“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although the mushrik make dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
Mostly known in the West for the Sunni-on-Sunni confrontations between himself and Shaykh Saeed Fodeh, this claimed descendant of the Blessed Prophet (saw), Shaykh Dr. Adab Mahmoud Al-Hamsh himself is not a believer in the coming of any Mahdi figure.
In his critical hadith study: “Al-Mahdi al-Muntazar fi Riwayat Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Shi’a al-Imamiyya” (The Awaited Mahdi in the Narrations of Sunni and Imami Shi’i Islam), Shaykh Dr. Adab Mahmud al-Hamsh concludes that all the specific hadiths concerning the advent of a literal, awaited Mahdi whether marfu’ (attributed directly to the Prophet) or mawquf (attributed to companions) are weak (da’if) upon close critical examination.
Key Aspects of Al-Hamsh’s View
Flawed Transmission: He argues that what has been narrated about the Mahdi either lacks explicit authenticity in its wording or lacks clear attribution where the wording is authentic (ma swa sahha lam yakun sarihan, wa ma swa sarihan lam yakun sahihan).
Rejection of Consensus/Mutawatir Claims: Contrary to the mainstream traditional Sunni position which holds that Mahdi narrations reach the level of Tawatur Ma’nawi (mass-transmitted in meaning) Shaykh al-Hamsh contends that the proofs do not support a binding doctrinal belief (aqeedah) regarding a future awaited savior.
Critique of Shia Reports: He similarly devalues the Imami Shi’i reports concerning the specific birth, lineage, and occultation of Muhammed bin Hasan al-Askari, treating them as unproven through rigorous hadith-criticism standards
Published by Dar Al-Razi (Amman, 1422 AH – first edition). It comprises 553 pages in a large format and consists of six chapters. These chapters provide a general overview of most writings on the subject of the Mahdi. Both individually and within other contexts from Sunni and Shi’i perspectives. They also present the various conceptions of the Mahdi held by Sunnis and Shi’i, discuss the narrations related to him from both sides (those affirming and those rejecting them), and address other related topics, including the author’s own perspective on the issue. The hadith-based study of these narrations occupies 145 pages of the book.
His objective is to deny the negative effects of this doctrine on the development and behavior of Muslims (p. 532), both Sunni and Shi’i, with the latter being particularly egregious among Shi’i Muslims. This is because the failure to rely solely on authentic texts has led to an exaggeration of this doctrine among Sunnis, who believe the Mahdi is the savior and deliverer, thus negating the need for work and jihad.
They believe the Mahdi’s appearance will bring only a few years of happiness and prosperity followed by hardship. Meanwhile, Sufis portray the Mahdi as a pious, devout leader for whom Allah provides everything, and he has no say in the matter. Others see the Mahdi as an invincible warrior who fights infidels and hypocrites.
The Mahdi, according to the Shi’i, is part of the pillars of the religion because he is connected to the Imamate. However, he is different from the Mahdi of the Sunnis, as the Mahdi of the Sunnis is from the lineage of Al-Hasan ibn Ali. While according to the Shi’i he is from the lineage of Al-Husayn ibn Ali. Furthermore, the Mahdi of the Sunnis will come at the end of time, but the Mahdi of the Shi’i appeared between the years 252-260 AH, but he disappeared from that time in a minor occultation and then a major occultation, and he will appear at the end of time. Throughout this period, he is alive on earth but hidden from sight.
Based on the negative effects of the aforementioned Mahdi doctrine, the author studied the chains of transmission of the hadiths related to the Mahdi. He concluded that these hadiths are not authentic, and those that are authentic are not explicit on the subject of the Mahdi. Therefore, there is no need to link them to the Mahdi because the Mahdi is not authentic in the first place!
Therefore, Shaykh Dr. Adab Mahmud al-Hamsh believes that the Mahdi and the savior is the Messenger of Allah (saw). This is clear on pages (p. 212, p. 525), and that understanding the approach of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in calling for adherence to the religion of Allah Almighty is the only way to achieve happiness for Muslims throughout time, and not for a limited period as is the case with the Mahdi.
Because we have many articles that deal with Sunni scholars (from across the spectrum) that have rejected the hadiths concerning the Mahdi we will give special focus to Shaykh Dr. Adab Mahmud al-Hamsh repudiation of the Imami Shi’i concept.
That chapter is one of the most important chapters in the book for several reasons: The author is claims to descend from the family of the Prophet (saw) as He explained in (pp. 408, 539). The author narrates Shi’i books with chains of transmission. The author addressed the topic according to the Shi’i methodology in hadith, and did not cite any other books.The author is an advocate of rapprochement and cooperation between Sunnis and Shi’i, while disavowing what he disagrees with. A commendable approach as compared to others. As for the importance of the topic of the Mahdi to the Imami Shi’a, it is because it is one of the fundamentals of the religion, and whoever denies it is considered an infidel by them, and this includes the Shi’i declaring all Muslims other than themselves as infidels as he cites in his book in (pp. 411, 531)
Therefore, the author discussed with the Shi’i what they claim to be the fundamentals of religion; he found that they cite (5303) hadiths (p. 412), and these narrations relate to everything about the Mahdi. Because it is impossible to discuss this number of narrations, the author limited himself to discussing the narrations of his birth, so that if the narrations of his birth and existence are proven to be weak and invalid, then what is the value of the narrations of those who saw him, or spoke to him. He mentions this on (p. 412). This is a sound strategy. The author discussed the Shi’a approach to verifying historical accounts, revealing that they place no value on objectivity or scientific rigor; rather, emotion dictates their interpretation of events and history. He quoted the author of the ten-volume encyclopedia “History of the Minor Occultation,” Sayyid Muhammed Muhammed Sadiq al-Sadr (The father of Muqtada al-Sadr), who described his methodology as follows: “The historian is a mixture of emotions, instincts, mental predispositions, and habits. Reason and intellect represent only a part of this mixture. He does not write his history with his intellect and intellect, but rather with the sum of his emotions and all his other predispositions” (p. 414).
The author explains the Shi’i position on narrations; that they are divided into two groups: the Akhbari, who accept all transmitted narrations even if they are fictional, and the Usuli, who examine the narrations. He also explains that they did not exist before Ibn Tawus (d. 673 AH) or his student al-Hilli (d. 726 AH).But when the narrations that the fundamentalists corrected regarding the birth of the Mahdi were presented and criticized, it became clear that the fundamentalists also have no business in the science of Hadith at all!
The author’s method of critiquing the narratives of the Mahdi’s birth consisted of five steps.
The first step: Criticizing the narrations of the Imamate of Al-Hasan Al-Askari; because the previous Imam must specify be the Imam after him, so if the Imamate of Al-Hasan Al-Askari is not valid, then the Imamate of Al-Mahdi is not valid. Here he discussed what Al-Kulayni mentioned in his book “Al-Kafi”, the most important book of the Shi’i, in which he mentioned thirteen narrations (853-865), and it became clear that not one of them was authentic, neither according to the scale of Al-Khu’i, the late Shi’i reference and author of the encyclopedia “Men of Hadith”, nor according to the scale of Shaykh Al-Muzaffar Al-Shi’i, the investigator of Al-Kafi. If the original principle, which is the Imamate of Al-Hasan Al-Askari, is not valid, then how can the Imamate of Al-Mahdi be valid?
Step two: Discussing the story of the mother of the Mahdi: This is a funny issue; because the Mahdi must have a mother, so who is she? This is what the author researched in the second section of the fifth chapter, and he showed the falsehood of the story of Nargis, the mother of the Mahdi, which is contrary to reason and reality, and which contains many gaps. The problem is that this strange and long story has no fixed historical basis. Is it conceivable that the mother of the Mahdi, one of the foundations of faith, is not proven by a clear and correct basis?! Unless it is nonexistent, then it is conceivable. The author comments on this at the end of the discussion, saying: “It is unfortunate that a scholar like you Mr. Sadiq al-Sadr would build an encyclopedia in ten volumes about Imam al-Mahdi without having a single authentic historical account that proves his birth or that one of the trustworthy people saw him” (p. 470).
Step three : Did Al-Hasan Al-Askari explicitly designate Al-Mahdi as his successor as Imam? The author stated that the chapter narrations that Al-Kulayni included in “Al-Kafi” do not contain an explicit statement or reference to the Imamate of Al-Mahdi.Al-Kulayni included six hadiths in it, one of which was deemed weak by the Shi’i scholar of “Al-Kafi”, and he pointed out that two of them contained unknown narrators. The author discussed the remaining three narrations, and the result was that none of them are valid according to the standards of Shi’i biographical books.
Step four: Did the Mahdi see a human being? The author explained that Al-Kulayni included fifteen hadiths (872-886), one of which was deemed weak by the Shi’i investigator of Al-Kafi, another was judged to be disputed, eleven hadiths to be unknown, and only two hadiths were deemed authentic. The author reviewed the two authenticated hadiths and the disputed hadith, and the result was that none of them were authentic.
Step five: Has the Mahdi been born?It was mentioned that Al-Kulayni included 31 hadiths under this chapter (1362-1392). The Shi’i scholar Al-Muzaffar judged twenty of them to be unknown, two hadiths to be weak, one to be silent, and another to be good like the authentic, and he authenticated seven hadiths. When reviewing these remaining eight, none of them were safe. All of this was based on Al-Khu’i’s Encyclopedia of Hadith Men, even though he criticized what was less wrong than it in the books of hadith and terminology. It is clear that the Shi’i, while acknowledging that their books of fundamentals contain weak and fabricated hadiths, also authenticate these false narrations without a scientific basis.The author commented on these narrations about the Mahdi among the Shi’i, saying: “How I wished that one or several narrations from this huge collection of weak and unknown ones would be correct, so that I could excuse the Imami scholars for building an Islamic doctrine on the report of a single person” (p. 496).
After the invalidation of this Shi’i belief, which is the birth of the Mahdi, and that whoever does not believe in him is an infidel, it is incumbent upon the Shi’i to review their principles and books, and not to try to invite the Sunnis to enter their sect and spread propaganda books among the Sunnis such as the books of Al-Tijani and Al-Mawsawi. (pp. 535-537).
Conclusion: After these reflections on the book “The Awaited Mahdi” by Shaykh Dr. Adab Al-Hamsh, it should be emphasized that:The belief in the appearance of the Mahdi is a belief stated by a group of great scholars, and many scholars have stated that the hadiths concerning the Mahdi are transmitted through multiple chains of narration.- Some people exaggerating aspects of this doctrine without a legitimate basis and this is not permissible, but it does not invalidate belief in it.Belief is belief and people will go on believing irregardless of what is presented to them. That if one is to believe in the Mahdi then it should not become a reason for complacency and inaction.The Shi’i belief in the Mahdi is false and invalid, and they must retract it and stop declaring all Muslims as infidels. In the Shaykh’s assesment the Shi’i have no knowledge of the science of Hadith, and their books are full of fabrications, lies, and myths, and this is in the fundamentals of religion, not just in the branches.
We have uploaded Shaykh Dr. Adab Al-Hamsh book here:
This website will be one of the few places you may find this. May Allah (swt) aid the student of knowledge and the truth seekers among the Muslim and Non Muslim alike.
May Allah (swt) aid the student of knowledge among the Ibadi, the Shi’i and the Sunni and bless them and guide them in their sincere efforts.
The above article will be moved here where other prominent individiuals claim the hadiths of the Mahdi are not authetic.
“And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.” (Qur’an 33:33)
“Then whoever argues with you about it after [this] knowledge has come to you – say, “Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then supplicate earnestly [together] and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars [among us].” (Qu’ran 3:61)
﷽
Today we are going to take a look at ‘The Hadith of the Cloak’.
Let us look at the stages of this hadith.
Stage 1. A simple observation about the Prophet (saw).
“A’isha reported that Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) went out one morning wearing a blanket made of (camel’s or sheep’s) black hair with patterns of camel saddles upon it.”
That is it. The Blessed Prophet (saw) went out of his home and he was wearing a particular garment. Aisha (ra) asked to be clothed in one cloak and she was cloaked twice!
Stage 2. The Theological machination begins.
‘A’isha reported that Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel’s hair that there came Hasan b. ‘Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came ‘Ali and he also took him under it and then said:
Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)
How do we go from plain ol frank to an ultra galactic mega hotdog?!
The plain ol frank.
“A’isha reported that Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) went out one morning wearing a blanket made of (camel’s or sheep’s) black hair with patterns of camel saddles upon it.”
This is the hadith of the cloak. (Hadith al-kisa) before the Kufan spices and seasonings. Before the merchants of falsehood snatched it up and turned an innocent hotdog into something extra!
You will note that the above hadith appears under the heading:
Chapter: Humility In Dress/Clothing And Sticking To Coarse And Simple Clothes, Furnishings Etc., Permissibility Of Wearing Clothes Made From Camel Hair And Those On Which There Are Markings.
This hadith which comes to us by way of Mus’ab bin Shaybah himself originally rejected in hadith (munkar al-hadith) as he has rejected narrations. More on this latter insh’Allah.
The chain: So, on the authority of Mus’ab bin Shaybah, on the authority of Safiyyah bint Shaybah, on the authority of Aisha, who said: “The Prophet (saw) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak made of black hair.” End of point. That’s it. Nothing else. The hadith ended right there, just in the chapter of ‘Humility in Clothing.’ There is nothing else in it!
The ultra galactic mega hotdog.
So how did it develop? How did it become the ultra galatic mega hotdog that so many quote to us?
Now it is in The Book of the Merits of the Companions! With the subheading: Chapter: The Virtues Of The Household Of The Prophet (saw).
The exact same chain: Mus’ab bin Shaybah, on the authority of Safiyyah bint Shaybah, on the authority of Aisha. The same one, the exact same chain. With the exact same text: “The Prophet (saw) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak made of black hair.” Period. That’s it! It should have stopped there.
But the Kufans would not have it to be the case.
“Then Al-Hasan bin Ali came.” He was actually very small!
How could he come by himself when he was only three years old?
How did he know? Did he know that the Prophet (saw) had just gone out? I mean, what kind of coincidence brought Hasan’s exit together with the exit of the Prophet? And how did Aisha (ra) see this scene? How did she know about this scene?
‘”Then Al-Hasan bin Ali came, so he let him in…”
Okay, let him in where? Meaning, did he stand in the street and sit down, placing the blanket over his head? Where? Where did he go back to, the house? We don’t know.
فَجَاءَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ فَأَدْخَلَهُ
fa-jāʾa al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī fa-adkhalahu
“Then al-Hasan ibn Ali came, so he brought him inside.”
Notice that the Arabic does not explicitly say “inside the cloak” here. The object of أَدْخَلَهُ (adkhalahu, “he brought him inside”) is implicit from the context.
“Al-Hasan came, so he let him in. A little later, Al-Husayn came.”
ثُمَّ جَاءَ الْحُسَيْنُ فَدَخَلَ مَعَهُ
thumma jāʾa al-Ḥusayn fa-dakhala maʿahu
“Then al-Husayn came, and he entered with him.”
