“Behold, We revealed this (Qur’an) on the Night of Power.” (Qur’an 97:1)
﷽
May Allah bless us and grant us forgiveness, mercy, guidance, closeness to Allah (swt) and overflowing love for his Messenger (saw). We, at Prima-Qur’an are thankful you all are here.
Welcome to all the newcomers!!
May Allah continue to bless and guide you and us. Remember all the oppressed wherever they are in this world. Please keep us in your du’a this month. Please forgive our shortcomings. From our ‘s to your heart ‘s
Our du’a for you this Ramadan is that Allah (swt) grants you many openings and many beautiful resolutions to any and all challenges you may be facing.
We can only du’a that Allah is pleased with us all, considers us among the obedient slaves; that we are all spoken well of by Allah swt’s Angels and we all are protected and comforted by them; that our loved one be blessed ameen
{space for Nurul, Haider, ‘Abdullah to share their thoughts}
*The Grace of Ramadan*
Ramadan as Allah said is the month of the Qur’an, and Allah exalted commanded the believer to fast during this month, but contrary to what most people believe, fasting is not about abstaining from eating and drinking only, but fasting is abstaining from everything that Allah forbids, The Blessed Prophet (saw) said: “Backbiting breaks the fast and Wudu'”, and said: “No fasting except by abstaining from the prohibitions of Allah” and based on this we conclude that the importance of Ramadan is not just in abstaining from food and drink, but Ramadan is an entire school in patience and purification, the prophet peace be upon him said signifying the grace of Ramadan: “Who ever fasts Ramadan with faith and hope of retribution, his former sins will be forgiven, and if you knew the virtues of Ramadan you will wish it lasted a year”.
———————
*Ignorance of the religion*
Ignorance is not an excuse in the religion after obligation
Obligation in this context is directing the commands and prohibitions to the creature by his creator, and it has three conditions:
1- Intellect
2- Puberty
3- Establishing the argument
The argument is the proof, if someone meets the conditions then he is not excused for his ignorance, in addition to these conditions, there is “the absence of deterrent”, meaning: to be able to do what Allah commanded you to do, as Allah says: “Allah does not require of any soul more than what it can afford”.
Another aspect of this topic is the importance of seeking knowledge in Islam, Allah says: ” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Are those who know equal to those who do not know?” None will be mindful ˹of this˺ except people of reason.” and the prophet peace be upon him said: “whoever Allah wants his goodness will give him knowledge in the religion” and said: “whoever purses a path seeking knowledge, Allah will make his path to paradise easier”.
———————
*Breaking the fast intentionally and unintentionally*
1- If someone unintentionally breaks his fast by forgetting and eating for example, he should continue his fasting and he doesn’t have to redo that day later
2- If someone intentionally breaks his fast by eating, drinking, having intimacy…etc, he has to redo that day after Ramadan and has to perform Kafarah Mughalladah, which is to free a slave or fast two months, and if he can’t then to feed 60 poor people.
“They ask you what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are all things good and pure: and what you have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)
﷽
This is written to show that the practice of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is that dogs are pure in Islam, and this is the way of many Muslims all over the world until today. It is possible that outsiders of Islam have the perspective that the view that dogs are ritually unclean is due to the fact that one of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence (The Hanafi school) is also the most prevalanet Islamic school. This is also the position of other Islamic schools.
This blog entry will attempt to show the validity of those of us who hold that dogs are pure. By using the primary and secondary sources of Islam. It will also show the inconsistency of the views opposed to this understanding, as well as common objections to this view, usually by citing oral traditions.
Some people who have been brought up and trained their whole lives to hear that dogs are not tahir (clean or pure) are going to have to rethink what they were taught in light of the evidence presented.
Imam Ash-Shawkaani (rahimahullah) states in his masterpiece: “Nayl Al-Awtaar Sharh Muntaqaa Al-Akhbaar” the following:
It has been attributed to the Prophet Muhammed (saw)
“From Abu Hurayrah who said that Rasulullah (alayhis salaam) said, “When a dog licks one of your vessels (e.g. bowl), apply dirt to it and then wash the vessel seven times.”
[Says Shawkaani]: And this narration also proves that the dog is najaasah (impure)…and the Jumhoor (majority) hold this opinion. And ‘Ikrimah and Malik in a report from him ,state ,“Verily it is Taahir (pure)”. And their proof is the statement of Allah ta’alaa,
(Say: lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)
Another proof is what is established in Abu Dawud from the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar with the words, “Dogs would come freely into the masjid and urinate in the time of the Rasulullah (‘alayhis salaam), and they would not pour water over it (i.e. the urine).”
[Note that Ibn Hajr states this occurred before doors were put on the masjids and the command to keep them clean was established.This is the opinion of a Shafi’i and not that of the Maalikis] – End quote from Nayl Al-Awtaar.
The Shafi’i Judge and Jurist Qadhi As-Safadi states, “Malik says that dogs are pure and what they lick is not made impure, but that a vessel licked by a dog should be washed to avoid filth.”
The following quotes are statements from Imam Malik as reported in the Mudawwanah of Imam Malik regarding the dog:
“One may eat what it catches in a hunt. How then can we declare Makrooh (hated or disliked) what it drinks (or places its tongue in).” (page 116)
Malik said, “If one desires to make wudhu’ from a vessel wherein a dog has drunk (or put its tongue in), it is OK for him to make wudhu’ from it and pray.” (pg 115)
Malik said, “If a dog puts his tongue in a vessel of milk (labn) there is no harm (la ba’as) if one takes (i.e. eats) from that milk.” (ibid)
Note that there are many other quotes from him within Volume 1 of the Mudawwana regarding the purity of the dog. We have chosen these only as a sample. Source: (Vol. 1 published by Daar Al Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah published in 2005 CE)
The Maliki Faqih (jurist consult) of Andalus, Ibn Rushd states in his “Bidayatul-Mujtahid”,
“Malik held the view that the leftovers of a dog should be spilled, and the utensil should be washed, as it is a ritual act of non-rational worship, because the water that it has lapped up is not unclean (najas). He did not require, according to the widely known opinion from him, the spilling of things other than water, which a dog had licked. The reason, as we have said, is the conflict with analogy, according to him. He also believed that, if it is to be understood from the tradition that a dog is unclean, it opposes the apparent meaning of the Book, that is, the words of Allah ta’alaa, “So eat what they catch for you…” meaning thereby that if the dog had been unclean the prey would become unclean by the touch of the dog’s (mouth). He supported this interpretation by the required number of washings, as number is not a condition in the washing of unclean things. He held that this washing was merely an act of worship. He did not rely upon the remaining traditions as they were weak, in his view.”
Source: (pg 27 published by Garnet; also see Al-Hidayah of Imam Al-Ghumaari Vol. 1 page 288 for a detailed discussion of the chains of narration)
This narration is reported by Imam Muslim in his Sahih 89/279 as well as by An-Nasaa’i hadith number 66
Source: Taken from “The Mercy in the Difference of the Four Sunni Schools of Islamic Law” translated by ‘A’ishah Bewley, printed by Dar-al-taqwa. Page 4
May we turn our attention to the hadith again, which seems to bring a lot of misunderstanding in relation to dogs in Islam.
