Who are the Kharijites? Are Ibadi Muslims Kharijites?

Oh my Lord, increase me in knowledge.”  (Qur’an 20:114)

Answering misconception about Ibadis. One thing that you will often hear from Orientalist as well as from our fellow Muslim brothers are two mistaken ideas.

#1) That Ibadi are Khawarij.

#2) That Ibadi grew out of the Khawarij.

Let’s address the first point.

 

The definition of Khawarij

Khawarij = “The ones that have gone out or have come out.”

In the Arabic language, it has no negative connotation in and of itself.

One of the largest Muslim daw’ah groups in the world our brothers” The Tablighi Jamaat” go out on Khuruj -going out in the path of Allah for 40 days.

 

So from wherever you go out (kharajta)turn your face toward al- Masjid al-haram, and indeed, it is the truth from your Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.” (Quran 2:149)

The Day they will hear the blast in truth. That is the(yawmu-khuruji) Day of Emergence.” (Qur’an 50:42)

 

The other point is that this term has is a polemical term used to disparage certain groups of Muslims. If we examine the polemical usage of the word than all the qualities that are used to say this particular sect is khawarij are equally applicable to all other factions and sects.

Unless suddenly we are going to pretend that we don’t have people saying that if you claim the Qur’an is created you should be killed.  

In fact, for those who are genuinely interested in this subject, I highly recommend you read this 47 page PDF file. That has a nice big font and easy to read. Straight to the point.   Al-Khawarij

 

The group that orientalist and our brothers from among the Shi’a and Ahl Sunnah as  “Khawarij”  believed that the blood of other Muslims who simply differ with them is permissible to take. They often make takfir of other Muslims -whereas we Ibadi Muslims do not do this.

 

Those other groups do not recognize Uthman (r.a) and Ali (r.a) as rightful Amir’s of the Muslims whereas we Ibadi Muslims recognize them. We simply admit that the latter part of Uthman’s reign suffered from nepotism and other issues. With Ali’s reign, It was his decision to abandon the Qurra as well as the clear guidance that Allah (swt) gave in the Qur’an.

Now while we are on the subject of taking the life of a fellow Muslim being a small matter let us take a look at something interesting.

Ali said:

Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah () believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said. When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for the battle is an outwitting. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement.”

Source: (Sahih Muslim 1066 aIn-book reference: Book 12, Hadith 199 Book 5, Hadith 2328)

Link: https://sunnah.com/muslim/12/199

Now my dear fellow Muslims, and researchers of truth. The very wording of this hadith is bizarre. First, the way that Ali Ibn Abu Talib (r.a) words the hadith as if he is saying, “By the way, I know you people may have some doubts in me but trust me I won’t lie about the Prophet.”

The way that Ali(r a) prefaced the hadith merits some sober reflection.

So what does this particular hadith suggest that you do with these extremists? Does it suggest you try and reason with them? Does it suggest that you capture them? No. It tells you that you should kill them and that in fact, Allah will give you a reward for it. That sounds quite extreme indeed.

 

Let us now address the second point:

Ibadi did not come from the so-called “Khawarij” nor are we a branch of them. It is more appropriate and truthful to say that this polemical term has been used about us Ibadi’s as well as those from the Azraqi, Najdi, and Surfriya. The only point that we Ibadi hold in common with them is that all three of these groups are in AGREEMENT on ONE FINE POINT history.

In the sense that all these groups are in agreement that Ali (r.a) was in error in his decision to make arbitration with Muaviya.

 

Thus, in that sense, we are all known previously as (Al Muhakkimah), or those who adopt Quranic verses for resolving any issue or quarrel, it is just what Allah (swt) told us we should do. Please refer to the Qur’an (5:50 & 4:65, in the least)

 

With the coming of Abdullah ibn Ibadh al-Murri al-Tamimi (raheemullah) this is when the Al Muhakkimah already became subgroups.

All that can be said about the above groups is that are in agreement that Ali (r.a) should not have made arbitration with Muaviya.  Just like all Muslims are in agreement that Allah (swt) is one. Logically this does not mean that all Muslims have the same ideas about everything else. The Nukkaris broke away from the Ibadi’s briefly than came back to the Ibadi. The Surfriyya eventually became absorbed into the Ibadi school in North Africa.  The Najdiyya, Azraqi, Bayhasiyya, and whomever else did not survive until today.

Some groups are known as the Azraqi, Najdi, and others, these are the people whom the Shi’a, Sunni, and Orientalists refer to as “Khawarij”. It is these groups that became quite extreme in their views. For anyone who has studied history knows that Ibadi’s directed polemical writings towards these other groups, especially the Azraqi and the Surfriyya.

 

For those of you who understand and speak Arabic, I would highly recommend this lecture.

Insh’Allah may your eyes be opened wide! 

 

For those who do not speak or understand Arabic see the excellent write up by sister Bint Ibadh here:

http://bintibadh.blogspot.com/2013/01/abdullah-ibn-ibadh-truth-voice.html

The Ibadi after Abdullah ibn Ibadh (raheemullah). -They believe in peaceful existence and dialogue with other Muslims. They marry other Muslims and perform the funeral prayers for them as well. One brother from Saudi Arabia recently said to a friend of mine, “You Ibadi are Khawarij, Shi’a,  you support Iran!”   

To which my friend replied, “We don’t support Iran, or Saudi Arabia or anyone. We support the Muslims. Who is doing to killing in Yemen? It is Sunni and Shi’a. Who is doing the fighting in Iraq? It is Sunni and Shi’a. Who is doing the killing in Syria? It is Sunni and Shi’a not us.  You will not find a single Ibadi scholar anywhere giving a fatwa in support of any side of these conflicts.”

In fact, the only struggle I know that I’m aware of that Ibadi scholar support is the struggle of the Palestinians (Muslims) against the state of Israel (Zionist). It seems that these other sectarian wars are a diversion to distract from this!

I would like to imagine that if we Ibadi had a powerful state today that we would come to the aid of Muslims anywhere, no matter if they are Sunni, Shi’a, Salafi, or Sufi, as they are all the ummah of Muhammed (saw)!! 

 

In fact, the proof is in the example of the Ibadi community in Oman. We marry both Sunni and Shi’a and we have a beautiful and fruitful relationship with them. In fact, out of all the Arab nations, there is not a single representative in ISIS from Oman! Al hamdulillah! I would direct you to the following article: https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/the-world/middle-east-north-africa/3223-ibadis-are-ray-of-hope-for-the-middle-east

 

I would also like to add that in this world of chaos and turmoil it is more important than ever not to intentionally misrepresent one another.  It is very important that we cooperate and work together as much as possible.

For example, Our brothers among the Sunni have actually mocked their own intellectual giants, Imam Ahmed (r) and Imam Abu Hanifa (r) while in the process of mocking others.  The following article is demonstrative of that.  By mocking the beliefs of others it shows that these two giants among our brothers from Ahl Sunnah are people who are ignorant of the views of their interlocutors.

This certainly is embarrassing and not the way forward dear Muslims and fellow truth seekers.

The most glaring example used by our brothers from Ahl Sunnah as well as uniformed orientalist is that we Ibadi’s do not believe in arbitration.

Please see the following article to understand what I am talking about.

https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/sunni-historical-books-mock-abu-hanifa-imam-ahmad-while-pretending-to-mock-other-beliefs/

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Abu Hanifa Ikrima and the Truth

Abu Hanifa (r) and Ikrima (r.a) and the truth.

Abu Abdullah al-Madani, Mawla Abdullah bin Abbaas (r.a)

This is an article I have been wanting to write for some time now.  The companion Ikrima (r.a) has come under attack by both Shaykh Atabek Shukurov An-Nafsi (May Allah continue to bless him)  and his former student Sulaiman Ahmed (May Allah continue to bless him) in their joint book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith” as well as in the following article: https://sulaimanahmed.com/2017/07/28/ikrima-as-imam-of-modern-hanafis-part-1/

 

This article also contains statements taken from other websites/blogs wherein people have replied to the attacks on Ikrima (r.a) and I have not seen any cogent responses to it whatsoever. It is my hope that this article will be free from personal attacks, insults, and emotive language. 

Certainly, the article I linked to above is up to the reader to decide if personal attacks, insults, and emotive language are contained therein or not. I think that people who are undecided on this matter deserve the very best from us. 

So let me just come directly to the point. 

The first point that nobody can escape from is the fact that Abu Hanifa (r) had not a single jarh (criticism) against Ikrima (r.a).  The second point that nobody can escape from is the fact that Abu Hanifa (r) narrated from Ikrima (r.a).

The first point is responded to by using an argument from silence. That is to say, because we do not have any historical documents from Imam Abu Hanifa (r) that criticizes Ikrima (r.a). We can’t say that he never criticized him. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

However, we can’t say with certainty that Imam Abu Hanifa (r) critiqued Ikrima either. If there was even a modicum of evidence for it certainly Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman would have used it. 

 

The second point is responded to by showing Imam Abu Hanifa (r) narrating from someone and then disparaged that same narrator.

Does this say something about everyone Imam Abu Hanifa (r) narrates from or only that particular person?

So to me when Imam Abu Hanifa (r) critiques someone he narrates from that only shows he critiqued the person he narrated form otherwise how do you establish proof for Abu Hanifa(r) from anyone he narrates from? 

So I will not be bringing into this discussion hadith quoted from Abu Hanifa (r) since according to Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman it doesn’t account for much.

The following bit is not directed at Shaykh Atabek nor brother Sulaiman but a person I had an exchange with on social media, perchance he may read this.

I have recently encountered a brother online who mentioned Abu Hanifa (r) lived during the Ummayads. So what was he trying to suggest by this?

A) That Abu Hanifa (r) was more terrified of Ummayads than Allah (swt)?

B) That Ummayads forced Abu Hanifa (r) to narrate from Ikrima (r.a)?

In fact, if Ikrima (r.a) is so-called “khawarij” it means he believed against the established opinion of the Sunni majority that Muslims can rebel against the unjust rulers. Abu Hanifa (r) could have used this as a point against Ikrima (r.a) but didn’t.

So the very powerful fact should merit some reflection. 

Imam Malik stated that he did not accept hadith unless it was taken from the fuqaha (jurist as opposed to simple hadith scholars). On one occasion it is reported that Abu Hanifa took Imam Abu Yusuf to his library. Abu Yusuf saw that it contained many tomes of hadith but Imam Abu Hanifa said that he only narrated a few of them, namely those which would benefit people.”  Source: (pg 89 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

Interestingly out of this massive tome Abu Hanifa (r) managed to narrate from Ikrima (r.a) 

 

In reality, when all is said and done the best that could be brought against Ikrima (r.a) was an argument by way of innuendo. Even then the argument from innuendo doesn’t hold up. 

The following is from Mufti Zameel  found here: https://ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/499/response-atabek-ikrimah-mawl-ibn#ixzz4EZJK4ckB

Atabek’s Double Standards in Assessing Reports from Abū Ḥanīfah

Regarding a particular report from Abū Ḥanīfah that he regarded ‘Ikrimah as being from the ‘seniors/great ones’ (kubarā’), Atabek rejected it primarily on account of a problematic narrator in its chain of transmission. But at the same time he quotes the following with full confidence:

Imam Abu Hanifa said; “Do not take knowledge from the scholars of Royal Palace. I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is.””

And:

But, just to underline the dishonesty and poor level of Islamic knowledge on display, Abu Hanifa said; ”Take the knowledge from everyone except the following” and he listed the ones who are around the royals and rulers (as Ikrima most certainly was and as his erstwhile interlocutors accept). He said; ”But don’t take from the ones who are around the royals! I don’t say they lie, but they don’t say the truth as it is!””

He did not give a source for this quote. (My guess is he got it from the footnotes to Qawā‘id fī ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth).

The original source for this quote is al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah of al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī as follows:

أ

Abū Bishr Muḥammad ibn ‘Umar al-Wakīl (350 – 438 H) reported to me, he said: ‘Umar ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān al-Wā‘iẓ [Ibn Shāhīn] (297 – 385) narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ [al-Naqqāsh] (266 – 351) narrated to us, he said: ‘Abdullāh ibn Maḥmūd al-Marwazī (d. 311) narrated to us: Aḥmad ibn Muṣ‘ab narrated to us, he said: ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhīm (d. ca. 220 H) narrated to us, he said: I heard Ibn al-Mubārak say:

Abū ‘Iṣmah asked Abū Ḥanīfah: “From whom do you order me to listen to narrations?” He said: “From every moderate one in his deviation, besides the Shī‘ah, since the foundation of their doctrine is to regard the companions of Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) as misguided; as well as those who attend the ruler wilfully. Pay attention, I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate, but they pave the way for them so the masses are loyal to them. These two ought not be from the imāms of the Muslims.”’ (al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, p. 126)

First, one will notice the clear differences between the actual account and the “translation” of Atabek. Atabek’s translation (deliberately?) omits the unfavourable reference to Shī‘ah. Atabek’s translation is also inaccurate, as the actual report says: ‘I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate’ from which Atabek somehow got: ‘I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is’.

But secondly, and more importantly, this narration is inauthentic. There are two highly problematic narrators in this chain:

1. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ al-Naqqāsh (266 – 351). Ṭalḥa ibn Muḥammad al-Shāhid said: ‘He would lie in ḥadīth.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 7:78). Abū Bakr al-Barqānī said: ‘Every narration of Naqqāsh is rejected’ (ibid.); Khatib said: ‘In his narrations are absurdities despite the chains being famous’ (ibid. 7:79). Al-Dāraquṭnī regarded him as extremely weak (ibid.). Ibn al-Jawzī mentioned two ḥadīths which he believes al-Naqqāsh falsified (ibid.). Dhahabī said: ‘My heart is not satisfied with him; according to me he is suspect [i.e. of being a liar].’ (Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, 15:576)

2. ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhim ibn Khālid al-Kurdī (d. ca. 220). Al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘A rotten, flagrant liar.’ (kadhdhāb khabīth). (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62) Al-Khaṭīb said: ‘He narrates absurdities from reliable narrators.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62)

These are the most serious issues with the chain. As one can see from the above, it can never be accepted according to the standards Atabek applies to the other narration. Yet he accepts this report and rejects the other. Is this anything but clear double standards (i.e. agenda-driven bias)?”