Here the wording changes. The Prophet (saw) is not explicitly said to have adkhalahu (“brought him inside”); rather:
فَدَخَلَ مَعَهُ — “and he entered with him.”
So up to this point the Prophet (saw) is just waiting around for Al-Husayn to arrive? Furthermore, how old was Al-Husayn? I mean, the Verse of the Cloak, which they say are in Surah Al Ahzab, was revealed in the year 5 or 6 AH (After Hijrah). Think about it! How old were these grandchildren when the Blessed Prophet (saw) passed away. So how old are they here? Coming out one by one?!
Al Hasan was around two to three years old. So how old was Al Husayn? Definitely less than two years old! How did he come?
Where was their mother? Is it believable, that a mother would leave her children to go out in the street like that? Because at this point in the narration, there is no mention of their mother. She hadn’t entered yet, May Allah be pleased with her.
It says:
‘”Then Fatima came, and he let her in. Then he (Ali) came.”
Okay, what brought Ali out? We can understand Fatima (ra) going out to catch up with her children—that makes sense, it’s a justified matter. But why did Ali bin Abi Talib come out?
“Then he said, after letting them in: “Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.”‘
The Blessed Prophet (saw) did he only have one daughter named Fatima(ra)?
Where are the rest of his daughters?
Where is Um Kulthum (ra)? Where is Zainab (ra)? Zainab was definitely alive; she didn’t pass away until 9 AH. Zainab was absolutely present. This incident happened in 6 AH or let’s say 5 to 6 AH. Therefore, Zainab was definitely present, and her sister was present, may Allah be pleased with them both. Where is Um Kulthum (ra). Um Kulthum was alive. Ruqayyah had passed away before that, may Allah have mercy on her.
Why didn’t the Messenger of Allah (saw) purify them along with Fatima (ra)? Why did he purify Fatima and leave her sisters?
Why?
And why did he only purify his grandsons Hasan and Husayn, but did not purify Umamah bint Abi al-As bin al-Rabi’ (Ra). She was the daughter of Zainab, who is also his granddaughter! She is a grandchild too! And why didn’t he purify Zainab bint Ali (ra), the sister of Husayn? And why didn’t he purify Abdullah bin Uthman bin Affan (ra)?
The Absences Are Telling.
The story’s silence about Zaynab and Umm Kulthum. The Blessed Prophet’s other daughters who were alive at the time is difficult to explain if this were a spontaneous historical event. If the Prophet (saw) wanted to honor his family, why exclude his other daughters? The only coherent answer is that the story’s purpose was not to honor “his family” broadly, but to define a specific lineage. One that runs through Ali and Fatima. That is a Shi’i theological concern, not a general historical one.
The narrative reads like a carefully choreographed scene rather than anything that actually happened.
The arrival sequence:
The hadith has each person arrive one after another:
Hasan comes → wrapped
Husayn comes → wrapped
Fatima (ra) comes → wrapped
Ali comes → wrapped
This implies the Prophet (saw) was waiting under the cloak (or holding it) while each person independently walked to him.
How did Hasan and Husayn know to come?
Why would a 1–2 year old leave the house alone and find his grandfather?
If Fatima (ra) came after her children, was she not watching them? Did they wander off?
Why did Ali come last? Was he not with Fatima (ra)? Did he not see his children leave?
Where were Zaynab (ra) and Umm Kulthum (ra), the Prophet’s other daughters who were alive at the time? Their absence is conspicuous.
The ages:
The event is typically dated to around 5–6 AH, based on the association with Surah Al-Ahzab.
Hasan was born in 3 AH, so he would have been 2–3 years old.
Husayn was born in 4 AH, so he would have been 1–2 years old.
A 1–2 year old walking out on his own, knowing where his grandfather went, and arriving at the right moment to be wrapped under a cloak? This strains credulity.
A 2–3 year old doing the same is only slightly less implausible.
The Size of the Cloak
This is a genuinely under-discussed issue. The hadith describes the Blessed Prophet (saw) wrapping Hasan, Husayn, Fatima (ra), and Ali under a single cloak. In some versions, he himself is under it too.
A few observations:
The cloak is described as a “striped cloak of black camel’s hair” (kisa’ min sha’r aswad). These were typically rectangular wool or hair garments, not enormous tents. They were worn as outer wraps.
To cover five people (Ali was a grown man, Fatima (ra) was an adult woman) plus two small children under one such garment requires either:
A cloak ofexceptional size which is not indicated in the text.
The narrative detail that he went out wearing it, then let each person in one by one, suggests a staged, deliberate scene rather than a spontaneous moment. That raises the question: if he was standing outside, how did a cloak cover everyone?
The text as narrated doesn’t explain the mechanics and that’s a legitimate gap.
The Zayd ibn Arqam Contradiction in Sahih Muslim. One of which is certainly not like the other!
Exhibit A.
Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and ‘Umar b. Muslim to Zaid b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him:
Zaid. you have been able to acquire a great virtue that you saw Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) listened to his talk, fought by his side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind me. Zaid, you have in fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ). He said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that. He then said: One day Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah’s call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his family?Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.
We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him. You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the hadith is the same but with this variation of wording that lie said: Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of which is the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be in error, and in this (hadith) these words are also found: We said: Who are amongst the members of the household? Aren’t the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.
In Exhibit A, Zayd bin al-Arqam (ra) is asked by people. He says: “And his wives are among his household (Ahl al-Bayt)?’ He says: “Yes, his wives are among his household. And the family of Abbas, the family of Aqil, and the family of Ja’far.”
Yet, under the same people, the same narration, the same day, the same place, they ask him a second time: In Exhibit B“And his wives are among his household?” [And Zayd replies]: “By Allah, no! They are not of his household.”
Yet, Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an: “O wives of the Prophet!” (Qur’an 33:32)
So there is a problem. Either Muslim brought Exhibit B hadith to show its weakness, because The Blessed Prophet (saw) said: “Go to my household, I remind you of Allah concerning my household,” who are his wives in the first place!
His wives are originally his household, okay? So if you go to “I remind you of Allah…” in the same hadith… I am saying this just for the sake of public awareness, nothing more and nothing less. Because sometimes a Shi’i might come to you and make your head spin, saying to you: “Go to Muslim, you have Zayd bin al-Arqam saying: ‘No, by Allah [they are not].'” While the verse of the Qur’an is clear!
It says: “O wives of the Prophet,” (Qur’an 33:32) and “Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household (Ahl al-Bayt), and to purify you with [extensive] purification” (Qur’an 33:33)
Yet the detractors will say: “Yes, he divorces her and does this and that!” Did the Blessed Prophet (saw) divorce Aisha (ra). Did he permanently divorce any of his wives (May Allah be pleased with them all).
What are these scams? What are these lies?
The Blessed Prophet (saw) never permanently divorce a wife, sent her away from his household, or remained separated from her until death! Every blessed woman who truly lived with him as a wife in his household remained his wife until either her death! For example: Khadijah (ra) and Zaynab bint Khuzaymah(ra).
Hafsah (ra) he took her back immediately. The divorce was completely undone. For the women like hte one from Banu Jawn, the marriage contract (Nikah) was signed, but the marriage was never consummated.
So the hadith here: https://sunnah.com/muslim:2408d. Muslim brought it to show its weakness. Because if it were otherwise, then there is a blatant contradiction!
And let no one come and say to you: “Well, it is because charity is forbidden to them [the household],” because there is the following hadith:
“11016 – Waki’ narrated to us, from Muhammed bin Sharik, from Ibn Abi Mulaykah, that Khalid bin Sa’id sent a cow from the charity (Zakat) to Aisha, but she returned it and said: ‘We are the family (Aal) of Muhammed ﷺ; charity is not permissible for us.’”
“The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my household.”
Of course, the household, are the wives of the Blessed Prohet (saw). From the very start, they are the wives of the Prophet (saw). This house. Who are its inhabitants? The inhabitants of the house are the household who live in it. Not his cousin. Fatima (ra) is from the household of Ali bin Abi Talib, by the way.
For if there are others why not bring the whole family in?! The more the merrier! Why do we let some people in and exclude the others? The whole family: Aqil, the family of Ja’far, the family of Abu Talib, the daughters: Zainab, Ruqayyah, Um Kulthum.
Why the descrimination when dealing with the text? “I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my household.”
Narrated Anas:
A banquet of bread and meat was held on the occasion of the marriage of the Prophet (ﷺ) to Zainab bint Jahsh. I was sent to invite the people (to the banquet), and so the people started coming (in groups); They would eat and then leave. Another batch would come, eat and leave. So I kept on inviting the people till I found nobody to invite. Then I said, “O Allah’s Prophet! I do not find anybody to invite.” He said, “Carry away the remaining food.” Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house chatting. The Prophet (ﷺ) left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, “Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you, O the people of the house!” She replied, “Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your wife? May Allah bless you. Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them the same as he said to Aisha and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him. Then the Prophet (ﷺ) returned and found a group of three persons still in the house chatting. The Prophet was a very shy person, so he went out (for the second time) and went towards the dwelling place of `Aisha. I do not remember whether I informed him that the people have gone away. So he returned and as soon as he entered the gate, he drew the curtain between me and him, and then the Verse of Al-Hijab was revealed.
Anas narrates the story of the Prophet’s wedding to Zaynab bint Jahsh. Three men overstay their welcome. The Prophet, being shy, leaves and goes to Aisha’s dwelling, saying:
“Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you, O the people of the house (Ahl al-Bayt)!”
Aisha replies, and he does the same at the dwellings of all his other wives. Then he returns, finds the men still there, leaves again, and finally when he enters, he draws the curtain and the Verse of Al-Hijab (33:53) is revealed.
Key observations:
“Ahl al-Bayt” here explicitly refers to Aisha and the other wives. The Blessed Prophet (saw) addresses each wife’s dwelling with “Peace be upon you, O Ahl al-Bayt.” This is a direct, unambiguous Prophetic usage of the term for the wives.
The context is domestic and legal. The Verse of Al-Hijab (Qur’an 33:53) is about modesty, privacy, and boundaries in the Prophet’s household. It addresses the believers: “And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition.” The entire passage is about the wives’ status and the sanctity of the Prophet’s home.
This is the same Surah (Al-Ahzab) that contains 33:33. That is the Verse of Purification used in the Hadith of the Cloak. The immediate context of 33:33 is:
33:28–34: Addresses to the wives of the Prophet.
33:33: “Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity, O Ahl al-Bayt, and to purify you.”
33:53: The Verse of Al-Hijab, again about the wives and the Prophet’s household.
So the Quranic usage of Ahl al-Bayt in this surah is consistently about the wives, with 33:33 embedded in a passage about them.
“To be, or not to be, that is the question” The Companion included and the Wife rejected.
Let us move to the next report.
Narrated ‘Umar bin Abi Salamah – the step-son of the Prophet (ﷺ):
“When these Ayat were revealed to the Prophet (ﷺ): ‘Allah only wishes to remove the Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification (33:33)’ in the home of Umm Salamah, he called for Fatimah, Hasan, Husain, and wrapped him in the cloak, and ‘Ali was behind him, so he wrapped him in the cloak, then he said: ‘O Allah! These are the people of my house, so remove the Rijs from them, and purify them with a thorough purification.’ So Umm Salamah said: ‘And I, Prophet of Allah?’ He said: ‘You are in your place (meaning you are already a member of my household), and you are goodness.’ (HERE WE TRANSLATE THE UNTRANSLATED ARABIC WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: Tirmidhi says ” He [Imam at-Tirmidhi] said: ‘This hadith is Gharib (scarce/unfamiliar) from this route, from the narration of ‘Ata from ‘Umar bin Abi Salamah.'”
*note* the comment: (meaning you are already a member of my household) is not in the Arabic text. It is an editorial comment in English.
Fāṭimah went to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ calling him until he came. He said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ came and entered, and I entered with them. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ called Ḥasan and Ḥusayn and seated each one of them on his thigh, drew Fāṭimah near to his lap, then wrapped his garment over them while I was leaning back. Then he said, {Allah only intends to remove from you impurity, O people of the household, and to purify you thoroughly.} Then he said, “These are my family.” Wāthilah said, “I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, and am I of your family?’ He said, ‘And you are of my family.’” Wāthilah said, “It is indeed the most hope I have.”
So what is going on here? Umm Salamah (ra) gets excluded while Wāthilah (ra) gets included?
To be, or not be, that is the question. Imagine a scenario where Umm Salamah (ra), the wife of the Blessed Prophet (saw) gets rejected where she witnesses this companion, Wāthilah get accepted!
Ahl al-Kisa’ are Al-‘Abbas and his descendants?
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to Al-‘Abbas: ‘On the night of Monday, come to me, you and your offspring, so that I may supplicate for them with a supplication that Allah will benefit you and your children by.’ So he went, and we went with at night, so he (ﷺ) covered us in a Kisah (shawl), then said: ‘O Allah, forgive Al-‘Abbas and his offspring, for what is open and what is secret, with a forgiveness that does not leave any sins. O Allah! Take care of him concerning the affair of his offspring.‘” (HERE WE TRANSLATE THE UNTRANSLATED ARABIC WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: Tirmidhi says: “This is a good but scarce (Hasan Gharib) hadith; we do not know it except from this path.”
He reported Allah’s messenger as saying to al-`Abbas, “When Monday morning comes come to me with your children so that I may make for you a supplication by which Allah may benefit you and your children.” He and they came in the morning, and when he had put his cloak over them he said, “O Allah, grant al-`Abbas and his children such forgiveness without and within as will not leave a sin. O Allah, guard him in his children.” Tirmidhi transmitted it, and Razin added, “And cause the Caliphate to remain among his descendants.” Tirmidhi said this is a gharib tradition.
The political intrigue here is too obvious not to see it. Razin added, “And cause the Caliphate to remain among his descendants.”
This Hadith of the Cloak does not even exist with an authentic chain of narration.
Al-Bukhari did not narrate it. It is not in the Muwatta. It is not in the Musnad al-Rabi’ ibn Habib and Muslim narrated it via Mus’ab bin Shaybah.
The primary chain (Aisha → Safiyya bint Shaybah → Mus’ab bin Shaybah → Zakariyya) runs through Kufa, a city with strong early Shi’i sympathies. The key narrator, Mus’ab bin Shaybah, is criticized by multiple hadith critics (Ahmad, Abu Hatim, al-Nasa’i, al-Daraqutni) as weak or having “rejected” narrations.
The tradition’s common link is Zakariyya ibn Abi Za’ida, a Kufan with Banu Hamdan tribal ties again, a milieu associated with proto-Shi’i sentiment.
The Abbasid Sunnis* turn to Ikrima (ra) for help!
*Abbasid Sunnis is a reference to the vast majority of those who consider themselves: Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamāʿah today. We do not mean that the Abbasids of the past turned to Ikrima (ra).