“When a dog licks one of your vessels (e.g. bowl), apply dirt to it and then wash the vessel seven times.”
We would encourage the reader to look at the following information ,and then we would like to comment about this as well.
The hadith above that requires us to wash the utensil licked by a dog seven times is pretty much explained away as follows:
First, if it is done with the intention in the heart to obey the Messenger (saw), then it counts as worship, Furthermore, as Ibn Rush stated, the fact that the washing is a set number of times is a proof that this constitutes a ritual act of worship.
Second, the command for us to perform this action is purely for hygienic reasons and has nothing do with ritual purity. It’s a leap of reasoning to connect the command to ritual purity.
Modern science is testament to the fact that there are certain strains of bacteria in dog saliva which are not part of the human normal flora. If a container licked by a dog is left unwashed (especially in hot climate regions), it provides a fertile breeding ground in which those bacteria will multiply at geometric rates and render the container useless thereafter. Thus, the command to wash the container is purely a medical precaution.
And similar to what was alluded to in Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd, this only applies to containers which contain water. Containers which contain other useful contents are not to be discarded and washed.
Overall, it appears as if Imam Malik had high respect and esteem for dogs. They had a special status with him, unlike any other animal, as the following excerpt from the Mudawanna shows us:
Regarding ablution with the leftovers of animals, chickens, and dogs: [Ibn Al Qasim] said: I asked Malik about the leftovers of donkeys and mules and Malik said: There is no problem with them. I [Sahnun] said: Did you see if he communicated regarding anything other than such? Ibn Al-Qasim said: it and others beside it are equal. Ibn Al-Qasim said: And Malik said: There is no problem with the sweat of the horse, mule, or donkey; Ibn Al-Qasim further added, and Malik retorted: In the container that contains water licked by a dog with which a man makes wudu? Ibn Al Qasim said: Malik Said: If he makes wudu with it and subsequently performs salah, then this is permitted. Ibn Al Qasim said: And [Malik] does not see the dog like other animals. Ibn Al Qasim Said: Malik Said: If those repugnant species of birds and predatory animals drink from the water container, one is not to make wudu with that container. Ibn Al Qasim said: And Malik said: If a dog licks a container which contains milk, then there is no problem with consuming that milk. I [Sahnun] said: Did Malik use to say wash the container seven times when the dog licks inside the container? Ibn Al Qasim Said: Malik Said: This tradition has definitely come to us and I do not know its truth/authenticity. Ibn Al Qasim said: And it is as if (Malik) viewed the dog as if the dog was a member of the household (Ahl Al-Bayt) and that it was not like other predatory beasts, and Malik used to say: the container is not washed of margarine or milk and what the dog licked from that IS to be eaten, and I see it as an enormity to purposefully intend (waste) towards the bounty from the bounty of God and discard what the dog licked.
Here is something that we would like to ask people.
Let us say that, indeed, we did witness a dog lick from a dish that we left on a carpeted area and then this dish was washed 6 or 7 times and with earth as well. How many of you would actually drink this dish afterward?
Not many, which is exactly our point!
People are trying to make the halal (permissible) into the haram (forbidden). Now you want to make the whole of the contents and the dish unusable?
Case in point: The Shaf’i School of jurisprudence.
People who are not aware that Shaf’i critiqued Imam Malik have not read or are unfamiliar with the Shaf’i corpus known as Al-Risala (The Message).
Thus, as history has it,Imam Shaf’i’ and his critique of Imam Malik would not go unanswered.
MALIKI SCHOLAR IBN AL LABBAD’S REFUTATION OF IMAM SHAF’I
The following information is taken from a small tract in which a Sunni Maliki scholar, Ibn Al Labbad, gave full response to Shaf’i. This is where we will take our information from, since it critiques the Shaf’i view on the matter.
The following is titled:
Kitab fihi radd(u) Abi Bakr ibn Muhammed ala Muhammed ibn Idris Al-Shaf’i fi munqadaati qawlihi wa fima qala bihi min al-tahdid fi mas’ail qalaha khalfa fiha al-Kitab wal-sunna (A treatise containing Abu Bakr Muhammed’s refutation of Muhammed Ibn Idris Al-Shaf’i for the latter’s self contradictions and his arbitrariness in setting legal limits in matters regarding which his doctrine violated the Book and the Sunnah).
Al’Shaf’i added, however, that both the vessels and their contents were rendered ritually impure.
This extrapolation drew heavy criticism from Ibn Al-Labbad, who argued that while the Prophet (saw) ruled that vessels from which dogs had drunk had to be washed seven times; he never stated that either the vessels or their contents were ritually impure. This was simply al-Shaf’is invention, according to Ibn al-Labbad, which he concocted on the basis of his own ra’y (reasoning) and then injected into the hadith. That al-Shaf’i’s position was deficient could be easily proved by reference to the Qur’an, where there are verses permitting the eating of game seized by hunting dogs. (Qur’an chapter 5:4)
To make matters worse, Ibn al-Labbad cites Al-Shafi’is argument to the effect that neither the vessels nor their contents were rendered ritually impure if such contents exceeded two qullas in volume, since, according to al-Shaf’i, anything more than two qullas was not subject to ritual impurity.
On this view, he ends up, according to Ibn al-Labbad completely undermining the Prophet’s rule. On the one hand, he holds vessels from which dogs have drunk but which contain more than two qullas not to require ritual washing, while the Prophet (saw) stated explicitly that whenever a dog laps from a vessel it is to be washed seven times. On the other hand, he holds the contents of vessels containing less than two qullas to be ritually impure, while the Prophet himself never designated them as such.
At first blush, it might appear that ibn Al-Labbad is donning the Shaf’i-inspired robe of Zahirism in order to slam the door to logical inference in Al-Shaf’is face. But this turns out not to be altogether true. Ibn al-Labbad is not saying al-Shaf’i is wrong for attempting to understand the underlying implications of the Prophet’s command but merely that the results of this attempt were flawed.
For while it may be reasonable to assume a connection between the command to wash vessels and the status of their contents, the Prophet made it clear, according to Ibn al-Labbad, that dogs drinking from vessels constitute a sui generis category. As proof, he cites instances as the Bedouin who urinated in the mosque and the infant who relieved himself on the Prophet’s lap. In neither case did the Prophet order a seven-fold washing. This, according to Ibn al-Labbad, clearly indicated that urine and other ritually impure substances constituted one category. Meanwhile, vessels from which dogs have lapped constitute another. The two issues, in other words, were simply unrelated, and Al-Shaf’i was misguided in extending the logic of ritual impurity to vessels from which dogs had lapped and their contents.
