed went in and took hold of his beard, and Uthman said to him, “By Allah, if your father could see you, your behaviour to me would cause him great distress,” and so his hand slackened (and he held back), and then the two men entered and struck him until they had killed him. ‘They went out in flight by the same way that they had come in, and his wife cried out, but her cry was not heard in the house because of the commotion in the house. His wife went up to the people and said, “The Amir al-Mu’minin has been killed!” The people entered and they found him slaughtered. The news reached Ali, Talhah, az- Zubayr, Sa’d and whoever was in Madinah and they went out – and their intellects had gone, because of the news which had come to them — until they came in to Uthman and found him killed. They repeated again and again, “Truly we belong to Allah and truly we are returning to Him.” Ali said to his two sons, “How was the Amir al-Muminin killed while you two were at the door?” He raised his hand and slapped al-Hasan, struck the chest of al-Hussein, abused Muhammad ibn Talhah and Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, and went out – enraged – until he came to his house.”
Source: (The History of the Khalifahs who took the right way by Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti translated by Abdassamad Clarke pgs 167 to 173)
Prima Qur’an comments: First take a deep breath. Take time to process what you just read. It certainly is a very creative piece of narrative writing. Especially given that this is done in retrospect. Keep in mind we have to protect the doctrine of ʿadālah aṣ-ṣaḥābah‘. Marwan ibn al-Hakam becomes the fall guy, and of course, he gets removed from the list of companions.This narrative structure serves to exonerate Uthman by shifting culpability entirely to Marwan ibn al-Hakam, a figure whose reputation was already compromised in later Islamic historiography. It fits very nicely and dovetails into ʿadālah aṣ-ṣaḥābah‘. With the Umayyads out of the picture, using Marwan ibn al-Hakam as a plot device makes perfect sense.
However, we would like to draw the reader’s attention to some all too revealing points in the above account.
The first plot device.
The mysterious letter.
“When Muhammed, so-and-so, and so-and-so come to you, then find a way to kill them, and declare this letter to be false. Uthman ibn Afan (Consider yourself confirmed in your governorship until my advice on it comes to you, and imprison whoever tries to come to me to accuse you of wrongdoing.“
Notice: and declare this letter to be false? That doesn’t seem like thinking ahead. It’s as if the person knows the letter will be discovered. Notice that the letter is to the governor, Ibn Abi Sarh. So the letter instructs Ibn Abi Sarh to deny the letter after he receives it, which would be pointless. Simply destroy the letter duh! Also, if Ibn Abi Sarh is the type of person to just kill those under his rule, why the hell would he need to explain a letter to anyone?
Second plot device.
Forensic science.
“As for the handwriting, they recognised that it was that of Marwan, and they came to doubt as to Uthman.” As if they are forensic scientist!
Then just a little further down.
“If ‘Uthman wrote it, we will remove him from office. If Marwan wrote it as if it had been written by Uthman, then we will have to look seriously at what we shall do in the case of Marwan.”
So which is it? Did these forensic scientist recognize that the handwriting was that of Marwan or are they still wrangling over the possibility that Uthman really did write the letter and was lying. Really shows you what some of them thought of Uthman!
Third plot device.
Who are the two that killed Uthman?
“He said to al-Hasan and al-Hussein, “Go with your two swords and stand at the door of Uthman and allow no-one to reach him.”
“Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr was afraid that Banu Hashim would become angry because of the state of al-Hasan and al-Hussein and provoke a tumult. He took the hands of two men.“
“Muhammed andhis two mengot over the wall from the house of a man of the Ansar and entered Uthman’s house.“
“Muhammed said to the two of them.”
“Then the two men entered and struck him until they had killed him.“
“Ali said to his two sons, “How was the Amir al-Muminin killed while you two were at the door?” He raised his hand and slapped al-Hasan, struck the chest of al-Hussein.”
The Identity of the Assailants
Who were the two men who entered with Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr and struck Uthman? The account in al-Suyuti’s Tarikh al-Khulafa’ does not name them directly. Yet the narrative structure is striking.
Consider the sequence: Ali orders al-Hasan and al-Husayn to stand guard at the door with their swords, instructing them to allow no one to reach Uthman. Later, Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr enters the house from another direction—scaling the wall—accompanied by “two men.” These two deliver the fatal blows. When Ali discovers the assassination, his immediate reaction is not to pursue the intruders but to turn to his two sons, strike them, and demand: “How was the Amir al-Muminin killed while you two were at the door?”
The text does not explicitly name al-Hasan and al-Husayn as the killers. But it places them at the door, positions the actual assailants as anonymous figures who enter from elsewhere, and then shows Ali holding his sons accountable. The narrative, as preserved in al-Suyuti’s work, seems to invite the reader to connect these details—whether the implication is that they failed to prevent the killing or that they were more directly involved, the text leaves the reader to discern the connection.
It couldbe argued that the narrative subtly implicates al-Hasan and al-Husayn in the assassination itself. Others contend that it merely shows them failing in their protective duty, not participating in the killing, and that Ali’s anger was directed at their negligence. Still others point out that the historical sources are contradictory on this point, with different traditions assigning responsibility to different individuals—some naming Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr alone, others implicating figures whose identities have been obscured by later apologetic revision.
What is clear is that the ambiguity is itself revealing. Whether the sources intend to implicate them or simply place them at the scene in a protective role, the narrative’s structure speaks to the contested nature of these events. The convenient anonymity of the actual assailants, combined with the pointed direction of Ali’s fury, suggests a literary hand at work—one that must navigate between preserving the reputations of Ali’s household and recording the historical reality that those same household members were deeply entangled in the conflict.