During the Abbasid era a Shi’a-fication of the Proto-Sunni Umayyads takes place.
Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said concerning the Ayah: “Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family. “It was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet .”
Ibn Jarir recorded that ‘Ikrimah used to call out in the marketplace: إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا ( Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification. ) “This was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.” Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn ‘Abbas said concerning the Ayah: إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ ( Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, ) “It was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet ﷺ.” ‘Ikrimah said: “Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet ﷺ, I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.”
Having Aisha(the wife of the Prophet) also narrate this is doubly suspicious. After all one side says Aisha is part of the Ahl Bayt (which the Qur’an explitily affirms) and the other side says no she’s not.
The Logical Problem and how the Abbasid Sunnis attempt to reconcile reports.
If Aisha (ra) is the narrator of the Hadith of the Cloak, and the hadith’s function is to exclude the wives from Ahl al-Bayt, then Aisha is narrating her own exclusion.
Why would she do that?
If she agreed with the exclusion, she is narrating something that diminishes her own status. Possible, but unusual.
If she disagreed with the exclusion, why narrate it at all? Why preserve a tradition that undercuts your own position?
The most common answer given is: she narrated what she saw, regardless of its implications. That’s a pious answer, but it doesn’t resolve the literary problem. It assumes Aisha (ra) understood the event the same way later Shi’i interpreters did. This is as an act of exclusion. But nothing in her narration says she saw it that way. The exclusion is an interpretation imposed on the event by later readers, not something Aisha (ra) herself states.
The Deeper Suspicion
Here’s where it gets more interesting. If the tradition was shaped in proto-Shi’i circles to establish the exclusive Ahl al-Bayt, why attribute it to Aisha at all?
There are several reasons:
Authority laundering. A tradition attributed to Aisha carries weight with Sunni audiences. If you want a Sunni to accept a Shi’i-leaning theological point, you attribute it to a figure they trust. Aisha is the perfect vehicle. She is a wife, she was in the household, and she is highly respected in Sunni Islam.
Plausible deniability. If Aisha narrates it, it can’t be dismissed as a “Shi’i fabrication”. It’s in the most trusted Sunni collection, narrated by the Mother of the Believers herself.
The irony is the point. Some have argued that the tradition’s power lies precisely in the fact that Aisha narrates her own exclusion. It makes the exclusion appear undeniable. If even Aisha reports it, who can argue?
But this creates a theological trap for the Sunni reader:
The Quran addresses the wives as Ahl al-Bayt (33:33 in context).
Aisha, a wife, narrates a hadith that seems to exclude the wives from Ahl al-Bayt.
Zayd ibn Arqam, in the same Sahih Muslim, gives contradictory answers on whether the wives are included.
What Aisha’s Narration Actually Says
If you strip away the later theological framing, Aisha’s narration says:
The Prophet went out one morning wearing a cloak.
Hasan, Husayn, Fatima, and Ali came and were gathered under it.
He recited the purification verse.
That’s it. It does not say:
“These are the only Ahl al-Bayt.”
“My wives are not included.”
“This verse is exclusively about these five.”
Those are interpretations added by later communities. Aisha’s narration is descriptive, not prescriptive. The prescriptive reading, the one that makes it a boundary-setting document, is a later Shi’i development.
So Why Is It Suspicious?
It’s suspicious because the tradition functions as a boundary-setting document in its fully developed form, but it is narrated by someone whose inclusion in Ahl al-Bayt is precisely what’s being debated. That’s not how organic historical memory usually works. It’s how contested traditions get shaped: they are attributed to authoritative figures on both sides of a debate to lend them weight.
Aisha narrating her own exclusion is either:
A sign of her incredible objectivity (the pious reading), or
A sign that the tradition was crafted by people who wanted to use her authority to settle a debate she may not have even known was happening (the critical reading).
The second is more consistent with what we know about how sectarian traditions developed in the first two centuries of Islam.
The attempt to trick and swindle the Muslim Ummah.
The blatant contradiction between the hadith of Umm Salamah (ra) and Aisha (ra).
Narrated ‘Umar bin Abi Salamah – the step-son of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم):”When these Ayat were revealed to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم): ‘Allah only wishes to remove the Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification (33:33)’ in the home of Umm Salamah, he called for Fatimah, Hasan, Husain, and wrapped him in the cloak, and ‘Ali was behind him, so he wrapped him in the cloak, then he said: ‘O Allah! These are the people of my house, so remove the Rijs from them, and purify them with a thorough purification.’ So Umm Salamah said: ‘And I, Prophet of Allah?’ He said: ‘You are in your place (meaning you are already a member of my household), and you are goodness.’ (HERE WE TRANSLATE THE UNTRANSLATED ARABIC WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: Tirmidhi says ” He [Imam at-Tirmidhi] said: ‘This hadith is Gharib (scarce/unfamiliar) from this route, from the narration of ‘Ata from ‘Umar bin Abi Salamah.'”
A’isha reported that Allah’s Apostle (صلى الله عليه وسلم) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel’s hair that there came Hasan b. ‘Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came ‘Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)
The Blatant Contradictions Between the Two Narrations. Matn Analysis.
A strict textual comparison reveals these primary contradictions:
Feature
Umm Salamah’s Narration (Tirmidhi 3205) [1]
Aisha’s Narration (Sahih Muslim 2424) [2]
The Location
Indoors: Specifically inside the (Bayt) of Umm Salamah.
Outdoors: The Prophet ﷺ “went out one morning” (kharaja… ghadatan).
The Catalyst
The Revelation of the Quran: The event is triggered instantly because Verse 33:33 just came down.
A Spontaneous Gathering: No mention of a sudden revelation; the family members just walk up to him one by one.
The Order of People
Simultaneous/Grouped: He calls Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn together, then wraps Ali.
Sequential/One-by-One: Hasan arrives first, then Husayn, then Fatimah, then Ali.
The Prophet’s Action
An Active Supplication: The Prophet ﷺ explicitly begs Allah: “O Allah! These are the people of my house, so remove the Rijs…”
A Passive Recitation: The Prophet ﷺ simply recites the verse aloud after they are gathered.
The Exclusion of Wives
Explicitly Addressed: Umm Salamah tries to enter, and the Prophet ﷺ stops her, saying, “You remain in your place.”
Entirely Absent: No one asks to join, and no exclusion is voiced.
One event takes place inside a house and another takes place outside of the house.
These are certainly not the same. You can smell the polemic here. Because ahl bayt (literaly means people of the house) so you have to have it take place inside a house right?! So Umm Salamah’s house it is!
The issue with the chain of Umm Salamah (and why usually the learned among the Shi’i prefer to go directly to the hadith in Muslim)
Imam At-TIrmidhi from Qutaybah bin Sa’id al-Balkhi from Muhammed bin Sulayman al-Asbahani from Yahya bin ‘Ubayd Allah from ‘Ata bin Abi Rabah from ‘Umar bin Abi Salamah.
Yahya bin ‘Ubayd Allah bin Mihsan al-Khazraji al-Madani
He is the primary critical flaw in this specific chain.
The Consensus: He is universally rejected by classical hadith critics.
Specific Critiques:
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Yahya ibn Ma’in (two of the greatest critics) stated that his narrations are Munkar (denied/unacceptable) and that he is Da’if (weak).
Imam al-Bukhari explicitly wrote in Al-Tarikh al-Kabir: “He is Munkar al-Hadith” (his hadiths are rejected), and added elsewhere that he is “Matruk” (abandoned).
Imam an-Nasa’i also declared him Matruk.
Verdict: Because of Yahya bin ‘Ubayd Allah, this specific line of transmission in Jami` at-Tirmidhi is considered highly weak (Da’if Jiddan). This is why Imam at-Tirmidhi himself flagged the route as Gharib (unfamiliar/isolated).
Final verdict. Ahl al-Kisa’ The Hadith of the Cloakor Cruel Joke?
This hadith is a cruel joke foisted upon the Ummah of Muhammed (saw). Many have unfortunately fallen for it. Our detailed demolition of the hadith’s narrative coherence shows that the tradition is not a reliable historical report, and therefore cannot bear the weight of the doctrine built upon it.
“My Lord, increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
This post is to congratulate the graduates of the Istiqama community in Libya and to ask for Allah (swt) to continue to send his blessings down upon the people of Nafusa for their warmth, hospitality and continued guidance and beacon of light for the Ummah.
Those brothers who came from different regions and countries in the region to dedicate themselves to this path and to the deen of Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) bless them!
Brothers from all over the great continent of Africa, from Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, Egypt, Algeria, Ghana they come to learn and pass on what they learn to those in their homelands.
Children are often mentored by their peers, and helped along by children a few years older than them as a way of encouragement and to let those children see themselves in those who inspire them.
Youth attentively listen to lessons.
There are award ceremonies in which ijaza certificates are given by the Shyookh. The students are honoured with gifts and other accolades for being the future bearers of knowledge and light.
Time for brotherhood and being in the company of the people of knowledge.
May Allah (swt) continue to bless this school and bless its teachers and bless its students. May Allah (swt) grant them strong conviction and resolute faith. May Allah (swt) fortify them from all evil and may Allah (swt) continue to bless and assist them to be beacons of light for all of North, West Africa and beyond!
“Successful indeed are the believers, those who offer their prayers with all solemnity and full submissiveness khāshiʿūna.” (Qur’an 23:1-2)
“Nay, seek (Allah’s) help with patient perseverance and prayer: It is indeed hard, except to those who (l-khāshiʿīna)bring a lowly spirit.” (Qur’an 2:45)
“Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up with (qānitīna)devotion to Allah.” (Qur’an 2:238)
﷽
The status of the word ‘amin’.
Know dear readers and seekers of truth that Amin is by consensus (ijmā’) not part of the Qur’an, due to its absence from the Imām Codex (the official Uthmanic manuscript) between the two covers of which the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) unanimously agreed to record everything that was Qur’an and to exclude everything that was not.
Copies of this codex were distributed across major cities and shared throughout the Muslim nation without anyone raising an objection to any part of it. These copies have served as the authoritative basis for transmitting the Qur’an generation after generation down to our present day.
Jurists, exegetes, and other scholars have explicitly stated its non-Qur’anic status. Here is what the renowned exegete Abū Ḥayyān stated in his grand commentary, Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ:
“Likewise, they meaning the exegetes discussed Amin, its linguistic variants, the differences regarding its meaning, and its ruling in prayer; however, it is not part of the Qur’an, which is why we have disregarded discussing it altogether.”
Al-Ālūsī also stated in his commentary, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī:
“And it is not part of the Qur’an by consensus… [up to his statement:] to the extent that several scholars mentioned that whoever claims *Āmīn* is part of the Qur’an has committed disbelief.”
Since the word Amin is non-Qur’anic, it falls under human speech, and human speech has been established as prohibited during prayer after having been initially permissible. We will give our evidence with the permission of Allah.
Our first and strongest evidence.
The consensus (ijmā’) of our scholars across the centuries, and the fact that prayer is a practical, mass-transmitted act of worship. This is the mass transmitted sunnah with us.
As for us, the consensus (ijmā’) of our companions may Allah the Exalted have mercy on them across the centuries is sufficient for us. Prayer is a practical, outwardly manifest act of worship that has been transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) generation after generation, down to our present day. We know of no disagreement among our scholars, whether of the earlier or later generations, regarding the issues of prayer among them, the impermissibility of saying “Amin” after al-Fatiha.
Supporting evidence.
The occasion of the revelation of the Qur’an.
“Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up with devotion to Allah.” (Qur’an 2:238)
Mu’awiya b. al-Hakam said:
Zaid b. Arqam reported:
We used to talk while engaged in prayer and a person talked with a companion on his side in prayer till (this verse) was revealed: “And stand before Allah in devout obedience” (ii, 238) and we were commanded to observe silence (in prayer) and were forbidden to speak.
“We used to talk behind Allah’s Messenger (Saw) during the Salat, a man among us would talk to his companions next to him until (the following) was revealed: “And stand before Allah with obedience”. (2:238) So we were ordered to be silent and prohibited from talking.”
The word they understood as a command to stop speaking is:
قَانِتِينَ (qānitīn)
It appears at the end of the verse:
وَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ قَانِتِينَ
(“…and stand before Allah as qānitīn.”)
قَانِتِينَ is the plural of قَانِت (qānit), which carries meanings including:
Obedient / devoutly obedient
Silent / keeping quiet
Standing in humility and submission.
This means the companions used to talk during the prayer and even to each other. However, they understood from the occasion of this verse that they should no longer do so. Such practice was abrogated.
The explicit command of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Mu’awiyah b. al-Hakam al-Sulami said ; when I came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) I learnt many things about islam. One of the things that I was taught was that it was that it was pointed out me. When you sneeze, praise Allah (I,e, say “praise be to Allah”); and when someone sneezes and praises Allah, say “ May Allah have mercy on you. Meanwhile I was standing along with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) during prayer, all of a sudden a man sneezed, and he praised Allah. So I said, “may Allah have mercy on you”, in a loud voice. The people gave me disapproving looks so much so that I took ill of it. So I said :
what do you mean by looking at me with furtive glances. Then they glorified Allah. When the prophet (ﷺ) finished his prayer, he asked; who was the speaker? The Prophet told him; this Bedouin. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) called me and said to me: Prayer is meant for the recitation of the Quran, and making mention of Allah. When you are in it (prayer), this should be your work therein. I never saw an instructor more lenient than the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)
“He said: I prayed behind the Messenger of Allah, May Allah bless him and grant him peace, one day and a man from the people sneezed, so I said: May Allah have mercy on you, so the people looked at me with their eyes, so I said: May my mother be bereaved of me, what is the matter with you that you are looking at me? He said: So they struck their thighs with their hands. When I saw them silencing me, I kept quite until the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) finished praying. Then he called me. He said: By my father and mother, I have never seen a teacher before or after him who taught better than him. He neither struck me, nor rebuked me, nor insulted me. He said: “This prayer is not a place for such human speech. Rather, It is for glorification, magnification, and reading the Qur’an.”
How do we undertand this? We understand that the Blessed Prophet (saw) is telling us:
“Indeed, in this prayer of ours, nothing of people’s speech is valid; it is only tasbih (glorification), takbir (saying Allahu Akbar), tahmid (praising Allah), and the recitation of the Qur’an.”
There is no doubt that the word “Amin” is not among these. For it is neither part of the Qur’an nor any of the things mentioned. Nothing of people’s speech is valid in prayer. Only tasbih, takbir, tahmid, and the Qur’an recitation and “Amin” falls outside these categories.
Abdullah (b. Masu’d) reported:
We used to greet the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) while he was engaged in prayer and he would respond to our greeting. But when we returned from the Negus we greeted him and he did not respond to us; so we said: Messenger of Allah. we used to greet you when you were engaged in prayer and you would respond to us. He replied: Prayer demands whole attention.
We used to salute during prayer and talk about our needs. I came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and found him praying. I saluted him, but he did not respond to me. I recalled what happened to me in the past and in the present.