 

Let me also make it clear that to say that Mufti Zameel (May Allah have mercy on him) made a good point is not an endorsement of all his points. That should be basic logic. However, it is crystal clear to me that Mufti Zameel exposed a fundamental flaw in Shaykh Atabek’s reasoning.

 

Not only that but the point about Imam Abu Yusuf (r) being employed by Harun Al Rashid was completely sidestepped. Why I did see was a paragraph from my point of view was filled with emotive. You be the judge.

 

“Also, I saw the hilarious ‘argument’ being proffered on these secret forums that if we criticise Ikrima for accepting money and being in thrall of genocidal maniacs such as the rulers of his time, then we must likewise criticise Imam Abu Yusuf, the student of Imam Abu Hanifa, because he was in the employ of Harun Al Rashid. Obviously, this is not even an argument at all and barely even qualifies as emotional blackmail – it is merely saying that ignore the bad stuff that one person did because other people perhaps did it too. So I eagerly await the canonisation of this ‘principle’ which can excuse anything and everything which more than one famous person does. Thus the Iraq War mist have been good, because if you criticise the West for doing it you would have to criticise Saudi and Muslim countries for supporting it too. So you shouldn’t criticise anyone. Excellent moral ‘principles’!”-Sulaiman Ahmed 

 “It is merely saying that ignore the bad stuff that one person did because other people did it too.”

My response: Is it really saying that or is it saying that we should apply consistent standards and consistent principles? 

“Thus the Iraq War mist have been good, because if you criticise the West for doing it you would have to criticise Saudi and Muslim countries for supporting it too.”   

My response: Or how about we be consistent and criticize both the West and Saudi Arabia? What would not be moral or consistent is to suggest that the West (Ikrima) be castigated for his involvement in the war and Saudi Arabia (Abu Yusuf) be let off the hook for his involvement. 

An argument from Ra’y:

“as well as those who attend the ruler wilfully.”

Let’s assume that the hadith that Shaykh Atabek brought was sound. Doesn’t both history testify to the fact that there has been Muslim faithful in every court of rulership in Muslim history? Is it not within reason to say that just like Abu Yusuf that not every person is corrupt due to some affiliation with rulers?

Wouldn’t the reasonable thing to do in this situation is to sift through the reports individually and see where a report actually might be something that benefits rulers etc? 

 In fact, the hadith narrated from Ikrima (r) can be used against rulers. How often do you think rulers used siege engines and firebombed besieged strongholds? In the process of killing innocent men, women, and children? In fact couldn’t that very hadith be used against let’s say, the use of Nuclear weapons? 

So the following statement is absolutely rejected. “Imam Abu Hanifa rejected all narrations from Ikrima as well but this reasoning was different. He held a principle that he would not take any narrations from a person associated with the rulers, as it could affect their righteousness due to the loyalty they may hold to those in authority.” Source (pg 227 Hanafi principles for testing Hadith)

 

Conclusion: Imam Abu Hanifa (r) has no jahr (criticism) of Ikrima (r.a).  Out of the ‘tomes of hadith’ that Imam Abu Hanifa (r) had in his collection Imam Abu Hanifa (r) narrated from Ikrima (r.a).The hadith about the rulers has problems in its chain of narrators. If consistent principles were applied this would mean we would need to steer clear from Imam Abu Yusuf (r). Also, the objection doesn’t pass the test from Ra’y.  

 

That should really be the end of the article at this point.

However, there are many other ancillary issues surrounding this that I feel should be addressed.

So you have to wonder what is the issue they have with Ikrima (r.a) to begin with?

If the main point was to establish evidence against killing apostates?  They themselves admit:

It is largely based on the following hadith, which both groups like to use to justify the killing of those who leave Islam and to portray this as the ‘true teachings of Islam’. ” Source: (pg 226 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

If it has to do with weakening the view of killing apostates than why not go after the other narrators? Or why not go after Ali Ibn Abu Talib (r.a) himself who said to have narrated this hadith about killing people who go out of Islam.

Let’s analyze the text of this hadith.

Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (saw) believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (The Holy Prophet) which he never said.”

Such a disclaimer. Have you never noticed Ali (r.a) to ever preface a hadith like that? 

“When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is outwitting.”

An interesting statement. Errors might creep in things he said and battle is about outwitting. Hmmm.

“There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement.”

At the very least that is an open license to kill apostates and at the most, it’s an open license to kill fellow Muslims. “They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats.”

On what consistent basis is an attack launched upon Ikrima(r.a) but not Ali (r.a)? 

 

They seem to take real issues that Ikrima (r.a) narrated hadith about Ali (r.a) that shows Ali (r.a) being criticized by Ibn Abbas (r.a) for setting people on fire.

This report was narrated by al-Bukhary (6922) on the authority of `Ikrimah who said: Heretics were brought before Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and he burnt them. When Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) was informed about this, he said, “If I were in his place, I would not have burnt them for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade this saying, “Do not torment with the torment of Allah” and I would have killed them, for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”

What will be noted is that neither Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah nor Bassam Zawadi attacked the chain of narrators nor Ikrima (r.a) himself. 

You can see a fuller discussion on that here: https://primaquran.com/2018/05/21/ali-ibn-abi-talib-his-ijtihad-and-burning-people-alive/

 

Next, you would have to go after the other narrators. You would have to weaken the chains of the following hadith:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.” Source: (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271)  

As regards the above hadith Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman have stated in their book: 

 

The Known Narrators

The known narrator is one who is recognized by knowledge and rulings such as The rightly guided Caliphs, Abdullah bin Masood, Abdullah bin Abbas, Zayd bin Thabit, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and Aisha, etc.”

Their narrations are considered as proofs, irrespective of their conflict with analogy or conformance with it.”

Source: (pg 53-54 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith). 

As these two are known for their knowledge and their rulings what is deficient about their knowledge in regards to the laws of apostasy? 

 

Narrated ‘Abdullah:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” Source: (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17)

 

Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman Ahmed on pages 228 and 229 of Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith give ample evidence from the Qur’an that killing is murder. They give examples from the Qur’an and ahadith that seem to justify the freedom of disbelief. 

However, they both seem to miss that quoting all of that does nothing to attack the chain of the narration from Ikrima (r.a).  They are holding assumptions that Ali (r.a) didn’t do that act because it would go against established principles.  However, if we are holding assumptions we could also assume that Ali (r.a) did do that act, Ibn Abbas (r.a) reprimanded him for it and Ikrima (r.a) is simpy narrating the incident.   

I hope they are not making the argument that just because the Qur’an mentions to do or not do something that Muslims automatically follow these dictates. Wouldn’t that be amazing if they did! 

It is possible that people who have philo-Shi’a tendencies would be troubled with Ali (r.a) making an error in his ijtihad.  After all, as brother Bassam Zawadi (May Allah bless him) stated:

 

Nevertheless, if someone is not willing to accept any of the above explanations and is persistent that `Ali (ra) actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is that `Ali’s decision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to criticism on Ali’s decision – not a criticism on Islam.”

After all, `Ali (ra) was but a human being, he may have erred in his decision.” 

Source: (https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_ali_burn_some_apostates___by_understanding_islam

Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed are not suggesting that criticism of Ikrima (r.a) is a criticism of Islam right? Likewise, criticism of Ali (r.a) is not a criticism of Islam. 

It is also possible that people who have philo-Shi’a tendencies would be troubled with Ikrima (r.a) given his weight on the tafsir of a key point of conflict between Ahl Sunnah and the Shi’a.

Because he (Ikrima) said the following:

Ibn Jarir recorded that `Ikrimah used to call out in the marketplace:(Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification. (33:33)) “This was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.

Source: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 33:33).

 

Ikrimah said: Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet, I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.” Source: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 33:33)

More investigations into Ikrima (r.a).

There are some interesting points from Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman Ahmed in their book.

So regardless of who he is, we need to bear in mind that scholars also have biases and sometimes sectarian affiliations too.” Sources: (pg 195 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

A very good point!

Scholars can have biases and sectarian affiliations that may colour their investigations. 

 

Therefore criticism needs to be valid and not based on sectarian or personal reasons and as we have seen, even some of the senior scholars were not above this.” Source: (pg 197 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith). 

 

An Innovator is someone who holds to a view which does not conform to the position of the ‘Ahl Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah’ which are the Maturidi and Ash’ari Schools of creed.” (pg 94 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith).

This statement itself merits reflection. The statement itself is bias and sectarian. It means that the Shi’a are innovators. Ibadi’s are innovators. Sunni Muslims from the Mutazalite and Athari schools of theology are innovators.

 

The narrations of all innovators are accepted unless there is an innovator who believes that lying is permissible or their view constitutes disbelief.” Source: (pg 133 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

So for example, Imam Bukhari takes hadith from the Khawarij such as Ikrima and Waleed ibn Kathir, who believe lying equates to disbelief.” Source: (pg 133 Hanafi Principles for Testing hadith) 

If the narrator is from the Khawarij, some do not accept them as they are a deviant sect, whereas others do as they state that for the Khawarij lying equates to disbelief and therefore they would be even more careful to ensure that the hadith were narrated accurately.” Source: (pg 199 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 

My comments:

Classifying someone as being from a ‘deviant sect‘ is itself a sectarian reason to discard a hadith. Also, it is quite clear that Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed believe that Ikrima (r.a) is a “Khawarij” (a sectarian term applied by sectarians rest assured).  They also show in their book that the belief of the “Khawarij” is that lying equates to disbelief.

So as the narrations of all innovators are accepted unless they believe in lying (the Khawarij don’t) or unless their view constitutes disbelief I have a very pointed question for both Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed. 

Does either of you regard Ikrima (r.a) as a kafir? 

If your answer is: “Yes Ikrima is a kafir” What is this based upon?

If your answer is no then my next question is: “Was Ikrima (r.a)  a liar?”

If your answer is: “Yes Ikrima is a liar”  What is it based upon? 

 

Especially in light of the overwhelming view that the “Khawarij” equate lying to disbelief. 

 

Contradictions and no sources quoted in regards to Ikrima (r.a) 

 

“The next topic that needs to be analysed is Kirma’s religious idealogy. it is agreed by consensus that he was from the Khawarij. He ALLEGEDLY declared many Muslims to be disbelievers due to the extreme methodology of the Khawarij. Dhahabi, a hadith scholar who considers Ikrima reliable wrote “the first reason for rejecting the narrations of Ikrima is based on the fact that he is Khawarij. The second reason is that being a Khawarij, he justified the killing of his fellow Muslims.”  Source: (pg 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 

So he ALLEGEDLY (no proof, no evidence) declared many Muslims to be disbelievers. This is a far cry from what Sulaiman Ahmed states in a tirade that is filled to the brim with emotive language. Dhahabi (raheemullah) considers Ikrima (r.a) reliable.   

“The second reason is that being a Khawarij, he justified the killing of his fellow Muslims.”   The response to this is who didn’t find justification for killing fellow Muslims?

Ali directed his army to attack the Khariji camps, and his forces MASSACRED many of them at Nahrawan. At this point, Ibn ‘Abbas seems to have doubted his initial support of ‘Ali. He resigned from the governorship of Basra and stigmatized ‘Ali’s killing of his Khariji opponents”

Source: (Scott Riraj Al Haqqa Kugle in his book: Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender pg 107) 

Did Ali (r.a) feel he had justification to kill the forces of Muawiya in Syria? Did Ali (r.a) feel he had justification to kill Muslims at the battle of the camel?

 

But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)

 

Bakrah Ath-Thaqafi reported – The Blessed Messenger (saw) is reported to have said: “If two Muslims meet each other with their swords, then both the killer and the killed will be in the Hell-fire.I said, “O Allah’s Messenger, that is the case for the killer but why should that be the case for the killed?” He answered, “Because he wanted to kill his companion.

Source: (Sunan an-Nasa’i 4118 Book 37, Hadith 153 Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4123)

 

Narrated Ibn `Umar 

“I heard the Prophet (saw) “Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another.” Source: (Al -Bukhari 707 Book 92, Hadith 28 Vol. 9, Book 88 Hadith 198)

 

In light of this verse of the above Qur’an and these ahadith every group among the early Muslims is trying to find justification for what they are doing.

Recall what I quoted above: So “he ALLEGEDLY (no proof, no evidence) declared many Muslims to be disbelievers.” 

 

Yet Sulaiman Ahmed says:

Since releasing my https://sulaimanahmed.com/2017/07/28/ikrima-as-imam-of-modern-hanafis-part-1/ on Ikrima the Liar and Kharijite, I have received a lot of positive feedback from readers who were either blissfully unaware of the genocidal propensities of some of the people that groups such as Deobandis and Salafis expect them to ‘respect’ as ‘Imams’ or had already heard about Ikrima (who narrates some of Salafis favourite hadiths, such as those about burning apostates and gays) and his ‘tendencies’ and had their faith shaken, as they mistakenly believed that such individuals who sanction the murder of senior Sahahbah were somehow nonetheless indispensable to Islam. I also received a few sincere emails with requests of clarification of some issues.” -Sulaiman Ahmed 

 

The questions put Sulaiman Ahmed are as follows: 

  1. What are these ‘genocidal propensities’ of Ikrima (r.a)?
  2. Ikrima (r.a) didn’t burn apostates, Ali (r.a) did. Ali (r.a) also narrated the above hadith about getting a reward for killing ex-Muslims. Why is this not touched by yourself or your former teacher?
  3. Believed in and sanctioned the “murder” ? of senior sahabah? What’s the source for this?  

 

 

I have to clarify, because these peoples’ feelings and ‘right’ to display academic incompetence are not more important than the reputation of Islam.” -Sulaiman Ahmed

Up to this point, I have tried not to be personal at all. However, I too have to clarify because what is contained in the following paragraphs is so far from academic. 