Once again, however, Ibn al-Labbad case would not end there. Al Shaf’i had extended the ruling on dogs drinking from vessels to pigs, arguing that ‘if pigs were not worse than dogs, they were certainly no better than them.’ This, argued Ibn Al Labbad was pure ra’y, for the validity of which Al-Shaf’i had provided no textual proof. Similarly, regarding the use of earth for the first or last cleansing of vessels, Al Shafi’i held that if one was unable to find earth (turab), one could use something that functions like earth,
e.g., potash or the like. Yet, when it came to tayammun, al Shaf’i flatly disallowed these things, insisting instead on the use of pure earth (turab). All of this went to show, according to Ibn Al-Labbad, just how inconsistent and arbitrary Al-Shafi could be. In the end none of this was based upon information related on the authority of the Prophet (saw).
Source: (“Setting the Record Straight: Ibn al-Labbād’s Refutation of al-Shāfiʿī” (published in the Journal of Islamic Studies), Sherman A. Jackson analyzes the critiques leveled by the 10th-century Maliki jurist Muhammad b. Idrīs al-Labbād (d. 333/944) against Imam al-Shāfiʿī)
This is an intra-Sunni critique. A scholar of the Maliki School of jurisprudence giving a rebuttal to the founding jurist of one of Sunni Islam’s most prominent schools of jurisprudence.
Now let us take a look at the contradictory hadith reports concerning dogs in various situations and see if we can make sense of all of this.
The Hadith should be understood in light of the Qur’an and the practice of the Sunnah that was orally transmitted and practiced by the masses of Muslims across all cities and regions.
So first let us take a look at what the Qur’an itself says concerning dogs.
There are three places where the Qur’an mentions dogs.
“They ask you what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are all things good and pure: and what you have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)
“This is of the signs of Allah. He whom Allah guides, he is on the right way; and whom He leaves in error, you will not find for him a friend to guide aright. And you might think them awake while they were asleep, and We turned them about to the right and to the left with their dog outstretching its paws at the entrance. If you did look at them, you would turn back from them in flight, and you would be filled with awe because of them. And thus did We rouse them that they might question each other. A speaker from among them said: How long have you tarried? They said: We have tarried for a day or a part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. Now send one of you with this silver (coin) of yours to the city, then let him see what food is purest, and bring you provision from it, and let him behave with gentleness, and not make your case known to anyone. For if they prevail against you, they would stone you to death or force you back to their religion, and then you would never succeed. And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them, that they might know that Allah’s promise is true and that the Hour — there is no doubt about it. When they disputed among themselves about their affair and said: Erect an edifice over them. Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed in their affair said: We shall certainly build a place of worship over them.(Some) say: (They were) three, the fourth of them their dog; and (others) say: Five, the sixth of them their dog, making conjectures about the unseen. And (others) say: Seven, and the eighth of them their dog. Say: My Lord best knows their number — none knows them but a few. So contend not in their matter but with an outward contention, and question not any of them concerning them. And say not of anything: I will do that tomorrow, Unless Allah please. And remember your Lord when you forget and say: Maybe my Lord will guide me to a nearer course to the right than this. And they remained in their cave three hundred years, and they add nine. Say: Allah knows best how long they remained. His is the unseen of the heavens and the earth. How clear His sight and His hearing! There is no guardian for them beside Him, and He associates none in His judgment.” (Qur’an 18:9-26)
The question from reading this is why would a dog be worthy of mention in the last revelation given to humanity if it is such an unclean and impure animal? These are the questions that need to be answered.
However, here is a passage from the Qur’an that compares the behavior of dogs to some people who reject faith.
“Thus, If it had been Our Will, We should have elevated him Our Signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our Signs, so relate the story, perchance they may reflect.”(Qur’an 7:176)
Can you see this verse giving explicit command to attack dogs? No! It simply says that ‘IF’ you were to attack him, this dog is going to behave in the same way even if you let him be. This is the only thing that we could see in the Qur’an portraying the dog in a negative light. Yet the similitude is more directed at mankind than it is making any statement about dogs.
THE AHADITH AND DOGS
Allah forgave a prostitute her sins because she gave water to a dying dog.
Allah’s Messenger (saw) is reported to have said, “A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tied it with her head-cover. She drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that.”
Of course, this means that the woman was sincere in repenting for her sins and this action, coupled with her repenting of her sins, became a source of mercy for her.
Question: If dogs are so vile and evil, why was a prostitute forgiven by Allah because of showing this act of mercy and kindness to the animal?
TheBlessed Prophet is reported to have said, ‘A man felt very thirsty while he was on the way, there he came across a well, He went down the well, quenched his thirst and came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. He said to himself, “This dog is suffering from thirst as I did.” So, he went down the well again and filled his shoe with water and watered it. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him. The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals? He replied: Yes, there is a reward for serving any living being.”
Question: If dogs are so vile and evil, why would Allah thank a man for the act of kindness that he showed this particular animal?
The Blessed Prophet (saw) is reported to have said, “A man saw a dog eating mud because of the severity of thirst. So, that man took a shoe and filled it with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him enter Paradise.”
And narrated Hamza bin ‘Abdullah: My father said. “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, the dogs used to urinate and pass through the mosque (come and go), nevertheless they used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog.)”
Narrated Salim’s father: “Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, “We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.”
Prima Qur’an Comment: This is not a command not to keep dogs but simply that they should have seperate areas from where people reside.
Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Whoever acquires a dog other than a sheepdog or hunting dog, will have two qirats deducted from the reward of his good actions every day.”
It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allah ibn Umar said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Whoever keeps a dog, except a dog for herding livestock or a dog that is trained for hunting; two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day.”
It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (saw) said,“Whoever keeps a dog, except a dog for herding, hunting or farming, one qiraat will be deducted from his reward each day.”
In a hadeeth narrated by Ibn ‘Umar, The Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever keeps a dog which is neither a watch dog nor a hunting dog, will get a daily deduction of two Qiraat from his good deeds.”
Prima Qur’an Comment: The above hadith mentions that the dog should have a utility. Thus, it has been argued by some scholars that seeing eye dogs that help blind people are utility dogs. Dogs that guard the home and property from would-be attackers and thieves are utility dogs. Animals can also generate soothing effects that relieve high blood pressure in people.
IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO KEEP A DOG TO GUARD HOUSES?
Al-Nawawi said: “There is a difference of opinion about whether it is permissible to keep dogs for purposes other than three, such as guarding houses and roads. The most correct view is that it is permissible by analogy with these three and based on the reason that it is to be understood from the hadith, which is based upon necessity. ”
Source: (Sharh Muslim, 10/236)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
If we look at all the hadith evidence above, something becomes very obvious and that there is not an explicit prohibition on keeping a dog as a pet.
There are reports that talk about one or two good deeds being removed from a person who keeps a dog other than for the purpose of (hunting, sheepdog, guard dog, guards live stock, guarding family).
So, for example, a person may get a poodle and claim that it is for guarding the family and this may be an unlikely scenario. However, dogs also make noise when there is intrusion, and they serve their purpose to guard human lives.
The former United States of America (under the Zionist occupation) has one of the highest percentages of gun ownership out of any populace on earth. Think of how many people have access to guns in the family. Many people may agree that it is more safe to have a dog securing the parameters of the house, protecting and guarding the family than it is to own a gun.