When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) finished his prayer, he said to me: Allah, the Almighty, creates new command as He wishes, and Allah, the Exalted, has sent a fresh command that you must not talk during prayer. He then returned my salutation.
Therefore, if it were [permitted], meaning reciting ‘amin’ it would fall under the abrogated matters that are prohibited; and it is not permissible to act upon the abrogated.
That is to say that the hadith on the matter that have reached us are ‘sahih’ or sound. However with us the living sunnah takes priority over documented sunnah that may or may not still be acted upon.
Let us give you an example. Think carefully about the evidence that you have read above.
Examples of abrogation of practice during the prayer.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
That the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came out to Ubayy bin Ka’b, and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “O Ubayy!” And he was performing Salat, so Ubayy turned around but he did not respond to him, so Ubayy finished his Salat quickly. Then he turned to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: ‘As-Salamu ‘Alaikum, O Messenger of Allah!’ The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Wa ‘Alaikum As-Salam – what prevented you from responding to me when I called you Ubayy?’ He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I was performing Salat.‘ So he said: ‘Do you not find among what Allah revealed to me: Respond to Allah and to the Messenger when they call you to what gives you life?’ He said: ‘Of course, I shall not repeat that, if Allah wills.’ He said: ‘Would you like for me to teach you a Surah the likes of which has neither been revealed in the Tawrah, nor the Injil, nor the Zabur, nor in the entire Qur’an?’ He said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah!’ The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘What do you recite in your Salat?’ He said: ‘I recite Umm Al-Qur’an.’ So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! The like of it has neither been revealed in the Tawrah, nor the Injil nor the Zabur, nor in the Furqan. It is the seven oft-repeated, and the Magnificent Qur’an which I was given.'”
So is more than one way to understand the implications of the above hadith.
Notice that the reason Ubayy bin K’ab (ra) gave for not responding to the Messenger of Allah (saw):
He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I was performing Salat.‘
This means that Ubayy bin K’ab (ra) could have been aware of the ruling that prohibits talking during the prayer.
However, the Messenger of Allah (swt) introduces an exception by quoting the verse of the Qur’an:
“O believers! Respond to Allah and His Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.” (Qur’an 8:24)
Or this hadith can be understood by another way.
That is that this verse: “O believers! Respond to Allah and His Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.” (Qur’an 8:24) was later restricted. In otherwords it was not abrogated but it was restricted to answer the Blessed Messenger (saw) after the prayer.
This is why Hadith < Fiqh. You can have a hadith but the understanding is what is important.
Likewise: Docummented Sunnah < Living Sunnah.
There is grounds to believe that ‘Amin’ is not actually Arabic in its origin. However, this article is not the time or place to wade into the weeds-so to speak.
The Qur’an indicates the phrase “Our Lord, accept this from us” (رَبَّنَا تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا) after prayer. This phrase appears in (Qur’an 2:127), where Prophet Ibrahim and Prophet Ismail (peace be upon them) supplicate while raising the foundations of the Kaaba:
رَبَّنَا تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ “Our Lord, accept [this] from us. Indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing.”
This verse demonstrates that the Qur’an itself provides a specific supplication for acceptance after an act of worship, distinct from the Hebrew-origin “Amen.”
What about the Tashahhud?
Don’t worry dear readers we are one step ahead insh’Allah.
One cannot object against us by citing the continued legitimacy of *Taḥmīd* (praising Allah) and *Tashahhud* in prayer; for *Taḥmīd* falls under the category of *Tasbīḥ* (glorification), while *Tashahhud*though not Qurʾān consists entirely of glorifying Allah Almighty and Majestic, and holds a special status. The Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) gave it meticulous care, as evidenced by Ibn Masʿūd’s statement:
Narrated Ibn Mas`ud:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) taught me the Tashah-hud as he taught me a Sura from the Qur’an, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashah-hud was) all the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allah. Peace and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allah, I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and I also testify that Muhammad is Allah’s slave and His Apostle. (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (ﷺ) , but when he had died, we used to say, “Peace be on the Prophet.”
This clearly indicates that it carries the ruling of Qurʾānic recitation during prayer. Moreover, the consensus of the Muslim community (*ijmāʿ*) regarding the non-abrogation of *Taḥmīd* and *Tashahhud* in prayer serves as sufficient proof that they are excluded from abrogated speech and that which is agreed upon is not comparable to that which is disputed.
Furthermore, know that the methodology of our scholars concerning prayer is that of legal precaution (*Iḥtiyāṭ*). That is adopting only those narrations surrounding which there is no shadow of doubt in disputed matters. This is because prayer is the second pillar of Islam, coming directly after creed (*ʿAqīdah*). Verifying scholars across various schools of thought do not accept solitary reports (*Aḥād* traditions) as binding proof in creedal matters because they do not yield absolute certainty (*qaṭʿ*); thus, prayer being adjacent to creed in rank is all the more worthy of such caution.
Furthermore, some scholars have stated that the prayer practiced by our companions is established by consensus, because the actions they omit are themselves subject to disagreement among others, and those who advocate those actions do not view their omission as invalidating the prayer. This alone suffices as proof for the validity of the prayer of one who does not pronounce *Āmīn*.
Do recall this was our first and strongest evidence.
If anyone should denounce us for omitting the *aʾmīn*, the response to him is that it would be more fitting for him to denounce those who omit the *Basmalah* which IS a verse from the Book of Allah, recorded in all codices by consensus than to denounce those who omit *aʾmīn*, which is consensus-proven to be non-Qurʾānic. And Allah knows best.
Insh’Allah this article in the near future will be found here:
Allah (swt) reminded us of the promise of Satan where he said: “And I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah.” (Qur’an 4:119)
“And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbids, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal.” (Qur’an 59:7)
﷽
Some among those who call themselves: “Ahl Sunnah” and in particular those who label themselves as ‘Salafiyah’ will make a huge fuss and an ordeal about Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness) when we stand firm upon clear statements of the Qur’an and Sunnah that state such and such an act will send a person to hellfire.
So they deal in emotions where as we deal with evidences. Their aim is to rise an emotional response. As if they are to say the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) are something trivial.
“Ah you see for such a small thing the Ibadis say these people will be in hell!”
However, when is disobedience of Allah and his Messenger ever a trivial matter?
Allah has cursed those women who practice tattooing and those who get themselves tattooed, and those who remove their face hairs, and those who create a space between their teeth artificially to look beautiful, and such women as change the features created by Allah. Why then should I not curse those whom the Prophet (saw has cursed? And that is in Allah’s Book. i.e. His Saying: ‘And what the Apostle gives you take it and what he forbids you abstain (from it).’ (Qur’an 59.7)
‘Abdullah reported that Allah had cursed those women who tattooed and who have themselves tattooed, those who pluck hair from their faces and those who make spaces between their teeth for beautification changing what Allah has created. This news reached a woman of the tribe of Asad who was called Umm Ya’qub and she used to recite the Holy Qur’an. She came to him and said:
What is this news that has reached me from you that you curse those women who tattooed and those women who have themselves tattooed, the women who pluck hair from their faces and who make spaces between their teeth for beautification changing what Allah has created? Thereupon ‘Abdullah said: Should I not curse one upon whom Allah’s Messenger (saw) has invoked curse and that is in the Book also. Thereupon that woman said: I read the Qur’an from cover to cover, but I did not find that in it. whereupon he said: If you had read (thoroughly) you would have definitely found this in that (as) Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, has said:” What Allah’s Messenger brings for you accept that and what he has forbidden you, refrain from that.” That woman said: I find this thing in your wife even now. Thereupon he said: Go and see her. She reported: I went to the wife of ‘Abdullah but found nothing of this sort in her. She came back to him and said: I have not seen anything. whereupon he said: Had there been anything like it in her, I would have never slept with her in the bed.
Where in the Qur’an are people cursed by Allah (swt) described as the people of paradise?
It cannot be said that those whom Allah and his Messenger (saw) cursed are the people of paradise. Thus, the Ahl Sunnah believe people will enter hellfire over plucking their eyebrows.
What we know is that the belief that people will enter into the hellfire for a short period of time is a belief of the Jews.
“The Jews claim, “The Fire will not touch us except for a number of days.” Say, “Have you taken a pledge from Allah—for Allah never breaks His word—or are you saying about Allah what you do not know?” (Qur’an 2:80)
We have already established that those who enter the hellfire, the unrepentant sinners they remain there in forever.
Allah (swt) is a being outside of space/time how we would understand the passing of time as 3D carbon based platforms is totally different than the one whom is outside the control of space/time.
“Through which˺ the angels and the ˹holy˺ spirit will ascend to Him on a Day fifty thousand years in length.” (Qur’an 70:4)
“They challenge you ˹O Prophet˺ to hasten the torment. And Allah will never fail in His promise. But a day with your Lord is indeed like a thousand years by your counting.” (Qur’an 22:37)
So the advise to those who count themselves as Ahl Sunnah is to deal with proofs and evidences rather than emotions and caprice.
Rather than attack other schools of Islam over the duration one would spend in hell fire for such and such a deed would that time not be better spent warning the believers? Advising the believers to obey Allah (swt) and his Blessed Messenger (saw) in all his injunctions and commands and fleeing from that which Allah (swt) and his Messenger have ordered us to flee from?
Time better spent on asking the believers to seek Allah’s mercy and to sincerely repent?
Surely that which you think you can bring against other schools can be brought against you.
But what is most important is establishing the haqq of any matter, and not stirring the emotions and the passions, less we ourselves become the Ahl-ul-Ahwa (The People of Whims and Fancies).
“That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira) for you (Oh Muhammed) what preceded of your (dhanbika) sins and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.” (Qur’an 48:2)
﷽
Title: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error?
Attribution: His Eminence Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al-Kharusi
The translation is from the following video.
Brother Badr asks: “Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error? Adam (as), as he says, made a mistake by eating from the tree. Moses (as) made a mistake by killing the Coptic man. Jonah (as) made a mistake by leaving his village without Allah’s permission. So how do we reconcile what we hear? Namely that the prophets are infallible with these mistakes?”
Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al-Kharusi: What was the original question?
Questioner: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error?
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding clarification of certain matters: what one finds among scholars on the issue of prophetic infallibility is that their intent in this matter pertains to sins and transgressions, not to mistakes in general.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Sometimes some scholars use the word “mistake,” but they mean sins and transgressions. This must be clear. The discussion on prophetic infallibility relates to committing sins and transgressions.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is the first point.
The second point:
There is agreement among Muslim scholars, or the majority of Muslim scholars on the issue of prophetic infallibility from sins and transgressions. Regarding anything connected to revelation and conveying the message, they are infallible and protected from error or mistake in that.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: And anything that could involve shirk (associating partners with Allah), whether apparent or hidden, they are infallible from it. Likewise, they are unanimously protected from major sins.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: These matters are points of agreement among all scholars.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Among the vast majority of scholars, any opinions to the contrary are anomalous and not given weight.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: The remaining discussion concerns minor sins. Scholars have differing views.
Some hold that minor sins could occur from prophets.
Others say minor sins could occur before prophethood but not after;
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: 3. And some deny the occurrence of minor sins from them altogether.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: May Allah’s prayers and peace be upon them all. These are the various positions. According to our scholars, they are free from minor sins both before and after prophethood.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: However, the view that minor sins could possibly occur from them without persistence in them and without them being left unaddressed is also a well-known view. Some even report that this is the position of the majority of scholars.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding minor sins without persistence and without being left unaddressed.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So they do not persist in them, nor do they remain upon them, nor are they left unrebuked. And no sin or punishment results from them.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: As for those who hold that minor sins are impossible for prophets, both before and after prophethood, how do they interpret what is mentioned in the Book of Allah or authentically reported in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) that appears to involve a sin? They interpret it as doing what is contrary to what is better and more appropriate for the station of prophethood. This station is the highest and most perfect of stations. Therefore, something that is contrary to what is better is inconsistent with the station of prophethood but this could occur from them. This is a good interpretation, as it shows proper etiquette toward the prophets of Allah (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon them all) and interprets their actions in a good and acceptable manner.
Now we come to some examples that scholars mention: what occurred from Adam (as), what happened with Moses in that incident when he struck the Coptic man and killed him.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and what happened with Dhul-Nun (Jonah) when he fled to the laden ship.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and some other examples. I say that each of these has an interpretation.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding Adam and his wife eating from the tree, the correct view is that that stage was not a stage of religious obligation (taklif). Yes.
Prima Qur’an comments: By this Shaykh al-Kharusi means taklīf, تَكْلِيف or religious duty, obligation, or moral responsibility assigned to a them by Allah. This was not assigned during the time of Adam (as).
The honourable Shaykh continues:
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This has been reported by several exegetes, and it was greatly relied upon by Imam al-Tahir ibn Ashur in Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir. He reported it, as did others before him, and they mentioned that it is the view of the majority: that stage in Adam’s preparation, training, and upbringing was not a stage of religious obligation but rather a stage of discipline.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Therefore, what occurred from him that appears to be error and disobedience was actually a violation of the discipline of training. Violating what was required for his preparation and development. Ibn Ashur gave an example: like the head of a household training his children. When they disobey his command even if the act itself is not inherently sinful or described as a sin.
Questioner: Yet it is disobedience to the head of the household’s command, a deviation from his path.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: For example, he tells them, “Do not enter this room,” and they enter.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So this falls under violation of discipline because it was not a stage of religious obligation. That was not a stage of legal responsibility.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is a good interpretation that brings together various points made about the story of Adam and his eating from the tree. Moreover, the noble Qur’an explicitly describes Adam as having forgotten “And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred” (Qur’an 20:121) & “but he forgot, and no firm resolve was found in him.” (Qur’an 20:115) So it occurred as an oversight and forgetfulness on his part, not as a deliberate intention to disobey Allah’s command.
Questioner: Yes.
Prima Qur’an comments:
“And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot (fanasiya); and We found not in him determination.” (Qur’an 20:115)
In Arabic Nisyan (نِسْيَان) is of two types. Unintentional human lapses of memory and abandonment/neglect.
Human Memory Lapse
Examples:
Moses (as) says:
“He replied, “Do you remember when we rested by the rock? (nasiytu al-ḥūta)I forgot the fish. None made me forget (ansānīhu) to mention this except Satan. And the fish made its way into the sea miraculously.” (Qur’an 18:63)
When Joseph asked a fellow inmate who was being released to mention him to the king, the inmate experienced a lapse of memory.
“And he said to the one whom he knew would be saved along with him, ‘Mention me before your master.’ But Satan made him forget (fa-ansāhu al-shayṭānu) mentioning it to his master, so Joseph remained in prison for several years.” (Qur’an 12:42)
Conscious Disregard / Abandonment
“On the Day of Judgment, those who ignored the afterlife will face spiritual isolation. “And it will be said, ‘Today We will forget you as you forgot (nasītum) the meeting of this Day of yours, and your refuge is the Fire, and for you there are no helpers.'” (Qur’an 45:34)
“Do you order righteousness of the people and forget yourselves (wa-tansawna anfusakum) while you recite the Scripture? Then will you not reason?” (Qur’an 2:44)
The above verse admonishes people who preach goodness to others but entirely neglect their own moral obligations.