What is sad is that despite endangering the faith and reputation of Muslims whilst ‘responding’ to my article and insisting that someone who takes money from tyrannical governments that kill sahabah, calls Ali and Uthmaan, senior companions of the Prophet, apostates who will burn in Hell forever, is a ‘reliable Imam’ that is ‘accepted by everyone’, these people never explain how this is the case: they in no place denied that he is a Kharijite (and a Safari and Ibadi i.e worst type at that) nor his attacks on the Sahabah nor his genocidal tendencies: they merely keep repeating that he was ‘accepted’ by Abu Hanifa because he (they claim) quoted from him (as if everyone who quotes from George Bush for any reason is automatically a Republican). They never, you will note, stop to explain how you can be reliable if you have such beliefs and practices nor will they ever once even condemn him for holding these beliefs. It is entirely lost on these people that by prostituting the reputations of Imams Abu Hanifa and Bukhari to rescue that of Ikrima all they do is cast doubt on the latter two real imams for ‘accepting’ such a vile and deranged individual in the first place. “-Suliman Ahmed

 

Questions for Sulaiman Ahmed:

What is the source that he called Ali (r.a) and Uthman (r.a) apostates?

“Kharijite (and a Safari and Ibadi i.e worst type at that.”   I almost spit my drink out reading this. If you realized what he said was akin to saying ‘Sunni (and a Shafi’i and Hanafi i.e worst type at that”!  Does that even make sense to anyone?  This person is not read on the subject of the Ibadi school or he would not have made the most rudimentary of mistakes.

 

Finally, if Ikrima is ‘truthful’ and ‘doesn’t lie’ then is he being truthful and accurate when he says that the Sahabah are kaafir and should be killed?”- Sulaiman Ahmed

Where did Ikrima (r.a) state this? A source until this very day has not been given.

 

Also, if you have to believe everything that an authority you quote believes, then do these guys, who so vociferously quote Ikrima, believe that Ali and the senior Sahabah were apostates and should be killed?” -Sulaiman Ahmed

I saw no source given for this.

 

Also, maybe these people can show me where in their books this ‘presumption of reliability’ for narrators, i.e narrators are all reliable even if they takfir or anathematise the Sahabha or call for mass genocide, unless specifically mentioned otherwise, is found?” -Suliman Ahmed.   

Ikrima (r.a) called for mass genocide? Is there a source for this?

 

“He ALLEGEDLY declared many Muslims to be disbelievers due to the extreme methodology of the Khawarij.” Source: (pg 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 

 

So did he indeed say the things you are claiming brother Sulaiman or is this alleged? If he said these things can you furnish the proofs for them?  If he did not say those things and they are alleged are you willing to repent to Allah (swt) and retract these comments?

 

I have also noticed this in their book:

“This means Wasil ibn Ata would thus take the utmost precautions before narrating anything. As we have seen, many top Muhaditheen narrated from the Khawarij, who were violent radicals who attacked Ali (r.a) since they too believed that lying equates to disbelief, Anthropomorphist (who attribute a human or other form to God) and those who insulted Ali(r.a).” Source: (pg 197 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

 

I certainly hope that this is a syntax issue that needs correction. Because, to put ‘Anthroporphism’ next to the Khawarij, or to attribute that to them is to speak ignorantly about their views. That is not something that can be attributed to them at all. So I am willing to chalk this error up to an error in syntax. 

 

Then you have to wonder all that time and association with Ibn Abbas (r.a) Was it hidden from Ibn Abbas that Ikrima (r.a) was a “Kharijite”? Wasn’t Ibn Abbas (r.a) aware of Ali (r.a) and the command to kill such people?

Especially in light of Ibn Abbas (r.a) and his known correspondence with Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi (r.a) a known “Kharijite”. “If I were not afraid of hiding the knowledge (and of the severe punishment) I would not have replied to him.”

Source: (pg 42 Studies in Early Hadith Literature M.M Azami)

 

For that matter aren’t all those people who take hadith from Ikrima (r.a) aware of the so-called hadith that command the killing of “Kharijites”?

I’ve always found it interesting that the Orientalists think that Ikrima (r.a) was enticed by the ‘Kharjite” doctrine due to egalitarianism. Is that not a tacit admission that Sunnism was not a champion of egalitarianism? However, why can’t it be conceivable that as a slave of Ibn Abbas (r.a) that Ikrima was privy to some of the thoughts of Ibn Abbas (r.a) and possibly overheard Ibn Abbas (r.a) make comments that were pro “Kharijite” and/or at the very least hear Ibn Abbas (r.a)  admit that they were right.

 

If we are going to question centuries-long assumptions about Ikrima (r.a) in relationship to the Hanafi school why not question centuries-long assumptions the Hanafi school has towards the so-called “Kharijites”?

Why not question the centuries long-held assumptions about the “Kharijites” from the Ahl Sunnah altogether? 

So after having failed to establish that Imam Abu Hanifa (r) had criticism for Ikrima (r.a) Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed pull out all the stops. Any criticism against Ikrima (r.a) throw it to the wall and let’s see what sticks.

After the death of Ibn Abbas, his son Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas imprisoned Ikrima and when he was asked for the reason he said: “He is narrating likes on behalf of my father.” Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib, A tab’i, was one of the leading Faqih scholars. He is renowned as one of the seven Fuqaha of Medina, one of the pillars upon which the Maliki School is based and the most eminent of those Fuqaha’ He is narrated to have said to his servant Burd; “O Burd, do not lie and attribute to me like Ikrima lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas” Ibn Umar also said the same to his slave Nafia, “Do not like on behalf of me as the slave of Ibn Abbas lied on behalf of him.” (although this specific narration of Ibn Umar is disputed by the Muhaditheen.) Sa’eed ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sirin also considered him a liar. Ibrahim Nakhai the grand-teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa also rejected all narrations of Ikrima.” 

Source: (pg 227 Hanafi Principles on Testing Hadith)

 This in turn is taken from Source: (Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman Al-Dhahabi al Shafi Mizan al I’tidal fi Naqd Arrijal) -Darul al-Ma’rifah , Beirut Lebanon, Volume 3 pg. 93 and Biography number 5716.)

So the primary source that Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed use to disparage Ikrima is from Imam Al-Dhahabi.

What did they tell us about Imam Al-Dhahabi? So what was Al-Dhahabi’s conclusion after having access to the same information that Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed used him for? 

“Dhahabi, a hadith scholar who considers Ikrima reliable.” Source: (pg 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 

 

1) Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas 

Yazid bin Abi Ziyad reported that Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas once tied up Ikrimah with a door when he was asked about the reason, he said: This filthy person lies upon my father” Source: (Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/373)

What can we say about Yazid bin Abi Ziyad?  Well…..https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?lid=1&mid=250316&typeinfo=23&catid=24374

 

2) Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib  

do not lie and attribute to me like Ikrima lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas”

Sources: (Al-Ma’rifa wal Tarikh: 2/5) & (Siyar A’lam An Nubala, 5 page 22)

As this is criticism among peers. Ikrima (r.a) and Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib (r.a) Characteristic of personal animosity.

Imam Malik (r) called Ibn Ishaq (r) a liar and an imposter for writing false stories about Prophet Muhammed. Imam Malik has said that Ibn Ishaq “reports traditions on the authority of the Jews”.  Source: (Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila. Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7)

When Sufyan ath-Thawri (r) heard the news about the death of Imam Abu Hanifa(r)he said: ‘Praise bet o Allah that such a man had died as he was gradually destroying Islam. There could not be a worse person born in Islam.” Source: (Ta’rikh Saghir, Biography of Imam Abu Hanifa)

 

 

Ibn Umar

Abu Khalf Abdullah bin Isa al-Kharaz narrated from Yahya bin Muslim Yahya al-Baka: I heard Ibn Umar said to Nafi’: Fear Allah O Nafi’ and do not lie upon me as Ikrimah lies upon Ibn Abbas” Source: (Tahdhib al-Kamal fi asma’ al-rijal 20/279)

Ibn Hajar al-Asqlani said: He is Thiqah Thabat, the Scholar of Tafsir, the accusing of lying on him from Ibn Umar is not proven, nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) is proven from him”  Source: (Taqreeb: 4673)

Also, are we to regard Nafi (r.a) as someone who lied about Ibn Umar (r.a)? The golden chain?  Even Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed admit: 

“Ibn Umar also said the same to his slave Nafia, “Do not like on behalf of me as the slave of Ibn Abbas lied on behalf of him.” (although this specific narration of Ibn Umar is disputed by the Muhaditheen).”

 

3) Sa’eed ibn Jubayr 

Actually, Imam Sa’eed bin Jubayr said: If Ikrimah stops narrating his hadith to them, people would travel to him” Source: (Tabaqat al-Kubra: 2/294)

 

4) Ibn Sirin

I do not have l-Dhahabi’s source to see how he dismissed Ibn Sirin’s critique. 

 

5) Ibrahim Nakhai

I do not have l-Dhahabi’s source to see how he dismissed Ibrahim Al Nakhai’s critique.   In the end, Imam Dhahabi looked at the justifications and various statements attributed to the 5 above and his conclusion is that Ikrima (r.a) is reliable.

 

Lastly, I want to say something that I have refrained from speaking about on my website/blog. Those who are close to Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman Ahmed know about the falling out between the two. When I first heard of this I was very disheartened. I reached out to them both through social media sending thoughts of goodwill and my du’a for justice. I have not hesitated in the past to blog about the controversy in the Muslim community on my website/blog.  However, I did not write about the falling out between these two men (May Allah make it easy on them both). That is because of my respect for them both. 

 

That being said it should be as daylight to the readers that there can only be one victor in their struggle. If the court rules in favour of Shaykh Atabek this would mean that Sulaiman Ahmed would not be accepted as hadith critique nor could we take the hadith from him. Ijaza. Also, if the court rules in favour of Sulaiman Ahmed this would mean that Shaykh Atabek would not be accepted as a hadith critique nor could we take the hadith from him. Ijaza. 

 

May justice be done.  May our pens write the truth. May our tongues speak the truth. May our hearts desire the truth. May Allah (swt) guide us to truth and may the destination of us all be the truth.

 

And whatever strikes you of disaster – it is for what your hands have earned, but He pardons much.” (Qur’an 42:30)

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What has your God done for you?

 

Once while in the Sultan Mosque in Singapore a Christian missionary paid us a visit. The man came up to me and after introducing himself he asked, ‘What has your God done for you?’


To which my immediate reply to him was, “You see my brother that is the wrong question. The question is not ‘What has God done for me’, the question is ‘What has God not done for me?’

My life, my faith, the air we breathe, the ability to see and behold objects of great beauty, to hear the most softness and soothing of sounds, to taste the most delicious of foods, to be healthy, to have been in love to have been the object of someone’s love. To have parents that loved me and raised me. This beautiful world that we live on. The fact that if we were so much closer to the sun that we would all burn alive and if we were that much further away this earth would freeze over. This beautiful day, gravity, the opportunity to meet you and share with you some of what God has done for us.”

 

I then quoted to him the following verse from the Qur’an.

 

And if whatever trees in the earth were pens, and the sea and seven more seas even after it were to replenish it, yet in no way would the Words of Allah be depleted. Surely Allah is Ever-Mighty, Ever-Wise.” (Qur’an 31:27)

If I was to spend my entire life writing words of thanks and praise to Allah (swt) for everything he has done for us, I would need seven more lifetimes, and even than I would fall short of writing words of praise and gratitude.

Subhanallahi Wa Bihamdihi, Subhanallahil Azeem!!!

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Quran: Created or Uncreated: The Proof Text

 

The Qur’an: Created or Uncreated: The Proof Text.

 

“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

 

“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 are guiding to a straight path.” (Qur’an 42:52)

 

What will follow are strong proof text from the Qur’an that substantiate the position that the Qur’an is created.

 

Our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ are all divided on this issue. The truth is one. 

They take as their primary evidence the following two texts of the Qur’an.

 

And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)

Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)

 

Regardless of the three theological schools that divide our brothers from the ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ we can simplify this into basically two approaches. 

After finding out if our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ believe that the Qur’an is literally the speech of Allah (swt) or it is not literally the speech of Allah (swt) it can help to further the discussion.

 

So what is meant by literally/not literally? 

When we are speaking of conscious beings like humanity this is understood by man’s external and internal senses, brain, lungs, throat, tongue, teeth, lips, and pushing out of sound. In this sense it is strictly speaking is inconceivable in the respect of Allah (swt).

It is not permissible to interpret His being ‘speaking‘ in this sense.

 

If the person believes that the Qur’an is literally the speech of Allah (swt) you can refer them to the challenge of Ibrahim (a.s). Does Allah (swt) make audible sounds?

 

“He said, “Rather, this – the largest of them – did it, so ask them if they should be able to speak.” (Qur’an 21:63)

 

If the person believes that the speech of Allah (swt) is not literal and one can apply ta’wil then perhaps they could reflect on what their actual quarrel with us is?

Whereas the Athari, Ash’ari and Maturidi schools of ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ affirm speaking as an essential attribute we do not.

Whereas Power, Will, and Knowledge are essential attributes of Allah (swt)
because of the impossibility of Allah’s being qualified by their opposites.

First, it is sufficient to attribute to Allah (swt) the attribute of Power without the attribution of speech. Speech is not the opposite of dumbness such that dumbness is negated by affirming it. The opposite of speech is silence. It does not mean that a non-speaking person is dumb; rather he is not non-silent.

The difference between us and our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ is that we do not apply ta’wil to the essential attributes of Allah (swt), Power, Will, Knowledge. 

Whereas all of them say Speech is an essential attribute some of them apply ta’wil to the essential attribute of Speech and others do not. 

The nervous system can give commands and prohibitions and we do not attribute speech to the nervous system.

When this sign is clear in Allah’s creatures what more do you think of the Creator, the All-Knowing, from whose grip nothing of the universe can flee, and from whose overwhelming control no minor or major thing can escape?

The Qur’an is not ‘Kalam al-nafsi‘,  the Qur’an is created.

What is not meant is Allah’s knowledge of the books. No one will doubt the eternity of Allah’s knowledge.

The eternity of knowledge does not imply the eternity of the known, otherwise, all things that have come into being would be eternal!