Again, there is no prohibition against owning a dog in one’s home. Simply saying that rewards are moved for keeping a dog for an intention other than serving some use is also not a prohibition.
Even if a person said it was their intention to keep a dog simply for the purpose of entertainment, the traditionalist may consider that person to be negligent.
Today, in the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, West Africa, Oman and places where the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is practiced and maintained with vigilance, we find that people keep dogs as pets.
Blind people also need dogs as a part of their life to help protect and guide them. The issue of angels not entering houses is because the presence of a dog is not because the dog is impure. The dog is pure in the ‘law’ of Islam. If the angels did not enter because the dog was not pure, then the angels would not enter houses and mosques (masjids) because of the presence of toilets.
You can also find a hadith that has been narrated that includes the phrase (except the angel of death) which should raise an eyebrow. Most likely, if angels never entered an abode where a dog was present, this would mean the angel of death and thus a person could be guaranteed eternal life on the basis of keeping a dog as a pet!
So you will find the above hadith to include the exception (except the angel of death).
Those who are still opposed to dogs, namely the Shaf’i and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence, are really going to have to rethink their positions in today’s world that we live in. What works for the Shaf’i in Somalia and for the Hanafi in India and Pakistan is not going to work in New York City, London or Minneapolis, where a man or woman may get into a cab with his or her seeing eye dog.
Not only that, but angels ‘not entering the house’ should be pondered over due to the fact that many people live in apartment complexes, so what would actually constitute a house? Could an angel be in your apartment while your neighbor has a loud barking dog? These questions have to be answered to keep people from doing extreme things or taking issues out of context.
The hadith about Angel Gabriel not entering the house where Prophet Muhammed (saw) was because he had a female dog under his bed with puppies needs to be taken into context with all the other information that is given.
DIDN’T THE BLESSED PROPHET MUHAMMED (SAW) ORDER DOGS TO BE KILLED?
“Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Whoever acquires a dog other than a sheepdog or hunting dog will have two qirats deducted from the reward of his good actions every day.”
Without going into the various hadeeth that talk about the killing of dogs, the two statements above alone will suffice.
Why?
They suffice because Imam Malik, the ‘founder’ of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, related both ahadith, but he understood the practice. He did not take ahadith (lone narrator reports) in isolation as do many Muslims today.
He is taking the whole of the practice as it was orally mass transmitted and practiced by the people of his city in Madinah.
The reports about killing dogs seem to be in the context of a mass outbreak of some virus, rabies, scabies, ring worm and Allah knows best!
If you have actually seen a dog with a severe case of the mange or scabies, it is a very sad sight to behold.
The point is that the Muwatta of Imam Malik (quoted above) and the views he holds and transmits from the people of Madinah and those before him is that dogs are not to be killed.
We hope Muslims will better understand Islam. This is why we ask Muslims that it is imperative for them to take the Qur’an and the mass transmitted practice over the Hadith.
The vast majority of Muslims, YouTube Preachers, and even those who have taken ‘alim courses are not very well grounded in Islamic jurisprudence. Also, when it comes to Hadith transmission, it was never meant to be understood in isolation as it is being done today.
One of Imam Malik’s major shaykhs, Rab’a Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman, nicked named Rabi’a al-Ra’y, stated: “I will take a thousand from a thousand before I will take one from one, because that one from one can strip the practice out of your hands.”
If the Muslims insist on taking hadith (one from one) in isolation over the practice (mass transmitted tradition), then we will continue to be a source of embarrassment and rage.
We leave you with the following story in which an old blind man was denied entry on a bus because of the ignorance of us Muslims.
“He is the One Who made the sun a radiant source and the moon a reflected light, with precisely ordained phases, so that you may know the number of years and calculation ˹of time˺. Allah did not create all this except for a purpose. He makes the signs clear for people of knowledge.” (Qur’an 10:5)
“Indeed, in the alternation of the night and the day and [in] what Allāh has created in the heavens and the earth are signs for a people who fear Allāh.” (Qur’an 10:6)
(Ramaḍan is the month (shahru) in which the Quran was revealed as a guide for humanity with clear proofs of guidance and the decisive authority.” (Qur’an 2:185)
Say, “Have you considered: if Allah should make for you the night continuous until the Day of Resurrection, what deity other than Allah could bring you light? Then will you not hear? Say, “Have you considered: if Allah should make for you the day continuousuntil the Day of Resurrection, what deity other than Allah could bring you a night in which you may rest? Then will you not see?” (Qur’an 28:71-72)
﷽
Subhan’Allah!
“And He is the One Who spread out the earth and placed firm mountains and rivers upon it, and created fruits of every kind in pairs. He covers the day with night. Surely these are signs for those who reflect.” (Qur’an 13:3)
“Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of day and night, there are signs for people of reason.” (Qur’an 3: 190)
“Will they then not reflect on the Qur’an, or are there locks on the hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)
If you are a teacher, you can easily give your student the answer to a question. However, it is much more fulfilling, not necessarily for the teacher but for the student to give the student the tools needed to find the answer.
We often expect that we can open the Qur’an, this chapter of that verse and find the answer. However, Allah (swt) has asked us to ponder upon the Qur’an. Simultaneously, Allah (swt) has asked us to ponder upon natural phenomena.
When is the last time any of us have reflected upon time? When is the last time anyone of us has reflected upon the calendar? The nature of the calendar. Who invented the calendar? What purpose does the calendar serve? Why is there a solar calendar and a lunar calendar? What is the difference between the two?
Please take some time to research this.
Now, we want to propose a thought experiment. Let us suppose that we are a people who live in the circumpolar arctic. All we know is 6 months of darkness and then 6 months of light.
Between a solar calendar and a lunar calendar, which of the two are we most likely to invent on our own based upon observable phenomena? We will give you a huge clue. The question is a trick question.
If today you were to travel to the circumpolar arctic and ask the people what day it is today. They would say that today is 4/4/2024 on the Julian calendar (a solar calendar).
If we ran into any Muslims they would say 24 of Ramadan 1445 (a lunar calendar).
Yet if we pressed them on this: Where did you get this information from? The most obvious answer would be the calendar. Yes, but where did they get this information from?
In other words, the concept of time that we find in the circumpolar arctic is not intrinsic to the people of that region. We have searched and not found any archeological evidence of the people of that region developing a calendar or a system independent of the solar or lunar calendars that are used by people the world over. You could say in a sense (forgive the pun) they are frozen in time. Though we know that this is not the case.
The point is that their concept of a month is not intrinsic to that region. Their reality is taken from the people nearest to them. Those who they had contact with. Those who migrated to those regions with this concept of time.
“And eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread at dawn. Then complete the fast until the night. And do not have relations with them as long as you are staying for worship in the masjid.These are the limits [set by] Allah, so do not exceed them. Thus does Allāh make clear His verses to the people that they may become righteous.” (Qur’an 2:187)
There are a few interesting highlights from this verse.
A) Eat and drink until the white thread/black thread becomes clear at fajr (dawn).