The honourable Shaykh continues:
Shaykh al-Kharusi: As for what occurred with Moses (as) for you asked about it.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: That was not a sin on Moses’ part but rather an error.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: He intended to defend the Israelite from the Coptic man because the Coptic man was transgressing. He was an aggressor.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So Moses intended to push him away, and he struck him. But Allah decreed that he died from that blow.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is accidental killing. Therefore, it is not described as a sin. However, due to the station of prophethood, Moses sought forgiveness from his Lord and said,
“My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself” (Qur’an 28:16). He sought forgiveness from his Lord because he did not intend that, nor did he want it to happen. It occurred from him while his intention was to forbid evil. But Allah decreed what happened.
Questioner: Yes
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is what is mentioned in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah(saw) regarding this matter is interpreted in this way.
In summary, it is important to pay attention to the following: matters related to conveying revelation, shirk (whether apparent or hidden), as well as major sins the prophets are infallible in these.
Questioner: Infallible.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Infallible, peace be upon them.
As for minor sins, there is a difference of opinion, and the various views have been mentioned. As for errors, those things that are not sins and not within the scope of religious obligations, their situation in this regard is like that of all human beings: they may make a mistake in some matter that is not a sin, for which no legal obligation had been established. And Allah knows best.
Questioner: Or for which no obligation had previously existed.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes. This, as I said, is interpreted as doing what is contrary to what is better.
for example. [ When Allah says to the Prophet-peace be upon him] “May Allah pardon you. Why did you give them permission?” (Qur’an 9:43)
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is a matter of proper etiquette. It has been said that it was left to their own judgment, and they exercised ijtihad. So the matter is clear. As for those who hold that an error occurred, they describe it as doing what is contrary to what is better. And Allah knows best.
Prima Qur’an comments.
On the last point that Shaykh al-Kharusi mentioned:
for example. [ When Allah says to the Prophet-peace be upon him] “May Allah pardon you. Why did you give them permission?” (Qur’an 9:43)
This would be known as: Khilaf al-awla (خلاف الأولى)which in Islamic legal term meaning “contrary to what is best” or “opposing the preferred action”
Thus, on prophetic infallibility there are four points.
The discussion on prophetic infallibility relates to committing sins and transgressions.
Regarding anything connected to revelation and conveying the message, they are infallible and protected from error or mistake in that.
And anything that could involve shirk (associating partners with Allah), whether apparent or hidden, they are infallible from it.
As for errors, those things that are not sins and not within the scope of religious obligations, their situation in this regard is like that of all human beings: they may make a mistake in some matter that is not a sin, for which no legal obligation had been established. And Allah knows best
Likewise, they are unanimously protected from major sins.
Summary:
They are protected from making any mistakes or errors in conveying the revelation.
They do not do anything that involves shirk.
They are not protected from making errors or mistakes in personal ijtihad like all human beings.
They do not commit major sins.
An example of point 3.
Musa b. Talha reported:
I and Allah’s Messenger (saw) happened to pass by people near the date-palm trees. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What are these people doing? They said: They are grafting, i. e. they combine the male with the female (tree) and thus they yield more fruit. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: I do not find it to be of any use. The people were informed about it and they abandoned this practice. Allah’s Messenger (saw) (was later) on informed (that the yield had dwindled), whereupon he said: If there is any use of it, then they should do it, for it was just a personal opinion of mine, and do not go after my personal opinion; but when I say to you anything on behalf of Allah, then do accept it, for I do not attribute lie to Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
The discussion concerns minor sins. There are three views.
Some hold that minor sins could occur from prophets.
Others say minor sins could occur before prophethood but not after.
Some deny the occurence of minor sins from them altogether.
Shaykh al-Kharusi pauses and corrects himself.
He says: “According to our scholars, they are free from minor sins both before and after prophethood.”
Then he corrects himself: “However, the view that minor sins could possibly occur from them without persistence in them and without them being left unaddressed is also a well-known view. Some even report that this is the position of the majority of scholars.”
Some examples from the Qur’an.
Adam-alayhi salam
“And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he (fanasiya) forgot; and We found not in him determination.” (Qur’an 20:115)
فَنَسِيَ (fa-nasiya) = “but he forgot” (or “then he forgot”)
This word for forget or negligence is the wording used to describe the Christians who received the wrath of Allah (swt). However, notice the verse above says: ‘We found not in him determination.’ Meaning persistence in his sin.
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they (fanasu)forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
The injustice of “Dhu’n-Nun” (the Man of the Whale) and “Sahib al-Hut” (the Companion of the Fish) or Jonah.
“And [mention] the man of the fish, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not decree [anything] upon him. And he called out within the darknesses, “There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the (l-ẓālimīna) wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 21:87)
“Then the fish swallowed him, while he was (mulīmun)blameworthy.” (Qur’an 37:142)
That same word is used in the Qur’an to describe the state of Pharaoh when he was cast into the sea.
“So We took him and his soldiers and cast them into the sea, and he was (mulīmun) blameworthy.” (Qur’an 51:40)
It should be noted that Pharoah is in the barā’ah ḥaqīqah. One truly cut off from Allah (swt).
So how do we understand this?
There are three types of Ẓulm.
Ẓulm Against Allah (Shirk / Polytheism).
“And [remember] when Luqman said to his son while he was advising him, ‘O my son, do not associate [anything] with Allah. Indeed, association [with Him] is great injustice (ẓulmun ‘aẓīm).‘” (Qur’an 31:13)
We do not even find this among the noble companions much less the Prophets!
Ẓulm Against Others (Oppression of People or Creatures)
This involves violating the rights, property, physical safety, or dignity of fellow human beings and other living things. Allah does not forgive this type of injustice unless the victim first forgives the oppressor or the oppressor does his/her level best to make things right with the one oppressed.
“The blame is only against those who wrong the people (yaẓlimūna-nās) and tyrannize upon the earth without right. For those there will be a painful punishment.” (Qur’an42:42)
Ẓulm Against Oneself (Committing Sins)
“And those who, when they commit an immorality or wrong themselves (ẓalamū anfusahum), remember Allah and seek forgiveness for their sins and who can forgive sins except Allah?” (Qur’an 3:135)
“Then We caused to inherit the Book those We have chosen of Our servants; and among them is he who wrongs (ẓālimun)himself, and among them is he who is moderate, and among them is he who is foremost in good deeds by permission of Allah. That is what is the great bounty.” (Qur’an 35:32)
So coming back to “Dhu’n-Nun” (the Man of the Whale) and “Sahib al-Hut” (the Companion of the Fish) how would we understand him as being among those who commit Ẓulm?
And indeed, Jonah was among the messengers. When he ran to the laden ship, he cast lots and was among those who lost. Then the fish swallowed him while he was blameworthy. And had he not been of those who exalt Allah, he would have remained inside its belly until the Day they are resurrected. (Qur’an 37:139–144)
&
And [mention] the man of the fish, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not decree [anything] upon him. And he called out within the darknesses, “There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the wrongdoers.” So We responded to him and saved him from the distress. And thus do We save the believers. (Qur’an 21:88)
The Qur’an does not state that Allah explicitly forbade Jonah (Prophet Yunus) from leaving in these specific verses. Instead, the text focuses on the manner of his departure and the fact that he left without receiving Divine permission.
So this is an example of Khilaf al-awla (خلاف الأولى)
The example of Moses.
“And he entered the city at a time of unawareness of its people, and he found there two men fighting. One of the men being from his party and one of his enemy. And the one of his party appealed to him against his enemy, so Moses struck him and killed him. He said, “This is from the work of Satan. Indeed, he is a manifest, misleading enemy.” He said, “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, so forgive me,” and He forgave him. Indeed, He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. He said, “My Lord, for the favor You bestowed upon me, I will never be an assistant to the criminals.” And he became inside the city fearful and anticipating, when suddenly the one who sought his help the previous day cried out to him once again. Moses said to him, “Indeed, you are an evident, misled one.” And when he wanted to strike the one who was an enemy to both of them, he said, “O Moses, do you intend to kill me as you killed someone yesterday? You want only to be a tyrant in the land and do not want to be of the amenders.” And a man came from the farthest end of the city, running. He said, “O Moses, indeed the eminent ones are conferring over you to kill you, so leave. Indeed, I am to you of the sincere advisors.” So he left it, fearful and anticipating. He said, “My Lord, save me from the wrongdoing people.”
“And you did that deed of yours which you did, and you are one of the (l-kāfirīna)ungrateful. He said, “I did it then, when I was of those who are ( l-ḍālīna) astray.” (Qur’an 26:19-20)
We as Muslims ask Allah to guide us and keep us away from the l-dalina.
“The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are (l-ḍālīna) astray.” (Qur’an 1:7)
It is used of the Prophet (saw) before divine guidance.
“And He found you lost (ḍāllan), and He gave you guidance.” (Qur’an 93:7)
Thus, the the “accident” label is an interpretive conclusion drawn by scholars, not a direct statement of the Quranic text itself. However, what is clear is that there are no verses in the Qur’an that address Moses (as) as a prophet before the incident where he killed the man.
In fact, his divine comission starts here: Qur’an 20:11–24 and Qur’an 28:29–35.
What is also clear is that Musa (as) prayed: “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, so forgive me,”
Which is followed by: “and He forgave him.” So in that sense you can say that Moses (as) was sinless as he did not begin his comission as a Prophet. The one whose sin is forgiven is like the one who never sinned.
Then there is this verse where Allah (swt) addresses the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira)for you what preceded of your (dhanbika) sins and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.” (Qur’an 48:2)
When addressing Pharaoh a word from the same Arabic root is used.
“[Theirs is] like the custom of the people of Pharaoh and those before them. They denied Our signs, so Allah seized them for their (bidhunūbihim)sins. And Allah is severe in penalty.” (Qur’an 3:11)
In classical Arabic, Dhanb literally means:
A fault or shortcoming like human oversight or “leaving the better option” Khilaf al-awla (خلاف الأولى)
A sin, crime, or offense
Also note that the verse above says: That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira)Forgiveness is only for that which needs forgiveness. Which doesn’t necessarily entail a moral sin.
Some Muslim translators were embarassed by this because the text is a direct assault upon their contrived beliefs.
This is why as Muslims we follow the evidence. We do not follow our desires.
*Mohammed Tahir-ul-Qadri*has translated the above as:
“So that Allah forgives, for your sake, all the earlier and later sins (of all those people) of your Umma ([Community]* who struggled, fought and sacrificed by your command), and (this way) may complete His blessing on you (outwardly and inwardly) in the form of Islam’s victory and forgiveness for your Umma (Community), and may keep (your Umma) firm-footed on the straight path (through your mediation).”
* Note*We understand the claimants of Sufism to be lovers of Al-Haqq (The Truth) and not people who manipulate the religion.
It is rather obvious why people would interpret the text like this. Because when you have a Pir-Murid (master-disciple) culture where people are expected to pledge fealty to the Pir, then it becomes impossible for the Pir to commit even the smallest infraction or mistake.
All acts of kufr (ingratitude) are sins. However, not all sins are acts of kufr (ingratitude).
All acts of shirk are acts of kufr but not all acts of kufr are acts of shirk.
There is no verse in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) forgives an act of kufr without repentance.
Major sins committed with persistence and unrepentance that are acts of kufr, yet it is evident to you the reader that it is impossible for any Prophets (peace and blessings upon them) to persist in commiting a sin. Furthermore, we do not pass judgement of disbelief or disavowal regarding those who possess true *walayah* (spiritual sanctitiy/freindship with Allah), yet we do not condone sin on anyone’s part.
A case in point is the story of the brothers of Joseph (peace be upon him) ” we attest to their *walaya* and their place in Paradise, while simultaenously disavowing before Allah the sins they committed against their brother Joseph and their father Jacob (peace be upon them both).
The following lecure by Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi (h) is also very eye opening:
The methodology of the Prophets in dealing with sins. Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi.
“O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat there from abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the (l-ẓālimīna)wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:35)
“But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” (Qur’an 2:36)
“So he brought about their fall through deception. And when they tasted of the tree, their nakedness was exposed to them, prompting them to cover themselves with leaves from Paradise. Then their Lord called out to them, “Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you that Satan is your sworn enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22)
“And Adam and his wife ate of it, and their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of Paradise. And Adam disobeyed (waʿaṣā ) his Lord and erred.” (Qur’an 20:121)
“They replied, “Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we will certainly be losers.” (Qur’an 7:23)
“Allah said, “Descend as enemies to each other. You will find in the earth a residence and provision for your appointed stay.”(Qur’an 7:24)
﷽
A bone chilling reminder. Dear brothers and sisters and truth seekers. This is the month of mercy and forgiveness. Seek it!
Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani reminds us:
“Allah The Exalted, removed our Father Adam alayi salam, from heaven. For what reason did Allah (swt) remove him? For the reason of committing a single sin only! For the people of now (in these times) belittle committing a single sin and consider it severe only when they gather many (sins).”
“As if a problem only arises and is connected only to when the sins become many. No!”
“A sin in the sight of Allah is considered severe. Even if it were just one!”
“And if it were not like that, then why did Allah The Exalted remove our Father Adam alayhi salam, from a huge blessing in the form of heaven for the sake of committing one sin only, only! “
“Do not disobey your lord, even if it is just by one sin (one time) only! For it is not the number of sins committed that is considered; rather, it is He who you have sinned against that is considered. And that is ALLAH the MAGNIFICIENT!”
“So if you commit a sin under the pretext that it is just one (one time) and one only and that you won’t commit more. And as a result of continuing such, you eventually lose huge favour (from Allah) such as: health, offspring, spouse, work, shelter or any other favour!”
“Then do not blame anyone other than yourself! For you are not greater than our Father Adam alayi salam.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
“And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot (fanasiya); and We found not in him determination.” (Qur’an 20:115)
Allah (swt) removed Adam (as) from paradise for what we may consider a simple act of fanasiya (negligence). Look at this Arabic word (fanasiya) and look how it used here:
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot (fanasū) a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
The Christians were cursed and given the curse of animosity and hatred among each other until the day of resurrection. This means Allah (swt) must have found in them determination. Where as witih Adam (as) he did not.
What about the Muslim who goes beyond what we may consider simple matters of negligence? One who sins and persist in the sinning. One who does not even seek forgiveness from Allah (swt)? What is that person’s condition?
Is there any Muslim today who considers themselves better or the equal of Adam (as)?
Allah (swt) inspired Adam (as) with words of forgiveness and the Allah (swt) forgave Adam. Yet, the effects of the sin took place. That is the explusion from the paradise.
According to the proofs and evidence advanced by the Sunnī schools of theology (Ashʿarī, Atharī, Māturīdī) if a Muslim dies without repenting from their major sins, they will spend an undisclosed period in hellfire. (Billions of years perhaps).
According to the proofs and evidence advanced by the Shiʿi and Ibāḍī schools of theology, if a Muslim dies without repenting from their major sins they will be in hellfire without reprieve.
No matter our theological position on what happens to the unrepentant sinners in the hereafter (billions of years in hellfire or indefinitely), the Shaykh has made a forceful point.
Even in the various Ṣūfī tariqa. How often during the day is it permissible to be in a state of ghaflah (heedlessnes)? In taṣawwuf, when is it permissible to not be in a state of dhirk (remembrance) of Allah? When is it permissible to forget Allah?
When we sin are we in a state of dhirk or ghaflah?
We need to get right with Allah. We need to purfiy ourselves and our intentions.
“And keep in mind that Allah’s Messenger is in your midst. If he were to yield to you in many matters, you would surely suffer. But Allah has endeared faith to you, making it appealing in your hearts. And He has made disbelief, rebelliousness, and disobedience detestable to you. Those are the ones rightly guided.” (Qur’an 49:7)
“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 All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is indepenent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor is He from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
﷽
An eye opening and hopefully a (heart opening) talk.
The Exaltedness of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) Between Anthropomorphism and Transcendence Shaykh Dr. Sulaiman bin Ahmed Al-Khalili
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. Praise be to Allah, the Exalted, the Great, the Righteous, the Generous. I praise Him, seek His help, and seek His guidance. I seek refuge with Allah from the evils of ourselves and from the misdeeds of our deeds, and from all anthropomorphism and division. Whomever Allah guides, none can mislead, and whomever He allows to stray, you will never find for him a guide to the straight path. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah alone, with no partner. He is the Exalted, the Great. “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.” I bear witness that our master and prophet Muhammed is His servant and messenger, His chosen one and close friend, the master of the knowers and the leader of those who declare Allah’s transcendence from the earlier and later generations. May Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him, upon his family, and upon all his companions.
To proceed: O believing brothers, I greet you with the good and blessed greeting of Islam. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. I congratulate you and myself on this blessed gathering in this pure place on this blessed night. May Allah make me and you among those whom the angels surround, mercy covers, tranquility descends upon, and whom Allah mentions among those with Him.
The topic, as you know, is about Allah’s transcendence and exaltation between anthropomorphism and absolute transcendence. What prompted me to speak about this subject is that many people, after coming across the writings of the Ibadis and seeing that those writings indicate the sincerity of their intentions, the purity of their consciences, their keenness on unity and the interest of the nation, and their sharing with their brothers in their hopes and aspirations at the forefront of whom is our venerable father, may Allah preserve him he has tweets that have spread east and west, urging the nation towards unity, solidarity, mending the rift, holding fast to Allah’s strong rope, defending the Great Qur’an and the noble Prophet (peace be upon him), and warning against destructive calls, atheism, moral dissolution, sexual deviance, unjust killing, and the like. This matter upset a group of people, who began to spread their poisons. This group does not wish good for this nation, nor does it want it to unite under the banner of “There is no god but Allah.” They were angered by people gathering around or people gathering around the callers to truth and paying attention to what they write. So they began warning against them, against listening to them, and against reading their writings. This reminds me of what the disbelievers of Quraysh used to do when the verses of Allah were recited to them: they would whisper to one another, “Do not listen to this Quran and make noise during it, so that you may overcome.” Yet those tweets did not touch upon meaning, they warn people that these are Ibadis and that they deny Allah’s exaltation and plot against His establishment on the Throne, and so on. These tweets, as you have seen and as I have read, did not touch upon these subjects. Rather, they spoke about shared matters that concern the entire nation.
But they, that malicious group, are liars in their claims, in these false accusations and baseless allegations. For no Muslim denies, say: Allah is Exalted. How could they deny Allah’s exaltation when they repeat in their prostration in all their prayers, “Glory be to my Lord, the Most High,” and recite Allah’s saying, “Exalt the name of your Lord, the Most High,” and His saying, “He is the Exalted, the Great,” and “He is the Exalted, the Magnificent,” and the like? Yes, they transcend Allah above sensory elevation and need for a place. They say that this elevation is elevation of rank and status, their position being like that of the rest of the nation.
Many scholars have stated that the nation is unanimously agreed that Allah is not contained by any place nor subject to time, except for those who deviated from the anthropomorphists and those who liken Allah to creation. These likened Allah to His creation, affirming for Him a sensory elevation, affirming for Him a place in which He settles, a Throne upon which He sits, affirming for Him ascent, descent, coming, and going. Indeed, they even affirmed for Him eyes, a tongue, lips, two legs, two hands, a shin, and two sides, sometimes with disagreement about these matters. Some of their imams even said: “Affirm everything except the beard and the private parts.” What led them to this was that they analogized the unseen to the witnessed. This analogy is false and corrupt because it equates the Creator with the created, the Eternal with the temporal, the Everlasting with the perishable. It contradicts Allah’s saying: “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.” So whatever comes to your mind, Allah is different from that. Allah, the Exalted, existed when there was no place, no Throne, no Footstool, these things are all created by Allah, His creation.
Another matter is that they denied metaphor, which is established in the Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah. The result of this is that they emboldened people to overstep regarding the Divine Essence and to describe Allah with the attributes of His creation. Indeed, they opened the door to casting doubt on this religion and this creed, that they are contradictory and conflicting, due to the perceived contradiction in their primary source, the Book and the Sunnah, not to mention the infiltration of many corrupt creeds.
Yet the Quran was revealed in a clear Arabic tongue. It used the same words that the Arabs used and employed the same rhetorical styles that the Arabs employed. In it the Quran there is literal truth, metaphor, explicit meaning, and allusion. There are many examples of this. Allah, for instance, says: “O you who believe, fear Allah (ittaqullah)” although in the language, “taqwa” (fear/piety) linguistically means avoidance. Does that mean Allah commands us to avoid Him and stay away from Him? No. Rather, it means He commands us to beware of His wrath by obeying His commands. Likewise, He says: “And fear a Day when you will be returned to Allah” meaning the Day of Judgment. Can anyone truly avoid that Day? Can anyone tell his brothers or colleagues that he will not attend that Day because Allah commanded us to avoid it? How, when Allah has decreed that everyone in the heavens and earth will come to the Most Merciful as a servant? He has enumerated them and counted them exactly, and each will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection alone.
Likewise, Allah made the freeing of a slave one of the acts of righteousness. If we took this verse literally, “freeing a neck”, meaning cutting off necks, it would follow that this act earns Allah’s pleasure and that the happiest people would be those who cut off necks, kill innocents, and shed blood. Similarly, Allah says: “They are clothing for you, and you are clothing for them”. If taken literally, is a woman truly a garment for a man? And He says: “Guide us to the straight path”. Although “path” (sirat) is a road. Does that mean a specific road, or that my Lord is on a straight path? If taken literally, it would mean Allah is seated on the road. There are many such examples you know. And ask the village, meaning, no rational person can deny metaphor given the abundant evidence in Allah’s Book.
The same applies to the Prophetic Sunnah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was an Arab and the master of eloquent speakers; therefore, he also used the same rhetorical styles the Arabs used. Among these is the Prophet’s saying: “Islam is built upon five”. Is there a literal, physical, material building here, or is this building a conceptual one, not material? Similarly, the sacred hadith, narrated from Allah: “My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory acts until I love him. And when I love him, I become his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks.” If we took this hadith literally, what would it mean? It would mean that Allah is the servant’s hearing, Allah is the servant’s sight, Allah is the servant, and the servant is Allah. It would mean that a person ascends in worship until he reaches this rank where he worships with his very limbs. This belief actually exists among Christians, who believe in the incarnation of the Divine in humanity, as well as among extremist Sufis (or their offshoots), who say that a person ascends in worship until Allah dwells in him! Exalted is Allah above that. One of their imams said: “Glory be to me! Glory be to me! How great is my station!” He was claiming that Allah had dwelt in him and spoke with his tongue.
Likewise, in the sacred hadith: “O My servant, I fell ill and you did not visit Me.” He said: “How can I visit You when You are the Lord of the worlds?” He said: “Did you not know that My servant so-and-so fell ill? Had you visited him, you would have found Me with him.” Can we take from this hadith an attribute of Allah? Namely illness and say Allah becomes ill because He said “I fell ill,” attributing illness to Himself? Does He truly become ill like His servants? Is that correct? No. Rather, in this hadith, Allah teaches us metaphor: “I fell ill and you did not visit Me.” He said: “How can I visit You when You are the Lord of the worlds?” He said: “Did you not know that My servant so-and-so” meaning the one who truly fell ill is the servant, but Allah attributed the illness to Himself as an honor for His servant due to his status with Allah. So what befell the servant is as if it befell Allah, but it is not correct to attribute literal illness to Allah. Then He said: “Had you visited him, you would have found Me with him”. The “found Me” also cannot be taken literally. Do we, when we visit the sick, find Allah with every patient? Rather, it means we find His reward.
If we took the texts whether from the Quran or the Prophetic Sunnah literally, we would find contradiction in Allah’s Book and in the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). For example, Allah says: “They forgot Allah, so He forgot them,” and: “Today We will forget you as you forgot the meeting of this Day of yours.” We find that in these two verses, He affirms forgetfulness for Himself. “Today We will forget you,” “They forgot Allah, so He forgot them.” Do we say that Allah forgets? But this forgetfulness is not like our forgetfulness?! Exalted is Allah above that! Because these verses are among the ambiguous ones that must be referred back to the clear verses. Allah describes Himself by saying: “And your Lord is not forgetful” and says in His Book: “He does not err and does not forget.” Therefore, the forgetfulness affirmed in the previous two verses is not the literal forgetfulness that is negated; otherwise, there would be contradiction in the Quran.
Likewise, Allah says: “And when We intend to destroy a city, We command its affluent ones, but they transgress therein.” At first glance, one might think Allah commanded them apparently with transgression. Exalted is Allah above that, because Allah says: “Indeed, Allah does not command immorality. Do you say about Allah what you do not know?” And He says: “Indeed, Allah commands justice, good conduct, and giving to relatives, and forbids immorality, evil, and oppression.” So He commanded them to obey, but they chose transgression.
Similarly, Allah says: “And We have already created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, eyes with which they do not see, and ears with which they do not hear. They are like cattle; rather, they are more astray. Those are the heedless.” It is known that the one without reason, reason being the basis of accountability is exempt from accountability. How then, besides that, they do not hear or see, and then are cast into Hell? Is that the intended meaning? No, because this would be injustice. Exalted is Allah above injustice! And “Your Lord is not unjust to His servants.” And Allah says: “Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.” If the case were that they do not reason, see, or hear like cattle, rather more astray they would be unaccountable and even more incapable than cattle, so they would have even more excuse from accountability; they would not be blameworthy for anything they did because the proof would not have been established against them. Is that intended? Of course not. Rather, they disabled the intellect, hearing, and sight that Allah had given them, using them not in what benefits them in pleasing Allah, so they were treated like those who have lost those faculties.
Likewise, Allah says: “The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a spirit from Him.” Is the Messiah literally a “word” meaning it consists of letters and sounds? Is the Messiah like that, or is he a human being? If “word” here refers to a divine attribute, that would mean the Messiah is an uncreated divine attribute, thereby giving an argument to Christians that the Messiah is the son of Allah or is Allah himself. But this is to be referred back, as we said, to the clear verses. Allah describes the Messiah: “He was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel,” and: “Indeed, the example of Jesus in the sight of Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust.”
There are many examples. Allah, for instance, says: “And whoever is blind in this [life] will be blind in the Hereafter and more astray in way,” while in another verse He says: “There is no blame upon the blind.” The “blindness” here is not the same as the “blindness” there.
Another matter that led them to anthropomorphism and division was the infiltration of Israelite traditions, as Jarir ibn Sa’id, one of the Tabi’un (followers of the Companions) mentioned. This is reported by a number of scholars, including al-Dhahabi in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’, Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, and Ibn ‘Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq. This Tabi’i warned, saying: “Be cautious of hadith. I saw us sitting with Abu Hurayrah, who would narrate from the Prophet and also narrate from Ka’b [al-Ahbar]. Then some would stand and confuse the Prophet’s words with Ka’b’s and Ka’b’s words with Abu Hurayrah’s.” This happened at an early time. Those who heard directly from Abu Hurayrah and then those who followed them, and so on down the chain. As the chain lengthened, the fear of corruption increased. Additionally, we find some scholars who fell into anthropomorphism and corporealism defending the Torah and the Gospel, claiming the Torah is full of attributes that the “negators” (as they call them) deny, alleging that this proves anthropomorphism. They say: “We did not see the Prophet denying any of that,” even though denying this is one of the most obligatory duties. Subhan Allah! We have Quranic verses warning against this very thing.
Then they say: “The attributes found in the Torah are not innovations of the People of the Book. If they were innovations, the Prophet would have denied them, and the Companions would have denied them.” Subhan Allah! Does that mean we must believe in the Torah and what it contains? That Allah was a guest of Abraham? In the Torah, it is mentioned that He was a guest of Abraham with the angels, and He was served food and ate. Do we find anything explicit from the Prophet confirming this? Does that mean it is true and we should affirm it? No, there was a general denial and warning against taking from them because they altered and distorted.
Then we find some, like Ibn Taymiyyah, citing the Gospel to prove Allah’s sensory elevation. That He is in heaven. He says the Gospel quotes Jesus: “Do not swear by heaven, for it is Allah’s throne,” and Jesus told the disciples: “If you forgive people, your Father in heaven will forgive you,” and “Your Father in heaven is the one who feeds you,” using this as evidence. He said there are many such witnesses in the Gospel, as if this is the intended meaning, trying to prove that Allah is in highness and in heaven, even though these texts affirm the creed of the Jews and Christians, who say Jesus is the son of Allah and say “we are the children of Allah and His beloved.” If he uses these texts to prove Allah is in heaven, he must also use them to prove Allah has children! Exalted is Allah above that.
Such speech and reasons are how Israelite traditions seeped into Muslim creed. I think I spoke about this in this province ten years ago.