Revealed books are in reality indications of His Knowledge which is an attribute of His Essence. They are not the attribute of the Knowledge itself which is a quality of his eternal Essence.

 

Furthermore the same is applied to the Torah, and the Gospel as the “speech of Allah“. We know that the Torah is in Hebrew and the Gospel in Syriac.

Yet some who affirm that the Torah, Gospel, and Qur’an are in essence the same and that they only differ in their expressions and languages. Therefore they argue that if the Torah or Gospel is translated into Arabic it will make it the Qur’an.  A translation of the Qur’an into Hebrew will make it the Torah.  This of course would be quite problematic.

The objection by the faction of those who disagree with this position (albeit with good intention) is that they wanted to equate the Qur’an with ‘kalam al-nafsi‘ in which they intend to negate dumbness.  The intention is noble.

There also seems to be some confusion of the Qur’an in regards to Allah (swt) knowledge of it, Whereas the attributes of Speaking and Knowledge are both eternal.

There is no evidence in the Qur’an to call the It ‘Kalam al-nafsi’.

We affirm the attribute of “speech” for Allah (swt) as Imam Diya al-Din ‘Abd al-Aziza Thamini (raheemullah), says in his Mu’alim:

“Know that speech is sometimes referred to Allah in the meaning of negating dumbness of Him, and it then to be understood as an essential attribute in the way of such attributes. And sometimes it is referred to Him in the sense of its being one of His actions, and it is then to be understood as such. So the meaning of His being Speaking, according to the first interpretation, is that He is not dumb; and according to the second that He is a Creator of Speech.” Source: (Ma’alim al-din (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa l-Thaqafah, 1st edition 2:9.)

 

You may only refer to the Qur’an as other than Allah’s in a metaphorical way.

As the following:

Indeed, the Qur’an is the word(laqawlu) of a noble Messenger. (Qur’an 69:40)

 

So again is it the Speech of Allah?

When we say ‘takallama Muhammed’ (Muhammed Spoke), the statement does not convey anything except that he produced speech in the past.
When you say ‘yata-kallamu’ (he speaks/will speak) it does not mean other than his speaking the present or future-the the (Arabic) tense of the verb here is for both present and future.
When you say ‘takallam, ya fulan (Speak, Oh so and so), it does not mean otherwise than requiring the addressee to speak.

What you say in any of those three phrases cannot mean that the speech is a quality abiding with the person of the speaker or the one from whom the speech is sought.

Likewise, when we say someone ‘spoke on Friday‘ in the normal everyday usage of language it does not convey that this person spoke that speech before Friday.

That is what is intended when by Allah (swt)  we see:

Allah, Exalted is He, says: ‘For to anything that We have willed, We but say “Be’ and it is’ (Qur’an 16:40)

The verb form (in 16:40) is strictly future in meaning, it has ‘an’ (particle indicating an action to come after it, and the verb-form |naqulu| denotes present and future, and ‘kun’ is made up of two letters, one before the other-then what this verse means is exactly what is understood by clear minds and natures.
We would need to ask on what basis is this speech being conditioned with the night, with the day or with this world or the hereafter or other times, if this speech had been eternal?

As well as  “When He intends a thing, His command is “BE” and it is’ (Qur’an 36:82).

The meaning of Allah’s “speaking” is producing speech on the occasion of it.

Allah (swt) brought revelation with His power from non-existence into existence.

The eternity of knowledge does not imply eternity of the known.

The servant is not fully independent in producing his action, rather he earns it and Allah (swt) is the Creator of it. Reward and punishment are based on the earning of the servant not on the creation of the Creator.  This is for another topic and insh’Allah another entry.

It is an important point because the creature’s speech, like that of his actions, is created by Allah (swt). The creature owns nothing but his earning.
In the same way, the meaning of ‘help‘ when it is related to Allah differs from when it is related to the servants. The servants helping one another is giving support directly or through their wealth or other means. The help of Allah (swt) is His creation of the causes of the servant’s victory and providing it to them. For example, His saying:

“Indeed He helped you at Badr” (Qur’an 3:123)

Another example is:

“Assuredly Allah will help those help him.”  (Qur’an 22:40)

If this is related to the Creator its meaning will differ from when it was related to the creations.

 

Speaking as a metaphorical.

 

“And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.” (Qur’an 42:51)

 

This should be understood in the sense of creation of audible sound not emanating from any particular thing, that conveys the intention of Allah (swt), and that is picked up by the hearing of one chosen by Allah  (swt) for such address.

Or Allah (swt) “speaking” to the angels is used to signify that whereby they understand His Will.
The ‘speaking‘ is understood in the metaphor like in the following verses:

“Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, “Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion.” They said, “We have come willingly.” (Qur’an 41:11)

Allah (swt) addresses us in a language we know and in senses that we are familiar with. Like the verse that says ‘that the sun sets

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, “O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness.” (Qur’an 18:86)

Allah (swt) has also used metaphor when there is mention about speaking, for example:

“And they will say to their skins, “Why have you testified against us?” They will say, “We were made to speak by Allah, who has made everything speak; and He created you the first time, and to Him, you are returned.” (Qur’an 41:21)

 

As well as:

And We gave Solomon a right understanding of matters. To each of them, We gave judgment and knowledge; and it was by Our power that the hills and the birds celebrate Our praises with David. It was We who did it.” (Qur’an 21:79)

So here we can see that mountains ‘celebrate‘ the praises of Allah (swt) and that skins and indeed ‘everything‘ is made to ‘speak.

 

In the words of Fakhr al-Din Al-Razi:

“The impossibility of a word which is composed of letters and sounds being eternal is self-evident to the mind for two reasons:

The first that a word cannot be a word unless its letters are sequential. The letter |uttered|before the last |that is uttered|is originated, and if something’s being originated is affirmed, its eternity is then impossible. So for the letter following the end of the first, there is no doubt that is originated.

The second is that, if those letters from which the word is composed occurred in one go, the word cannot be. A word composed of three letters can occur in any one of six combinations. If the letters occurred altogether, the words occurring in some of those combinations will not be better than it’s occurring in any of the rest. \Alternatively| if the letters occurred in succession then the word is originated.”  Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 1:P20.)

Fakhr al-Din took Sunni Muslims of the Hanbali creed to tas when he says,

“These people are so low as to not deserve mention among the group of the learned. It happened one day that I said to one of them: “If Allah spoke these, then either He spoke them in one go, or in succession. The first is void because the speaking of all these letters in one go will not convey orderly composition which is a combination in sequence. It necessarily follows that this composition combined with these successive letters cannot by themselves be Allah’s speech. The second is void, because if Allah spoke them in succession then it will be originated.’ When the man heard this statement |of mine|, he said: ‘It is obligatory for us to affirm and pass on’, i.e., we affirm that the Qur’an is eternal and pass by this statement that we have heard. At that point, I wonder greatly at the safety of this speaker. Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 27, 187-88)

 

Those who say that the letters of the Qur’an are created are opponents of consensus. What is this consensus? The righteous early generations of the Companions or the Followers did not raise the issue of the creation of the  Qur’an.

 

The Creation and the Command. The next argument put forward by our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ is the following verse.

 

“His are the creation and the command.” (Qur’an 7:54)


This is answered by the context itself:

Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He covers the night with the day, [another night] chasing it rapidly; and [He created] the sun, the moon, and the stars, subjected by His command. Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds. (Qur’an 7:54)

The most that this verse tells us is that, just as Allah (swt) is alone in bringing the universe out of non-being (into being), in the same way, He is alone in the management of it. He has no partner in its creation and in its management. None other than Him has anything of the creation and management. Rather, to HIM alone belong the creation and the command. The meaning here, clearly, is management. And there is nothing in that which even remotely points either to the eternity of the Qur’an or to its contingency.

Examples:

“Maintain with care the [obligatory] prayers and [in particular] the middle prayer and stand before Allah, devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 2:238)

The middle prayer is not (separated) out of the genus of the prayers, the guarding of which has been commanded.

 

“Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael – then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. (Qur’an 2:98)
No one says that Gabriel and Michael are (separated) out of the genus of angels.
The difference between them is but relative.

“Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded.” (Qur’an 16:90)

No intelligent person will argue about justice being the doing of good, and the doing of good being justice.

 

The command (amr) of Allah (swt) has been mentioned jointly with what denotes its creation in many places.

“And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah,” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.” (Qur’an 33:37)

 

“[Remember] when you were on the near side of the valley, and they were on the farther side, and the caravan was lower [in position] than you. If you had made an appointment [to meet], you would have missed the appointment. But [it was] so that Allah might accomplish a matter already destined – that those who perished [through disbelief] would perish upon evidence and those who lived [in faith] would live upon evidence; and indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 8:42)

“There is not to be upon the Prophet any discomfort concerning that which Allah has imposed upon him. [This is] the established way of Allah with those [prophets] who have passed on before. And ever is the command of Allah a destiny decreed.” (Qur’an 33:38)

“He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count.” (Qur’an 32:5)

 

“Indeed, all things We created with predestination And Our command is but one, like a glance of the eye.” (Qur’an 54:49-50)

“Do the disbelievers await [anything] except that the angels should come to them or there comes the command of your Lord? Thus did those do before them. And Allah wronged them not, but they had been wronging themselves.” (Qur’an 16:33)

 

All of those examples should be more than sufficient to show our response! 

The following are the proof text for those of us who believe the Qur’an to be created. We do not believe the Qur’an to be the eternal speech of Allah (swt). 

 

“Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.” (Qur’an 4:82)

 

As we can see that the Qur’an has to be internally cohesive. So if we say the Qur’an is the speech of Allah (swt) and we understand this as an internally abiding attribute of Allah (swt) and yet the Qur’an clearly states it was created what is one to do? 

 

Proof  #1

Permitting multiplicity of the eternal is contradictory to the unicity of Allah (swt).

Proof  #2

“And if We willed, We could surely do away with that which We revealed to you. Then you would not find for yourself concerning it an advocate against Us.” (Qur’an 17:86)

Everything that is eternal its non-existence is impossible.

Proof # 3

Each letter needs the other in sequence, its words being composed from them. And each word needs other words to combine as a sentence. The letters are different, and none of them is not in need of the other. From what has been said of the distinctness of these letters, and their being absorbed in the composition, (it is clear) that someone has made this distinctness, and has made each of them different from the other, and composed them with this art of composition, and made of it this eloquent speech

Proof #4

Is the Qur’an a thing or nothing?
If the Qur’an is nothing than let that stand on the record.

If the Qur’an is a thing then please be reminded of what Allah (swt) says:

“That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things.” (Qur’an 6:102)

Say, “Who is Lord of the heavens and earth?” Say, ” Allah .” Say, “Have you then taken besides Him allies not possessing even for themselves any benefit or any harm?” Say, “Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Or is darkness equivalent to light? Or have they attributed to Allah partners who created like His creation so that the creation of each seemed similar to them?” Say, ” Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Prevailing.” (Qur’an 13:16)

 

“He too who belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and who has not taken a son and has not had a partner in dominion and has created each thing and determined it with [precise] determination.” (Qur’an 25:2)

Determined it with determination.
The chapter, verses, sentences, words, letters, vocalizations, recitation, meanings, wisdom and judgment, reports, and parables are in order.

 

“That is Allah, your Lord, Creator of all things; there is no deity except Him, so how are you deluded?” (Qur’an 40:62)

 

Proof #5

“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” (Qur’an 15:9)

The argument from this verse is that the preserved cannot but be created because the eternal does not need preserving by those that preserve.

Proof #6
“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (
Qur’an 2:106)

Abrogation is omission, removal and it is impossible for that which is eternal. The idea that some part of Allah’s essence of ‘speech‘ would be ‘better‘ than other parts merits pensive reflection.

Proof #7

“And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammed], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.” (Qur’an 5:48)

It has been preceded by other than it. The preceded cannot be but originated.

Proof #8

“And We had certainly brought them a Book which We detailed by knowledge – as guidance and mercy to a people who believe.” (Qur’an 7:52)

We detailed it knowingly. Detailing emanates from His Knowledge, The emanating from a thing must be preceded by it.

Proof #9

“No mention comes to them anew from their Lord except that they listen to it while they are at play.” (Qur’an 7:52)

Muhdath in Arabic means newly made. And since it’s newly made it cannot be eternal. i.e. It came after being nothing which means “Created

Proofs #10 & Proof #11

“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, [O Muhammed], you guide to a straight path..” (Qur’an 42:52

Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.” (Qur’an 24:35)

Allah (swt) clearly says that he is the light of the heavens and the earth. Allah (swt) says that the Qur’an was made into a light.   The Qur’an was made.  A clear distinction needs to made between that which is Light and that which is made into light. A clear delineation between the Creator and created.

Proof #12

“But this is an honored Qur’an [Inscribed] in a Preserved Slate.” (Qur’an 85:2021)

Preserved tablet. The created cannot be a vessel for the non-created.

Proof #13

“And [it is] a Qur’an which We have separated [by intervals] that you might recite it to the people over a prolonged period. And We have sent it down progressively.” (Qur’an 17:106)

The argument that Allah (swt)  has said of it that it is divided. The divided is made. The made cannot but be originated.

Proof #14

“Indeed, We sent the Qur’an down during the Night of Decree.” (Qur’an 97:1)

Sending down. That which is sent cannot proceed that which sent it.

Proof #15

“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

Allah (swt) has clearly said that he has made the Qur’an.

Other places where Allah (swt) made things. You may feel free to look at the Arabic text for yourself. You get to investigate and see how the translators decided to use the words ‘made’ and ‘create’ in which places and why.