B) Then complete the fast at night (al-layli) (not maghrib) — this is because maghrib* in Arabic is a euphemism for “sunset” and or “west”. It, too, can be used to describe heavy, thick darkness (Qur’an 35:27) (al-layli encompasses maghrib), which is because layl begins at sunset.
*To clarify you fast until maghrib because it is the night. As has been mentioned, al-layli encompasses maghrib. In English, people say nightfall, which is another word for sunset.
“Do you not see that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and We produce thereby fruits of varying colors? And in the mountains are tracts, white and red of varying shades and [some] (wagharabibu) extremely black.” (Qur’an 35:27)
C) Those are Allah’s limits: keep well within them.
D) Allah makes clear his ayat (verses/signs) to people.
(Ramaḍân is the month (shahru) in which the Quran was revealed as a guide for humanity with clear proofs of guidance and the decisive authority.” (Qur’an 2:185)
So, what is a shahr? A month is 29/30 days according to lunar calculations.
“He is the One Who made the sun a radiant source and the moon a reflected light, with precisely ordained phases, so that you may know the number of years and calculation ˹of time˺. Allah did not create all this except for a purpose. He makes the signs clear for people of knowledge.” (Qur’an 10:5)
This verse also proves to us that time is not absolute. However, to have a functioning society, Allah (swt) has given us time relative to celestial bodies.
“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 so 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)
Months are used to calculate many aspects of Islamic law.
“Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve months in the register of Allah(kitabi-l-lahi), the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous.” (Qur’an 9:36)
What is very interesting is that we have a template given to us by Allah (swt). This template is used for many aspects of Islamic law.
“And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – for their wives is a bequest: maintenance for one year without turning them out. But if they leave , then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable way. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 2:240)
” And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – they, [the wives, shall] wait four months and ten days. And when they have fulfilled their term, then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable manner. And Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” (Qur’an 2:234)
“It is not lawful for a believer to kill another except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer unintentionally must free a believing slave and pay blood-money to the victim’s family—unless they waive it charitably. But if the victim is a believer from a hostile people, then a believing slave must be freed. And if the victim is from a people bound with you in a treaty, then blood-money must be paid to the family along with freeing a believing slave. Those who are unable, let them fast two consecutive months—as a means of repentance to Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise” (Qur’an 4:92)
This same template can be used anywhere on Earth as well as anywhere we travel in the stars. For example, let us say, for the sake of discussion, that it is feasible to live on Venus.
A day on Venus lasts for 243 Earth days or 5,832 hours! However, if we traveled to Venus we would travel with the flow of time relative to us. We would take our conceptual model of time with us.
So, for example: let us say that we left Earth on the 4th of April 2024. Let us say it takes 30 ‘earth days’ as that would be the unit of measure. When we arrive, it will be the 4th of May 2024. In all of our logs and journals we will record events relative to Earth UT (Universal time).
Of course, all the variables, via the science of mathematics, can be worked out with regard to method and mode of travel, the speed at which one was traveling and so forth.
The important point is that we have a template!
(Ramaḍân is the month (shahru) in which the Quran was revealed as a guide for humanity with clear proofs of guidance and the decisive authority.” (Qur’an 2:185)
“Believers! Fasting is enjoined upon you, as it was enjoined upon those before you, that you become righteous. Fasting is for a fixed number of days, and if one of you be sick, or if one of you be on a journey, you will fast the same number of other days later on. For those who are capable of fasting there is a redemption: feeding a needy man for each day missed. Whoever voluntarily does more good than is required, will find it better for him; and that you should fast is better for you, if you only know. During the month of Ramadan the Qur’an was sent down as a guidance to the people with Clear Signs of the true guidance and as the Criterion (between right and wrong). So those of you who live to see that month should fast it, and whoever is sick or on a journey should fast the same number of other days instead. Allah wants ease and not hardship for you so that you may complete the number of days required, magnify Allah for what He has guided you to, and give thanks to Him.) (Qur’an 2:183-185)
Fasting is enjoined us.
Those who live to see that month (Ramadan) should fast.
Complete the number of days
If sick or on a journey fast the same number on other days.
Fasting is for a fixed number of days.
“And eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread at of dawn. Then complete the fast until the night . And do not have relations with them as long as you are staying for worship in the masjid. These are the limits [set by] Allah, so do not exceed them. Thus does Allāh make clear His verses to the people that they may become righteous.” (Qur’an 2:187)
We can eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct from the black thread at dawn.
We complete the fast at night, which begins at sunset.
We know those are the limits (template) set by Allah.
Allah makes his signs/verses clear.
We know that the concept of time that we find in the circumpolar arctic is not intrinsic to the people of that region. That they (those 10 million souls) in the circumpolar arctic follow the template of time to those near to them. It makes logical sense that they follow the template of fasting to those nearest to them with a true ‘sunrise’ and true ‘sunset’.
Just as a blind person would be dependent upon the one who can see to navigate for them. Thus, Allah (swt) creates relationships both dependent and inter-dependent.
It is actually a template that could theoretically be brought to other planets and/or star systems.
The other point we found fascinating is this. Everything is relative to our perception of things. As mentioned in another article if the Qur’an wording things differently we would have been accused of being flat earthers.
“And hold firmly together to the rope of Allah and do not be divided. Remember Allah’s favour upon you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts, so you—by His grace—became brothers. And you were at the brink of a fiery pit and He saved you from it. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so that you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.” (Qur’an 3:103)
﷽
As they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
Like any school of Islam of course we believe that our school is upon haqq. Yet our scholars study and take from the works of the great scholars across all schools. That is because we firmly believe on this verse:
“He gives wisdom to whom He chooses, and whoever is given wisdom is blessed abundantly. But only insightful people bear this in mind.” (Qur’an 2:269)
We want more cooperation and harmony among the Muslim Ummah. We want Muslims to work together to solve the challenges confronting this Ummah.
ونحن لا نطالب العباد
فوق شهادتيهم اعتقاداً
فمن اتى بالجملتين قلنا
إخواننا وبالحقوق قمنا
إلا إذا ما نقضوا المقالا
أو أحدثوا في دينهم ضلالا
قمنا نبين الصواب لهم
ونحسبن ذاك من حقهم
And we do not obligate over servants[of Allah] over their shahada any belief. Whoever came with the two testimonies we say our brothers and we treat them with their rights, unless they break the religion; or they created in their religion an error. Than we will show the truth to them, and we will consider this their right.
Source: (From the poem كشف الحقيقة لمن جهل الطريقة for Imam Noor Al-Deen Al-Salemi) -May Allah have abundant mercy on him.
Sheikh Ahmad bin Hamad Al-Khalili أحمد بن حمد الخليليSheikh Ahmad bin Hamad Al-Khalili أحمد بن حمد الخليلي
A special prayer meet was organised at Markazu Saquafathi Sunniyya for Sultan Qaboos Bin Said. Grand Mufti of India مفتي جمهورية الهند led the prayer and he requested all believers in India to pray for Sultan Qaboos Bin Said at Mosques and Madrasas.