Now, if we affirm sensory elevation in saying Allah is literally above, literally in heaven, what would that entail? Are the directions (above, below, front, back) eternal? If we affirm sensory elevation, we must either say these directions existed before Allah, or with Allah, or after Allah. If we say they existed before Him, that means they are more deserving of divinity, and that Allah is temporal and needs someone to bring Him into existence. If we say they coexisted with Him, that means they share in His eternity; yet Allah, as the Prophet said, “was and nothing was with Him,” and “was and nothing was with Him,” which agrees with the Quranic verses: “Allah is the Creator of all things.” These directions are things, and the heavens are things, so they are created by Allah, existing after they did not exist. If we say they came after Him, meaning before their existence, if we say Allah was in heaven before heaven existed, where was Allah? Then Allah is the Necessary Existent. What does that mean? It means His existence is inherent, not dependent on anything else. That means no heaven, no Throne, no Footstool. Whereas the existence of others is dependent on Allah’s existence. Thus, the heavens, the Throne, etc., are all created by Allah. He created them. Allah existed when there was no place, then He created place, created the heavens and the earth. Creating the heavens and the earth did not affect His essence nor change any of His attributes.Exalted is Allah above that. These creations do not affect Allah; they have no effect on Him. Meaning, before their existence, Allah was not in any place and had no limits. Then after they came into being, did He become limited; confined to the direction of “above,” with a specific measure? If He were in the direction “above,” He would have a specific measure, meaning the heavens had an effect on Him, changing one of His attributes. That He was not confined and then became confined, not in a place and then became so! Exalted is Allah above that. Do Allah’s creations affect His attributes? Then these creations, as we said, all depend on Allah, while Allah is independent of them. “Allah is the Self-Sufficient, the Praiseworthy.” He is not in need of heaven, the Throne, or any such thing. If we say He is in heaven, in a direction, on a Throne, etc., He would be carried; and surely the carrier is stronger than the carried, and the carrier is independent of the carried, while the carried needs to be carried. Does Allah need a place or something from His creation? Exalted is Allah above that.
Furthermore, if we say Allah is in a place, in highness, or in heaven, that would mean the place is greater than Him. That is because heaven contains Him!? Heaven contains countless angels, so it would contain them and contain Allah! Exalted is Allah above that. Thus, heaven would be greater than Allah. Additionally, if we say He is in heaven or in the direction “above,” He would be divisible and composed of parts, as Imam al-Salimi said in his Mashariq: in that case, what is above would not be what is below; what is in front would not be what is behind; what is on the right would not be what is on the left. Thus, the six directions would surround Allah! Exalted is Allah above that.
Moreover, Allah is the Subduer of the heavens and the earth and all things; nothing escapes His subjugation, His governance, His disposal. Allah says: “And they have not appraised Allah with true appraisal. The earth will be entirely within His grasp on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand.” If we take this literally as these anthropomorphists do as they affirm a literal “right hand” for Allah and affirm He is in heaven. Here Allah tells us the heavens are folded in His right hand, while He is in heaven. What does that mean? That He folded Himself with the heavens? Also Allah says: “Say: To whom belongs the earth and whoever is in it? Say: To Allah.” That would mean whatever is in heaven is Allah, meaning Allah is the owner of Himself! That He owns Himself? If He is in heaven, He would be a servant to Himself! Exalted is Allah above that!
Furthermore, as is well known, the earth is spherical or elliptical. If we say He is “above” relative to us, He would be “below” relative to those on the other side of the globe. And with the earth’s rotation, the situation might change! Exalted is Allah above that. When some anthropomorphists were confronted with this, it led them to deny the earth’s sphericity, claiming it is flat. Although this is a scientific certainty, to avoid this consequence, they denied the earth’s sphericity while speaking in the name of religion. So what is the reaction of the people and what is the reaction of the followers when they see that one speaking in the name of religion denies a scientific fact? It means this religion is false, resulting in a backlash. This actually happened. The Church, as you know, condemned to death those who discovered the earth’s sphericity, leading to apostasy. Likewise today, countries that adopt corporealism and anthropomorphism experience apostasy as a result of such matters; this is among the causes.
Does The Sun Orbit The Earth? | Shaykh Salih Al-Fawzan
Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) says: “O Allah, You are the First, so there is nothing before You; You are the Last, so there is nothing after You; You are the Manifest, so there is nothing above You; and You are the Hidden, so there is nothing below You.” Where is the sensory elevation here? If He is above, and there is nothing below Him, meaning there is nothing below Him, then He is not in a place. That which is in a place is a sensible thing, a material thing, which needs a place. But Allah, the Creator of place, does not need place. Many scholars, indeed, many declared as disbelievers those who affirm a place for Allah. Among that is what is narrated from Ja’far al-Sadiq, that he said: “Whoever says Allah is in something, or on something, or from something, has committed polytheism (shirk). For if He were in something, He would be limited; and if He were from something, He would be temporal.”
These anthropomorphists and likeners have used certain evidences, some rational and some textual, to argue for Allah’s sensory elevation. Among the rational evidences they used: they say the supplicant, when praying, raises his hands towards heaven. This, they claim, proves Allah is in heaven. However, this action of raising hands demonstrates need and humility before Allah. Moreover, there is a hadith in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) says: “Let people stop raising their eyes to heaven during supplication in prayer, or their eyesight will be snatched away.” He forbade raising eyes to heaven during supplication in prayer. Does that mean we understand from this hadith that if they raised their eyes, they would be distracted, and thus Allah is not there? No.
The Quran commands us to face the Ka’bah during prayer. Does that mean Allah is present in the Ka’bah or in its direction? No. Allah honors some places: just as heaven is, according to some scholars, the direction of the supplicant, the Ka’bah is the direction of the worshipper.
They also used Pharaoh’s statements as evidence. They said Pharaoh said: “O Haman, build for me a tower that I may reach the means, the means of the heavens so that I may look upon the God of Moses.” They claim Pharaoh, by his innate nature, knew that Allah is in heaven, while the “negators” deny this and do not know that Allah is in heaven. Yet after Allah narrated this, what did He say about Pharaoh? He said: “Thus was made pleasing to Pharaoh the evil of his deed, and he was turned away from the path.” Meaning what he said was a false creed, a Pharaonic creed that cannot be used as evidence. As our venerable father said in Burhan al-Haq: this is mentioned for reflection on their condition, not to use their statements as evidence. Otherwise, we would also have to believe that Pharaoh is Allah, because Allah narrated that he said: “I am your lord, the most high.” Do we believe that? And he said: “I know not for you any god other than me.” Then Allah said of Pharaoh: “And Pharaoh led his people astray and did not guide them,” and about him said: “And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire,” and said: “And the command of Pharaoh was not prudent.” So how can we use his statement as evidence? We do not want to mention their weak arguments. Can you believe that some even use a chicken raising its head to the sky, or a cow, and such cultural practices?!
Among the textual evidences they used is Allah’s saying: “Do you feel secure that He who is in heaven (man fi al-sama’) would not cause the earth to swallow you?” They say Allah explicitly stated He is in heaven. But in reality, this verse is among the ambiguous ones. First, the verse does not explicitly state that “Allah” is the one in heaven. It says “He who is in heaven” without specifying Allah. Even if we accept that Allah is meant, the meaning here is “the Exalted One, the Possessor of might, force, and subjugation”. The One who could cause the earth to swallow you. The Arabs customarily mention heaven when magnifying and exalting, as there are many examples. Among them is al-Nabigha al-Ja’di, who recited a poem before the Prophet and said: “We have ascended heaven, heaven above us / We have a lineage and forefathers / And we hope for a manifestation beyond that.” The Prophet did not say to him, “You lied; you did not ascend to heaven.” Or consider ‘Antarah praising his beloved ‘Ablah: “Your dwelling is in the sky’s atmosphere, a high place / And my arm is too short to reach the stars.” Does that mean ‘Ablah was in the sky and he was looking for a spaceship? No, it means high status and elevated rank.
So, as we said, if Allah is meant, the intended meaning is the Great One. It may also refer to Allah’s power, command, or authority. Allah says: “It is Allah who created seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof. The command descends among them.” So the intended meaning is the command of Allah. It descends from heaven to earth. It may also refer to the angels, as they reside in heaven. Some are charged with bringing down revelation, some with bringing down provisions, some with bringing down punishment. So it could be an angel tasked with sending down punishment, as Allah narrates about the angels when they visited Prophet Lot: “They said, ‘We will save you and your family, except your wife, she is to be among those who remain behind. Indeed, We will bring down upon the people of this city a punishment from heaven for their transgression.'” All these possibilities are open. But to believe that Allah is literally in heaven contradicts His transcendence and would confine Him. Exalted is Allah above that.
We find that Qadi ‘Iyad, as quoted by al-Nawawi, said: “There is no disagreement among all Muslims, whether jurists, hadith scholars, theologians, dialecticians, and laypeople that apparent texts mentioning Allah in heaven, like ‘Do you feel secure that He who is in heaven,’ are not to be taken literally, but are to be interpreted metaphorically. This is the case for all of them.” So Qadi ‘Iyad narrates consensus and agreement among all Muslims that such verses are not taken literally. He is not alone in narrating consensus; similar statements come from Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Abu Hayyan, and a group of scholars who report agreement on this.
However, on the other hand, we see or hear Ibn al-Qayyim saying: “The negator openly declares enmity in the guise of purifying the Most Merciful, while the polytheists are less severe in their disbelief, and both are followers of Satan.” By “negator” he means the one who transcends Allah above place and says Allah cannot be contained by heaven or literally be in it. He says: “Whoever claims that is a polytheist. Indeed, the true polytheist is less severe in disbelief.” Meaning this is worse than polytheism. That would imply that the entire nation or the majority has disbelieved, because these scholars narrate consensus on that.
Also among what they used as evidence is Allah’s saying: “And He is the Subduer above His servants.” They take the word “above” to mean sensory elevation, with the context of “subduing” (qahir). But this means “subjugation” and dominance, not spatial elevation. This usage exists even among humans. Allah says of Pharaoh and his people: “And they were subdued above them.” Does that mean they were raised up or ascended on their shoulders? No, it means power and overcoming. It is said: “The sultan is above the sultan, and the sultan is above the vizier.” When someone hears that, do they imagine physical “above”? No, it means rank and status. So that is the intended meaning, not what the anthropomorphists claim.
For example, ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Darimi says: “Who told you that the top of the minaret is not closer to Allah than its bottom, and the top of the mountain is not closer to Allah than its bottom? Because whoever is closer to heaven is closer to Allah.” This is astonishing speech. It would mean that a resident on the top floor of a skyscraper even if an atheist, ignorant, corrupt, with all blameworthy traits is closer to Allah, while the one on the ground floor even if pious, pure, righteous, and good is farther from Allah. That is not the intended meaning; the intended elevation is not sensory.
Also among what they used as evidence: the angels and the Spirit ascend to Him. They say this proves Allah is above. But the angels ascend to their dwelling places; heaven is the locus of Allah’s command and the place from which goodness descends. Everything that descends to earth, good or evil, comes from heaven, as heaven encompasses the earth. So when the angels ascend “to Him,” it means to where Allah commands. Is it conceivable to say, for instance, regarding Allah’s statement about Abraham: “Indeed, I am emigrating to my Lord” Does that mean he went to a place where Allah is? He left Iraq for Palestine, yet Allah says: “And whoever emigrates from his home to Allah.” The emigrants went to Medina, most of them from Mecca. Does that mean Allah is in Medina? No! They went to Allah, but that is not understood literally.
Also among what they falsely used as evidence is Allah’s saying: “Exalt the name of your Lord, the Most High.” They say this yet conversely, Allah says to Moses: “Fear not, indeed you are the most high.” Does that mean Moses was in heaven, looking down on Pharaoh and the magicians while they were on earth? No. And He says: “Do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be the superior ones.” Does that imply sensory elevation? These claimants say that whoever interprets figuratively is distorting Allah’s Book. So they themselves fall into distortion because when they come to verses that seemingly contradict these which apparently indicate Allah is everywhere they are forced to interpret them. For example, “He is with you wherever you are”. What do they say about that? “There is no secret conversation of three except that He is the fourth of them, nor of five except that He is the sixth of them, nor less than that nor more except that He is with them”. They say “with His knowledge.” Why do they interpret here? They interpret saying “with His knowledge” while for “establishment” and “elevation” they insist on literal power and subjugation? Why do they interpret here and thereby engage in distortion? That is also distortion.
They also say: “Prostrate and draw near.” Does every time a person prostrates, he literally draws closer to Allah? No. These verses are not to be taken literally, nor are those verses to be taken literally, because Allah is not in a place. It is also wrong to say “He is everywhere.” Rather, it is said: Allah does not need a place; He is not in a place. If we say “He is everywhere” with His knowledge, His power, His favor. Likewise, Allah says: “Then Allah brought them from where they did not expect,” and “So Allah came to their structure from the foundations.” If taken literally, these verses would mean Allah is in the foundations and under the earth. If we take these literally and those literally, there would be contradiction. The criterion is the clear verses: “There is nothing like unto Him”. He does not need a place, “and there is none comparable to Him,” and similar verses.
And He says: “Wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah.” Wherever we turn, Allah’s Face is before us. How then can He be in highness? Would that mean His Face hangs down to face every person? There are many evidences, and there are also evidences from the Prophetic Sunnah but there are also other evidences that contradict them. The Prophet said: “The closest a servant is to his Lord is when he is prostrating,” and he said: “O Allah, You are the Companion in travel.” If we took these literally and those texts literally how can He be the Companion in travel while also being above? There are many such hadith. But time is pressing, and we do not wish to prolong it. We will stop here.
O Allah, teach us what we do not know, make us understand what we do not understand, and guide us to the straightest path.
“Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you ˹O Prophet˺ under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down serenity upon them and rewarded them with a victory at hand..” (Qur’an 48:18)
﷽
“The noble verse was not phrased as: “Allah was pleased with those who pledged allegience to you under the tree”-which might imply that the pledge itself necessitated *walayah al-haqiqah* (affilation and guardianship based on inner spritual reality)-but rather qualified that pleasure with faith: “Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you.” Thus, Allah’s pleasure applies to those believers whom He knew would remain steadfast in piety. The verse does not specify any particular individual. Neither Ali, nor Abu Bakr (ra), nor anyone else; it is general in nature, and its application to specific individuals is a matter of probability rather than certainty.” -Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi
“Consequently, while is is certain that there were believers among those who pledeged allegiance, the question remains: Who exactly were they? For this reason, the rulings applicable to them are those of *walayah al-zahir* (affiliation and guardianship based on outward status) rather than *walayah al-haqiqa*. And Allah knows best.”-Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi
One of our teachers had informed us the following in regard to the above verse.
“There are accounts that indicate that Imam Ali-May Allah honour his face, in light of this verse (Qur’an 48:18) repented to Allah of his sins. For this reason, some of our scholars do not subscribe to the view of disavowing Imam Ali -May Allah honour his face.” -Shaykh Rashid Al Miskiri
What is also interesting is the exact same verse is used to show the outrage at the killing of the companions at Nahrawan.
And a large majority of those killed from Ahl Nahrawan were companions and thousands of Muslims and the majority of those killed from Ahl Nahrawan that day were from the best of people on the earth that day and the most ascetic. Amongst them were those who fought the battle of Badr; those who gave allegiance under that tree and reciters and the best of the tabi’un.
“Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you ˹O Prophet˺ under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down serenity upon them and rewarded them with a victory at hand..” (Qur’an 48:18)
And it is a known position that whomever Allah purifies becomes among the people of walayah (divine allegiance/guardianship). So how is it that, in the end, they label the Ibadiyya as Kharijites, as if they are challenging Allah by passing a judgment upon them that is contrary to Allah’s judgment?!
Prima Qur’an comments: For us Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi’s point is very strong. For even if we knew for certain that Abu Bakr (ra), Ali, or the companions of Ahl Nahrawan were present by name the verse is clear that Allah (swt) is pleased with the believers. He does not indicate who present at the pledge were believers.
Evidence used by the Ibadi school to show that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had repented for his sins.
That is repentance for the sin of arbitration and for the slaughter of the people of Nahrawan. That he felt remorse in his heart and realized that killing the people of Nahrawan was a greave mistake. Thus, by extension is reasoned that he would not feel that way if he did not see them as being in the right. ipso facto-the arbitration was a colossal mistake.
In other words there came a point in which he felt the walls closing in around him and saw the great loss the chain of events that befell him. These Ibadis are those who hold Ali Ibn Abu Talib in walayah. They do not hold him in bara’ah. Nor do they practice wuquoof. They will often say Karram Allahu Wajhahū (Allah honoured his face). Though it is unlikely they will say Radeyallāhu ′Anhu (May Allah pleased with him). As this is exclusively reserved for those companions who were not known to do any open sins against Allah (swt). However, the act of repentance is certainly the most pleasing forms of worship.
Narrated from Ikrimah, The client of Ibn Abbas, from Abdullah ibn Abbas, who narrated to him from Qunbur – the client of Ali – that when Ali had killed the people of Al-Nahr, he and I turned our faces toward the river to wash off. While we were doing so, Ali began to cry, and he cried for a long time. Then I asked him: “Why these tears, O Amir al-Mu’minin?” He said: “Woe to you, O Qunbur! Do you know whom we have just fought and killed here? We fought and killed the best of this Ummah and its reciters!” I then said: “Indeed! By Allah, it is as you say, O Amir al-Mu’minin.” I too then began to cry. Ali then said again: “Woe to you, O Qunbur,” scrunching his nose and frowning. He then cried for a long time again, and his regret for his action of killing them. The people of Al-Nahr became apparent, and we could see this from the state he had entered.
And it was told to me that after killing the people of Al-Nahr, Ali’s companions walked around surveying the dead so they could bury them. Then one of them passed by his brother’s corpse and said: “This is my brother so-and-so.” He then threw dust over his head and fled the army in anger. And those who fled the army on that very day alone numbered 12,000. They would search among the dead, see their own relatives, bury them, then flee from Ali’s army and desert him.
Source: (Al-Jawahir Al-Muntaqah – The Selected Gems – by Abul-Qasem Ibn Ibrahim Al-Barradi, may Allah have mercy on him, pp. 155–156)
Because of this, some Ibadi scholars do not advocate disavowing (bara’ah) Ali. This shows that the Ibadi position on Ali is not uniform. There is room for walayah (loyalty) and recognition of his repentance.
“Imām ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (may Allah honor his face) said in describing the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Whoever saw him suddenly stood in awe of him, and whoever mixed with him came to know him and loved him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“Yes. Whoever saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at first glance, without any prior acquaintance, was filled with awe. An awe of reverence, honor, respect, and veneration. But when one mixed with him, he would come to know him. Whether in the mosque, or in the market, or on the battlefield, or on the road. He would mix with him in war and in peace; he would see his interaction with events; he would see how he mixed with people; he would see how he spoke; he would see how he scattered his pearls of wisdom—how, how, and how. He could not help but love him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“And ‘Alī (may Allah be pleased with him) spoke the truth. That presence which those noble Companions attained, those who were around the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). No human being can match their station; no one can reach that exalted honor, that lofty glory, that sublime rank. No one.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“But that presence was not confined to the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Whoever comes to know the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through the verses of the Book of Allah—for Allah described him with those magnificent, splendid, and sublime attributes and whoever looks at what has been transmitted to us by those noble men who recorded the biography (sīrah) of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and they reached the highest level in transmitting and documenting it. He knows and realizes that that presence remains. Whether the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was alive upon the earth or beneath the soil. May my father and mother be sacrificed for him, peace and blessings be upon him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“O beloved ones! In consecutive and successive sessions of a program that was previously held in the Great Mosque of Banī ‘Ubaydah in the south of Wilāyat al-Sīb.. This program is called “Malādh” and will be hosted next Thursday, starting from Thursday afternoon until the sunrise of Friday, if Allah wills. And in this edition, if Allah wills, which will be after a break. All of this by the grace of Allah. Our discussion will be about the Chosen Prophet, the Venerated, the Honored (peace and blessings be upon him). We will speak about his character, his conduct, his contemplation, some scenes from his life, and his daily routine. May the best of prayers and peace be upon him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“So whoever would like to join us, by the permission of Allah, I will attach some details to this clip for those who wish to participate. And may Allah grant us success, facilitate for us, make things easy for us, and enable us to broadcast the episodes in a live stream, if Allah wills, on the mosque’s platforms or any platform that will be announced at that time, if Allah wills. About the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So that we may achieve or reach that station—the station of one who tasted and knew, and one who knew and drew, and one who drew and attained honor.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
Summary and Conclusion.
Qur’an 48:18 is indeterminate (open to interpretation) and can be used to support different positions.
The verse speaks generally about “the believers” who pledged allegiance. It does not name any individual. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that it applies to any particular person. Whether Ali, Abu Bakr (ra), or the people of Nahrawan. However, it has been used to sanctify Ali, Abu Bakr (ra) and the people of Nahrawan.
This highlights the interpretive indeterminacy: the verse can be cited both to defend Ali and to condemn his actions against the Nahrawanites.
We hope this information is helpful for those seeking the truth.
As the two recording-angel sitting to the right, and the left—note, not a word does a person utter without having a observer ready.” (Qur’an 50:17-18)
“While you are certainly observed by vigilant, honourable angels, recording. They know whatever you do. (Qur’an 82:10-12)
﷽
Three categories on the day of judgement.
And you shall be three kinds (three groups) on that day. the people of the right, how will they be; the people of the left, how will they be; and the foremost will be the foremost ˹in Paradise˺.They are the ones nearest, in the Gardens of Bliss. A multitude from earlier generations. and a few from later generations. (Qur’an 56:8-14)
The people of the right
The people of the left.
The foremost.
The foremost are understood to be the Prophets of Allah (swt) and the martyrs.
A multitude from earlier generations. and a few from later generations.
The multitude from previous generations and later generations is a reference to those who came before the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) and those who came after him.
The Righteous: Given their record in the right hand.
As for those given their records in their right hand, they will cry happily, ‘Here, everyone! Read my record!'””I truly believed I would face my reckoning.””So they will be in a life of bliss,””In a lofty Paradise,””With clusters of fruit hanging low and near at hand.” “It will be said to them, ‘Eat and drink joyfully for what you did in the days past.'” (Qur’an 69:19-24)
The Wicked: Given their record in the left hand.
“But as for him who is given his record in his left hand, he will say, ‘Oh, I wish I had not been given my record!'” “And that I had never known how my account turned out!” “Oh, I wish my death had been the final one!””My wealth has not availed me at all.” “Gone from me is my power and authority.” (Qur’an 69:25-29)
The Punishment
“Seize him and shackle him!” “Then cast him into the blazing Fire.” “Then fasten him with a chain seventy cubits long.” (Qur’an 69:30-32)
The Reasons for Punishment
“For he never had (yu’minu) faith in Allah, the Greatest,” (Qur’an 69:33)
“And then being among those who believed and advised one another to patience and advised one another to compassion.” “Those are the Companions of the Right.” “But those who (kafarū) disbelieve in Our signs, they are the Companions of the Left.” (Qur’an 90:17-19)
The Two Fates
Those Given their Record in the Right Hand
“As for those who are given their record in their right hand, they will have an easy reckoning, and will return to their people joyfully.” (Qur’an 84:7-9)
Those Given their Record Behind their Backs
“And as for those who are given their record from behind their backs, they will cry for destruction, and will burn in the blazing Fire. For they used to be prideful among their people, thinking they would never return.” (Qur’an 84:10-14)
You can see trusted Sunni tafsir telling us that ‘behind their back’ also is meant by receiving with their left hands.
It was narrated that Safwan bin Muhriz Al-Mazini said:
“We were with ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar when he was circumambulating the House; a man came up to him and said: ‘O Ibn ‘Umar, what did you hear the Messenger of Allah say about the Najwa?’ He said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘On the Day of Resurrection, the believer will be brought close to his Lord until He will cover him with His screen, then He will make him confess his sins. He will ask him: “Do you confess?” He will say: “O Lord, I confess.” This will continue as long as Allah wills, then He will say: “I concealed them for you in the world, and I forgive you for them today.” Then he will be given the scroll of his good deeds, or his record, in his right hand. But as for the (alkafir ‘aw almunafiq) disbeliever or the hypocrite, (his sins) will be announced before the witnesses.’ ” (One of the narrators) Khalid said: “At: ‘before the witnesses’ there is something missing.” “These are the ones who lied against their Lord!’ No doubt! The curse of Allah is on the wrongdoers.”
The question is asked: How will the sinful Muslim take his book of deeds on the day of Resurrection?
“As for the sinners among those who believed in Tawheed, who will enter Hell and then be brought forth from it, there is a difference of scholarly opinion concerning them. Some scholars say that they will take their books in their right hands and some say that they will take their books in their left hands.”
“Al-Safaareeni (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The kaafir will be given his book in his left hand from behind his back, and the sinful believer will be given his book in his left hand from in front of him, and the obedient believer will be given his book in his right hand from in front of him. Al-Maawirdi was certain that what is well known is that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repented from his evildoing will take his book in his right hand, then he narrated an opinion which suggests that we should not discuss this matter and said: No one says that he will take it in his left hand.”
“Yoosuf ibn ‘Umar narrated that the Maalikis differed concerning sinners among those who believe in Tawheed. It was said that they will take their books in their right hands, and it was said that they will take them in their left hands.”
“With regard to the view that they will take their books in their right hands, it was said that they will take them before they enter the Fire, and that will be a sign that they will not abide therein forever. And it was said that they will take them after they are brought out of the Fire. And Allah knows best.”(Lawaami’ al-Anwaar al-Bahiyyah, 2/183 )”
“Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: With regard to a believer who sins, will he take his book in his right hand or in his left hand? He replied: He will take it in his right hand.”(Al-As’ilah al-Mulhaqah bi Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah, p. 500).”
“It seems – and Allah knows best – that no one will take his book in his left hand except the kaafir, as is apparent from the verses quoted above.”
“What the Muslim should do is to strive hard to do acts of obedience and worship, and to do good deeds, so that he will be among those who are given their books in their right hands. May Allah make us among them.”
“And Allah knows best.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
We are not keen on what Al-Saffārīnī or ‘Uthaymeen of the Hanbali school say. We are not keen on what al-Mawardi, and the Shafi’i or the Maliki schools say. All of what has been stated by them is a far cry from the truth. It goes against the clear text of the Qur’an.
So let us look at what is claimed by Muhammed bin Ahmad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali.
“The kaafir will be given his book in his left hand from behind his back, and the sinful believer will be given his book in his left hand from in front of him, and the obedient believer will be given his book in his right hand from in front of him.”
However, the article itself says:
“These verses indicate that the believer who is destined for Paradise will take his book in his right hand, and that the kaafir who is doomed to Hell will take his book in his left hand, from behind his back.
The evidence that those who take their books in their left hands are the kaafirs is the verses in which Allah says:
“Verily, he used not to believe in Allah, the Most Great” [Al-Haaqqah 69:33]
“Verily, he thought that he would never come back (to Us)!” [Al-Inshiqaaq 84:14]
i.e., he thought that he would never return to Allah.
This is also indicated by the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But those who disbelieved in Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), they are those on the Left Hand (the dwellers of Hell)” [Al-Balad 90:19]
So the sinful believer cannot be the one who takes his book in his left hand from in front of him.
Let us look what is claimed by Alī ibn Muḥammed ibn Ḥabīb of the Shafi’i.
“Al-Maawirdi was certain that what is well known is that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repented from his evildoing will take his book in his right hand, then he narrated an opinion which suggests that we should not discuss this matter and said: No one says that he will take it in his left hand.”
You say what we highlighted in red? Why should no one discuss this matter? Because it is a red flag that is why. Not is not known that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repenting takes his book in his right hand. That is not what the Qur’an says at all!
Of course no one will say left hand because it is established that those who take the book in the left hand are the kufar (ungrateful).
Muḥammed bin Ṣāliḥ al-‘Uthaymīn of the Hanbali school states:
“Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: With regard to a believer who sins, will he take his book in his right hand or in his left hand? He replied: He will take it in his right hand.“(Al-As’ilah al-Mulhaqah bi Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah, p. 500).”
Let us see how Allah (swt) describes the people of the right hand?
As for those given their records in their right hand, they will cry happily, ‘Here, everyone! Read my record!'””I truly believed I would face my reckoning.””So they will be in a life of bliss,””In a lofty Paradise,””With clusters of fruit hanging low and near at hand.” “It will be said to them, ‘Eat and drink joyfully for what you did in the days past.'” (Qur’an 69:19-24)
Does the above verse describe someone who knows they will burn in hellfire for an undisclosed period of time?
“As for those who are given their record in their right hand, they will have an easy reckoning, and will return to their people joyfully.” (Qur’an 84:7-9)
Can it truly be said of the one who is burned in hellfire for an undisclosed period of time that they will ‘have an easy reckoning’ ?
“(Then as for him who will be given his Record in his right hand, he surely, will receive an easy reckoning,) (84:7-8) meaning, easy without any difficulty. This means that he will not be investigated for all the minute details of his deeds. For verily, whoever is reckoned like that, he will certainly be destroyed.” –Ibn Kathir
“Then as for him who is given his book in his right hand,! he will receive an easy reckoning,That is, He forgives his sins and does not take him to account for them. Similarly it is related in a tradition that Allah, Exalted is He, if He wishes to conceal [the sins] of a servant on the Day of Resurrection, will show him only those sins which are known to Him and His servant, and then forgive him for them.”-Al Tustari.
Once again the position of the Ibadi school is clear.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that believers (mumin) enter the hellfire.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that the ungrateful (kafir) enter heaven.
The most sensible statement from the article above is the following:
“What the Muslim should do is to strive hard to do acts of obedience and worship, and to do good deeds, so that he will be among those who are given their books in their right hands. May Allah make us among them.”
Today we can only say: “Amin!” For this is what the Allah (swt) commanded of us.
The mainstream Sunni doctrine of temporary Hell for sinful Muslims relies on aḥādīth (e.g., intercession, removal of sinners from Hell) and interpretations that do their level best to harmonize aḥādīth with the Qur’an. But as we’ve demonstrated, the Qur’anic text itself makes no such provision.
Our conclusion is sound: the only safe course is to strive for the right hand, seek Allah’s forgiveness. Schools of thought can have thier disagreements However, the Qur’an’s clarity on the two fates is unmistakable.
Prima Quran 