“[All] praise is [due] to Allah, who created the heavens and the earth and made the darkness and the light. Then those who disbelieve equate [others] with their Lord.” (Qur’an 6:1)

“It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate that he might dwell in security with her. And when he covers her, she carries a light burden and continues therein. And when it becomes heavy, they both invoke Allah, their Lord, “If You should give us a good [child], we will surely be among the grateful.” (Qur’an 7:189)

“It is He who made for you the night to rest therein and the day, giving sight. Indeed in that are signs for a people who listen.” (Qur’an 10:67)

“Is He [not best] who made the earth a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah? [No], but most of them do not know.” (Qur’an 27:61)

“And Allah has made for you, from that which He has created, shadows and has made for you from the mountains, shelters and has made for you garments which protect you from the heat and garments which protect you from your [enemy in] battle. Thus does He complete His favor upon you that you might submit [to Him].” (Qur’an 16:81)

“And made the moon therein a [reflected] light and made the sun a burning lamp?” (Qur’an 71:16)

“And We have made the night and day two signs, and We erased the sign of the night and made the sign of the day visible that you may seek bounty from your Lord and may know the number of years and the account [of time]. And everything We have set out in detail.” (Qur’an 17:12)

“Have We not made the earth a container.” (Qur’an 77:25)

“Have We not made the earth a resting place?” (Qur’an 78:6-11)

Yet in order to try and refute what these clear verses say those who are desperate will say that made, originate, and create do not always mean originate, create or make!

They use the following verse in a last desperate gambit.
“Allah
has not appointed [such innovations as] bahirah or sa’ibah or wasilah or ham. But those who disbelieve invent falsehood about Allah, and most of them do not reason.” (Qur’an 5:103)

This should be understood as Allah (swt) did not create as you have described, rather Allah (swt)  created against that which you have described. The negation here is of the particular qualifier, not of the particular reaction.

In other words, Allah (swt) did not legalize the slitting of its ear.

Proof #16

“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]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:7)

This shows the division in the Qur’an

The Qur’an has division, this cannot be an abiding quality with Allah (swt) that has a division within it. If It has division as mukham and mutashabi it is divided and we cannot ascribe that to Allah (swt).

 

Proof #17 In relation to that above it would be that there are parts of Allah (swt) knowable to human beings and parts of Allah (swt) unknowable to human beings and indicate division within Allah (swt). 

 

Proof  #18
“Do not move your tongue with this (Qur’an) to make haste with it. Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it.” (
Qur’an 75:16-19)

This is clearly in reference to a revelation that is revealed in space/time.

Proof #19. 

There was certainly a time when there was no mention of the human being.” (Qur’an 76:1) 

If the Qur’an is eternal than this verse would make little sense. Allah (swt) would be speaking for all eternity and human beings would be mentioned.

Proof #20  This in relation to Proof #1 and Proof #4

 

There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing. (Qur’an 42:11)

 

If the Qur’an is an attribute of Allah (swt)  and no one is saying that the Qur’an =The essence of Allah (swt) means the Qur’an cannot be an eternal attribute of Allah (swt). It would be something eternal and not Allah. This is not theologically sound.

This is why at the core of the Ashari school is this very bizarre admission. 

They claimed that the logical consequence of the “Attributes of Forms” was “multiplicity of beginning-less entities” (ta’addud al-qudama’). This reasoning was refuted by the entirety of Ahl Al-Sunna scholars. see al-Buti, Kubra al-Yaqinat Al-Kawniyya (p. 119 n.).
The Attributes are neither the Essence Itself nor other than It (al-sifat laysat ‘aynu al-dhat wa la ghayraha), as in the school of
Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a.” Al-Qari, Daw’al-Ma’ali (p.5)

Source: (Pages 7 & 8 Correct Islamic Doctrine/Islamic Doctrine  Volume 2 By Ibn Khafif, translated by Gibril Fouad Haddad

This is no refutation at all! 

So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.” (Qur’an 22:46)

 

24 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Qur’an: Created or Uncreated: Theological Problems

 

Ha-Mim By the Book that makes things clear,-We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that you may be able to understand and learn wisdom. And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high in dignity, full of wisdom. Shall We then take away the Message from you and repel (you), for that you are a people transgressing beyond bounds? (Qur’an 43:15)

 

“Nay! it is a Glorious Qur’an, In a guarded tablet”  (Qur’an 85:21-22)

This is an entry that discusses the problematic theological position held by our brothers from the ‘Ahl Sunnah‘. That is the belief that the Qur’an is the eternal uncreated word of Allah.

 

Now at Prima-Qur’an: Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama we agree that the  Qur’an is 100% a revelation from  Allah.  This is not in question.

 

I want to say from the outset that any Muslim who believes the Qur’an is created in my view is still a Muslim. This is a matter of dispute between the scholars.

 

  Too often in history, a group will arise that will seek to disquiet and quell dissenting views or opinions.

It is very challenging for example to get an unbiased view of Gnostic Christianity because the overwhelming majority of the sources available to us today are being given through their opponents.

When the  Qur’an says that it is ‘Fee lawhin mahfooth‘ a guarded or a preserved tablet this means is in regard to it being preserved and protected.

It is our view that the Qur’an was created in time. In fact, the Qur’an was revealed in real-time to address the needs of the community of believers in and around the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw)

 

I will also be examining this doctrine in light of the  Qur’an itself, the various justifications and proof text and allow the leaders to judge for themselves.

It is truly unfortunate that some of the Muslim intelligentsia and academics would feel so threatened by any discussion on this subject that it would incur a death penalty.

For example in one of the great works that are praised by the Sufi Muslims, Qadi Iyad we find

He said about someone who said that the Qur’an is created, “He is an unbeliever, so kill him.” He said in the version of Ibn Nafi’, “He should be flogged and painfully beaten and imprisoned until he repents.” In the version of Bishr ibn Bakr at-Tinnisi we find, “He is killed and his repentance is not accepted.” (Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], p. 419)

This book which is loved by the Sufis  can be readily purchased at Wardah books in Singapore. http://wardahbooks.com/

You can also purchase it from amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Ash-Shifa-Qadi-Iyad-Aisha-Bewley

In all fairness those who hold to the position that the Qur’an is created also persecuted those who held the position that it was uncreated and eternal.

In fact, Muhammad ibn Isma’il Al-Bukhari (of Sahih Bukhari oral collection fame) was persecuted by a group of those from the Hanbali school of jurisprudence for a remark he made.

Al-Dhuhli was fierce (shadîd) in his adhesion to the Sunna. He confronted Muhammad ibn Isma‘il [al-Bukhari] because the latter had alluded, in his Khalq Af‘al al-‘Ibad, to the fact that the reader’s utterance of the Qur’an was created. Bukhari made it understood without explicitly saying it, but he certainly made it clear. On the other hand, Ahmad ibn Hanbal flatly refused to explore the question, as well as Abu Zur‘a and al-Dhuhli, or indulge in the terminology of dialectic theologians (al-mutakallimûn), and they did well – may Allah reward them excellently. Ibn Isma‘il had to travel from Naysabur undercover, and he was pained by what Muhammad ibn Yahya [al-Dhuhli] had done to him.” (Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (10:207)

 

Also:

Al-Hakim [narrated with his chains]: Muhammad ibn Yahya [al-Dhuhli] said: “This Bukhari has openly subscribed to the doctrine of ‘pronunciationists’ (al-lafziyya), and for me those are worse than the Jahmiyya.” . . . Ahmad ibn Salama visited Bukhari and told him: “O Abu ‘Abd Allah, this is a respected man [i.e. al-Dhuhli] in Khurasan, especially in this town [Naysabur], and he has thundered with this speech until none of us can say anything to him about it, so what do you think we should do?” Bukhari grasped his beard then he said: (I confide my cause unto Allah. Lo! Allah is Seer of His slaves.) (40:44) He continued: “O Allah! You know that I did not want for one moment to settle in Naysabur out of arrogance, nor in quest of leadership, but only because my soul would not let me return to my own country [Bukhara] because of my opponents; and now this man intends harm for me out of jealousy, only because of what Allah gave me and for no other reason.” Then he said to me: “O Ahmad, tomorrow I shall leave and you will be rid of his talk which I caused.” . . . Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub the hadith master said: “When al-Bukhari settled in Naysabur Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj took to visiting him frequently. When the affair of the pronunciation of Qur’an took place between al-Bukhari and [al-Dhuhli] and the latter roused people against him and forbade them to visit him, most people stopped visiting him, but not Muslim. Then al-Dhuhli said: ‘Anyone that subscribes to the pronunciation [being created], it is not permitted for them to attend our gathering.’ Whereupon Muslim placed a cloak on top of his turban, stood up in front of everyone, and sent back to al-Dhuhli what he had written from him carried by a camel-driver, for Muslim openly subscribed to the pronunciation and made no attempt to conceal it.” . . . Ahmad ibn Mansur al-Shirazi also narrated it from Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub, adding: “And Ahmad ibn Salama stood up and followed him.” (See Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (10:314-315). Cf. Bayhaqi’s al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (al-Hashidi ed. 2:20-21 #591).

 

This is written for those people who are Muslim who may have come across the position that the Qur’an is uncreated and find it wanting.

 

So here are some theological problems with the position that the Qur’an is uncreated and eternal. This is in relation to Christian theology.

To support the position that the  Qur’an is the uncreated and eternal words of Allah would indirectly support the Christian doctrine of the logos (Word made flesh).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”  (John 1:1-5)

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

“In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succinct[sic] statement of this doctrine: “The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah comes from Him, and nothing created comes from Allah Most High.” Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

Source: (G.F. Haddad,  http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/uncreatedness_quran.htm

 

Comment: This is a rather strange assertion from Imam Malik (May Allah have mercy on him). Nothing created comes from Allah? What about the universe where does that come from?

 

“O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and HIS WORD which He conveyed unto Mary, and A SPIRIT from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.” (Qur’an 4:171)

“(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you  glad tidings of A WORD from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).”  (Qur’an 3:45)

 

“And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah gives you glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who comes) to confirm A WORD from Allah lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous. (Qur’an 3:39)

 

Using the reasoning of Imam Malik (r) above:

 

  1. Jesus is the Speech/Word, of/from Allah.
  2. Allah’s Speech/Word, come directly from Allah.
  3. Nothing created comes from Allah.
  4. Therefore, Jesus must have always existed!

 

However, there is a very simple solution to this problem.  That solution is to allow the Qur’an to decide matters of our theology by looking at what Allah says in context.

“Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.” (Qur’an 3:59)

Now, this could refer to the physical creation of Jesus (meaning in the flesh) and not to Jesus as a word or a ruh.  If the ruh and the word that is Jesus is not created then Muslims who hold to the doctrine of an uncreated and eternal Qur’an have a real theological conundrum to deal with.

On what consistent basis is Jesus Allah’s word and his spirit and yet be created when the  Qur’an is Allah’s word and is eternal and uncreated?  On what consistent basis is the claim made?


Here is another interesting text from the Qur’an to consider.

“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then has the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He creates what He pleases. For Allah hath power over all things.” (Qur’an 5:17)

We can see from this that Allah (swt) if he so willed could destroy Christ the son of Mary.  I would go further and say that this means utterly and absolutely.  So not just the flesh but Christ Jesus even as the word of Allah!

 

Notice the following by Shaykh Yasir Al Qadhi (May Allah continue to benefit us by him)

“Therefore the Speech of Allah, by the Will of Allah, is the cause of the creation, so it cannot be created, for if it were created, it would mean that a created characteristic has itself created another object, and this is not possible! In other words, a created object does not have the ability to create another object; only the Creator has this ability.”

Source: (An introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an page 34)


Created objects create other objects all the time. Certainly not ex-nihilo (
out of nothing).

 

Maybe Shaykh Yasir Al Qadhi did not give serious consideration to the following:

“And make him a messenger to the Children of Israel, who will say, ‘Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay that which is like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah. And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead – by permission of Allah. And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers. (Qur’an 3:49)

“The Day when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and remember when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay what was like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, “This is not but obvious magic.” (Qur’an 5:110)

Interestingly the English word used is ‘design‘ as opposed to create or make.

 

IS THE INK OF THE MUSHAF ALSO ETERNAL?

Imam Ahmed (r) an innovator according to Ibn Taymiyyah (r)?

Think about this dear respected Muslim sisters and brothers. The fact that our great scholars actually mused over this is really sad.

“Then, among them are those who say that the ink is apparent in the mushaf but not incarnating, and some say that it is incarnating. In the sayings of some of them is what implies that for the form-the form of the letter and figure – |but|not |for|its material substance which is its ink. This opinion is also invalid. Just as the saying, that anything from the voices of human beings is eternal, is an invalid opinion. It is an opinion put forward by a group from among the followers of Malik, Shafi’i, and Ahmad, the majority of whom reject it. The saying of Ahmad and the majority if of his followers rejecting his opinion is well-known. There is no doubt that whoever says that the voices of the servants are eternal, he is an innovator and inventor. In the same way as whoever says that this Qur’an is not the word of Allah, he is an innovator and an inventor”

Source: (Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah (Matabi al-Riyad, 1st edition, 12:83-873,83-85)

 

To support the position that the Qur’an is the uncreated and eternal words of Allah would annihilate a key tenet of Sunni creed.

 

What position is this you may ask?

 

Answer: The position that Allah (swt) created all things.

For example, look at this verse of the Qur’an and think of the theological implications.

“Nay! it is a Glorious Qur’an, In a guarded tablet” (‘Fee lawhin mahfooth)”  (Qur’an 85:21-22)

A key tenet of Sunni creed is that Allah created all things.

Since they believe the Qur’an is the eternal and uncreated speech of Allah (swt) it would imply that the material tablet also existed eternally.

Thus in turn it would also imply that matter and space are not created.  In order for there to exist an eternal tablet in heaven, it must have to occupy space/time and thus would also imply that Allah (swt) is not the only entity that exists eternally.

How could the ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ claim with any consistency that the  Qur’an is eternal and uncreated and yet claim that Allah (swt) alone is eternal and uncreated?

 

The problem with bila kaif

Where did the eternal and uncreated ‘lawhin mahfooth‘ come from? If the answer is ‘bila kiaif or ‘without asking how‘ then it has to be asked.

 

On what consistent basis are Trinitarian Christians asked ‘How can be one be three‘? Don’t they have the right to answer: ‘bila kaif‘ ?

 

Which for those from the Salafi view they can no longer say that the Trinity doctrine is irrational; because that is pure kalam! All they can do is say we base our objection on the text, “and say not “Three” – Cease! (it is) better for you!