Under the leadership of Umar bin Abdul-Aziz the Ibadi school sent a group of six great scholars, J’afer bin A’Simak, Abu AlHur Ali bin AlHusain Al’Anbri, AlHattat bin Kateb, AlHabab bin Kulaib, Abu Suyan Qanber AlBasri, and Salim bin Thakwan among other unnamed scholars,(May Allah have his mercy upon them all)
Non-Ibadi historians mentioned these delegates to Umar bin Abdul-Aziz though they said with their usual insinuation: “The Khawarij sent him a delegation”. However, they did not mention what happened between them and the Caliph Umar and his acceptance of all their suggestions about spreading justice and purging the country of the Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali from the pulpit. The Ibadi delegation said to Umar, “Muslims are cursing from pulpits in mosques, so this evil tradition must be changed”. Thus, Umar replaced it with the words of Allah:
“Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that you remember”, (Qur’an 16: 90)
May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.
May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“Is there any reward for goodness except goodness? (Qur’an 55:60)
﷽
First we would like to share the video by brother Hatim for Ramadan day 29. As people know Muslims use the lunar calendar. Thus, Ramadan is 29 or 30 days.
*Eid prayer and Sunan of Eid* Firstly we send our greetings and congratulations for finishing this dense educational spiritual course which is Ramadan, now that it’s done we as Muslims should be happy in these blessed days of Eid, and a good quote we found: “Eid is exiting Ramadan not existing Islam”
Thus, we should always keep on remembering Allah and following the Sunnah of his Blessed Prophet (saw).
There are Sunnan and etiquettes we should follow for Eid: – To give the obligatory Zakat Al fitr, which we mentioned its rulings prior – Ghusl, brushing, and using perfumes and being in your best form – Eating before going to prayer – Walking to the Eid prayer location while changing the path when going and returning – To perform the prayer outside the city in an outdoor prayer hall – Saying the Takbir when going to pray – Exchanging congratulations for the worship in ramadan and for Eid – Visiting family – Giving charity, bringing joy to kids, and Halal playing and singing
Some rulings related to Eid: – It’s not allowed to fast Eid – You should pray before Eid prayer or after, except if you did the Eid prayer in a mosque so you pray two Rak’as before sitting – Greetings should be after prayer not before – The outdoor prayer hall takes the ruling of a mosque – All people can pray Eid prayer including women and children
How to perform Eid prayer: – The time of the Eid prayer is the time of Duha, so after Sunrise, it should be delayed a bit so that people can give their Zakat Al Fitr
– The Eid prayer is two Rak’as and from the Sunnah is reading Al A’la first then Surat Al Ghashiyah in the second Rak’a
– No Adhan or Iqamah for Eid prayer
– When performing Eid prayer there are more Takbirs than normal prayers, even though scholars differ in their number but they are all correct by Allah’s will, here are some forms: – 13 more Takbirs: 5 after Takbir Al Ihram, 5 after reciting in the second Rak’a and 3 after standing from the second Ruku’ (this is the most common in Oman) – 13 more Takbirs: 6 after Takbir Al Ihram and 7 after reciting in the second Rak’a (Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili’s choice) – 12 more Takbirs: 7 after Takbir Al Ihram, 5 after standing for the second Rak’a (Shaykh Saeed Al Qannoobi’s choice)
– After the prayer, the Imam should stand and give a Khutbah(speech) that starts with thanking Allah while increasing Takbirs to give them advice for their religion and to remind them about Zakat Al Fitr
And when Allah spoke about Ramadan he said: (so that you may complete the prescribed period and proclaim the greatness of Allah for guiding you, and perhaps you will be grateful)
After finishing Ramadan
On the topic of Tazkiyah: Alhamdulillah we mentioned the topics from the book (towards a longer life of faith) by Shaykh Naser Bin Said Al Azri
On the topic of Aqeeda: We went through more than half the concept in the book (Explanation of Ghayat Al Murad poem) by Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalil
On the topic of Fiqh: we mentioned around 29 different issues and topics related to prayer, fasting, Zakah and different types of worship.
insha’Allah we will continue the Aqeeda section until we finish the book.
May Allah accept this, and grant us sincerety in seeking knowledge.
May Allah Forgive the Ummah. May Allah Guide the Ummah.
Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority,and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
“Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)
Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Reflect deeply upon the creation, but do not reflect upon the essence of the Creator. Verily, His essence cannot be known other than to believe in it.”
Source: (Musnad al-Rabī’ 742 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَلْقِ وَلا تَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَالِقِ فَإِنَّهُ لا يُدْرَكُ إِلا بِتَصْدِيقِهِ 742 مسند الربيع بن حبيب 2976 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن في صحيح الجامع)
﷽
This is a (PrimaQur’an) critique of it. So, rather than this being any robust response or engagement from our school, this is an endeavor from a team of non-specialists in philosophy.
The arguments contained here are by no means original from us either. However, this article is sprinkled with our thoughts and conclusions when looking at this particular approach to theology.
For those not formally trained traditionally or academically in theology or philosophy, it is also by no means a deep dive. These are very elementary critiques that we think would appear before any seasoned mind.
Apophatic theology is another name for theology by way of negation. From the Greek ἀπόφημι (apóphemi) ‘to say no’. This is to say that God is known by negating concepts that might apply to him using the insufficiency of human language and rational concepts to describe God.
Ultimately, it is the theology of making no affirmative or positive attributes or assertions of any kind about God. That God is so completely unknowable that we can only engage in conversation about the divine by means of negation. What God is not.
Hopefully, one might appreciate the irony in such an approach, in that both negative and positive statements about God are both equal propositions about divine nature. One is put forward in the positive and the other in the negative. For apophatic theologians, ultimately they must take on the mantle of mysterions and appreciate the complete mystery, otherness and unknowability of God rather than say what could lead to misleading theological concepts about God.
One of our colleagues has said before in this article about an encounter they had while giving a guided tour of a Masjid where a man from California just out of nowhere blurted out the statement: “There is no truth, nothing is true!”
So they turned to the man and said: “Is that true?”
It entails a logical contradiction. It is a logical contradiction because we can be certain that we do not know anything for certain. Which in turn renders our uncertainty very uncertain itself!
Rather, one states that a triangle has three sides or one states that it does not have three sides. Both statements, rather positive or negative, are still both propositions.
” That you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
So you could approach this statement: “and that you say about Allah that which you do not know,” from two angles.
Both angles do not support apophatic theology at all.
The first approach may seem clever. That would be to question: “What is it that we actually know about Allah?” They would affirm: “We do not know anything about Allah.” The proponents of apophatic theology would begin with negations.
What is it that we actually know about Allah? Which entails the opposite of an Apophatic theological approach.
What we say about Allah that which we do not know itself entails there are things that we do know about Allah.
You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.
How can we say in any consistent and meaningful way what God is not like unless we have a model or conception of what God is like?
What is a hamburger not like?
How could one provide an answer to this question unless he/she has some idea of what a hamburger is like?
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” (Qur’an 42:11)
This verse poses a number of problems for proponents of apophatic theology.
The verse does not negate Allah (swt) being a ‘shay’. It simply states that there is no shay like unto him.
The verse in context then affirms that Allah (swt) is the Hearing the Seeing. Thus, it immediately supplies us with two affirmations about Him.
So even if we give ta’wil interpretations to Hearing, Seeing and Him, they would be interpretations that would tell us something about Allah (swt).
This immediately shows that apophatic theology is inherently contradictory. In saying that God is unknowable or inexpressible, we have already described God’s nature that it is unknowable and inexpressible, thus asserting propositions about God.
Just as they would when trying to exegete the above text of the Qur’an.
In fact, apophatic theology is not something that can be derived from revelation as one of the purposes of revelation is to tell us the will of God.
Apophatic theology cannot affirm a will for God. Therefore, apophatic theology is an exercise in philosophy(not a belief in revealed revelation).
It relies upon using the very limitations of 3D carbon-based lifeforms, existing in the space/time continuum equipped only with their very limited abilities of perception and reason — via a 3D carbon-based lifeform -via from the vantage point of existing in the space/time continuum.
In apophatic or negative theology, we cannot know or affirm that Allah is Love. We do not know or cannot affirm that Allah is Loving.
We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Muhammed (saw).
We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Ali ibn Abu Talib.
We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves the Ahl Bayt.
At best, we could still advance propositions: Allah is not hateful. Allah does not hate.
Allah does not hate Muhammed (saw).
Allah does not hate Ali.
Allah does not hate the Ahl Bayt.
Because just as Allah (swt) does not love Muhammed (saw) or love Ali or love the Ahl Bayt, he does not hate any of them either.
The greatest mysterions are those who can give no definite propositional answers about God at all!
In fact, in negative theology, God may not be simple at all. Because to state that God is simple is a positive statement.
God is possibly more complex and more complicated than anything we could imagine. Hence, the very premise of apophatic theology could, in a very real sense, be self-defeating.
Ultimately, it is a belief in an unknown ‘other’ that one cannot explicate. Rendering itself more complicated than the Trinitarian Athanasian creed by far!
Because this concept (which is what it is at this point) is completely unknowable, it gets to the point of asking rather or not if it is even God we are talking about.
We could, for all intents and purposes, talk about God-1.
In other words, the philosophers could have beguiled themselves into believing in an entity that is God in every aspect except the most important, ‘the unknowability’. Surely this itself presents a conundrum.
We simply would not have a basis for knowing at all.
We could simply be talking about a being or entity that is beyond our capacity to fathom but would still not necessitate that entity being God/Allah.
That is because, ultimately, in negative theology, God cannot be perceived and is not perceivable.
We cannot say anything in relation to God and space/time. We cannot really say anything in relation to God and God’s relation to any creation. Because we would not have the slightest clue what a relationship would be like.
Allah is nothing? Allah is something? Allah is everything? Which is correct?
Which of the statements has textual support from the Qur’an?
“Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)
The above text clearly states in response to the question of what thing has most weight in testimony that Allah (swt) is that thing which has most weight in testimony.
There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is no-thing.
There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is everything. This too would be defeated by logic as there would not be a creator-created distinction.
Apophatic theology leads to bizarre, contradictory conclusions about the attributes of God.
We cannot say that God Creates Perfection.
We cannot say that God Creates Perfection because we cannot say that God Creates at all.
There are also problems with affirmation of negatives to Allah/God.
So when we don’t say that Allah is Hate or Allah is Love. We can only say that Allah does not Hate and Allah does not Love.
But can we affirm the negatives for the following?
Does God have power and control over himself? Is this something to affirm or negate?
Does God have autonomy?
Does God have sovereignty?
Because the moment we assert negative prepositions for these questions, we are now introducing another force besides God.
If you say that the Divine Essence is not autonomous or not sovereign, then this necessitates another actor.
So, logic dictates that we must assert that the Divine Essence has the positive attributes of Autonomy and Sovereignty at the very least; or we are now redirecting our conversation and our interest away from this supposed ‘God’ to that force that God submits to.
Another conundrum of this philosophical discourse is that if this God has the qualities of essence, the very fact there is conversation concerning it makes it among the categories of things that conversation is being held concerning. Even if the conversation is philosophical or speculative in nature.
In other words, another defeat for apophatic theology is that God is being discussed, even if it is only in the sense of negation. Thus, we are affirming a positive about God. That positive being that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.
We can only discuss subjects that have come to our consciousness. Even if those subjects are abstract concepts like time, infinity and nothingness.
We are using language to describe, negate or affirm the concept just as we would use language to negative or affirm any other thing.
So apophatic theology is helpless to deny that God is beyond the realm of pontification, reflection or discussion, or it would render its own position vain. This is because apophatic theologians themselves discuss, pontificate and muse over what is not God.
Apophatic Theology and Proving Negatives.
Apophatic theologians think they can make negative assertions about God without having to prove those negative assertions.
This gets into the debate we have with atheists, where (the uneducated among them) state one cannot prove a negative.
For one thing, a real actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law.
For example: the very statement: “you cannot prove a negative” is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true!
Here is another negative we can prove via mathematics.
So, when making negative statements about God. God is not like this and God is not like that. What is the contrast?
Remember the earlier question:
What is a hamburger not like?
You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.
This would lead us to some intrusive and counter-intuitive conclusions. Such as the bizarre perspective that perhaps the one who has never ever thought about God is the closest to the truth concerning God.
Here we are not talking about the Atheist who has made a propositional stance against God. Here we are talking about such a hypothetical person that has never considered God at all.
Recall that even apophatic theologians are among those who believe that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.
Apophatic Theology Is Hostile Towards Certain aspects of Mysticism and Sufism in particular.
Those aspects of mysticism and Sufism that Apophatic Theology is a virulent enemy of the idea of Fan’a (annihilation of the self in the divine) or having a direct experience with the Divine. This is not possible and the aspirant, according to apophatic theology, is in a state of grand disillusionment. How would they objectively know that they have arrived? That arrival could be a veil itself and, in the face of apophatic theology, it most certainly is.
The argument from the Qur’an is that God must be something.
“Or were they created by no-thing (ghayri shayin), or are they ˹their own˺ creators?” (Qur’an 52:35)
A no-thing would be a non-shay. Non-existence. Unless one wants to argue that the Qur’an is utilizing a spacious argument. May Allah protect us from the Shaitan!
Why would the argument be used that they were created from nothing if the first creation was created from nothing?
Thus, logically, a true negative theology would entail that we cannot say anything about God, which ultimately you will see is the conclusion that many of them end up reaching, by stating that God does not exist (has existence).
Maybe their perspective is similar to the Ein-Sof of Kabbalist philosophy. Maybe they reduce the perceivably complex to the least complex. A name which is still a composite consisting of letters; such that to escape even that multiplicity in the naming of the nothing they chose ע
Even then, that is problematic.
The Christian tradition has the following:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:23)
If God is unlike anything that we can understand or relate to at all, then how could one justify any response to God? Prayer, worship, obeying his commands and shunning that which is prohibited?
“Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you.” (Qur’an 2:143)
Again, these are some of our initial thoughts on the subject.