This ambiguity is characteristic of historical writing from this period. Later historiographical traditions—whether Sunni, Shi’i, or Ibadi—reflect the deep divisions that emerged from these events, and each tradition has shaped its sources accordingly. For the contemporary reader, the most responsible approach is to acknowledge the uncertainty, resist the temptation to assign blame with certainty, and recognize that these are matters about which even the early sources do not speak with one voice.
Reflection.
Dear readers, consider the convert who comes to Islam seeking peace, clarity, and connection with Allah. What possible benefit could it bring them to be drawn into the conflicts of Ali’s family and the Umayyad clan? These were political struggles of a particular era. They are not the substance of faith. The substance of faith is the Qur’an, the Prophetic example, and the sincere worship of Allah alone.
The Prophet (saw) said: ‘Leave that which causes you doubt for that which does not cause you doubt.’ The disputes between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya are a source of doubt, division, and confusion. Leave them. Turn instead to what is certain: the Qur’an, the authentic Sunnah, and the worship of Allah. In that is your spiritual fulfillment.
For the contemporary Muslim—whether a new convert or one born into the faith—the question of whether Banu Hashim or Banu Umayya held the upper hand in the seventh century is spiritually irrelevant. Islam came to address the heart’s longing for its Creator, not to enlist believers as partisans in dynastic disputes over which tribe or bloodline is meant to rule over the Muslims.
Enough! The Muslim who turns to Allah in prayer, who weeps over the Qur’an, who seeks to purify their soul—what have they to do with the quarrels of Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya? Those were political conflicts born of their time and place. To make them the centerpiece of Islamic identity is to miss the entire point of the revelation.
Conclusion: The Case for Wuqoof
We are thankful to our teacher, Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (hafidullah) for explaining the truth to the people!
TRANSCRIPT FROM THE SHAYKH.
“Moreover, before this there was manifest evil from Uthman towards Abdullah bin Masoud, Abi Thar, and Ammar bin Yasir.” “The people of Uthail and the people of Zuhra had in their hearts grieved concerning the condition of Ibn Masoud.” “And the tribe of Ghifar and it’s allies and all of them had rage in their hearts for what happened to Abu Thar.” “And the tribe of Makhzum were enraged against Uthman for the condition of Ammar bin Yasir.” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“It says, “Uthman remained for three days not buried and then Hakim ibn Hizam Al Qurashi and Jubayr ibn Muṭʽim talked to Ali to allow his burial and he allowed it.” So the final decision was with Ali. And Hakim ibn Hizam and Jubayr ibn Mut’im talked to Ali to allow his burial. “And Hakim ibn Huzam and Jubayr ibn Mu’tim went and talked to allow, “allow”, his burial. What does this phrase mean? “Allow?!”-Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
What do you understand from their act of talking to Ali to allow his burial so he allowed? What do you understand from that?
Food for thought.
Ali did not wash Uthman for burial nor did he pray the funeral prayer over him.
“When those seeking him (Uthman) heard that, they stood along the way with rocks [to throw at his janaza] and few family members of Uthman accompanied his body. The people of Medina didn’t leave for his janaza, the people of Medina, the armies of which flattened the Persians and the Romans in the life of the Prophet (saw) and the life of the two Caliphs before, they were completely unconcerned with the burial of Uthman!” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“This is what is documented in classical Sunni sources Oh Dr., this is not an Ibadi book. This is a book from the books which you trust and depend on. ” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“And from those who did not bother with the burial is Al Zubayr, and Al Hassan and Abu Jahm and Hudaifa and Marwan, between Maghrib and Isha, and they brought him to a wall from the walls of Madina called, ‘Hash Kawkab’ and it’s outside of Baqee’ and Jubayr bin Mut’im prayed over him.” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
Ali bin Abi Talib did not wash the dead body of Uthman nor did he pray over him.
Ali bin Abi Talib didn’t pray over him, Ali didn’t pray the janaza over Uthman, even though he exists.
“And it was said Hakim ibn Hizam and it was said that Marwan, and the people from the Ansar, Al Andar which the Prophet (saw) advised us concerning: “And people from the Ansar approached to stop them from praying the janaza, then they let them be for fear of fitnah.” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“There were people from the Ansar who wanted to stop them from praying on him. And Ali went to those sitting on the way wanting to throw stones at Uthman’s body and he stopped them. “And he was buried in Hash Kawkab’ “Meaning that he wasn’t buried in Al Baqee’. They were stopped from burying him in Al Baqee’.” “And when Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan was in charge he ordered that the wall be crushed and so it was. And he was entered into Al Baqee.” “And he ordered the people, so they buried the dead near his grave till the grave eventually connected to the graves of Muslims.” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“And it was said that he was buried in Al Baqee’ near Hash Kawkab and it was said that his Janaza was attended by Ali and Talha and Zaid bin Thaib and Ka’b bin Malik, the general population and then from his companions. “And it was said that they didn’t perform ghusl on him and he as shrouded in his clothes.” “These are documented in classical Sunni sources which testify to and speak about that.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“These are the stances of the sahaba. And in the book: “Tarikh Al-Khulafa” for Al Sayuti: “and narrated from Abi Al Tufayl Amr bin Wa’ila the companion that he entered on Muawiya, so Muawiya asked him: “Are you not from the killers of Uthman? He said: No, but I’m from those who were present but didn’t support him.” He said: “And what stopped you from helping him? He said: “The Muhajiroon and the Ansar didn’t support him.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“So the list is long. “If I wanted to narrate to you all those who stopped on Uthman. From them is Ammar bin Yasir. Ammar bin Yasir, the one who’s stomach was stomped on by Uthman’s leg, causing him severe pain. And a whole bunch of sahabah, I can narrate you a list with those that are documented in classical Sunni sources. For example: al-Isaba from Ibn Hajar and al-Usd al-ghābah from Ibn al-Athir, and at-Tabaqat from Ibn Sa’d and many other books which you trust and depend upon. They mentioned who did Khuruj on Uthman and who faced him and declared his deviance and so on.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
Final Reflections
In the end, the history seems rather murky. It seems the chief complaint against Uthman was nepotism. This is followed by accusations of what looks like Uthmans inability or unwillingness to punish his relatives when they did acts of injustice. The third accusation seems to be the distribution of public funds to members of his own family.In the end, it is probable although not certain that the sons of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, along with Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, assassinated Uthman. This, of course, led to a permanent division among Muslims that has not healed until this day. It seems in hindsight and in retrospect, after the development of the doctrine of ʿadālah aṣ-ṣaḥābah’ and a few strokes of the pen, people are most likely companions and suddenly not companions and there are anonymous individuals where convenient.
It is very curious that you don’t see the Abbasid Sunnis (the majority of Sunnis today) remember the assassination of Uthman like you see them remember the assassination of Ali ibn Abu Talib. It is also noteworthy that you do not see the Abbasid Sunnis ask Allah (swt) to curse the killers of Uthman. Maybe they know something they don’t want to tell you.
The accusations against Uthman were used to justify his murder and later to delegitimize the Umayyads (who were his clan). The first Abbasid caliph, al-Saffah (“the Blood-Shedder”), ordered the hunting down of all Umayyad members, effectively destroying the dynasty in the east.
Ultimately those who championed the cause of Uthman came to be known as the Umayyads. They brought Islam to places it had not been before. At it’s height during the years 661 to 750 the caliphate was 11.1 million square km making it one of the largest contiguous empires in world history. It was an empire where the praise of Ali and his household was not central at all.
When it comes to Uthman Ibn Affan, the best position is to practice Wuqoof.
Wuqoof is to pause if there is khilaf on the person. Wuqoof is to stop at everyone you don’t know. You do not make a judgement on him/her to be in Walayah or Bara’ah. This is a very safe path to take.
“That was a community that had already gone before. For them is what they earned and for you is what you have earned. And you will not be accountable for what they have done.” (Qur’an 2:141)
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Quran 59:10)
And, of course, for our Arabic readers: This is prepared by the noble and respected, Shaykh Abu Tayyib Khalfan Altywani. May Allah (swt) bless him for this enlightening work!
May Allah (swt) guide this Ummah to a course that is just!
“And do not obey the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend.” (Qur’an 26:151-152)
﷽
The Ibadis do not encourage revolts against their Imams to avoid bloodshed. It is justifiable only as a last resort and in extreme circumstances. It is the right of every Muslim to be given consultation. The history of the Ibadi Imamate in Oman speaks for itself.
Let us see who really presided over chaos and death and who were beacons of stability.
These excerpts are taken from the book: Ibadhism The Cinderella of Islam.
Uthman ibn Affan—murdered by fellow Muslims — This is because he was not killed by the Uthmaniyyun. He was killed by fellow Muslims as he would not be deposed peacefully. Ali bin Abi Talib—murdered by a fellow Muslim. He was killed by Ibn Muljam in retaliation for the slaughter at Nahawan.
We would personally have switched out the negative word ‘murdered’ with a more neutral word ‘killed’.
Because Muslims can kill if it is with in the limits set by Allah. But murder would imply that a person had no right.
Now, let us take a look at house Abbasids
Now let us take a look at House Ibadi
Btw, when it says above: * deposed * this is like when the president of the former United States gets impeached, or removed from office, for example. Or like the CEO of a company being asked to step down due to negligence and/or other reasons.
The one who is deposed is not sought out and not killed. They are simply deposed for either being incompetent and/or not fit to lead. No favoritisms based upon tribal, clan, ethnic group or family loyalty.
Deposed is the graceful exit from public office.
However, if that individual does not go quietly, revolution is on the table. The Amir of the Muslims is in service to the Muslims and is not above the commands of Allah nor above public backpacks for lacking in issues of statecraft.
If you wish to read more, you are invited to read:
Ibadhism: The Cinderella Story of Islam. This is an excellent book by the noble Shaykh Soud H. Al-Ma’awaly (May Allah continue to benefit us by him)
“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women: if you are mindful, then do not be overly effeminate in speech or those with sickness in their hearts may be tempted, but speak in a moderate tone.” (Qur’an 33:32)
﷽
In Islam, the preference of the Mothers of the Believers over all other women of this Ummah is by the text of the Qur’an.
So, they are not like any of the other women.
“And whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does good, We will grant her double the reward, and We have prepared for her an honourable provision.” (Qur’an 33:31)
Thus, their reward is doubled, and this is a distinction that Allah has made only for the Prophets and the Mothers of the Believers.
Narrated `Abdullah:
I visited Allah’s Messenger (saw) while he was suffering from a high fever. I said, “O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! You have a high fever.” He said, “Yes, I have as much fever as two men of you.” I said, “Is it because you will have a double reward?” He said, “Yes, it is so. No Muslim is afflicted with any harm, even if it were the prick of a thorn, but that Allah expiates his sins because of that, as a tree sheds its leaves.”
In Islamic theology, the doubling of reward (mudā‘afah) for trials and obedience is typically a characteristic reserved for prophets and those with the highest stations, further solidifying their unique status
“It is not lawful for you to marry more women after this, nor can you replace any of your present wives with another, even if her beauty may attract you—except those whom your right hand posses. And Allah is ever Watchful over all things.” (Qur’an 33:52)
It is not lawful for the Messenger of Allah (saw) to exchange them, because they are virtuous and Allah-fearing.
“O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized and not be harassed. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:59)
Allah has given precedence to the wives of the Messenger of Allah (saw) over his daughters in the mention, because they are superior.
“And it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. This would certainly be a major offence in the sight of Allah.” (Qur’an 33:53)
The understanding of this is obvious. Do not marry the wives of the Blessed Prophet (saw) after his death. Allah (swt) considers an offence.
However, there was no problem for any of his daughters to be married multiple times.
Ruqayyah (ra) married Utbah ibn Abu Lahab (divorced), then married Uthman Ibn Affan.
Umm Kulthum (ra) married Utaybah ibn Abu Lahab (divorced), then married Uthman Ibn Affan after Ruqayyah’s death.
Zaynab (ra) the favourite daughter of the Prophet (saw) married Abu al-As ibn al-Rabi, then later married Abdullah ibn Jahsh.
Fatima (ra) married only Ali ibn Abi Talib.
And the Qur’an is full of praise for the Mothers of the Believers, and there is not even a single verse that praises the daughters of the Messenger of Allah in terms of their being daughters.
Although you will find praise of the daughters in the hadith literature. Even then the hadith literature is coloured by the hatred that the Umayyads, Abbasids and pro Alids had for each other.
So, for example, when Urwah ibn al-Zubayr narrated that Zaynab bint Muhammed (ra) was mentioned by the Blessed Prophet (saw) to be the best of his daughters, he (Zubayr) was accosted by Zayn al-Abidin who approached Urwah ibn Al-Zubayr in a very hostile manner demanding why he would put anyone anywhere near the rank of Fatima (ra).
A kind of terrorism and suppression by the Abbasids and the Alids towards anyone who would put someone else other then Fatima and Ali first. Here we narrate to you how Ali ibn al-Husayn went after Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (ra) like a raving madman.
Ahmad Abu Bakr ibn Muhammed ibn Hamdan al-Sayrafi in Marw told me, Abu Ismail Muhammed ibn Ismail told us, Saeed ibn Abi Maryam told us, Yahya ibn Ayyub informed us, Ibn al-Had told me, Amr ibn Abdullah ibn Urwah ibn al-Zubayr told me, on the authority of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, on the authority of Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, (saw) When the Messenger of Allah, (saw), arrived in Medina, his daughter Zaynab left Mecca with Kinanah—or the son of Kinanah—and they went after her. Habbar ibn al-Aswad caught up with her and kept stabbing her camel with his spear until it felled her, and she miscarried and bled. The Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah then quarreled over her. She said… The Banu Umayya said: We are more entitled to her, and she was married to their cousin Abu al-As, and she was with Hind bint Utbah ibn Rabi’ah, and Hind used to say to her: This is because of your father. So the Messenger of Allah, (saw), said to Zayd ibn Harithah: “Won’t you go and bring me Zaynab?” He said: Yes, O Messenger of Allah. He said: “Then take my ring.” So he gave it to him. Then Zayd set off and made his camel kneel. He kept being polite until he met a shepherd and said: Whose sheep do you tend? He said: For Abu al-Aas. He said: And whose sheep are these? He said: To Zainab bint Muhammed, so he walked with him for a while, then he said to him: Would you like me to give you something to give to her, and not mention it to anyone? He said: Yes, so he gave him the ring, so the shepherd went and brought his sheep in, and gave them the ring, and they recognized it, so she said: Who gave you this? He said: A man, she said: Where did you leave it? He said: In such and such a place. He said: So she remained silent until night came, then she went out to him. When she came to him, he said to her: Ride in front of me on his camel. She said: No, but you ride in front of me. So he rode and she rode behind him until she came. The Messenger of Allah, (saw), used to say: “She is the best of my daughters, and she was afflicted because of me.”This reached Ali ibn al-Husayn, so he went to Urwah and said: What is this hadith that I heard you narrate in which you diminish Fatimah’s right? He said, “By Allah, I would not wish to possess everything between the East and the West if it meant depriving Fatima of a right that belongs to her. And after that, you have the right to never speak of it again.” Urwah said, “This was before the revelation of the verse: {Call them by their fathers’ names; that is more just in the sight of God} [Al-Ahzab: 5]. This is an authentic hadith according to the criteria of the two Sheikhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim), but they did not include it in their collections.”
There is a fascinating article by Professor Deborah G Tor: “The Parting of Ways between ʿAlid Shiʿism and Abbasid Shiʿism: An Analysis of the Missives between the Caliph al-Manṣūr and Muḥammed al-Nafs al-Zakiyya.” That gives some background in regard to the landscape.
Wouldn’t be suprised to see Professor Deborah G Tor on podcast in the future. You’re welcome.
However, we have digressed.
The Mothers of the Believers hold a textual precedence over all other women of the Ummah—including the Prophet’s own daughters in terms of legislated distinction—is consistent with the principles of usul al-fiqh (legal theory) and the explicit wording of Surah Al-Ahzab. Their status is derived from a direct divine address that establishes a unique category, whereas the virtue of other women (including the daughters) is derived from specific narrations regarding personal piety rather than a categorical divine address.
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
This fascinating video came to our attention. It appears to be two AI bots having a conversation about the Ibadi school. As regards the YouTube channel, CIISR is not affiliated or registered with any known university or college in the world. Dr. M A Mufazzal seems to be an individual not known to be attached to any reputable college or university in the world. In fact, leave the reputable aside, he is simply not known at all.
This is the video. We give our comments below.
@4:37 minutes, we were curious where the idea came from that we upheld divine predestination (qadar) in the sense of fatalism. Which was curious given that the AI bots speak about the Ibadi, avoiding binaries. We do not uphold the view of the Mutazil’i nor the Jabariyyah. We hold to the doctrine of kasb (acquisition). This is something the Ash’ari followed us on.
@6:16 this is also incorrect. We do not believe that Ali was a divinely appointed leader. A good portion of the community made shura and among them were the ansar and the muhjirin, who agreed upon him. Once that is done, it is obligatory for the others to pledge allegiance. No such thing as being divinely appointed.
This becomes abundantly clear in our article here:
The battle of Siffin and practical implications of the above verse.
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result. (Qur’an 4:59)
The battle of Siffin gives us a demonstration of how some of the companions understood the above verse. If we are to believe the historical narrative as told by Shi’i and Sunni sources.
If we are to believe the Shi’i narrative.
Ali agreed to arbitration with Muaviya on the basis that they would judge by the Qur’an. If Ali understood that he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw) he would not have submitted to arbitration. He would have been on the same page as those in his army who wanted to continue the fight. However, if he did think he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw), then he would be a hypocrite for going against what he himself believed. Or he was not sincere in submitting to the authority of the Qur’an.
If we are to believe the Sunni narrative.
If those in Muaviya’s camp believed that the Shi’i held any of the views about Ali that Imami Shi’i held, namely that he (Ali) was maʿṣūm (معصوم) and he (Ali) held ʿiṣmah (عصمة) they themselves would have never asked for arbitration as it too would have simply been a ruse. This becomes very clear that these concepts were not among the followers of Ali because Muaviya’s camp would have known this and would have never cooked up the idea of raising the Mushafs as it would have easily backfired.
@9:03 “They also believe that Ali was wrong to arbitrate.” So this is a contradiction with the AI chatbots. You cannot have a belief in a divinely appointed Imamate and then believe that same Imam is wrong in a decision he makes!
@6:34 is also a tired trope that we hear time and again. Fiqh and Itjihad are a part of Islam. It is something that has been with us in the beginning. The companions who opposed Ali were not claiming you cannot arbitrate God’s law with mortal men. That is a flawed misunderstanding. It is that you cannot make a ruling in place of where the rule is already established and clear.
None of our scholars say that human beings cannot arbitrate. The Qur’an specifically says they can in several places. It is just that humans cannot arbitrate on a matter on which Allah judged. If Allah (swt) gave his ruling on a matter, a human being cannot come along and do otherwise. This is a huge miss by this AI-generated dialogue.
This was established by the companions in their debate with Ibn Abbas (ra). And Ibn Abbas (ra) eventually understood that the people of the river were correct.
And by repeating these same tired tropes, the Sunnis have actually mocked their own Imams. With stories that make Imam Abu Hanifa look ignorant of other people’s positions.
@12:02 to miss out on the robust populations of the Ibadi in Tunisia, Zanzibar, Tanzania, Ghana is unfortunate. To skip the presence in East Africa altogether is unfortunate.
@13:09 We didn’t quite get the point the AI bots were making: “But again, like with the kharijites question, they take it to its most extreme logical conclusion.” We don’t see the connection they were trying to draw?
@13:40 we were curious as to which verse mentions Allah “sitting” on a throne?
There were other things we could have picked apart, but we did not want to be overly pedantic.
Other than that, for an AI-generated dialogue over all it is o.k. It is what you would expect from agnostic secular academics or historians discussing the matter. Although they would probably refrain from throwing in the occasional ‘eww’ as we saw from the female AI bot. The lasting thoughts were very profound, especially from an AI algorithm.
“And (He desires) that you should complete the number and that you should exalt the greatness of Allah for His having guided you and that you may give thanks” (Qur’an 2:185)
﷽
Eid Mubarak! May this blessed occasion fill your heart with joy, your home with warmth, and your life with countless blessings. May Allah grant you peace, love, and unity in the company of family and friends. Please forgive our many short comings and faults. While we celebrate let us not forget those who can’t due to war and oppression. Let us not forget the converts, often alone and isolated.
May this be a very blessed and joyous Eid for all of you!
“O believers! Stand firm for justice as witnesses for Allah even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or close relatives. Be they rich or poor, Allah is best to ensure their interests. So do not let your desires cause you to deviate . If you distort the testimony or refuse to give it, then Allah is certainly All-Aware of what you do.” (Qur’an 4:135)
﷽
Imagine you happend upon someone calling Ali Ibn Abu Talib a sinful treacherous deceitful liar what would cross your mind? Would we call this person a Nasibi? Would we call this person a hypocrite? A vile sinner?
Well, where we come from we call such a person, a member of Banu Hashim, Uncle to the Prophet, thaer of Ibn Abbas the scholar of the Qur’an, none other than Al Abbas (ra).
It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by Malik b. Aus who said:
Umar b. al-Khattab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): Malik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them. I said: I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job. He said: Malik, take it (and do what you have been told). At this moment (his man-servant) Yarfa’ came in and said: Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. ‘Auf, Zubair and Sa’d (who have come to seek an audience with you)? He said: Yes, and permitted them. so they entered. Then he (Yarfa’) came again and said: What do you say about ‘Ali and Abbas (who are present at the door)? He said: Yes, and permitted them to enter. Abbas said: Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar. The people (who were present) also said: Yes. Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them. Malik b. Aus said: I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by ‘Ali and Abbas). ‘Umar said: Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:” We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They said: Yes. Then he turned to Abbas and ‘Ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They (too) said: Yes. (Then) Umar said: Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His Messenger (ﷺ) a special favour that He has not done to anyone else except him. He quoted the Qur’anic verse:” What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His Messenger”. The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not. Umar continued: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) distrbuted among you the properties abandoned by Banu Nadir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bait-ul-Mal. (Continuing further) he said: I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained. Do you know this? They said: Yes. Then he adjured Abbas and ‘All as he had adjured the other persons and asked: Do you both know this? They said: Yes. He said: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed away, Abu Bakr said:” I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat ‘Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn’t it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.
The above hadith is an indication that the companions were people just like anyone else. They could be petty and had disputes with each other, called each other names and as we all know at one point in history killed one another.
So Al Abbas said: “O Commander of the Faithful, judge between me and this one – the liar, the sinful, the treacherous, the deceitful.”
Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) did not object to this statement. Others that were said to be present:
Uthman ibn Affan. Abd Al-Rahman ibn Awf & Al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwan.
The Abbasid Sunni Muslims who are the bulk of the Sunni Muslims today are those who underwent a Shi’ification. Go bring this narration to your teachers and watch how they react! They panic out over such statements. Whereas the original Sunni Muslims, the Umayyad Sunnis had no problems with such narrations. The proof of this is that this is one of the narrations of al-Zuhri, who was an Umayyad and one of the elders of the Umayyad court.The Abbasid Sunnis, the bulk of the Sunni Muslims today, will say about the statement of Al Abbas. “The statement is not befitting of him.” However, the chain is sound, and thus elaborate interpretative measures are deployed. They even go so far as to admit that the people of the past would remove such statements from the copies of their books. It has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with the doctrine they contrived: Adalah al-Sahabah.
If only we could be honest with ourselves and honest with our history.
In the Khutba the Khatib says:
…وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ أَجْمَعِينَ …wa ‘ala aalihi wa sahbihi ajma’een.
Which means upon the people of Muhammed (saw) and companions. So to this we say amin. Because it is generic and general.
This is exactly the position of the angels.
“Those (angels) who bear the Throne and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, and believe in Him, and ask forgiveness for those who believe (saying): ‘Our Lord! You comprehend all things in mercy and knowledge, so forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and save them from the torment of the blazing Fire! Our Lord! And make them enter the Paradise which you have promised them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their offspring! Verily, You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. And save them from the sins, and whomsoever You save from the sins that Day, him verily, You have taken into mercy.” And that is the supreme success.’” (Qur’an 40: 7-9)
Those. Those. Them. Them. Their. Their. Their. Them. Whomsoever. All very generic and general. Because at the end of the day Allah (swt) knows best who dies upon Islam.
We can apply this in every situation and absolutely safeguard our faith. This goes for those of you who are Muslim converts or those of you who are looking into Islam. The testimony of faith is to bear witness that Allah is the one and only God. That Muhammed (peace be upon him) is his last and final messenger.
As regards to the politics and the events of the past.
“That was a community that had already gone before. For them is what they earned and for you is what you have earned. And you will not be accountable for what they have done.” (Qur’an 2:141)
From the questions one will be asked in the grave:
The Questions:
Rabbu-ka? (Who is your Lord?)
Ma Deenu-ka? (What is your religion?)
Man Nabiyyu-ka? (Who is your Prophet? / Or what did you say about Muhammed?)
The angels are not asking you about the companions and your affiliation or dissociation with any of them.
Then the day of judgement. That awesome and terrifying day.
You will then be presented ˹before Him for judgment˺, and none of your secrets will stay hidden. (Qur’an 69:18)
One thing Allah (swt) already exhonerated us from is about what people in the past did. Al hamdulillah! Allah is the Most Merciful!
“That was a community that had already gone before. For them is what they earned and for you is what you have earned. And you will not be accountable for what they have done.” (Qur’an 2:141)
Today there are is much writing about what are claimed to be Nasibi tendencies in our books of history and even in the hadith narrations. Yet, no one speaks about on the censorship and the injustice did to the umayyad clan. Surely they did injustice themselves by the Abbasids were no angels.
“Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 2:190)
Systematically wiping out entire bloodlines is certainly exceeding the limits.
Abd al-Rahman ibn Mu’awiya the founder of the Umayyad dynasty in Al-Andalus was helped in his escape by the friendly Ibadi Nafza Berber tribes. This inspite of the conflict the Ibadis had with the Umayyads. However, Ibadis are not people who go beyond the limits. No Muslim should go beyond thelimits. In fact, he (Abd-al Rahman ibn Mu’awiya) received support from the Ibadis. Beyond the help from these village communities.
Our school simply does not like bullies. Whoever they are and whatever form they take at the time. Yesterday’s monster is now today’s vulnerable individual.
“Non-Ibadi historians mentioned these delegates to Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, though they said with their usual insinuation: “The Khawarij sent him a delegation.” However, they did not mention what happened between them and the Caliph Umar and his acceptance of all their suggestions about spreading justice and purging the country of the Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali from the pulpit. The Ibadi delegation said to Umar, “Muslims are cursing from pulpits in mosques, so this evil tradition must be changed.” Thus, Umar replaced it with the words of Allah: ‘
“Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that you remember.” (Qur’an 16: 90)
This is a legacy of the Ibadi school that is found in a Friday Khutba in Sunni Masjids all over the world.
A powerful verse and a reminder to the entire Ummah.
“And each one hath a goal toward which he turns; so contend with one another in good works. Wheresoever you may be, Allah will bring you all together. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.” (Qur’an 2:148)
“Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 22:69)
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
﷽
Insh’Allah the following section in the future will be found under the section above: Engaging The Sunni & Shi’I
This is a collection of articles in regard to the Shi’i and their various claims. Also are articles in relation to the Shi’i.
“Do not fight the kharijites after me, because one who seeks a right but does not find it, is not like the one who seeks a wrong and finds it.” –Ali Ibn Abu Talib
Source: (Nahju Al-Balagha Vol. 1, p. 67, speech no. 56.)
The words “He who seeks a right but does not find it” – as ‘Ali himself says – is an allusion to the Nahrawanees who are otherwise known as the Khawarij. The words “Unlike he who seeks misguidance intentionally” refer to Mu’awiya and his Syrian forces.
“Are the Khawarij mushrikun?” Ali said: “They flee from shirk.” Are they munafiqun? Ali said: “The hypocrites remember Allah only a little.” Then what are they? Ali said: “They are our brothers who transgressed against us (ikhwanuna baghaw ‘alayna), so we fought them for their transgression.”
Source: (Al-Bidāya wa l-Nihāya 10:591)
The Ibadi are obviously not Khawarij to anyone who has common sense. However, for those who insist that we are you have to contend with the above statements.
DO READ THIS FIRST. It is important to understand that we believe and accept that those who call themselves ‘Shi’i’ are Muslims.
We understand that ‘Shi’i’ is a term for a loose federation of various sects that all come under the understanding that Ali Ibn Abu Talib should have been the first Amir of the Muslims or was the most deserving of being that Amir.
The Shi’i are not all the same.
The name shi’i refers to a broad spectrum. From among them are those who simply prefer Ali. Believing he had the qualities best suited for leadership. Among them are those who believe in esoteric doctrines which blur the lines and distinction between the Creator and the created.
Even before the Amman accord the Ibadi have regarded the Shi’i as Ahl Al Qiblah.
You have your polemical works directed towards each other -Ithna-Ashari versus Zaydi versus Ismaili.
Thus it is in that spirit that this section is created. We have just as much right to contend for the truth as anyone else does.We have the right to allow the Muslim community to make an informed decision on various controversial issues.
You have your narrative and we have our narrative. Allah is with those who are the truthful!
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
There are a few reasons why we need to becareful or approach with caution what the Shi’i claim about themselves and their sources.
Dr. Musa Al-Musawi (The grandson of Ayatollah Abu L-Hassan al-Isfahani) says the following:
“Although we believe that most of the forged narratives from the Imams, were forged after al-ghiba al-kubra (the disappearance of Al-Mahdi Al Muntadhar)…..but any impartial researcher will necessarily conclude that even during the time of the Shiite Imams, many narratives were fabricated and ascribed to the Imams, in the like manner as they were fabricated and attributed to the Prophet.”
Source: (al-Shi’a wa-l-tashih: al-Sira’ bayn al-shi’a wa-l-tashayyu'(the struggle between Shia and Shiism p. 135)
We cannot take Ali at face value.
Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet (saw) said:
“On the Day of Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, ‘O Lord (those are) my companions!’ It will be said, ‘You have no knowledge as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam).
There are those who would make the Ummah believe that Ali is an article of faith or part of the testimony of faith. This is a far cry from the truth. This hadith shows that Ali has to be examined like anyone else. One cannot cite a particular hadith and say that Ali is exempted from examination. Why is this? Once one accepts this particular hadith,everyone becomes suspect. There are no exemptions. Because at this point we cannot be sure that those who narrate this or that in favour of this or that one are not among the apostates themselves! Therefore, we have to systematically examine the data case by case. Islam is a faith of proof and evidence and not a faith of emotions and rhetoric.
Our school is pragmatic.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah revealed the Verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” Allah’s Messenger (saw) got up and said, “O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Bani `Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah’s Messenger (saw)! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammed! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment.”
“Neither your relatives nor children will benefit you on Judgment Day—He will decide between you ˹all˺. For Allah is All-Seeing of what you do.” (Qur’an 60:3)
“It is not ˹proper˺ for the Prophet and the believers to seek forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were close relatives, after it has become clear to the believers that they are bound for the Hellfire.” (Qur’an 9:113)
Social experiment: If Shi’i sources are to be believed it portrays Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) as a violent woman abuser and Ali Ibn Abu Talib as a cowardly man.
“Whatever the Messenger gives you, take it. And whatever he forbids you from, leave it. And fear Allah. Surely Allah is severe in punishment.” (Qur’an 59:7)
“The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His messengers. “We make no distinction between any of His messengers.” And they say, “We hear and obey. Your forgiveness, our Lord! And to You is the final return.” (Qur’an 2:285)
﷽
Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin `Abdullah:
Ibn `Abbas said, “When the ailment of the Prophet (saw) became worse, he said, ‘Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.’ But `Umar said, ‘The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah’s Book with us and that is sufficient for us.’ But the companions of the Prophet (saw) differed about this and there was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet (saw) said to them, ‘Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.” Ibn `Abbas came out saying, “It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Messenger (saw) was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Note: It is apparent from this Hadith that Ibn `Abbas had witnessed the event and came out saying this statement. The truth is not so, for Ibn `Abbas used to say this statement on narrating the Hadith and he had not witnessed the event personally. See Fath Al-Bari Vol. 1, p.220 footnote.) (See Hadith No. 228, Vol. 4).
The first problem is that the hadith portrays the Prophet (saw) as someone literate enough to write something lengthy. This goes against the ‘ijma that it is well known that the Blessed Prophet (saw) was unlettered.
The second problem is that if it was something short, why couldn’t he have simply said it?
The third problem is as follows. Everyone would agree that by writing down he meant for others to transcribe his words. The Blessed Prophet (saw) had many more days ahead of him. Why not simply ask the people to reconvene and write down what he willed?
The fourth problem is that the Prophet (saw) said to them, :Go away (and leave me alone). It is not right that you should quarrel in front of me.” So, if he had the strength to make this statement surely he could have said what he needed to say, presuming it was short and to the point.
The fifth problem is that the hadith speaks ill of Allah (swt).
Today I have perfected your faith for you, completed My favour upon you, and chosen Islam as your way. But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger—not intending to sin—then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:3)
Allah speaks the truth and in this case the hadith is batil (falsehood). The hadith is batil (falsehood) as indicates the faith has not been perfected.
The sixth problem is the statement attributed to the Prophet (saw) ‘Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.’ and the statement attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra): “It was most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah’s Messenger (saw) was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise” have problems.
Why is it a problem? It does not preclude the possibility that everyone present there and not present there would all go astray. That would include Umar, Ali, Ibn Abbas, and whoever else was present. Without that alleged document, they were all (without exception) liable to go astray.
The seventh problem. What good is a written letter to an unlettered people?!
“It is He who sent among the unlettered [Arabs] a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom – although they were before in clear error.” (Qur’an 62:2)
We know that the Qur’an was transmitted orally. So what good does some document on a piece of paper with few witnesses do for a population that is mostly illiterate?
The eighth problem is that this is a strong argument for Christian missionaries or anyone else under the sun that Muslims do not have complete guidance.
The ninth problem is that it makes the Prophet (saw) as someone who did not submit to Allah (swt).
“O Messenger! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord, for if you fail to do that, you have not fulfilled the task of His messengership. Allah will certainly protect you from the evil of men. Surely Allah will not guide the unbelievers.” (Qur’an 5:67)
So this is an admission that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did not submit to Allah (swt) fully.
Aisha (ra), a member of the household of the Blessed Prophet (saw) should know if there was anything pressing. She crushes such satanic innuendo with the following:
“She said: He who presumes that the Messenger of Allah saw) concealed anything from the Book of Allah fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. Allah says: “O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” (Al-Qur’an, Surat al-Ma’idah, 5:67).
The tenth problem is makes the Blessed Prophet (saw) as someone who wasn’t responsible or thinking carefully about his duties and role as a Messenger to mankind. If you have something so important to say, you do not wait until you are feeble and meek.
The eleventh problem is that if what is given was to be a matter of creed, we cannot take our creed upon the ahad. The lone narrator reports.
There are more that a well-trained eye can spot.
The issue with the sanad.
Narrated Yahya ibn Sulaiman: Ibn Wahb told me: Yunus informed me, from Ibn Shihab, from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abdullah, from Ibn ‘Abbas, who said:
The wording used by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhrī is: “عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ” — meaning “‘an” (from/on the authority of) , not “haddathanā” (he narrated to us) or “sami’tu” (I heard).
Why This Matters
Form
Meaning
Implication for Authenticity
haddathanā / akhbaranā
Explicit confirmation that the narrator heard directly from his teacher.
The transmission is muttaṣil (connected) and can be accepted if the narrators are trustworthy.
‘an (عن)
Ambiguous; could mean direct hearing, but could also mean through an intermediary or even from a written source without direct audition.
If the narrator is known to be a mudallis (one who conceals), ‘an is problematic unless it is proven he heard it directly.
However, there are additional problems for Shi’i when it comes to this.
It presents the Prophet (saw) as someone who was unaware that people would prevent him from writing these things down and, it is not acceptable for a Prophet to be unaware of it.
It is a tacit admission that it was not made clear that Ali should be the leader of anyone at Ghadir Khum.
It makes our faith one of esoteric secrecy in which the truth cannot be openly proclaimed but rather revealed via secret channels to a select few. More akin to a gnostic cult than an abrahamic faith.This ultimately explains the various disputes among the shi’i in their lines of succession which we discussed here: https://primaquran.com/2026/02/28/how-the-muslim-ummah-approach-the-shia-in-the-wrong-way/
It shows that if Ali was present he was disobedient as well. Since he obviously did not obey the Prophet (saw) at that moment either.
No one in that room felt that the order of the Prophet (saw) was worth fighting and dying for.
Ultimately, for the Shi’i to rely upon such things it does not make their case look strong.
“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]” (Qur’an 3:7)
Our faith has to be built upon that which is certain and foundational. It cannot be built upon ambiguity, uncertainty or matters that are not clear.
From Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) the Mufti of Oman.
Please forgive our many short comings and faults. While we celebrate let us not forget those who can’t due to war and oppression. Let us not forget the converts, often alone and isolated. 
Prima Quran 