However, the problem with ‘bila kaif‘ is that no one ultimately has to give justification for any theological position that they hold.

 

Next, we will be looking at objections from skeptics/atheists/agnostics.

 

This is a big problem for ‘Ahl Sunnah‘.

So Shaykh Yasir Qadhi says:

These Attributes are understood literally (in the case of the Attributes of kalam, that Allah, Speaks, whenever He wishes, with a sound, in different languages, and this Speech is composed of words and letters and is not created), but the actuality and ‘how-ness’ of these Attributes are not delved into, and any negative similarity be-tween these Attributes and the attributes of the creation are negated (in the case of this Attribute, that the speech of the creation is created, but the Speech of Allah is not.)  Understanding these Attributes ‘literally’ does not mean understanding them in the manner that they are found in the creation, or comparing them with the attributes of the creation; rather, it means affirming the linguistic meaning of that Attribute in a manner that befits the Creator, and will never completely be understood by mankind.”    Source: (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 52)

 We are told that the ‘how-ness‘ is not delved into and yet this whole paragraph does exactly that!  When you negate comparison you are comparing and contrasting ‘how‘ something is unlike something else.

 

When speaking of prophet Ibrahim (a.s) and the story of the idols Shaykh Yasir Qadhi says:

“In these verses, Ibrahim showed his people that their idols were not worthy of worship, primarily because they could not speak. After they themselves acknowledged this, Ibrahim rebuked them, and asked them, “Have you no sense?!” meaning, “How can an object that cannot even speak be worthy of worship?”  Notice that Ibrahim was referring to a speech that could be heard, for Ibrahim’s people did not answer Ibrahim with the belief of the Ash’arees, “Our god speaks, but a speech that is not heard-an internal speech of the mind!”  for they understood what Ibrahim meant!! This is why they turned to themselves, and realized the foolishness of their actions, and could only reply with the feeble response that everyone knew that their idols could not speak!”  Source: (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 46)

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi thinks that he has the goods on the  Ash’ari Sunnis latter making a quote that in effect turns the Ash’ari Sunnis into idol worshipers.

 

 Yet, look at the quotation above where he says:

‘literally’ does not mean understanding them in the manner that they are found in the creation.”

Rather than help Islam, Yasir Qadhi  his Salafist-Athari creed and those who think like him have handed over to skeptics of their position a devastating argument.


So like Ibrahim (a.s) demands above the atheist has the right to demand from him speech from his Creator.

They have the right to demand a speech that could be heard”

This point should always be brought up again and again and again when dealing with our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ who hold these types of views.

 

Yet Shaykh Yasir Qadhi is not done with the Ash’ari.

Sheikh Yasir Qadhi thinks he has the goods on the Ash’ari when he says,

 

“1) If the kalam of Allah is without sound, then what did Musa hear when Allah spoke to Him? If they respond that Allah created a sound, and caused Musa to hear that created sound, then this means that this created object stated,
“O Musa, verily, I am your Lord…Verily, I am Allah, there is no God save Me, so worship Me… [ Qur’an 20:12-14]


Therefore, if they state this, it implies that this created object claimed to be Allah, and asked Musa to worship it! However, if they stated that it was the actual kalam of Allah, then it must be asked, “How then did Musa hear it if you claim that Allah’s kalam is without sound? ” The scholars of the Ash’arees have not been able to provide a satisfactory response for this.”  Source: (An introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 44)

 

Comments:

So Shaykh Yasir Qadhi thinks that it was the object cried out ‘I am Allah, there is no God save Me, so worship Me’.   Yet, obviously, we know that Moses (a.s) did not perform any act of worship towards the direction of the voice. Or at least no act of worship is recorded.

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi and those who agree with his position have to wonder the following:

What did Rasul Allah (saw) think when Angel Gabriel (a.s)
said. ” Indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.” (
Qur’an 21:92)

What? Did the Blessed Messenger (saw) fall down and worship Gabriel? Obviously not!

Gabriel(a.s) was used as a medium in the same way the burning bush was.

As regards if Musa (a.s) heard sounds from the burning bush you ask yourself, did the companions hear the Qur’an when it was being revealed to the Blessed Messenger (saw)?

 

“And [We sent] messengers about whom We have related [their stories] to you before and messengers about whom We have not related to you. And Allah spoke to Moses with [direct] speech.”  (Qur’an 4:164)

“When he saw a fire and said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire; perhaps I can bring you a torch or find at the fire some guidance.” And when he came to it, he was called, “O Moses, Indeed, I am your Lord, so remove your sandals. Indeed, you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa. And I have chosen you, so listen to what is revealed [to you] Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance.”  (Quran 20:10-14)

“And when Moses had completed the term and was traveling with his family, he perceived from the direction of the mount a fire. He said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I will bring you from there [some] information or burning wood from the fire that you may warm yourselves.” But when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley in a blessed spot – from the tree, “O Moses, indeed I am Allah, Lord of the worlds.” (Qur’an 28:29-30)

“Has there reached you the story of Moses? When his Lord called to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa” (Qur’an 79:15-16)

Likewise, since the Qur’an acts as a guardian of the previous scriptures let us see what is claimed to be the Torah has to say as well.

“There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight–why the bush does not burn up.”When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.””Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” (Exodus 3:2-5)

Allah (swt) created a sound and caused Moses (a.s) to hear that created sound. In fact, if you go on further the whole context shows how Allah (swt) is the creator of perception.  Moses (a.s) was made to perceive a burning fire, it did not indicate if anyone saw it or not.  He (a.s) was made to perceive his hand becoming white. He (a.s) was made to perceive a voice from a tree. He (a.s) was made to perceive his staff move like a snake.

“And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.” (Qur’an 42:51)

Unless our respected Shaykh Yasir Qadhi wants to say that the  Qur’an contains a flat contradiction he will need to understand ‘Allah spoke to Moses with direct speech‘ in light of the above verses.

 

Conclusion:

Allah-willing in the third section of this three-part series we will be getting into the proof text.

I would have left this matter alone if it were not for the fact that there are Muslim groups out there whom will literally tell you that you are ‘astray‘ and you are ‘not on the right path‘ and that your ‘theology is corrupt’ because you do not hold to their tenets.  They may even claim you to be outside of Islam.

 

As we saw from one book revered by the Sufis above orders were given to torture, imprison, and execute people who dissented theologically.

I hope that we can have intellectual exchanges that enrich people who are seeking the truth on matters that weigh upon human consciousness.

There are theological problems in relation to believing the Qur’an is eternal with regards to our Christian brothers.

There are internal theological problems in relation to believing Allah (swt) created all things.

There are problems launched by skeptics and doubters. They have the right to ask as Ibrahim (a.s) did to his people, ‘a speech that could be heard‘. Or a person today could ask for ‘a speech that could be heard with the mind.’

 

“Behold, you received it on your tongues, and said out of your mouths things of which you had no knowledge; and you thought it to be a light matter, while it was most serious in the sight of Allah.” (Qur’an 24:15)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Qur’an: Created or Uncreated: Shaykh Ahmed bin Hamad al-Khalili to debate Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is rightly guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)

Shaykh Bin Baz invited Shaykh Ahmed Khalili to his office and Shaykh Khalili accepted the invitation. Shaykh Ahmed Khalili and a small delegation went into what was described as a small room. There was no courtesy and no decorum showed on behalf of Shaykh Bin Baz. As soon Shaykh Bin Baz got everyone in the room he started shouting, “You Ibadi are Kafirs! You don’t believe in seeing Allah in the afterlife”. “You believe in the creation of the Qur’an and you must make tawba!” “You must testify that you are mistaken!”


Shaykh Ahmed Khalili remained very calm. He replied, “These issues are very old issues and many of the ulemah have been talking about it.” “Our expectation was to come and discuss on how to unite the Ummah, and keep the differences aside, and we should agree on certain terms.”

 

However,  Shaykh Bin Baz insisted, “No you must confess and you must repent.”

 

To which Shaykh Ahmed Khalili said, “You have your justification and we have our justification. So let us call for a general symposium In Mecca and allow all the media rather it is newspapers, or radio or television to broadcast this debate.”

If you think you are right and you want to tell the whole ummah of your righteous opinion this will show who is wrong and who is right.” “Even if we are wrong we agree to debate publicly so that everyone will know that we are wrong and you are right.”

Allow the Ummah to judge according to the debate and the justifications everybody brings forward.” However, Shaykh Bin Baz did not want to discuss nor debate.

So this prompted Shaykh Ahmed Khalili in the video you are about to see. In the beginning, Shaykh Ahmed Khalili mentioned that these are old disputes that split the Ummah. He asked whose interest is it to bring up these issues that split the Ummah? However, since Bin Baz started I have to clarify these points. The people of Bin Baz are doing their best to spread their beliefs and in the process to make us look like kafirs. Thus, Shaykh Ahmed Khalili (May Allah continue to benefit us by him) found it necessary to clarify the issues.  Ultimately Shaykh Bin Baz (may Allah have mercy on him) backed down. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Are all the companions just?

 

Are all the companions just?

Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, “What will you worship after me?” They said, “We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac – one God. And we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.”

That was a nation which has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do. (Qur’an 2:133-134)

 

Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants were Jews or Christians? Say, “Are you more knowing or is Allah ?” And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allah? And Allah is not unaware of what you do That is a nation that has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do. Those are people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do. (Qur’an 2:140-141)

It is very obvious that these two texts of the Qur’an were revealed in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) therefore they couldn’t be speaking about the current people.

 

Do notice that it says, ‘you will not be asked about what they used to do.’ In other words, we are not beholden to them. That is a very important point that everyone misses. We are not beholden to them.

 

It is not a litmus test for us to testify that everyone who went before us was righteous. In fact, the whole narrative of the Qur’an is one that is replete with examples of previous people’s going astray and dividing after the truth had come to them.

I used to think the passages above said, “It will have the good that it earned.” However, it simply says, “It will have what it earned.” So this could mean paradise or hellfire.

Then notice it turns to the present audience in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

and you will have what you have earned.”

 

This means there is a possibility that the present generation (companions) will earn either heaven/hellfire.

 

So Allah (swt) warns the generation at the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) thus,

 

Many similar ways have passed away before you, so travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who disbelieved. This is a clear speech to mankind, guidance, and instruction to those who fear Allah. So do not lose heart, nor fall into despair for you will overcome if you are believers(Qur’an 3:137-139)

 

O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not personal inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort your testimony or refuse to give it, then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” (Qur’an 4:135)

 

Notice that these words are not directed towards the Blessed Messenger (saw). That is because the Blessed Messenger (saw) is inherently just.

These words of the Qur’an are directed at people (the companions) who have the ability/possibility to swerve from justice. There is not a single companion that is inherently just. 

In connection with this, we have the following interesting hadith.

 

Jabir ibn Abdullah reported: A man came to the Messenger of Allah (saw), at Al-Ji’ranah from Hunayn and there was some silver in the pocket of Bilal. The Messenger of Allah took a handful from it and distributed it among the people. The man said to him, “O Muhammed, be just!” The Prophet said, “Woe to you! Who will be just if I am not just? You would fail and lose if I were not just.” Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “O Messenger of Allah, let me kill this hypocrite!” The Prophet said, “I seek refuge in Allah that the people would say I am killing my companions. Verily, this man and his companions will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats. They will leave Islam just as an arrow passes through its target.”

In another narration, the Prophet said, “Leave him alone, lest people say Muhammed is killing his companions.”

Source: (Sahih Muslim 1063)

 

This very hadith itself has the Blessed Messenger (saw) that a companion said to the Blessed Messenger (saw) to ‘be just‘. Which itself is an unjust statement. The Prophet (saw) also acknowledged that this man was:

a) a companion

b) someone who will eventually leave Islam.

 

And if two groups among the believers should fight, then make a settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinances of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9) 

 

If the believers are people who by default just, it is not possible for one of them to oppress the other. Allah (swt) commands us to fight against the group that does oppression.

 

BEST NATION FOR MANKIND? CONTEXT.

 

O you who have believed, if you obey a party of those who were given the Scripture, they would turn you back, after your belief, to be unbelievers. And how could you disbelieve while to you are being recited the verses of Allah and among you is His Messenger? And whoever holds firmly to Allah has indeed been guided to a straight path. O you who have believed, fear Allah as He should be feared and do not die except as Muslims. And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided. And let there be arising from you a nation inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be successful. And do not be like the ones who became divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them. And those will have a great punishment. On that Day some faces will turn white and some faces will turn black. As for those whose faces turn black, “Did you disbelieve after your belief? Then taste the punishment for what you used to reject.” But as for those whose faces will turn white, within the mercy of Allah. They will abide therein eternally. These are the verses of Allah. We recite them to you,, in truth; and Allah wants no injustice to the worlds. To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And to Allah will all matters be returned. You are the best nation produced for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (Qur’an 3:100-110)

 

It is very clear from the context of the above verses that the ‘best nation‘ produced for mankind is contingent upon them enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong and believing in Allah (swt).

That those who became divided after clear proofs came to them they will have a great punishment. That these people will be asked, “did you disbelieve after belief?

Notwithstanding the fact that “you are the best nation” can be translated as “you are good community”….

Meaning you are a good community because you enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.

If they were ‘the best’ it would not be conceivable to replace them.

 

Also, the following are very strong admonition from Allah (swt).

O you who believe, if anyone from you turns back from his Faith, then Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him, humble toward the believers, hard on the disbelievers, who fight in the way of Allah and are not afraid of the reproach of any critic. That is the grace of Allah. He confers it on whom He wills. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 5:54)

 

Here you are – those invited to spend in the cause of Allah – but among you are those who withhold out of greed, And whoever withholds only withholds benefit from himself; and Allah is the Free of need, while you are the needy. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you (Qur’an 47:38)

 

And the vanguard among (min’al) the emigrants and the helpers, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them forever; that is the mighty achievement.” And among (min’al) those around you of the Bedouins are hypocrites, and also from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You do not know them, We know them. We will punish them twice, once in this world; then they will be returned to a great punishment.” (Qur’an 9:100-101)

 

So when we look at this verse in Arabic and in context we realize a few important points.