The Claim: Apophaticism states that no positive predicate can be applied to God. God is beyond all human categories and language.
The Contradiction: To claim that “God is beyond all predicates” is itself a predicate. To say “God is unknowable” is to claim a piece of knowledge about God (namely, that He possesses the property of being unknowable). The statement “No statement about God is true” must, if true, apply to itself, rendering it false.
In essence, the apophatic approach attempts to use language to assert the failure of all language, which is a logical paradox. It tries to climb a ladder of negation and then kick it away, but the act of kicking it away is still a use of the ladder.
God, beyond being, must have the quality of being able to give or ground being.
As the philosopher Anthony Kenny quipped, “The God of the apophatic theologian and the God of the atheist seem to share a remarkable similarity.”
Meaningful negation logically depends on some prior understanding of what is being negated.
This leads to an infinite regress of negation: to negate a concept, you must use another concept, which you must then also negate, ad infinitum. This process can never logically conclude, as every step requires a conceptual framework that the theory itself claims is invalid.
The Unjustified Starting Assumption The entire apophatic edifice is built on one key premise: that the human mind is utterly incapable of forming any true concepts about a transcendent God.
This is an epistemological claim presented as an absolute truth. However, it is not logically proven within the system; it is merely asserted.
A critic can ask: How do you know that human concepts are entirely inadequate? To know this would require having access to God’s nature to compare it to our concepts, which is precisely what the apophatic theologian claims is impossible.
Therefore, the foundational premise of apophaticism is both unproven and, by its own standards, unknowable.
Self-Referential Problem
If we say “God is ineffable” or “God cannot be described,” we are still making a positive assertion about God.
This seems self-contradictory: the claim “God cannot be spoken of” is itself a way of speaking about God.
Epistemic Vacuity
If all positive descriptions are denied, what content remains to distinguish God from nothingness?
A purely negative theology risks collapsing into nihilism: saying “God is not this, not that” could equally describe a void or absence.
This makes it hard to explain how believers know they are actually speaking of God rather than simply of “not-X”.
Dependence on Positive Knowledge
Negation requires a prior positive reference. To say “God is not finite,” one must know what “finite” means and apply it meaningfully.
Thus, negation parasitically depends on the very affirmations it claims to reject.
Pure apophaticism may be logically impossible without at least some cataphatic (positive) foundation.
Oh Allah, if anything that was penned by us was in error, we turn ourselves over to your Mercy. You, the knower of intentions.
“And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam – from their loins – their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said, ‘Yes, we have testified.’ [This] – lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed, we were of this unaware.'” (Qur’an 7:172)
﷽
This initial recognition of human beings before their existence in this life is one of recognition of the oneness of Allah. In doing so, our first identity is established as Muslims.
We were Muslims before we were Arabs or Turks.
We were Muslims before we were Black or White.
We were Muslims before we were Balochi or Punjabi, Tajik or Pathan.
Muslim.
Unlike our tribal, ethnic or racial identity which stays with us. We can lose our identity as Muslims.
We can afford to let go of loyalty to tribal identity, but we cannot afford to let go of our identity as Muslims.
“And you do not resent us except because we believed in the signs of our Lord when they came to us. Our Lord, pour upon us patience and let us die as Muslims.” (Qur’an 7:126)
“And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalif, they said: Will You place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, and we celebrate Your praise and extol Your holiness? He said: Surely I know what you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:30)
﷽
This proclamation of Allah (swt) and the subsequent response of the angels is very interesting.
The first point to establish is that the proclamation of Allah (swt) needs to be clear and without ambiguity.
The second point is that the angels understood from the word that Allah (swt) used two possiblities.
Yuf’sidu. That it entails the possiblity that the khalif can do mischief.
wayasfikul-dimāa. That it entails the possibility that the khalif can be the cause of bloodshed and violence.
This both astonishing and astounding in that this is the initial reaction of these noble beings.
In Islamic teachings the angels are pure and love purity. They do not dwell among or around the places that are impure.
Out of all the possible responses of the angels the initial response to this word chosen by Allah (swt) is recoil.
The response of Allah (swt) was not to correct them, or even to suggest that they are wrong. Allah (swt) simply responds with: “I know what you do not know.”
If a person were to offer a child a banana one would not really think much of it. We don’t think that the banana would harm the child. It surely does not have the properties of being sharp or dangerous. It certainly is not going to cut them.
However, if a person were to offer a knife to a child, one may wonder the intention behind it. A knife is a tool. It can be used as an instrument to cut items that may otherwise be cumbersome to deal with as a whole. However, a knife can also be used to injure either oneself or others.
Yet, also notice that the angels said: “and we celebrate Your praise and extol Your holiness?”
In other words, they did not deny the possibility of this word khalif in addition to creating mischief and shedding blood, that it too could celebrate and praise Allah. However, from the perspective of the angels, the creation of this khalif seems redundant.
The word khalif did not entail (at least to those angelic recipients of the word) one who would be flawless, infallible, rightly guided, necessarily just.
Just as it did not entail as such to those angelic recipients of the word, it does not entail as such to the Ibadi school.
We want just leaders. We want to be ruled by the just and the righteous.
The word khalif to those angelic recipients of the word understood that with it could come the possibility of violent upheaval.
All citizens of just governance always pray and hope for a peaceful transition of power. However, often, the transition of power does not come about by peaceful means.
“O humanity! Eat from what is lawful and good on the earth and do not follow Satan’s footsteps. He is truly your sworn enemy. He only incites you to commit evil and indecency, and to claim against Allah what you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:168-169)
﷽
The more one learns about Salafi aqidah the more Christianity makes allot of sense.
Proposed debate scenario:
Opening presentation. Thank you all for joining me for tonights debate Trinity vs Tawhid.
I want to address the audience tonight and suggest the real question: “How many is God?” Or “How complex is God?”
You see both the Christian and the Muslim, we both agree God is one but we also both agree that God is a unity. Trinity means three in one. Tawhid means: unity or coming together.
Yes in the NT we cannot find Jesus using the exact phrase I am God. However we do find him saying I am.
We don’t find the word tawheed in the Qur’an. Yet Muslims believe it is threaded throughout the Qur’an.
I’d like to challenge my Muslim opponent tonight to find me one verse any verse where Allah says: “My nature is simple”.
We have the mystery of the union of god and flesh. The Muslim, the mystery of how an attribute can be eternal and represented in temporal form.
We have the mystery of the trinity. The Muslim, the mystery of Allah’s unity where attributes are not identical to the essence nor other than it.
For my Muslim opponent indeed the Muslims treat sin as something trivial even hell is a brief sojourn. For us sin is darkness, seperation from God and yearns for redemption.
On and on it goes….
Rather than saying Allah is alien the clever Christian quotes the anthropomorphic similarities….bridging that chasm.
christ ate, slept, and wept.
Allah walks, chuckles and appears before men.
“I tell you if God can cast his voice in the burning bush he can certainly join with flesh!! Hallelujah!”
We, at Prima-Qur’an are thankful you all are here.
Prima Quran 