This verse starts off with words of praise and reward for the vanguard among the emigrants and the helpers as well as anyone ‘those‘ who followed them in goodness. They are the subject of Allah’s grace and promise.

 

So the first part of the verse is not all the companions who emigrated to Madinah. However, the following verse also makes the first verse clear. ‘And among the Bedouins and people of Madinah.’

 

So is the second verse saying that all the Bedouins are hypocrites?

Is the second verse saying that all the people of Madinah are hypocrites?

 

So when we consider that the Bedouins are people who could have migrated with the Blessed Messenger (saw) they could be among the Muhajirun.

 

When we consider that the Ansar are from Madinah they could be from among those in Madinah.  However, even after these clear points are presented.

Let us say for the sake of argument that we agreed with our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ on their traditional understanding of this text. Even then this would only vindicate the companions from the Ansar and the Muhajirin. It would not vindicate the companions in total. 

 

 

 

Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you. For every person among them is what punishment he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof – for him is a great punishment. Why, when you heard it, did not the believing men and believing women think good of one another and say, “This is an obvious falsehood”? Why did they who slandered not produce for it, four witnesses? And when they do not produce the witnesses, then it is they, in the sight of Allah, who are the liars. And if it had not been for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy in this world and the Hereafter, you would have been touched for that lie in which you were involved by a great punishment. When you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah, tremendous. And why, when you heard it, did you not say, “It is not for us to speak of this. Exalted are You, O Allah; this is a great slander”? Allah warns you against returning to the likes of this conduct, ever, if you should be believers. (Qur’an 24:11-17)

 

Now we know that this incident was in regard to vile slander against the mother of the believers, Aisha (r.a). If this would have been from among people who were not believers Allah (swt) would not have said ‘do not return to this conduct if you are believers‘.

 

That they are ‘a group from among you‘ -meaning the companions. When we read the occasion of the revelation we can see from the hadith literature that this whole incident had vexed the Blessed Messenger (saw).

Ibn Kathir in (al Bidayah al Nihaya, Volume 4 page 160)writes the following:

“Then he (prophet) went to the people and addressed and then recited what Allah revealed in the Qur’an, then he ordered that Mastah bin Uthatha, Hasan bin Thabit, Hamna bint Jahsh to be punished because they were among those who spread the allegation of adultery.”

Hasan bin Thabit and Hamna bint Jahsh are both companions, and both were the cause for serious grief for the Blessed Messenger (saw) and his wife (r.a) and yet, they both are still used in the transmission of hadith!

 

Does anyone think that what they did was just? Is causing grief to the Blessed Messenger (saw) or to his noble wife (r.a) among the acts of just people?

 

Is anyone going to say that Ibn Kathir (raheemullah) is a sinner for exposing the sins of these companions?

 

The bedouins say, “We have believed.” Say, “You have not yet believed; but say instead, (aslamna) ‘We have submitted,’ for faith has not yet entered your hearts. And if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not deprive you from your deeds of anything. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 49:14)

 

The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of)… them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, “O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:628)

Does the above hadith indicate that the blessed Messenger (saw) thinks that what Khalid bin Al-Walid did was just?

 

The Prophet (saw) said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from among (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘what is wrong with them’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.’ I asked, “Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left. So I did not see anyone of them.

 

Source: (Sahih al-Bukhari 6587 Book 81, Hadith 175 Vol. 8, Book 76, Hadith 587)

 

The companion al-Walid b ‘Uqbah b Abi Mu’ayt the companion and governor of Kufah who was whipped for leading the prayer while intoxicated. 

 

Hudain b. al-Mundhir Abu Sasan reported:  

I saw that Walid was brought to Uthmin b. ‘Affan as he had prayed two rak’ahs of the dawn prayer, and then he said: I make an increase for you. And two men bore witness against him. One of them was Humran who said that he had drunk wine. The second one gave witness that he had seen him vomiting. Uthman said: He would not have vomited (wine) unless he had drunk it. He said: ‘Ali, stand up and lash him. ‘Ali said: Hasan, stand up and lash him. Thereupon Hasan said: Let him suffer the heat (of Caliphate) who has enjoyed its coolness. (‘Ali felt annoyed at this remark) and he said: ‘Abdullah b. Ja’far, stand up and flog him, and he began to flog him, and ‘Ali counted the stripes until these were forty. He (Hadrat ‘Ali) said: Stop now and then said: Allah’s Apostle (saw) gave forty stripes, and Abu Bakr also gave forty stripes, and Umar gave eighty stripes, and all these falls under the category of the Sunnab, but this one (forty stripes) is dearer to me.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim/29/60)

 

 

Ultimately one has to ask in all these battles and conflicts among the companions why didn’t they bring up all these verses about them all being just? None of them used such verses in any difference that they had.

 

Why didn’t they quote these ahadith of the 10 promised paradise?

 

Conclusion: There is absolutely not a single verse in the Qur’an anywhere that vindicates the companions as people who were all just and righteous. We do not have a single shred of evidence of that from the Sunnah for this position either. 

Dr. Jonathan Brown (May Allah have mercy on him) said it best when he says,

That the collective impunity of the Companions was a later construct of the Sunni worldview is evident when one finds occasional minor Companions listed in early books of weak hadith transmitters.” 

Source: ( Hadith: Muhammed’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World’ by Dr. Jonathan Brown page 88)

In fact, I do not know why our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ cling to this doctrine especially in light of their debates with our brothers from the Shi’a.

 

It would be better for them to say they no longer hold this belief and instead they will examine each allegation against a companion based upon the chain of narrators and the text.

As regards our respected learned people in the Ibadi tradition they have advised us to hold our tongues concerning the companions. Yet at the same time, we have been advised to tell the history and the facts as it is. This as per Allah (swt) commands:

“And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know it.” (Qur’an 2:42)

 

 

That was a nation which has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do. (Qur’an 2:133-134)

 

Which means we are not beholden to them period. If they earned good we earn good insh’Allah we will see each other in paradise. If they earned evil and we earn evil then no one can save us from our impending doom.  

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)

The best and most neutral du’a that one can make in regards to them is to ask Allah (swt) to send his peace and blessings upon the Prophet (saw), his family, and all the believers up until the present times. 

In fact, there is only one that Allah (swt) called the ‘praised one‘ or ‘the praiseworthy‘  There is only one whom Allah (swt) said, is an example for us. He didn’t say it about any of the companions.

 

There is only one who is a mercy unto all beings.  That is our beloved, our master, our example, our beacon, and our guide, the Blessed Messenger and Noble Prophet Muhammed (saw).

 

We have not sent thee, save as a mercy unto all beings.” (Qur’an 21:107)

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama Resource Page

 

So remain on the right course as you have been commanded, you and those who have turned back with you to Allah, and do not transgress. Indeed, He is Seeing of what you do.” (Qur’an 11:112)

This will be a resource page that will be updated that will give either the Muslim wanting to make the switch to the Ibadi school or the Non-Muslim coming to Islam to choose the Ibadi school a wellspring of resources for your continued guidance and well being.

Bint Ibadh Blogspot: A great source with many articles in English.

http://bintibadh.blogspot.com/

A link to our brothers in the United Kingdom.

https://www.ahlulistiqamah.co.uk/index.php/en/

Al Istiqama TV-A Great YouTube channel with English/Arabic

https://www.youtube.com/user/alistiqamatv/featured

Ibadhi website in Swahili for those in East Africa. This site features the noble and knowledgeable Hafidh Al-Sawafi (Allah preserve him)

https://ibadhi.com/sw/

A website in English about Islam

islamfact.com

My dear friend and student of knowledge: Salim Al-Ismailyy Information in Dutch/English/Arabic

https://www.instagram.com/al_ismailyy/?ighid=1v5p0z4mrsh4h

A great resource in Arabic.

http://www.istiqama.tv/

A Blog in Russian for the Ibadi community growing in Russia and Central Asia.

https://ibadhis.blogspot.com/

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does the Christian Heaven have a place for women?

 

 

Does The Christian Heaven Have a Place For Women?

 

“Women shall derive benefit from what they acquired. Ask, therefore, God out of His bounty: behold, God has indeed full knowledge of everything.” (Qur’an chapter 4 verse 32)

I was recently thinking sincerely about this very issue. It seems that Christianity is a bit ambiguous over who ‘
the elect are‘. Many people will say that Jesus died for ‘all‘. However, Calvinist are usually quick to point out that this is not the case. Jesus only died for a few ‘elect‘ whom they believe God capriciously has chosen before the foundations of the world.

With that said, texts in the New Testament that tend to generalize salvation, or promises of heaven to all can no longer be taken at face value or for granted.

The very sad thing one quickly realizes about Christian concepts of God, as well as Christian concepts of salvation, is that they are all very male-oriented and male-dominated.

 

Now it is possible that one may say well what about the women in John’s vision found in the book of Revelation?

We have two “women” in John’s Vision. Neither of these can be taken to be real, actual women. One of them is a whore (false church) and the other is a whore (Israel) that found redemption.

 

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” (Revelation 12:1)

 

What can be immediately seen from this text is that it is symbolism and nothing literal about it.

 

In fact, the word for ‘heaven‘ is ‘ouranoj‘.

The word can mean the sky, the air, the vaulted expanse of the sky. You will note that this woman is wearing various heavenly bodies like the sun, the moon under her feet and she is wearing a crown of 12 stars.

 

You will also note the symbolism in the following passage:

“The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.” (Revelation 12:6)

 

You have to wonder why this “woman” would need to flee into the wilderness to be taken care of if “she” was already in heaven.

 

Many commentators say that this symbolic “woman” is actually Israel herself. The same Israel that God likened to an adulterous prostitute spoken about in the Bible when God said the following about her:

 

If this symbolic woman is Israel, Israel too has been likened to a whore:

“But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute.” (Ezekiel 16:15)

“You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband!” (Ezekiel 16:32)

However, this prostitute and adulterous wife, Israel finally gets to wear a crown of glory in the following passage:

 

“Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign Lord.” (Ezekiel 16:63)

 

So there is no woman in heaven at all. What is relayed is a vision of glorified Israel that God has forgiven for its past adultery and prostitution.

 

The other “woman” mentioned is a whore who has not found redemption.

 

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. With her, the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.”

Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet and was glittering with gold, precious stones, and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.  The name written on her forehead was a mystery: Babylon the great the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth. I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.” (Revelation 17:1-6)

 

So neither of these provide us examples of actual women. It is symbolism.

For example, within the Trinity itself, God’s self-love is only expressed in an eternal relationship of Masculine self-love. God -The Father, who loves God The Son. God -the Holy Spirit is a conduit of this love.

 

It is an eternal bond of masculine self-love

Now it is interesting within the Trinity there is no concept of Feminine self-love expressed anywhere. There is no Mother and no Daughter in the Trinity.


How unfortunate that the concept of God dwelling in a community of eternal self-love includes only manifestations of the masculine.

 

In Islamic theology the very word that is used to describe the essence of Allah (swt) is the Arabic word ‘dhat‘ and surprise surprise, it is a feminine word.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”.(John 16:13)

 

The Holy Spirit is expressed here in terms of the masculine.

What about heaven is there a place for Christian women?

 

Do keep in mind that there are some very negative sentiments towards women in general in the Bible.

 

“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare….while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all(Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).

 

No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman…..Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die” (Ecclesiastes 25:19,24).

 

St. Tertullian is reported to have said,

“Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert, even the Son of God had to die.”

Source: (The Gospel According to Woman, London: Elm Tree Books, 1986, pp. 52-62. See also Nancy van Vuuren, The Subversion of Women as Practiced by Churches, Witch-Hunters, and Other Sexists Philadelphia: Westminster Press pp.28-30)

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home;
for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

 

Unfortunately, we have no record of Jesus ever once calling Mary, Mother.

 

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? My hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.” (John 2:1-5)

How beautiful, loving, and intimate it would be to have said to Mary, “mother” instead of just the very disconnected “woman”.

 

And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age while with you, say not to them so much as, “uff,” and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word. (Qur’an 17:23)

 

For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as having been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freethere is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26-29)

(Now the above passage is simply talking about status in the mystical union Christians have in Christ).

There is still rank in the Earth. Notice the Holy Spirit informs us that women rank below men.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)

 

We (believers) shall be like Him (Jesus): All Christians transformed into Sons of God.

Beloved, now we are now the sons of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:2)

And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.” (1 John 3:3)

Comments: One thing you will learn very quickly is that this we quickly becomes a reference to men only. Notice it says that we shall be like him. When it says ‘everyone this again is a reference only to men. It says who purifies himself just as he is pure.

What is the proof that the children of God are not daughters but sons? The New Testament is replete with evidence that we will be sons of God.

 

Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.” (Ephesians 1:4-5)

He (God) chose ‘us‘ as adoption as sons…not daughters!

But as many, as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the sons of God, even to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.” (1 John 3:1)

For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba”, Father.” (Romans 8:15)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)

“Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” (Hosea 1:10)

 

Comments: Now some may muse that ‘Israelites’ here would be a reference to both men and women. However, it is not women who were created to become the sons of God. Women were simply created for the good pleasure of men.

The New Testament affirms this when it says,
“Neither was man created for woman, 
but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:9)

“A man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7)

These texts do not really need any comment.

 

No women in heaven so God’s horny sons had to sleep with earth women.

 

And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:1-2)

If there were ‘daughters of God‘ the lusty sons wouldn’t have made a play for Earth women.

 

In fact, Jesus reinforces this point.

 

 For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30)

Some people may see a contraction between Matthew and Genesis but there isn’t any.

A There are no females in heaven and that is why the Sons of God went after the daughters of men. They had the courtesy to marry them.

B As humanity as we know it comes to an end the institution of marriage will no longer be around. You will as the angels aka SONS OF GOD.

 

Everyone in Christ gets transformed into a son of God. Rather you are male or female.

 

The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus was sent only to save men!

He came as a witness to testify concerning that light so that through him all men might believe.” (John 1:7)

Paul says quite clearly about who God wants to be saved, and who he sent his Son for, in 1 Tim. 2:4-6:

Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.” (1 Timothy 2:4-6)

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:10)


The children of God are never ‘daughters of God‘ they are always ‘sons of God‘.

 

At the very least in the Qur’an Allah (swt) has acknowledged that people attribute daughters to the divine. In the Bible, not even the faintest whisper of that being a possibility.

 

And they attribute to Allah daughters – exalted is He – and for them is what they desire.” (Qur’an 16:57)

 

“For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him, we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.” (Romans 8:14-19)

Comments: All the men will be able to share in the glory of God and Christ. The glory of God and Christ both of whom are masculine presence. In the passage above ‘God’s children‘ and ‘sons of God‘ are used interchangeably. God’s children are his sons. They are never his daughters!

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26)

This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:10)

 

Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.” (Revelation 14:1)

No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins(parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-5)

Not one of the 144,000 is a woman! No women are ever mentioned to be in the kingdom of heaven! No women mentioned among those who could learn the song.

 

In Christianity, as explained above women are created for men, not for the glory of God.

Remember it says “who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins” -This also means sex in marriage. Men are created for heaven as they reflect ultimately the glory of God. Women however only reflect the glory of the men as the Bible tells us.

We are told these 144,000 virgin men are offered as ‘first fruits‘ to God and his Lamb. I don’t know about you but that sounds a little fruity to me.

“A man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7)

There you have it, folks! Jesus was sent to save the men. Those men who accept Jesus will be accepted as God’s sons. They will become the sons of God.

Some modern translations of the Bible have tried to say ‘children of God’ or they even have gender-sensitive Bibles now! They do this to cover up the facts and the truth.

Christianity does not have heaven for women! In Christianity, the ideal scenario is virgin men in mystical union with (The Son (masculine), The Father (masculine), and the Holy Spirit (masculine).

 

This is unlike heaven as Allah mentioned in the Qur’an. It is for everyone. Men and women!

 

Notice the ambiguous nature in the New Testament as to the salvation and status of women in the hereafter and contrast that with the very crystal clear teachings of the Qur’an!

Women shall derive benefit from what they acquired. Ask, therefore, God out of His bounty: behold, God has indeed full knowledge of everything.” (Qur’an 4:32)

 

And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer – those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, even as much as the speck on a date seed.” (Qur’an 4:124)

 

The Christians wish to God they had a verse like this.

 

Conclusion: The Christian heaven is not a place for women. There is no expression of eternal feminine love within the ‘godhead’. If anything a woman (who sheds the flesh) is changed into a ‘son of God‘ so that “she” now ‘he‘ as a ‘son of God‘ can enjoy fellowship as the bridegroom of Christ. “Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer We will surely cause him to live a good life, and We will surely give them their reward in the Hereafter according to the best of what they used to do.” (Qur’an 16:97)

 

And their Lord responded to them, “Never will I allow to be lost the work of [any] worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another. So those who emigrated or were evicted from their homes or were harmed in My cause or fought or were killed – I will surely remove from them their misdeeds, and I will surely admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow as reward from Allah, and Allah has with Him the best reward.” (Qur’an 3: 195)

 


Allahu Akbar! Allah is the greatest! To the women reading this. We invite you to Islam! You are all most welcome!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Attacks upon Sahih hadith by Sufi Leaning Ashari Theologians

 

And Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed MY SON IS OF MY FAMILY (AHLI)and indeed, Your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges! He said, “O NOAH, INDEED HE IS NOT OF YOUR (AHLIKA) FAMILY; indeed, he is one whose work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant. Noah said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.”(Qur’an 11:45-47)

 

I am often told that my presuppositions as a ‘westerner’ would preclude me from being fair in accessing certain hadith traditions. That I would approach the text with my own suppositions. I don’t disagree with this statement. The real point is who doesn’t approach something with their own suppositions? 

However, I think the point is we all approach any situation with our own suppositions. The point is to be mindful of this, and know when it may impede our ability to look at something from a different perspective, or not.

 

What better example than the attacks upon ‘sahih’ -ahadith found in the collection of  Muslim, by those who hold to the Ashari theological school. 

 

In particular, things that the ‘Sufi‘ find troubling about the following sahih hadith. As well as those who have been affected by the Shia-fication of Sunnism as follows:

Narrated from Anas (r.a) that a man said: “O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?” He said: “In Hell.” When he turned away he called him back and said: “My father and your father are in Hell.”

Source: (Sahih Muslim 203) https://sunnah.com/muslim/1/408

Some may say why even talk about this subject? It is bad manners.  The very people who say that, are the very people themselves who have brought the topic up. 

 

There is actually no good reason to reject this hadith. The only reason to reject this hadith is based upon an emotional attachment to the ‘Ahl Bayt‘ and to the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

 

Say, [O Muhammad], “If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.” (Qur’an 9:29)

If this is the state of faith that Muslims are to have in regards to Allah (swt) It is certain that the Blessed Messenger (saw) had this state of faith, a state of faith that none of us would pale in comparison to.

There is also the reality that hellfire is real. That some people will go to hellfire. Those people will be other people’s fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters. All of us live with the reality that either ourselves or our most beloved family will not be in paradise. 

With the Blessed Messenger (saw) making that statement about his father, it makes the Blessed Prophet (saw) a very relatable human being. 

 

Now the “Sufis” will go on and on about knowledge of the unseen that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is said to have had.

However, when it comes to something like this they simply cannot accept that the Blessed Messenger (saw) may have had some insight into what happened to His (saw) parents;  albeit a very painful insight.

The same people will go absolutely ballistic when anyone challenges their Sahih hadith canons, but themselves will pull out all the stops when they come across something that goes against their presuppositions.

It is worth it to watch the entire video presentation of Dr. Jonathan Brown (May Allah have mercy on him).  However,  for the purpose of this entry, it would suffice to watch from 42:50, to see exactly what I am talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r1GhCQGf9w

At 43:50 Dr. Jonathan Brown takes liberties by saying ‘there is an important principle in Islam that in order to be accountable for anything you have to have knowledge‘.

First, it should be very clear what he is about to present to the audience is not necessarily the position of ‘Islam’.  It is a position of creed, one that a certain group of Muslims with their own presuppositions hold to.

Basically what Dr. Jonathan Brown is doing is expounding upon a position in the Ashari theological school. (Albeit in a very superficial manner)

They assume that just because people have not heard about Islam, these people would automatically enter into paradise.

In other words, if divine guidance has not come to you, you will automatically enter paradise.

Think of the implications of that for a moment.  Now if your going to talk about justice this creedal position of the Ashari turns the justice of Allah (swt) into a cosmic comedy.

Why?

Well, how is it fair for people who have been exposed to Islam entered into it and possibly still end up in hell?  

Assurance of salvation is not a doctrine in Islam.

Whereas it would have been more preferable (I mean we are talking about eternity here) for said people to have never heard about Islam, and enter into heaven automatically, simply by virtue of the fact of not receiving guidance.

So if you do not receive divine guidance you automatically enter into heaven?

However, if you do hear about divine guidance and reject it you will go to hell.

Then if you embrace the divine guidance but your scale is not heavy on the day of judgment you will spend eternity in hell. You have a 50/50 chance of going to heaven/hell. 

Something seems very inconsistent here.

I am extremely disheartened that someone, as educated and eloquent as Dr. Jonathan Brown, gives such a bad example about ‘the man living in a remote part of Nebraska‘.

So you mean to tell me this man who lives in a remote part of Nebraska and never heard about Islam, or even had an adequate presentation of Islam delivered to him, can steal from his mother, rape a child, rob a bank, never pay back any of his loans, constantly lie, beat his wife and lead an overall horrible life and he will enter heaven?

Whereas countless Muslims all of the world are trying their utmost to have a relationship with their Creator and to fulfill the commands as they understand them, in a sea of competing sects and schism,  and then there is a very likely chance that they could end up in hell?

Does that honestly make any sense to anyone at all?

Notice Dr. Jonathan Brown says at 45:13 “God will judge them on the day of judgement like God judges everybody

So why would God judge them? If they would automatically enter into heaven?  If God judges them than doesn’t that mean they stand a chance to be condemned?

If they do stand the chance to be condemned than the Ashari needs to explain based upon what.

Apologies to the readers, as I digress.  

However, this is fundamentally important to the discussion, because it is an ironclad proof!  It is an ironclad proof from within that if those from the Ashari school find something that goes against their presuppositions they will discard ahadith!

Gibril Fouad Haddad (May Allah have mercy on him) is a modern scholar who gave a lengthy apologetic response to the issue in pages 51-64 of his book “The Four Imams and Their Schools

 

Which by the way if you don’t have that book you absolutely should buy it. You should buy everything written by Gibril Fouad Haddad for that matter. He has absolute attention to detail. He is in my view one of the most, candid and truthful scholars in our time. May Allah (swt) grant him long life and health.

 

In the pages of the book of his book, there are some eye-opening admissions. His book also contains his own biases and leanings for example

 Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari (raheemullah) and his Minah Al-Rawd Al-Azhar, commentary on Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is simply thrown under the bus.

Shaykh Haddad states:

“Mulla Ali al-Qari claimed in Sharh al-Fiqh Al Akbar, Mu’taqad Abu Hanifa, and Shar al-Shifa that Imam Abu Hanifa said, “The parents of the Prophet (saw) died as disbelievers.” and that this was the Maturidi position. He was refuted harshly by his student the Faqih and Friend of Allah, Imam Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammed ibn Ahmad al Tabari, during the latter’s lessons in the Makkan Sanctuary, Al-Qari died in Makka shortly after those lectures from a bad fall-May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him. Shaykh Ibrahim al-Halabi, the Hanafi faqih, held the same view as Mulla Ali al-Qari as well as does al-Azim Abadi in AAwn al-Mabud.” (pg 51) There is no attempt at innuendo here.

The implication is Allah (swt) made the learned scholar die form a bad fall for saying such things. 

Is what is attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa (r) a forgery? 

Shaykh Haddad quotes Dr. Inayatullah Iblagh al-Afghani in the 1987 2nd edition of his published doctoral thesis titled ‘al-Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifa al-Mutakallim (“The Greatest Imam, Abu Hanifa, the Theologian”), said:

“Regarding the text [of al-Fiqh al-Akbar] we find in some of them: “and the two parents of the Prophet (saw) died according to pristine disposition” (mata ala al-fitra), In some others, it is: “did not die as disbelievers” (ma mata ala al-kufr) while in others yet, we find: “died as disbelievers” (mata ala-al kufr)”

Shaykh Haddad continues: The erudite scholar al-Kawthari noted that the word fitra can be easily altered to read kufr in Kufic Arabic calligraphy. It is highly probable, therefore, that the copy with “died according to pristine disposition” was changed to “died disbelievers.” The original reading implies that the Greatest Imam was arguing against those who adduce the hadith; “My father and your father are both in Hellfire.” (pg 57) 

 

So now let us think about this claim.

The text could read:

did not die as disbelievers/did not die in pristine disposition

or

could read died as disbelievers/died according to pristine disposition.

 

Now we can’t assume that the version that Shaykh Hadad prefers is the original version.  Especially if it simply a copyist error. However, something that was not pondered upon at all is the possibility of forgery.  The reason I believe this was not discussed is that to discuss forgery we need to discuss a motive.   We have a high motive for someone to change the text from disbeliever to pristine disposition. However, what possible motive would any Muslim have for changing the text from pristine disposition to disbeliever?     

 

Let us look at some other evidence that shows contrary to what some people desire that relatives of the Blessed Messenger (saw) were indeed people who do not make it to paradise. 

“The daughter of Abu Lahab, Subay’a came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said, “Messenger of Allah!”  The people are calling me the daughter of the Fuel of the Hellfire! The Messenger of Allah (saw) stood angry and said on the pulpit:  “What is the matter with the people that harm me in my relatives? Whoever harms my relatives harms me, and whoever harms me has harmed Allah!”  Source: (Narrated from Ibn ‘Umar, Abu Hurayra, and Ammar bin Yasir by Ibn Abi ‘Asim in al-Ahad wal-Mathani (5:470 & 3165).

 

 

“May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.” (Qur’an 111:1)

Did Allah (swt) find it insensitive to name someone’s father as a resident of hellfire? 

Ali himself said that Abu Bakr is the only Companion to have both parents, Abu Quhafa and Umm al-Khayr enter Islam. 

Source (Aisha by Malik in Muwatta, Ibn Sa’d (3:194-195) Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan al-Kubra (6:169-170 & 11728, 6:178 & 11784, 6:257 & 12267, Abd Al-Razzaq (9;101) , Al-Tahawi in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar (4:880, Istiab (4:1807), Nasb (2:630), al-Lalika’i in Karamat al-Awliya (p 117), al-Mizzi in Tadhib al-Kamal (35:380) and Muhhib al-Din al-Tabari in al-Riyad al-Nadira (2:122-123 & 576)

 

Narrated by Al Musaiyab                                                                                                                      

“When Abu Talib’s death approached, the Prophet went to him while Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya were present with him. The Prophet said, “O uncle, say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, so that I may argue for your case with it before Allah.” On that, Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah bin Abu Umaiya said, “O Abu Talib! Do you want to renounce ‘Abdul Muttalib’s religion?” Then the Prophet said, “I will keep on asking (Allah for) forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden to do so.” Then there was revealed: ‘It is not fitting for the Prophet and those who believe that they should invoke (Allah) for forgiveness for pagans even though they are of kin after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the Fire.’ (9.113)”   Source: (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 197)

The point being is that all of these groups and factions you are hard-pressed to find anyone to be consistent. People will attack Shaykh Nasir Ad-Deen Al Abani (r) because he said that Bukhari itself was bound to have mistakes. 

However, the same people in my humble opinion apply double standards. They use their own presuppositions to evaluate the truthfulness of a text even if it said hadith is within the category of something deemed ‘sahih’ -sound!

“O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do?”  (Qur’an 61:2)

 

It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Qur’an 9:113)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized