Is Christ Jesus God?

﷽ 

“O Jesus, the son of Mary! Recount my favour to you and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit so that you would speak to people in childhood and in maturity.” (Qur’an 110)

“To Jesus the son of Mary, We gave clear signs, and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit .” (Quran 2:253)

“We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit .” (Qur’an 2:87)

“And say, “Praise to Allah, who has not taken a son and has had no partner in His dominion and has no need of a protector out of weakness; and glorify Him with great glorification.” (Qur’an 17:111)

Here Jesus (as) is contrasted with Allah (swt).

Jesus needs to be strengthened with the Holy Spirit. Whereas Allah (swt) has no need of any protector. In fact, Allah (swt) emphasizes that the one who needs a protector is due to some inherent need.

“An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.” (Luke 22:43)

Three points:

A) If the angel was there to strengthen Jesus’ human nature, what was deficient about the presence of Almighty God himself in Jesus that couldn’t give Jesus that strength? An angel is redundant.

B) If the angel was there to strengthen Jesus’ divine nature, that too does not make any sense. How does an angel strengthen God?

C) If the angel was there to strengthen the God-Man -then this leads us back to point A.

This is a dangerous concept because if Jesus could not turn to the Divine within himself which we are told the ‘whole fullness of godhead‘ dwells, then what precedent does this set for the rest of humanity?

Some people will start to call upon angels rather than God. This is not acceptable. What also makes the above text doubly redundant is that Jesus is already filled with the Holy Spirit.

“And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.” (Luke 3:23)

Imagine if you will if it said that the ‘Father descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him’. Why would the Holy Spirit whom we presume to be the divine, in essence, need to descend upon the son whom we presume to be divine in nature? If Jesus has the ‘fullness of the godhead’ which means the complete presence of the hypostatic union why the need for the Holy Spirit?

“And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Luke 4:1)

Imagine if you would if the text said, ‘being full of the Father returned from the Jordan’. What kind of understanding is this? Is God filled with God?

It looks as if Jesus is being assisted by an agent known as the Holy Spirit.

“How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil because God was with him.” (Acts 10:38)

“You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.” (Acts 2:22)

Is there power in the name of Jesus?
Many Christians believe that there is power in the name of Jesus. They also falsely assume that the name of God is Jesus.

We have answered that in our article here:

God has attributes that are possessed at all times. God is not God without his attributes. Did Jesus have these attributes at all times?

Christians often tell us that their concept is that Jesus is the ‘Godman’. The problem with this is not that Jesus ‘deity‘ empowers his humanity to do amazing feats like walking on water and so forth. The problem is that Jesus’ humanity overcomes his ‘deity‘ time and time again. The flesh can never overpower the divine might of God.

Example #1. Infinitude. God is self-existent. Is Jesus?

Allah in the Qur’an is self-existent and ever-living.


“Allah is that upon which all things are dependent, while Allah is dependent upon nothing.” (Qur’an 112:2)

“And rely upon the Ever-Living who does not die, and exalt His praise. And sufficient is He to be, with the sins of His servants, Acquainted -” (Quran 25:580)

However, Jesus is not self-sufficient.

“I live by the father.” (John 6:57)

Example #2. Unlimited Power. Allah is All-power in the Qur’an.

“Blessed be He in Whose hands is Dominion, and He over all things has power.” (Qur’an 67:1)

However, Jesus is not all-powerful.

“The Son can do nothing of himself…” (John 5:19)

Now Christians will obviously try and explain this away by saying that Jesus voluntarily lays aside some of these prerogatives of divinity. In accordance with their understanding of (Philippians 2:6-7).

Now there are huge theological problems with this which we will come back to insh’Allah. However, Christian theology opens itself up to enormous theological conundrums.

If God, in any manifestation of the third of the three, can, “lay aside divine prerogatives”, this means that God theoretically could “lay aside” divine prerogatives of being truthful, or of being just. This can mean that it could be deceitful or unjust — authubillah min dhalik (We seek protection in Allah from these thoughts).

Now there is clear subordination in John 5:19 as well.

“Ontological equality, but economic subordination,” in other words, “equal in being, but subordinate in role.”

Source: (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1994), Chapter 14 The Trinity, pp. 251-252.)

Interestingly, he even quotes from A.H Strong who says:

“We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination of essence.”

Whatever helps our Christian friends sleep well at night.

Example #3. Omniscient, Infinite Knowledge.

Allah is All-knowing in the Qur’an.

“It is He Who created for you all things that are on earth; moreover, His design comprehended the heavens, for HE gave order and perfection to the seven firmaments; and of all things, He has perfect knowledge.” (Qur’an 2:29)

However, Jesus is not all-knowing.

“But of that hour no man knows, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, But the Father.” (Mark 13:32)

Note: Jesus gives priority to the angels because they are in heaven, and he is on earth.

Is Jesus still God’s son after the resurrection? Christians will say yes. So this verse still applies to him.


Not only that, but if Jesus’ prayer was answered in John 17:5 “Give me the glory that I had with you before,” This would mean he would fully be in that essence; however, his knowledge is obviously not the same in essence as the Father. The Father is keeping secrets from the person of the Son. Their knowledge is not the same in essence.

Is God a man or the son of man? Can we apply these terms to God?

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent.” (Numbers 23:19)

“Whom do men say that I, the son of man, am?” (Matthew 16:13)

Note: Jesus used the term ‘son of man’ for himself. Also, Jesus was a man appointed by God. Since God is not a man or the son of man, then Jesus is not God.

God does not have the ability to lie or to repent. So this also raises the questions: Did Jesus have the capacity to lie or to repent? If he didn’t, was he ever really truly fully man?

Further irrefutable proof Jesus was only a mortal human being.

“And as Peter was coming in ,Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and worshiped him, but Peter took him up saying, stand up, “I myself also am a man (anthropos).” (Acts 10:25-26)

There above the Greek word for man is Anthropos.

Question: What does the word Anthropos mean?

Answer: It means a mortal human being, full man. It distinguishes man from the animal kingdom on one hand and distinguishes man from a deity and divine essence on the other.

Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/444.htm)

Anthropos is where we get the word anthropology, which means the study of man.

Whereas Theos is where we get the word Theology, which means the study of God.

“You who are Israelites, hear these words, Jesus the Nazorean was a man(anthropos) commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22)

I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst” (Hosea 11:9)

“But now you seek to kill me, a man (anthropos) who has told you the truth which I heard from.” (John 8:40)

Here Jesus applied a term to himself that allows therein no allowance for deity or terminology, such as the ‘God-Man.’ Jesus stresses here that he is a mortal human being without a dual nature. Never in Greek literature has the term anthropos come to mean God, or ‘God-Man’. Anthropos—by its definition, is to be without a dual nature.

The Tri-theist will tell you that Jesus is fully God and full man. Now God, being fully deity for the sake of argument, could come in the guise of a man. Example history is replete with Hercules, Zeus, Aphrodite, Amen-Ra, and the plethora of other gods and goddesses that legend say came in the form of human beings. However, a person can not be fully man and also be fully deity, because to be fully man (anthropos) is not to be divine.

Now we could stop our discussion here in light of what Jesus said about being anthropos. There is no one in Christianity that can stand up to that argument. Sure a person can bring a slew of proof texts (John 1:1, John 10:30, John 8:58, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13) but each one of those texts will fundamentally contradict John 8:40.

We could take another approach with Christians and ask:

Do Christians really believe that Jesus was ever truly a human being?


The Position of the Qur’an.

“The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; messengers before him had indeed passed away. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. See how We make the message clear to them! Then behold, how they are turned away!” (Qur’an chapter 5:75)

“I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.(2 John 1:7 New Living Translation)

The above argument from the Qur’an is not an argument against the deity of Christ per se. Rather, it can be argued that this text of the Qur’an is directed towards those who took the first steps in making Jesus a deity: namely the docetists or a group of Christians that held the belief in docetism.

Question: What is docetism?
Answer: The idea that Jesus did not come in the flesh or that Jesus the son of Mary was simply a spirit or apparition.

Docetism etymologically from the Greek verb dokeo, which means: “to seem, to appear, to be.”

Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/1380.htm)

In fact, when we Muslims engage Christians in debates, we point to the fact that he was simply anthropos (a mortal human being).

Jesus is reported to have said, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. ” (Mark 7:7)

“I do not accept human praise. Moreover, I know that you do not have the love of God in you.” (John 5:41)

There is an ample amount of text in the New Testament that shows that Jesus was not really human but simply appeared human, took on human form, or was a glorified apparition. If a person doesn’t see the theological wrangling going on in the following text, then something is wrong.

Take, for example, 1 Timothy 3:16

“Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He [a]APPEARED in a body [b] was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.”

Footnotes:

  1. Some manuscripts God
  2. Or in the flesh

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

Jesus ‘beams down’ like in Star Trek! “The Word became Flesh

In the Gospel of John, there is no virgin birth narrative.

John 3:16 which used to be translated as ‘Gave his only-begotten son’, has now been cast aside for the more famous ‘only unique’, ‘only son’, ‘only of his kind” etc. Begotten would imply that Jesus came into existence and for this writer that is simply not a given.

Also, note that there is no mention of Mary in the Gospel, according to John. It is simply some woman who is identified as Jesus’ mother. As if Jesus could have been adopted. Please see John 2:4 and John 19:25

So this writer has Jesus simply beam down or ‘materialize‘ like Captain Kirk on Star Trek.

What this text is saying is that Jesus took on the form of a human being. Just like the Holy Spirit took on the form of a dove. It doesn’t literally mean that the Holy Spirit incarnated as a dove or otherwise, the Christians would believe in two incarnations.

It simply means that the Holy Spirit was “dokeo” meaning it seemed to be, supposed to be, or appeared to be.

For example, one can look at Philippians 2:6 for further collaboration. Philippians 2:6-7 is a passage that many Christian scholars believe is likely a fragment of an early Christian hymn. These early Christians had docetic tendencies and views. They held that Jesus was not really in the flesh like other human beings, but only seemed, or appeared to have a body or a form. The form he had was purely spiritual.

“Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form(morphe) of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance.(Philippians 2:7)

Other Christians have quite a different interpretation of Philippians 2:7. They imagine the Son playing the role of Clarke Kent from Superman 2 where he powers down in the crystal chamber.

“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. Instead, he emptied himself (kenosis) by taking on the form(morphe) of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance.” (Philippians 2:7)

So what is this Kenosis? What did he empty himself of? If they say he emptied himself of divine attributes, then he is no longer God. God is not God without his attributes.

Kenosis means: (to empty, render void, perceived as valueless, deprived of content)

Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/2758.htm)

The other issue this brings up is the subordination doctrine. As mentioned earlier, Christians like to coin theological terminology that they feel helps them escape from difficult issues. Like the idea of their being subordination in the economy of the Trinity.

The text in Philippians 2:7 is also in direct contradiction to the text of Colossians 2:9 which states:

“For in Christ, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.”

You can see my other entry where I talk about if Christians believe in two incarnations: Did God become a dove?

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/does-the-biblical-text-assert-two-incarnations/

“For in Christ, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form(Colossians 2:9)

Yet, we are told in Luke 3:22

“And the Holy Ghost descended in bodily form like a dove upon him and a voice came from heaven which said,” You are my beloved Son in you, I am well pleased.”

Docetic Christians would have told us that they do not believe in two incarnations. That the Holy Spirit did not really become a bird/dove. Simply that it took on a bodily form. In the exact same way as Colossians 2:9 mentions a bodily form.

Original Word: εἶδος
Transliteration: eidos

Which means: appearance, fashion, shape, sight. From eido a view, i.e. Form (literally or figuratively) — appearance, fashion, shape, sight.

Source: (https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/eidos.html)

It’s amazing that the early Tri-theist Christians burned the writings of Marcion’s Christian faction. He is such an interesting person. Marcion, according to many, was an advocate of Paul, and he rejected the Old Testament, only accepting certain books that now comprise the 22/27 books of the New Testament depending upon the faction of Christianity you belong to.

Marcion formed the first Christian canon of the New Testament. Interestingly, we do not have the writings of Marcion. We only know about Marcion through his opponents. Guess we all know how well our opponents can represent our views (something us Ibadis know too well).

Now what most Christian scholars hide from the masses is the fact that the early Christians BURNED Marcion’s writings. You will also hear an interesting tale that he did a cut-and-paste job with the Gospel of Luke.

Especially interesting to us Muslims is the controversy regarding Marcion and the ‘Gospel according to Luke‘.

Take for example the controversy around the following text in the Gospel of Luke. This brings us back full circle to the beginning of this article.

“43An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.[a]

a]

Footnotes:

Luke 22:44 Some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.

Now put your detective hat on for a moment. If I held the position that Jesus was God but only appeared to be a human being ,why would the text above be problematic? Does the text above support that Jesus was also fully human or that he was simply God alone?

Once you ponder over this you will be able to see why “some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.”

“While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” (Luke 24:36)

“37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:37-39)

“40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43, and he took it and ate it in their presence. (Luke 24:40-43)

“44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:44)

Here is a link to an interesting discussion on Hort’s theory of Non-Interpolation, and it’s influence on the English version of the New Testament text here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/noninterp.html

Here is some of the discussion on verse 40 above.

Luke 24:40. Was ver. 40 omitted by certain Western witnesses (D ita,b,d,e,ff2,l,r1 syrc,s) because it seemed superfluous after ver. 39? Or is it a gloss introduced by copyists in all other witnesses from Jn 20.20, with a necessary adaptation (the passage in John refers to Jesus’ hands and side; this passage refers to his hands and feet)? A minority of the Committee preferred to omit the verse as an interpolation (see the Note following 24.53); the majority, however, was of the opinion that, had the passage been interpolated from the Johannine account, copyists would probably have left some trace of its origin by retaining τὴν πλευράν in place of τοὺς πόδας (either here only, or in ver. 39 also). [p. 187]”

Now someone would probably counter that Luke 24 does a great job of countering the Christian docetic position based upon two points.

1) People cannot touch a glorified body, apparition, form, etc.
2) People cannot hold onto a glorified body, apparition, form, etc.

Now, this text is very tricky because one cannot have their cake and eat it too. Obviously, according to Christians today, they do believe that Jesus was a glorified body (a body that had nail prints in it). Not only this but what was the point of eating broiled fish and honeycomb?

Now as for the objections above. We find it strange that people would say you cannot touch a glorified body, or hold onto a being that is merely taking on the form or shape of a body.

Christians also believe that God eats yogurt, drinks milk, and eats roasted meat as well!

“When the food was ready, Abraham took some yogurt and milk and the roasted meat, and he served it to the men. As they ate, Abraham waited on them in the shade of the trees.” (Genesis 18:18)

So Christians do not believe that Jesus is really a human being.

Because to be really a human being is NOT to be God. They do not believe that he was human but simply that God came down and tabernacled among humanity. There has never been a human being in the existence of humankind that was God. If you want to argue that God comes and takes on a form or a shape, drinks milk, and eats fish, honeycombs, yogurt, and roasted meat, fine! However, no one can say that any of those entities or beings were truly human.

“I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.(2 John 1:7 New Living Translation)

This is why iour contention that the vast majority of Christianity today is Anti-Christ!

Anti is the Greek word which means in place of.

The Christians will claim that they believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man. However, to be fully man is not to be fully God. You can say that a circle can have three sides all you want it does not make it true.

Islam has the truth. We believe that Jesus is the Messiah. He was born of the Virgin Mary (May Allah cover her in mercy) and he is a mortal human being. It is Christian theology that has betrayed the real son of Mary.

This is a reason why the Qur’an above says Mary and Jesus BOTH ate food. The emphasis is that Jesus eats food in the same way that Mary does. He does it for the same reason and purpose. He is really a mortal human being. It is not the way the Christians (who are docetist in disguise) that Jesus eats broiled fish and honeycomb because he is a glorified apparition!

The problem that Islam has with Christians is not only that they claim that Jesus is God. The real problem is that Christians do not believe that Jesus was really a human being; they believe he took on the form of a servant or appeared in the likeness of men.

“I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.(2 John 1:7 New Living Translation)

It is our hope that the sincere Christian is able to see these theological constructs for what they truly are.

Philosophical objection to the Trinity

The argument from René Descartes

Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)

The Christian concept of the Trinity does not stand up to the philosophy of René Descartes.

René Descartes speaks of a person as the subject of self-awareness and freedom—in brief, a person as a conscious and autonomous self.

Is God aware of his own existence?
Does ‘God the Father’ think?
Does ‘God the Son’ think?
Does ‘God the Holy Spirit’ think?


If there is only one mind and one self-existence, then God is absolutely one and not tri-unity. If there are three minds and three self-existences, then without doubt trinitarian Christians have slipped into Tri-theism and worship three gods.

Are the Trinitarian Gods one in mind, will, and action? If so, how can this be so? If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in mind, will, and action, in what sense can they be three persons? If the three act as one and so are one in nature, what room is left to distinguish three persons?

One can slip into talk of three distinct centers of consciousness and decision-making, and an interpretation of the divine persona that abandons monotheism and ends up with three gods in perfect dialogue among themselves.

Such a conception can hardly ward off tri-theism or the idea of three self-sufficient subjects who enjoy a separate existence, always act together as a closely meshed community of divine individuals, but do not constitute one God.

None of the members of the trinity alone are fully God. If the Trinity is to be understood, we have a situation where Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but none of them on their own are fully God.



Examples of Jesus’ humanity overpowering his ‘deity’.


Does God increase in wisdom?

“For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.” (1 John 3:20)

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)

We know that God does not increase in wisdom. God is All-Wise.

Does God Sleep?

“Behold, he that keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” (Psalm 121:4)

“But he (Jesus) was asleep.” (Matthew 8:24)

Can Satan himself tempt God?

God cannot be tempted with evil.” (James 1:13)

“And when the devil ended all the temptation (of Jesus), he departed from him for a season.” (Luke 4:13)

Prima Qur’an Comment:

Now each of those points brought up above is about Jesus sleeping, increasing in wisdom, and being tempted with evil, we know what our Christian friends will say. That all of this is in regard to the humanity of Jesus. For example, do we sleep, do we have a soul, does our soul sleep?

The Big Theological and Philosophical challenge to Christianity.

Can God Die?

“God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in an unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.”(1 Timothy 6:15-16)

So now who or what died on the double-cross?

Just as God is not tempted, doesn’t increase in knowledge, doesn’t require sleep, God does not die.

God didn’t die. God’s essence did not die. God the Father did not die. God, the Holy Spirit, did not die. God the Son did not die.

That is the end of Christianity. It so frustrates Christians in debates with Muslims that the Christian immediately pushes a panic button and will either introduce a non sequitur, or statements that are not analogous at all.

“Even my Muslim friends don’t believe that death is the cessation of life!”

So the Christian tries a diversion tactic. Say something truthful about your opponent that they are forced to agree with in order to take the tension out of the room.

To our dismay, time and time again, Muslim debaters let Christians off the hook on this.

True, Muslims believe that there is life after death, but the Christian is trying to avoid the subject of death altogether. Muslims also believe that our souls are created; they are not eternal. Muslims believe that we do indeed die.

So that which Christians claim died on the double-cross, was it created or eternal? And notwithstanding the fact that there is life after death, back to the pointed question:

Who or what died on the double-cross?

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)

Which also begs the question: what did God really sacrifice?

We can’t say God sacrificed his life because God couldn’t die.

We can’t really say that God sacrificed his son because he got his son back.

We can’t even really say that God sacrificed time, as God exists outside space/time.

Which also still leaves our Christian friends in their sin. All that happened, in reality, was a cosmic charade. In the end, a man was left to suffer. God didn’t partake in any suffering. It was simply flesh that was abandoned on the double-cross.

It says, “About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice,” ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” (Matthew 27:46)

Jesus is speaking as flesh here. The Father can never abandon the Son because they are co-eternally joined in one essence.

All that was left was flesh, the same flesh that we are told can’t please God.

“Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:8)

For more on the above see our article:

Who is God?

We will look at the New Testament evidence that overwhelmingly shows that only the Father is God.

Answer: 1 Corinthians 8:6
“But to us, there is one God, the Father.” (Not Trinity, not the son, -The Father.)

“Let us read from Young’s Literal Translation: “For even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth — as there are gods many and lords many — yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] all things, and we through Him.” (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

This is very important because of all those Elohim(gods/ which one is truly God? Paul says the FATHER. This verse clearly refutes Christian Tri-theism.

“That the God of our ‘Lord Jesus Christ’, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation.” (Ephesians 1:17)

Who is the God of ‘Lord Jesus Christ’?

“Blessed be the ‘God and Father’ of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Peter 1:3)

Who is the God and Father of ‘Lord Jesus Christ’?

“We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you.” (1 Colossians 1:3)

“One God and Father of all.” (Ephesians 4:6)

My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

My Father is greater than all.” (John 10:29)

“Jesus said, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: But go to my brothers and say unto them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17)

“And surely Allah is My Lord, and your Lord, so worship Him. This is a Straight Path.” (Qur’an 19:36)

Note: Jesus should be ‘fully glorified’ God here, as he is saying these words in his post-resurrected body.

“Have we all not one Father? Has not One God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)

This text is sufficient to put at rest the tired arguments that, because Jesus called God his father, he was making himself equal with God. This is not what Jesus said. This is what some Jews said about Jesus. However, Jesus never makes any claims that the Father belongs exclusively to him. John 20:17 made that abundantly clear to all those who can see.

Jesus also is reported to have told people to pray, “Our Father who is in heaven.”

Now Christians (depending upon if they are Tri-theist as are the ‘Trinitarians’ or if they are Modalists as are the ‘Oneness Pentecostals’) will try and bring a proof text to support their respective positions to identify Jesus as the Father.

Proof text used by Christians to try and identify Jesus as the Father

#1) The first proof text they try and use is Isaiah 9:6

“For to us, a child is born, to us, a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Now, more often than not, the only thing that the Tri-theist wants from this passage is that Jesus is called ‘Mighty God’. They do not really want to deal with the fact that it also says this person will be called “Everlasting Father,” because it deals some damage to their doctrine, and gives credence to the Modalism that the ‘Oneness Pentecostals’ believe in. So what they normally do is say these are simply titles but not names of Jesus. Or they represent the realities of Jesus (that the Father is expressed in him) etc.

Because the Trinity doctrine is very explicit that Jesus is not the Father. We are always dismayed by their use of this passage.

Isaiah 7:14 comes to mind where it says,

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

Who ever really called him Immanuel? In his lifetime? So we wanted to bring the Isaiah 9:6 passage up because it’s the only passage beside John 10:30 (that we will soon be dealt with) that Christians would try and use to show that Jesus is the Father.

The popular Christian version of Isaiah 9:6 is not even in Septuagint 2.0!

“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

Source: (https://biblehub.com/isaiah/9-6.htm)

This is what you are used to seeing, correct? Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

https://biblehub.com/sep/isaiah/9.htm

“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”(Isaiah 9:6 -The Septuagint 2.0 The Holy Spirit’s Fav Version)

Where are all these other names?

So who is upon the truth? Are Latin Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox upon guidance for trusting a text that does not make Christological claims about Jesus, such as calling him (Jesus) ‘The Everlasting Father’? Claims that contradict the idea that Jesus is not the Father?

Or are those Protestants who trust in the Masoretic text (although they still give it a Christological bent). Are they upon the truth? 

Only one person in the Jewish scriptures is referred to as “mighty god” and his name is Hizkiyyahu or, Hezekiah (mighty god). Jewish names, like many Muslims’ names, are what one may call a theophoric name.   The 1st century Christians did not use Isaiah 9:6 for Christological purposes. Latter ones did though. Changing the Hebrew perfect tense to future tense. 

#2) The second proof text they try and use is John 10:30

Was Jesus one with the creator in essence or one in submission to the overall divine plan?

“If you be the Christ (Messiah) tell us plainly?” (John 10:24)

” I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Now the Christian tri-theist will tell you this text proves that Jesus is God. However, are they consistent when we point out the following text to them?

“Neither I pray for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be ONE; Like you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be ONE, even as we are ONE.” (John 17:20-22)

You see the Greek word Hen means one in purpose. It does not mean one in essence. Jesus said that the disciples would be one “Even as we are one”.

Think about that. If Jesus meant by saying ‘The Father and I are one‘ that he is in essence God; then this also means the 12 disciples are also in essence, God! So now the tri-theist who believe in three gods dwelling in community together would now have a godhead unity of 15 (inclusive of the 12 disciples). One would hope that common sense coupled with modesty would have kept Christians from going overboard with such conclusions but all we have to do is point out Benny Hinn.

Discussion on Benny Hinn’s theology of John 17:20-22

Little wonder we have world-famous televangelist Benny Hinn running around with his ‘little god‘ theology.

Benny Hinn is getting bolder and bolder these days, telling his followers they are gods and even Christ Jesus. There is no end to Christian blasphemy of Allah (swt).

“When you say I am saved, what are you saying? You are saying, I am a Christian. What does that word mean? It means I’m anointed. You know what the word anointed means? It means Christ. When you say I’m a Christian, you are saying I am Mashiyach in Hebrew. I am a little messiah walking on earth, in other words. That’s a shocking revelation! We are not, we are not, having, we don’t have a part of Him running around in our stomach feeling goosebumps. His spirit and our spirit-man are one, united. There is no separation, it’s impossible. The new creation is created after God in righteousness and true holiness. The new man is after God, like God, Godlike, complete in Christ Jesus, the new creation is just like God. May I say it like this, you are a little god on earth running around.” http://www.cephasministry.com/benny_hinn.html

So, if these Christians are little gods walking around on the Earth, we have the right to ask them if they are false gods or true gods? We will come back to this question.

Say what you want about Benny Hinn, but at least he is interpreting the passage on a more consistent basis than most tri-theist. After all, if the Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit =God, then the Christian is experiencing their own incarnation of the divine as well!

“Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwell sin you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16)

Conclusion: Only the Father is God. Jesus is not the Father.

We feel the evidence above is abundantly clear that Jesus is not the Father, and that Christ Jesus has a God.

Who is the only true God according to Jesus?

“This is life eternal that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You, the only true God, has sent.” (John 17:3)

So, according to Jesus, the only True God is the one who sent him (Jesus). We also now have our answer to the question: are the Benny Hinn Christians false gods or true gods? According to Jesus, they would be false gods.

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

Jesus has a god. As such Jesus can’t be God.

“Good master, what must I do to have eternal life? Why call me good when none is good but God!” (Mark 10:17-18)

Christians will say that Jesus is asking a rhetorical question. However, the point we cannot agree with them on is that Jesus is indirectly asserting divinity for himself. This text of Mark 10:18 is arguably used more strongly as an anti-divinity statement than some esoteric knowledge the man who came to Jesus was receiving. Again, we see the Christian argument and recognize it. However, as it is a rhetorical question, it can also be argued as a strong statement of denying deity as well.

“He that is sent is not greater than he that sent him.” (John 13:16)

Here Jesus says that there is only one true God. If there is truly a distinction in the economy of the ‘godhead’, as the Tri-theist say, then it means that ‘God the Father’ sent ‘God the Son’.

Jesus said, “He that is sent (himself) is not greater than he (God) that sent him.”

So this very distinction in the community of gods known as the “economic Trinity” is self-undoing. This is also why these two verses[John 17:3 & John 13:16], coupled together, have been so damaging to their doctrine over the years.

“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God, and man, the man (anthropos) Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)

Prima-Qur’an Comment: If Jesus were God we wouldn’t have need of a mediator because people could go to God directly. Think about it!

“Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one.”(Galatians 3:20)

The Qur’an itself states that righteous people can make intercession on our behalf.

“Who can intercede (mediate) except by his permission.” (Qur’an 2:255)

Note: Allah does not say Holy Prophets and righteous people cannot intercede for us. Allah simply says that no one can except by Allah’s permission’; thereby focusing the prayer and request of the individual ultimately to Allah as the source of all power.

In Islam, the Prophet Muhammed (saw) will make intercession for the righteous Muslims on the day of judgment. Whereas those Muslims who do not repent from major sins and reform their ways will be in hellfire with no redemption.



Allah is the owner of the throne, not Jesus!

“But if they turn away, say: “Allah suffices me: there is no god but He; On Him is my trust, ‘He is the Lord of the Throne Supreme!” (Qur’an 9:129)

“If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: above what they attribute to Him!” (Qur’an 21:22)

“Say: “To who belong the earth and all beings therein? If you know!:” They will say, “To Allah!” Say: “Yet will you not receive admonition? ” Say” “Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the Throne Supreme?” “They will say,” to Allah. “Say: “Will you then not be filled with awe?” Say”: “Who is it in whose hands is the governance of all things,-who protects all, but is not protected by any? Say if you know:. They will say, “It belongs to Allah.” Say” “Then how are you deluded?” (Qur’an 23:84-89)



“Therefore exalted be Allah, the King, the Reality: there is no god but He, the Lord of the Throne of Honor!” (Qur’an 23:116)

“Glory to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne He is Free from the things they attribute to Him! So leave them to babble and play until they meet that Day of theirs, which they have been promised.” (Qur’an 43:82-83)

“I am the Lord and there is no other. There is no God besides me. It is I who arm you, though you know me not.” (Isaiah 45:5)

“But he, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55)

“And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man, standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:56)


Note: The Holy Spirit is strangely absent from the picture. Why is that?

“If then you were raised with Christ, seek what is above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.” (Colossians 3:1)

“Bathsheba, therefore, went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself to her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother, and she sat on his right hand.” (1 Kings 2:19)

“Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” (Matthew 20:23)

Prima-Qur’an Comment: T

he above verses show that Jesus is clearly not God. Not only that, but if Jesus was God, and he was standing/sitting next to God, that would show obviously to those whose hearts are not blind that there were two gods! Reflect on what is stated in Isaiah above there is no God beside me.

So the text says Jesus was standing at the right hand of God. Then the text says Jesus was sitting at the right hand of God. Maybe after thousands of years of standing, one wants to sit down and take a break. The point is that Jesus is in proximity to the divine but clearly is not the one sitting on the main throne in the same way the mother of Solomon is not sitting on the main throne.

Christians should focus their prayer on the owner of the throne and not the one hanging out beside the throne!

Subordination of Jesus and the Holy Spirit to God: Are they truly equal?

“They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, “Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?” And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah gives power and direction to all things.” (Qur’an 5:17)

Anyone who studies early Christian theological debates and history will know that many early Christian theologians held the concept that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were both subordinate to God in some way or another.

The proponents of Tri-theism were against this as it would render their concept of three co-eternal, co-equal persons (deities) null and void.

One such powerful argument is as follows. If Jesus is the son of God, he is not co-eternal as the Father beget him. Thus, being time-barred, he could not be co-eternal. (This was an argument from Bishop Arius)

If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this, it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing.

Bishop Arius could quote from proof text such as:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15)

All human beings are the ‘image of God‘.

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God, he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

Moreover, in response to this, the Tri-theist would argue that Jesus is eternally begotten (an oxymoron that has no real meaning).

Even though, when asked to explain this concept of an ‘eternally begotten’ son, they fall flat. They will argue that if God is eternal Father, then it logically follows that he should have an eternal son. The only way you can be a father is if you have offspring, in this case, a son.

The Tri-theist started to back away from scripture and use philosophical and theological arguments. An example is the sun and sunlight. No sunlight equals no sun; and no sun equals no sunlight. However, even this example falls flat under scrutiny.

Where the so-called logic fails in this argument is due to the fact that nowhere does the Bible say that the Son begets the Father. Nowhere does scripture say that the Father is generated by the Son. It is the Son that flows from the Father!

The argument is that the one who is called Father is a prior to all. The Father is un-begotten or un-originated.

Subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father.

When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.” (John 15:26)

This perspective insists that only the Father is the ultimate source and fountainhead of divinity, from whom the Son and the Spirit derive-the former by generation and the latter by a procession.

Subordination of the Son to the Father.

“And you belong to Christ and Christ belongs to God.” (1 Corinthians 2:23)

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

“And when all things shall be subdued unto him (GOD), then shall the Son (Jesus) also himself be subject unto him (GOD) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God may be all in all!” (1 Corinthians 15:28)

  1. All things are subdued unto God. The ‘all‘ here is total control.
  2. The Son himself is subdued unto God.
  3. The Son who reigns over all creation was granted by the one who put creation under his authority.


“And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:18)

  1. The ‘all‘ Jesus speaks of is not total control. Because it is obviously not control over the one who has given him control.

God alone reigns supreme in the end!

Subhan”Allah! (Glory be to Allah) does it get any more clear than this?

Note: You might have this concept of the son at the‘right hand‘ of God, but in the end, God will subdue him!

The only viable option is a form of Unitarian Christianity. Trinitarian Christianity is patently false.


Text that clearly refutes Tri-theism!

The voice of Jesus is not the voice of God in essence.

“And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard. His form you have never seen.” (John 5:37)

No man has seen God at any time.” (1 John 4:12)


Note: Remember that if Jesus was the “God-Man” and his ‘deity’ is the same essence as the Father, then in essence his voice would be the voice of God in essence. However, Jesus clearly states that those present were not listening to the voice of God!

The people who were addressed by Jesus above (John 5:37) heard his voice. This shows the voice of Jesus in essence is not the same as God’s in essence. Thus, Jesus is not God according to the above proof text.

God is not a spirit (one of many) = Compound Unity = Trinity.

John 4:24 “God is a spirit.” (King James Version)

The text above has been corrected to the following text.

John 4:24 “God is Spirit.” (Revised Standard Version).

Spirit in Greek is Pneuma -an intangible being.

Prima Qur’an Comment: The text of John 4:24 has been corrected to show that God is spirit (singular) and not ‘a’ spirit (compound unity). If God and the Holy Spirit were of the same essence, then God would be ‘a spirit’. This text clearly refutes Tri-theism.

The Holy Spirit and God are not the same in essence.

“For He shall not speak of Himself; But whatsoever he shall hear (from God) that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come.” (John 16:13)

Prima-Qur’an Comment: Holy Spirit—Whatever he shall hear, he shall speak. If the Holy Spirit were truly the same in essence as the Father in essence, then what he speaks, in essence, would be his own in essence and not what he has heard in essence.

Jesus does not have the glory in essence that God has.

“Now glorify me, Father, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.” (John 17:5)

Is “I am the Lord this is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to idols.” (Isaiah 42:8)

Prima-Qur’an Comment: Jesus the ‘God-Man’ is asking to have the same glory that he had with the Father before the world began. If that is the case, then Jesus’ glory, in essence, is of a different glory, in essence, that of God. In essence, Jesus’ glory is not of the same essence as God.

Jesus has his own spirit.

“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46)

Actually, if the trinity were true, the statement above should be, “Into your hands I commit our spirit.” Or, “into your hands, I commit this spirit” as a reference to the human spirit.

If Jesus and God had the same spirit in essence, then the above text should read ‘into your hands I commit our spirit; because, in essence, they would have the same spirit.

Jesus does not have the same will as God in essence.

“Not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)

Prima-Qur’an Comment: If Jesus the “God-Man’ had, in essence, the same will as God has in essence, then he would be God in essence. However, the will of Jesus, in essence, is different than the will of God in essence; and thus they are not the same in essence.”

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same in essence.

“And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan.” (Luke 4:1)

Prima-Qur’an Comment: If Jesus was already God in essence at his incarnation, then there would be no need to make this distinction as Luke does here. Was he not full of the Holy Ghost before? Remember, according to Tri-theist, Jesus is the ‘fullness’ of the godhead’ bodily. Not only this, but it would mean that God is full of God!

Conclusion:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man (Anthropos) approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know. (Acts 2:22)

  1. Jesus was Anthropos.
  2. He was approved by God. God does not need anyone’s approval.
  3. Those miracles, and wonders and signs. God did that via Jesus. Jesus did not do that of himself.

“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)

May Allah (swt) save the Christians from the hellfire.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Examination of the word tawaffā in the Qur’an. As it relates to the death of Jesus.

“I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You caused me to die., You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 5:117)

“When Allah said, “O Jesus, indeedI will cause you to die and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 3:55)

﷽ 

The verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) seems to cause a great deal of needless distress among Muslim exegetes. Why is this so?

We are going to present our case that if it was not for these oral traditions, Muslim exegetes would not argue the way they do at all.

So keep in mind that the interpretation of the verses that clearly say that Jesus died is influenced by ‘the tradition’.

Yet, the Qur’an itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five verses in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Qur’an 5:117 and Qur’an 3.55).

For twenty-three of those verses, the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition of this term, that is that Allah (swt) separates the soul from the body or makes someone die.

Think about this. For those verses in the Qur’an that are not tied into ahadith about Jesus(as) coming back, they are translated and understood as per usual.

Interestingly enough, we have the following du’a:

“And you do not resent us except because we believed in the signs of our Lord when they came to us. Our Lord, pour upon us patience and let us die as Muslims [in submission to You].” (Qur’an 7:126)  

How often do we say this du’a after congregational prayers?

rabbanā afrigh ʿalaynā sabran wa-tawaffanā muslimīn (Ameen!)

So let us use the ol Google machine — aka—the much feared and dreaded ‘Shaykh Google’ and put two and two together, shall we?

So what we are going to do as an experiment so that you, the reader, can follow along as we are going to call upon the good people at https://www.islamawakened.com-Whoever they are, may Allah (swt) bless them.

They put all the translations out for everyone to see.

So what we are going to do is show you all the disparate translations into the English language. We will then put those that don’t immediately convey the idea of death—at least to us.

Tawaffā appears in twenty-five verses: Let us examine them all.

We will go in order of the chapter and verse they appear in.

Example: 1 (Qur’an 2:234)

“And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – they, [the wives, shall] wait four months and ten [days]. And when they have fulfilled their term, then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable manner. And Allah is [fully] acquainted with what you do.” (Qur’an 2:234)

key word: yutawaffawna 

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/234/

Ya Allah people 51 disparate translations from people coming from different approaches to Islam have translated the passage as DEATH.

The two odd ones out: Ahmed Hulusi, a translation still in progress… and Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali and even then it finally puts “And the ones of you who are taken up, (i.e., those who die).”

You want to talk about consensus? The consensus here is that yutawaffawna means death, to die.

Example: 2 (Qur’an 2:24)

“And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – for their wives is a bequest: maintenance for one year without turning [them] out. But if they leave [of their own accord], then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable way. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 2:24)

key word: yutawaffawna

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/240/

Once again, look at the 52 disparate translations and the verdict is that yutawaffawna means death, to die.

Example: 3 (Qur’an 3:193) 

“Our Lord, indeed we have heard a caller calling to faith, [saying], ‘Believe in your Lord,’ and we have believed. Our Lord, so forgive us our sins and remove from us our misdeeds and cause us to die with the righteous.” (Qur’an 3:193) 

key word: watawaffanā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/193/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Gather us to Thee with the pious” — Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“And take us with the obedient ones”—The Monotheist Group 2011 edition.

“Take us back to You”—Aisha Bewley 

“And take us to You with the ever benign (ones)”—Muhmmed Mahmoud Ghali

“Include us among the righteous people”-Bijan Moeinian

“And take us to Thee with the pious.” -Arthur John Arberry

“And claim us back with the righteous” — N J Dawood (2014)

“You never fail to fulfill your oath” — Ahmed Halusi

44 Translators are in consensus that the term watawaffanā -is to cause to die.

In fact, we would say that N J Dawood, Arberry, Bewley, Bakhtiar or the Monotheist Group, none of them believe that watawaffana here means to be bodily raised up to heaven.

Example: 4 (Qur’an 4:15)

“Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women – bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.” (Qur’an 4:15)

key word: yatawaffāhunna

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/15/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“This confinement would be for an indefinite period”- Shabbir Ahmed

“if they repent and correct themselves, then leave them to their own accord”- Ahmed Halusi

Again the consensus here from 52 different disparate translations is that yatawaffāhunna is understood as death or to die. 

Example: 5 (Qur’an 4:97)

“Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves – [the angels] will say, “In what [condition] were you?” (Qur’an 4:97)

key word: tawaffāhumu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/97/

The following are ambiguous translations.

“The angels will ask those whom they claim back while steeped in sin”- N J Dawood 2014

“And those the angels take, while still they are wronging themselves”-Arthur John Arberry

“And the angels who take those who wronged themselves will say”-Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“When the angles take the should of those who [had compromised and in consequence] were unjust to their own souls”-,Bijan Moeinian 

“Surely the ones whom the Angels take up, (while) they are unjust to themselves”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Indeed, those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves” -Ali Quli Qara’i

“The angels ask those they take while they are wronging themselves” -Aisha Bewley,-

“Those whom the Angels take, while they had wronged their souls.”-The Monotheist Group (2011 Edition)

“While the angels are gathering the souls of those who wronged themselves.”-Safi Kaskas

“Those whom the angels will gather up”- T. B Irving

“Truly, those whom the angels gathered to themselves.”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

The overwhelming consensus of 42 translations is that tawaffāhumu is to die by taking the souls. 

Example: 6 (Qur’an 5:117) text that is about Jesus.

“I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You caused me to die., You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 5:117)

key word: tawaffaytanī

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/117/

We know the drill on this crucial passage. So let us see the disparate translations here:

“Thou hast caused me to die”-Muhammad Asad

“But when Thou didst cause me to die”-Shakir

“You did cause me to die”-Wahiduddin Khan

“You did cause me to die”- Safi Kaskas

“Ever since You took my soul”-Abdel Haleem

“And after my life had been done”- Ahmed Ali

“After You caused me to die”-Shabbir Ahmed

“but when you gave me Wafat”-Dr. Kamal Omar (NON COMMITTAL)

“You terminated my life”-Monotheist group-2013

“but when You caused me to die” -Muhammed Shafi

“Thou didst cause me to die”-Maulana Muhammad Ali

“so when You made me die”- Muhammad Ahmed-Samira

“Thou didst cause me to die”-Sher Ali

“When You terminated my life on earth”-Rashad Khalifa

“You caused me to die”- Amatul Rahman Omar

“Thou didst cause me to die” -George Sale

39 Translations overwhelming support the view that tawaffaytanī -is to be raised up, gathered up, recalled. We assume the majority believe bodily and alive.

So in the curious case of Jesus (as) the majority view is not to understand tawaffaytanī as death. That was predictable; as it will be when we get to (Qur’an 3:55).

WHAT ABOUT THE TWO VERSES THAT ARE THAN USED TO SUGGEST THAT JESUS HAS BEEN PUT TO SLEEP FOR THESE LAST 2000 YEARS? (Qur’an 6:60) & (Qur’an 39:42)

That is to say they want to argue that Jesus (as) has been put to sleep and will one day wake up at some unspecified time. Presumably as per various hadith traditions etc.

Example: 7 (Qur’an 6:60)

“And it is He who takes your souls by night and knows what you have committed by day. Then He revives you therein that a specified term may be fulfilled. Then to Him will be your return; then He will inform you about what you used to do.” (Qur’an 6:60)

key word: yatawaffākum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/6/60/

Example: 21 (Qur’an 39:42)

Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their (manāmihā)sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 39:42)

key word: yatawaffā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/39/42/

This is why we have the well known du’a for going to sleep and rising from sleep:

Narrated Hudhaifa:

Whenever the Prophet (saw) intended to go to bed, he would recite: “Bismika Allahumma amutu wa ahya (With Your name, O Allah, I die and I live).” And when he woke up from his sleep, he would say: “Al-hamdu lil-lahil-ladhi ahyana ba’da ma amatana; wa ilaihi an-nushur (All the Praises are for Allah Who has made us alive after He made us die (sleep) and unto Him is the Resurrection). “

Source: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6324

Question: Has anyone observed a person sleeping that their body suddenly disappeared or went some where else?

I think we all know the answer is No.

“And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined up me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive.” (Qur’an 19:31)

What kind of embellished claims are you going to make about Jesus (as) giving zakat in the heavens while asleep?!!

Here is the interesting point about these verses.  If as some of the exegetes want to understand it as you put me to sleep and than raised me up‘  than what about those who say, “No he raises him up first and than will put him to sleep in the future! 

DO TELL US WHICH VERSION IS CORRECT?

They would be taking into account:

“but Allah raised him to Himself. Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:158)

Does that really make any sense? They can’t both be correct.  

Also know that Qur’an 5:117 or Qur’an 3:55 can’t be understood as falling asleep. It is actually negated by Qur’an 6:60 and Qur’an 39:42 

Why? Allah (swt) either:

  1. Takes souls at the time of their death. If the souls are taken the person(body) dies.
  2. Other souls are taken during sleep-during an unspecified period of time-if they are not returned than they die in their sleep leaving behind a body.
  3. Other souls are taken during sleep-during an unspecified period of time –If they are returned to their body the person lives the course of their natural life until they die in the future.

In all three examples the body is left behind. There are no examples where tawaffā means to taking the soul and the body.

So since our interlocutors in this discussion will absolutely rule out points 1 & 2 with regards to Christ Jesus (as) let us look at point 3.

Let us put up the two verses in consideration and juxtapose them.  We will put up two translations that are very user friendly to the ‘he didn’t die and was bodily raised up‘ crowd.

“Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee AND raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein you dispute.” (Qur’an 3:55 Yusuf Ali translation)

“Never said I to them aught except what You did command me to say, ‘worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them; when You did take me up You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things.” (Qur’an 5:117 Yusuf Ali translation)

Now if we only had Qur’an 5:117 and we were feeling really charitable (despite the fact the word is translated as death every where else)- we could say, “O.K.  maybe you have a point“.

However, Qur’an 5:117 has to also be in harmony with Qur’an 3:55 doesn’t it?

This is where our interlocutors are in a most difficult situation.  Why are they in a most difficult situation?  Qur’an 3:55 says, “mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka.”

Thus, their arguments make the Qur’an a redundant revelation.

It would be akin to saying: “I am going to take your soul from your body (just like when we sleep) and than I am going to raise up (presumably) your physical body. It would have been sufficient to just say that Allah (swt) ‘took him up’.

However, we have this slight problem. We have this very troublesome conjunction called ‘WA‘ -AND.

Why does Allah (swt) want you to know that he did something to Jesus (as) before “taking him up”?   Couldn’t Allah (swt) just say that he “took him up”?

Why would Allah (swt) say, “I made Jesus fall asleep and than I took him up.”  What point is being made there?

“Gabriel replied, ‘Muhammed.’ It was asked, ‘Has he been called?’ Gabriel answered in the affirmative. Then it was said, ‘He is welcomed. What an excellent visit his is!’ The gate was opened. When I went over the second heaven, there I saw Yahya (i.e. John) and `Isa (i.e. Jesus) who were cousins of each other. Gabriel said (to me), ‘These are John and Jesus; pay them your greetings.’ So I greeted them and both of them returned my greetings to me and said, ‘You are welcomed, O pious brother and pious Prophet.’ ”

Source: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3887

What should we expect concerning the state of those Prophets (May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon them all)?

“The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger, certainly the messengers before him have passed away. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Qur’an 5:75)

So in light of Qur’an 6:60 and Q ur’an 39:42

Are there any indications in Qur’an 5:117 or Qur’an 3:55 that Allah (swt) took a soul out of Jesus -during a sleep phase -only to put it back in, and afterwards raise a body up?

“And has blessed me wherever I might be and has enjoined upon me Prayer and Zakah (purifying alms) as long as I live.” (Qur’an 19: 31)

Is Jesus(as) asleep (hence why he’s not doing zakat-for as long he lives?) being ‘disembodied‘ -meaning his soul is some where and his body is some where else? Yet , he has time for a quick meet and greet with the Blessed Prophet (saw) according to the above hadith?

In fact one of the Mauritanian Shaykhs -Shaykh Salek bin Siddina āl-Māliki whom was called upon to correct Mufti Abu Layth doesn’t buy into the argument of redundancy either.

This Shaykh knows full well what the text says and so he uses a different strategy -to save the hadith traditions-of course!

Read the following article and see for yourself! 

  (We have also downloaded this video-you know-in case it mysteriously vanishes)

Here are some notes we took of the video in the post linked to above.

We thought it was interesting. The translator said: @ 0:55 “Isa alayi salam has died a complete death.”

Prima Qur’an comments: “What other kind of death is there?”

@ 3:30 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says:
Mutawafikka is a word that can be translated to ‘I will cause you to die.’ It is mentioned in a way that it does not indicate any particular order.”

“Allah says I will cause you to die, and I will raise you to me, it doesn’t it is used…”

@5:11 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says:

“So this ‘And’ is the type of WA that is being used. Those are both things that are being done, not necessarily in a particular order.” “In the statement that Zayd and Umar came, it doesn’t mean that Zayd came first. Not in any way does it indicate an order of those things.”

Prima Qur’an comments:

Firstly. May Allah (swt) have patience with the translator. The shaykh often would not allow the translator to finish. If the idea is to convey in Arabic let it be conveyed in Arabic, but if there is an agreement that this knowledge is to be transmitted by translation into English, than give the translator time.

Second the respected shaykh knows full well the obvious that ‘mutawafikka‘ means ‘I will cause you to die‘.

Third he definitely is not on board with the interpretation: “No he raises him up first and than will put him to sleep in the future!

Fourth the shaykh being influenced by the traditions has to make the Qur’an confirm to his presuppositions.  As we stated before if it were not for the traditions (which the shaykh brought up quite often) you would wonder if he would have felt the need to use this literary device.   In English we call this hysteron proteron.

For example you could say I put on my shoes and socks. No one understands that you put the shoes on and then the socks.

So what is important that we take away from this is that.

  1. The Shaykh understands the word in Qur’an 3:55 means death
  2. A cursory reading of the text would be ‘I will cause you to to die and than elevate you.’
  3.  The obvious understanding of the text is made to conform to a literary device. This is obviously based upon the presupposition the shaykh holds to the ahadith.

Another point about Qur’an 5:117

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) delivered a sermon and said, “O people! You will be gathered before Allah barefooted, naked and not circumcised.” Then (quoting Qur’an) he said:– “As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. A promise We have undertaken: Truly we shall do it..” The Prophet (saw) then said, “The first of the human beings to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection, will be Abraham. Lo! Some men from my followers will be brought and then (the angels) will drive them to the left side (Hell-Fire). I will say. ‘O my Lord! (They are) my companions!’ Then a reply will come (from Almighty), ‘You do not know what they did after you.’I will say as the pious slave (the Prophet (as) Jesus) said: And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them. When You took me up. You were the Watcher over them and You are a Witness to all things.’ (Qur’an 5:117) Then it will be said, “These people have continued to be apostates since you left them.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4625)

Now what is the condition of the Blessed Prophet (saw) at this point when he used that phrase “When you took me up?” It is clear that Allah (swt) took his soul and his body is in Madinah. In other words the Prophet Muhammed (saw) died.

Was he taken body and soul into the heavens?

Example: 8 (Qur’an 6:61)

“And He is the subjugator over His servants, and He sends over you guardian-angels until,when death comes to one of you, Our messengers take him, and they do not fail [in their duties].” (Qur’an 6:61)

key word: tawaffathu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/6/61/default.htm

The unanimous decision of 54 translations is that tawaffathu is death.

Example: 9 (Qur’an 7:37)

“And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie or denies His verses? Those will attain their portion of the decree until when Our messengers come to them to take them in death, they will say, “Where are those you used to invoke besides Allah ?” They will say, “They have departed from us,” and will bear witness against themselves that they were disbelievers.” (Qur’an 7:37)

key word: yatawaffawnahum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/7/37/default.htm

“When Our messengers come to gather them”- M.M Pickthall

“Our Messengers drew near to gather them to themselves” -Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Our messengers come to carry them off”-T.B Irving

“So that when Our messengers come to take them”-The Monotheist Group (2011) -changed position in 2013.

“When Our angels arrive to take them back”-Abdel Haleem

“When Our messengers come to take them away”- “Ali Quli Qara’i

“When Our Messengers come to them to take them up”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Our Messengers come to take them away.”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Our messengers come to them, to take them away”- Arthur John Arberry

“Until when Our messengers come to them to take them away”- Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli

44 disparate translations are unanimous in their decision that yatawaffawnahum means to take the souls and or to die.

Worth mentioning is that ‘The Monotheist Group‘  translation changed in 2013.

Example: 10 (Qur’an 7:126)

“And you do not resent us except because we believed in the signs of our Lord when they came to us. Our Lord, pour upon us patience and let us die as Muslims [in submission to You].” (Qur’an 7:126)

key word: watawaffanā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/7/126/

“And call us to Thyself”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Take us back to You”-Aisha Bewley

“And take us to Thyself”-Hamid S Aziz

“Take us to Yourself”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Lift us (from the world)”-Dr. Mohammed Tahir Qadri.

“And gather us unto Thee”- Arthur John Arberry.

“And take us to Thyself resigned”-Edward Henry Palmer

47 disparate translations believe that watawaffana is to die.  

Even those that don’t translate it as such take for example Dr. Mohmmed Tahir Qadri, do you really think his belief when making this du’a is that Muslims will be taken bodily into the sky? Does anyone really think Aisha Bewley believes this?

Example: 11 (Qur’an 8:50)

“And if you could but see when the angels take the souls of those who disbelieved… They are striking their faces and their backs and [saying], “Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire.” (Qur’an 8:50)

key word: yatawaffā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/8/50/

“See how the angels receive”-M.M Pickthall

“Are called to themselves by the angels”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“See as the Angels take those who have rejected”-The Monotheist Group 2011 -changed in 2013 edition

“When the angels take away the faithless”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“As they take up the ones who disbelieved”,  -Muhmmed Mahmoud Ghali

“As the angels take away those who disbelieve”-Talal A. Itani (new translation)

When the angels take the unbelievers”-Arthur John Arberry

47 disparate translations are in agreement that yatawaffa means to separate the soul from the body, to cause to die.

Example: 12 (Qur’an 10:46)

“And whether We show you some of what We promise them, [O Muhammed], or We take you in death, to Us is their return; then, [either way], Allah is a witness concerning what they are doing.” (Qur’an 10:46)

key word: natawaffayannaka

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/10/46/

“We call thee to Us.”- Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Or retrieve you [first].”-Safi Kaskas

“Or take you to Oursefl”-Ahmed Ali

“Or take you back to Us”- Aisha Bewley

“Or take you away”-Ali Quli Qara’i.

“Or whether We will take you to Ourself”-Hamid S. Aziz

“We definitely take you up to Us” -Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Or We take you back to Us”-Muhammed Taqi Usmani

“Or take you”-Talal A. Itani

“Or We call you unto Us”-Maududi

“We call you towards Us”-  Faridul Haque

“Or We call you to Us”-  Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Or We call you unto Us”- Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)

“We call thee unto Us”-Arthur John Arberry

“Or we will take thee to ourself”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Or whether we first take thee to Ourself”-John Medows Rodwell

“Or claim you back to Us”-N J Dawood (2014)

37 disparate translations are of the view that natawaffayannaka means to cause to die, to separate the soul from the body.

Now there are a few points that need to be mentioned here. Understand that many people who don’t believe that the Prophet (saw) is dead. They believe that the Prophet (saw) was poisoned by a Jewish woman and that made him (saw) a martyr.  Therefore, he is alive ‘though we do not perceive it’.  However, if you ask them if they believe a body is in the Prophets Mosque in Medina, they will answer ‘of course’.

In fact, every one of those translators who translate as they do asks them point-blank, “Do you believe there is a body in the Mosque in Medina with the Green Dome?”

Remember the point we mentioned earlier about these people making the Qur’an redundant?

Let’s take the translation of Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

Let us look at he translates the above text:

“And whether We definitely show you something (i.e., some form of punishment) of what We promise them, or We definitely take you up to Us, then to Us will be their return; thereafter Allah is Ever-Witnessing over whatever they perform.” (Qur’an 10:46)

We definitely take you up to Us” -Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

Now let us look at he translates Qur’an 3:55

“As Allah said, “O Isa, (Jesus) surely, I am taking you up to Me, and I am raising you up to Me, and I am purifying you of the ones who have disbelieved. And I am making the ones who have closely followed you above the ones who have disbelieved until the Day of the Resurrection. Thereafter to Me will be your return; so I will judge between you as to whatever you used to differ in.” (Qur’an 3:55)

I am taking you up to Me, and I am raising you up to Me.” – Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali.

Notice the redundancy in the language used?    He could have just translated as “I am taking you up to Me”  OR  “I am raising you up to Me” -because in his mind they both mean the same thing.

This is the exact kind of problems that they run into when they approach the Qur’an with a mind of making it to conform to the oral traditions.

Example: 13 (Qur’an 10:104)

“Say, [O Muhammed], “O people, if you are in doubt as to my religion – then I do not worship those which you worship besides Allah ; but I worship Allah , who causes your death. And I have been commanded to be of the believers.” (Qur’an 10:104)

key word: yatawaffākum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/10/104/

“Who will call you to Himself”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Who will gather you (all)”-T.B. Irving

“Who will eventually retrieve you back to Him”- Safi Kaskas

“Who takes me”-The Monotheist Group 2011 edition -changed in the 2013 edition.

“Who will take you back to Him”-Aisha Bewley

“Who takes you to Himself”-Hamid S. Aziz

“Who takes you up to Him”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“I only serve Allah Who will cause (all of) you to”-Maududi

“Who will gather you to Him”-Arthur John Arberry

“Who takes you to Himself”_Edward Henry Palmer

“Who will claim you back”-N J Dawood (2014)

43 disparate translations understand yatawaffākum to mean to terminate the life of, to take the souls, to cause to die.

Example: 14 (Qur’an 12:101)

“My Lord, You have given me [something] of sovereignty and taught me of the interpretation of dreams. Creator of the heavens and earth, You are my protector in this world and in the Hereafter. Cause me to die a Muslim and join me with the righteous.” (Qur’an 12:101)

key word: tawaffanī

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/12/101/

“Call me to Thyself as one who submits.”-Dr. Laleh Bakthiar

“Gather me in as a Muslim.”-T.B Irving

“Take me as one who has surrendered.”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition -changed in the 2013 edition

“O receive me to Thee in true submission.”-Arthur John Arberry

“Take me to Thyself resigned,” -Edward Henry Palmer

49 different disparate translations understand tawaffani as to die , to separate the soul from the body.

Example: 15 (Qur’an 13:40)

“And whether We show you part of what We promise them or take you in death, upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account.” (Qur’an 13:40)

key word: natawaffayannaka

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/13/40/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Or call thee to Ourselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

T. B Irving and Safi Kaskas finally let us die.

“Or We take thee away.” -Abdul Majid Daryabadi

“We take you back to Us”-Aisha Bewley

“Or take you away”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“Or take you to Ourself”-Hamis S. Aziz

“Or We take you to Us”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Or We take you back to Us”-Muhammed Taqi Usamani

“Or We take you away before that happens”-Maududi

“Or call you to Us before it”- Faridul Haque

“Or We call you to Us”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Or We call you to Us before”- Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)

“Or We lift you.”-Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri

“We call thee to Us”-Arthur John Arberry

“Or we will take thee to Ourself”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Or whether we take thee hence”-John Medows Rodwell

“Or claim you back to Us”-N J Dawood (2014)

37 Disparate translations understand natawaffayannaka to mean to die , to separate the soul from the body.

Example: 16 (Qur’an 16:28)

“The ones whom the angels take in death [while] wronging themselves, and [who] then offer submission, [saying], “We were not doing any evil.” But, yes! Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what you used to do.” (Qur’an 16:28)

Key word: tatawaffāhumu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/16/28/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Those whom the angels call to themselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Whom the angels will carry away”-T.B. Irving

“Those whom the Angels take while they had wronged their souls”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition -changed in the 2013 edition.

“Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging themselves”- Ali Quli Qara’i

“Those whom the angels take away while they are wronging their own souls.”-Hamid S. Aziz

“Whom the Angels take up while they are unjust to themselves.”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“The unjust, who will be seized by the angels, will submit themselves”-Muhammed Sarwar

“Whom the angels take while they were still harming themselves.”-Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Whom the angels take while still they are wronging themselves”-Arthur John Arberry

“Those whom the angels took away were wronging themselves;”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Those whom the angels will claim back”- N J Dawood (2014)

43 different and disparate translations have tatawaffāhumu understood to be taken in death.

Example: 17 (Qur’an 16:32)

“The ones whom the angels take in death,[being] good and pure; [the angels] will say, “Peace be upon you. Enter Paradise for what you used to do.” (Qur’an 16:32)

key word: tatawaffāhumu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/16/32/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Those whom the angels call to themselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Whom the angels carry off”-T.B. Irving

“Those whom the Angels take”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition-changed in 2013 edition

“Those the angels take in a virtuous state.”-Aisha Bewley

“Those whom the angels take away while they are pure”.-Ali Quli Qara’i

“To those whom the angels take away in a goodly state”-Hamid S. Aziz

“Whom the Angels take up while they are goodly”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“They will be received by the angels of mercy”-Muhammed Sarwar

“Those who are in a wholesome state when the angels take them”-Talal A. Itani

“Whom the angels take while they are goodly”-  Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Whom the angels take while they are goodly”-Arthur John Arberry

“To those whom the angels take off in a goodly state:-Edward Henry Palmer

“Whom the angels will claim”-N J Dawood (2014)

41 different and disparate translations understand tatawaffāhumu as to take in death, to take the soul.

Example: 18 (Qur’an 16:70) 

“And Allah created you; then He will take you in death. And among you is he who is reversed to the most decrepit [old] age so that he will not know, after [having had] knowledge, a thing. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Competent.” (Qur’an 16:70) 

key word: yatawaffākum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/16/70/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“He calls you to Himself.” Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Then He will gather you (all) in”-T.B. Irving

“He will take you”-The Monotheist Group 2011 Edition -2013 edition they changed their position.

“Will take you back again”-Aisha Bewley

“Then He takes you away”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“Then He will take you to Himself”-Hamid S. Aziz

“Thereafter He takes you (to Him)”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Then He takes you back”-Muhammed Taqi Usmani

“Then He takes you away”-Talal A. Itani

“Then He will gather you to Him”-Arthur John Arberry

“Then He will take you to Himself”-Edward Henry Palmer

“By and bye will he take you to himself”-John Medows Rodwell

“And He will then reclaim you”-N J Dawood (2014)

41 disparate translations  understand yatawaffākum- as to cause to die, to separate the soul from the body.

Example 19: (Qur’an 22:5)

“O People, if you should be in doubt about the Resurrection, then [consider that] indeed, We created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot, and then from a lump of flesh, formed and unformed – that We may show you. And We settle in the wombs whom We will for a specified term, then We bring you out as a child, and then [We develop you] that you may reach your [time of] maturity. And among you is he who is taken in [early] death, and among you is he who is returned to the most decrepit [old] age so that he knows, after [once having] knowledge, nothing. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down upon it rain, it quivers and swells and grows [something] of every beautiful kind.” (Qur’an 22:5)

Key word: yutawaffā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/22/5/

Prima Qur’an Comments:  One thing is certain you cannot escape death. Look at all thes above translators of Qur’an 22:5 who were very reluctant to use the word death or dying.  They resisted and resisted and finally they yield.

“And among you there is he whom death will call to itself”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“[Then] there are some of you who are taken away”-Ali Quli Qara’i –this guy still resist 😉 

“And among you there is he who is taken up, (i.e., dies)“-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali.  So now Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali sheds light on what he means by ‘is taken up‘ i.e -death.

“Then We (rear you) that you may attain your (age of) full strength. And among you then is he who is allowed to complete (the normal life-span)”- Dr. Kamal Omar -odd translation

“And some of you die“-Arthur John Arberry

“And of you are some who die“-Edward Henry Palmer

“Some among you die young”-N J Dawood (2014)

Example 20: (Qur’an 32:11) THE MOST POWERFUL VERSE FOR LOOKING AT ALL THESE ODD TRANSLATIONS

Say, “The angel of death will take your soul who has been entrusted with you. Then to your Lord you will be returned.” (Qur’an 32:11)

Key word: yatawaffākum

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/32/11/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“Will gather you”-Muhammed Asad

“Will gather you”-M.M Picthall

“Will call you to itself.”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Will gather you in”-T.B Irving

“Will retrieve you”-Safi Kaskas

“Will take you”-The Monotheist Group 2011-the 2013 edition modified their translation

“Will take you up”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“Will collect you”-Shabbir Ahmed

“Will take you”-Umm Muhmmad Sahih Internationl

“Will reclaim you”-Talal A. Itani

Will gather you”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Shall gather you”-Arthur John Arberry

“Shall take you away”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Will claim you back.”-N J Dawood (2014)

“Will gather you”-Sayyid Qutb

The reason why this is the most powerful verse yet discussed is because it deals with the angel of death.  What does the angel of death do? It is very obvious.  The fact that translators who we have seen use that same ambiguity here makes it now both known and clear what they mean.   

So for example when we see them use ambiguous terms like:

“gather you”

“call you to itself”

“retrieve you”

“take you up”

“collect you”

“claim you”

“reclaim you”

“summoned”

We now know with certainty that all of these authors meant ‘to die’, ‘to separate the soul from the body’ ‘to take the soul’.  What else does the Angel of Death do?   Notice you kept seeing practically the same group of people that will over and over use ambiguous terms. Instead of making their case plain in the most obvious situation—”the angel of death” — they still choose to use ambiguous language — which sheds light on their ambiguity in all other places! This actually means that the verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) is being translated nearly 100% of the time as to die, to cause to die, to separate the soul from the body! 

Thank you! Al hamdulillah!

Example: 21 (Qur’an 39:42)

Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 39:42)

Key word: yatawaffā

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/39/42/

This is another very powerful verse.  Not a single translator can play with the text here.   It is as Allah (swt) says,

“We have brought them a Scripture – We have explained it on the basis of knowledge – as guidance and mercy for those who believe.” (Qur’an 7:52)

The beautiful thing about this verse is that death is clearly contrasted with sleep (as explained in a similar verse above).

Here there is 100% unanimous approval from the translators that yatawaffā is death, final death, physical death, taking the soul from the body.

Translators (any of us) can try and play fast & loose with the words of Allah (swt) but sooner or latter we will get caught out.

Example :22 (Qur’an 39:42)

“It is He who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot; then He brings you out as a child; then [He develops you] that you reach your [time of] maturity, then [further] that you become elders. And among you is he who is taken in death before [that], so that you reach a specified term; and perhaps you will use reason.” (Qur’an 39:42)

Key word: yatawaffa

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/39/42/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“While some of you He recalls”- Maududi

“And some are summoned before completing the whole cycle”-Bijan Moeinian

“Are taken away before”-Edward Henry Palmer

Once again, there is unanimous understanding that ‘yatawaffa’ means to die, to be taken in death, to take the soul, to separate the soul from the body.

Remember as well that these ambiguous terms: ‘summoned’, ‘taken away’, ‘recalled’, ‘gone with the wind’, ‘spirited away’ etc. None of that is ambiguous to us now. It all means having died.

Example: 23 (Qur’an 40:77)

 “So be patient, [O Muhammed]; indeed, the promise of Allah is truth. And whether We show you some of what We have promised them orWe take you in death, it is to Us they will be returned.” (Qur’an 40:77)

key word: natawaffayannaka

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/40/77/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“We call thee to Us”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Recall you to Us”-T. B. Irving

“Or take you back to Us”-Aisha Bewley

“Or take you away”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“We definitely take you up (to Us)”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“We recall you”-Farook Malik

“Or take you to Us”-Talal A. Itani 

“Or  We recall you (from this world)”-Maududi

“Call you to Us”- Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah

“Or make you depart from the visible life”-Dr. Mohammed Tahir-ul-Qadri  (from the visible life-what’s he mean here make you become invisible?) (walk around cloaked from vision)

“We call thee unto Us”-Arthur John Arberry

“Take thee to ourself”-Edward Henry Palmer

“Or claim you back”-N J Dawood 2014

The unanimous decision is that natawaffayannaka means to cause to die, to take the life of, to separate the soul from the body. The only exception seems to be Dr. Mohammad Tahir Ul Qadri who seems to be offering everyone the power of invisibility; however we are sure that you dear reader will see this is not the case.

Exampe: 24 (Qur’an 47:27)

“Then how [will it be] when the angels take them in death, striking their faces and their backs?” (Qur’an 47:27)

Key word: tawaffathumu

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/47/27/

Ambiguous translations are as follows:

“When the angels gather them”-M.M Pickthall

“Angels will call them to themselves”-Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar

“Gather them up”-T. B. Irving

“Then the angels take them away”-Ali Quli Qara’i

“Angels take them up”-Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali

“The angels take them”-Arthur John Arberry

Again the unanimous consensus is that tawaffathumu means to die, to cause to die, to take the soul at death, to separate the soul from the body.

Example: 25 (Qur’an 3:55) text that is about Jesus.

“When Allah said, “O Jesus, indeedI will cause you to die and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 3:55)

Key word: mutawaffīka

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/55/

We all know the drill of how the masses understand these ayats and how both the bulk of majority scholarship want the masses to understand them.

Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Qur’an 5:117 & Qur’an 3.55).

Conclusion and Summary

The Qur’anic usage of tawaffā is remarkably consistent

The linguistic facts:

  • Tawaffā / tawaffī appears ~25 times in the Qur’an.
  • In every uncontroversial context, it means:
    • Allah takes the soul
    • i.e. death (final death or death-like separation, as in sleep, where the body remains)

Even in verses where translators use softer English (“take”, “gather”, “recall”, “claim”), the underlying meaning is still death, as we convincingly demonstrated by:

  • Context (Angel of Death, punishment, resurrection)
  • Cross-comparison with Qur’an 39:42 and 6:60
  • The translators’ own theology (none believe people are bodily lifted into heaven at death)

In other words:

Lexically, contextually, and theologically, tawaffā in the Qur’an means “to take the soul,” resulting in death.

No neutral reader disputes this.


The problem only appears with Jesus (Q 3:55 and Q 5:117)

We correctly identified the anomaly:

  • 23 versestawaffā = death
  • 2 verses about Jesus → suddenly reinterpreted

This inconsistency is not driven by Arabic, grammar, or Qur’anic context.

It is driven by extra-Qur’anic commitments.


The real pressure comes from hadith-based eschatology

Classical Sunni theology developed a very detailed end-times narrative in which:

  • Jesus is alive
  • He was raised bodily
  • He will return physically before the Hour

Once that framework is assumed, the Qur’an must be made to fit it.

So when exegetes reach:

  • Qur’an 3:55 (mutawaffīka wa rāfiʿuka)
  • Qur’an 5:117 (falammā tawaffaytanī)

They face a dilemma:

Either:

  1. Read tawaffā consistently → Jesus died
  2. Or preserve the tradition → reinterpret the word

They overwhelmingly choose option 2.


How exegetes resolve the tension (as we have documented)

To preserve the tradition, they resort to:

a) Redefinition

Claiming tawaffā here means:

  • “taking without death”
  • “taking the soul temporarily”
  • “taking body and soul”

➡️ None of these meanings exist elsewhere in the Qur’an


b) Literary devices (e.g., hysteron proteron)

Arguing that:

wa (and) does not imply order”

So:

“I will cause you to die and raise you”
does not mean death precedes raising

This move is theologically motivated, not text-driven.

As we have noted:

  • A plain reading already makes sense
  • The literary device is introduced only because death is unacceptable

c) Strategic ambiguity in translation

Using phrases like:

  • “take you to Myself”
  • “recall”
  • “gather”
  • “claim back”

Yet the same translators use these exact phrases for ordinary death elsewhere, including:

  • The Angel of Death (Qur’an 32:11)
  • Disbelievers being punished
  • The Prophet Muhammed (saw) himself

This exposes the inconsistency.


The Qur’an 39:42 destroys the “sleep” theory

We highlighted the decisive verse:

Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die during their sleep…

This verse establishes three categories only:

  1. Soul taken → death
  2. Soul taken during sleep → body remains
  3. Soul returned → life continues

There is no category where the body is taken.

So:

  • “Jesus was asleep for 2000 years”
  • “Jesus’ soul was taken but his body raised”
  • “Jesus is alive somewhere bodily”

➡️ None of these fit Qur’anic anthropology


Qur’an 3:55 and the problem of redundancy

The observation here is crucial:

mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka

If tawaffā already means “raise bodily,” then:

  • rāfiʿuka becomes redundant
  • The verse collapses into tautology

But if tawaffā means death, the verse is elegant and non-redundant:

  1. Death (completion of earthly mission)
  2. Elevation in rank/status with Allah
  3. Purification from accusations
  4. Vindication of followers

This reading:

  • Fits Qur’anic style
  • Fits Qur’anic anthropology
  • Fits Qur’an 5:75 (“messengers before him passed away”)

Why the distress persists?

So we return to our original question.

Why does tawaffā cause so much distress?

Because:

  • Accepting its Qur’anic meaning forces a revision of inherited eschatology
  • That revision feels, to many, like undermining tradition
  • So the text is bent to protect the framework rather than the reverse

In short:

The distress is not linguistic.
It is theological.
And it is inherited, not Qur’anic.


Final takeaway

Our documentation shows that:

  • The Qur’an is internally consistent
  • The word tawaffā is not ambiguous in usage
  • The ambiguity appears only when external narratives are imposed
  • Once those narratives are removed, the verses about Jesus read plainly

As we concluded:

“If it were not for the traditions, Muslim exegetes would not argue this way at all.”

Jesus (alayi salam) he is dead. He is not coming back!

Open your eyes brothers and sisters, dear truth seekers.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Shaykh Salek bin Siddina al-Maliki Return of Jesus: The use of hysteron proteron.

 

“Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee AND raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.” (Qur’an 3:55 Yusuf Ali translation)

“Never said I to them aught except what You did command me to say,’worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them; when You did take me up You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things.” (Qur’an 5:117 Yusuf Ali translation)

We have used two translations that are friendly towards those who claim that Jesus (as) did not die.

In this article we will comment on a discussion concerning Qur’an 3:55 given by Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki.

There were some very interesting points that were brought up during his commentary of Qur’an 3:55. Chief of which is that the Shaykh is convinced that the verse specifically refers to the death of Jesus (as).

However, the Shaykh gave us a perhaps scenario using an acceptable literary device.

Now if we only had Qur’an 5:117 and didn’t have Qur’an 3:55 and only IF we were feeling really charitable (despite the fact the word is translated as death everywhere else) — we could say o.k maybe those who believe Jesus (as) was to put sleep have some merit.

However, Qur’an 5:117 also has to be in harmony with Qur’an 3:55 doesn’t it?

This is where our interlocutors are in a most difficult situation.  Why are they in the most difficult situation?  Qur’an 3:55 says, “mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka.”

Thus, their arguments make the Qur’an a redundant revelation. It would have been sufficient to just say that Allah (swt) ‘took him up’.

However, we have this slight problem. We have this very troublesome conjunction called ‘WA‘ –AND.

In fact, one of the Mauritanian Shaykhs — Shaykh Salek bin Siddina āl-Māliki doesn’t buy into the argument of redundancy either.

Respected Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki has attempted to give a response to a question on Qur’an 3:55 about a possible scenario.

This Shaykh knows full well what the text says, and so he uses a different strategy — to save the hadith traditions—of course!

See for yourself!

     

Here are some notes we took of the video.

We thought it was interesting. The translator said: @ 0:55 “Isa alayi salam has died a complete death.”

Prima Qur’an comments: “What other kind of death is there?”

@ 3:30 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says:
Mutawafikka is a word that can be translated to ‘I will cause you to die.’ It is mentioned in a way that it does not indicate any particular order.”

“Allah says I will cause you to die, and I will raise you to me, it doesn’t it is used…”

@5:11 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says:

“So this ‘And’ is the type of WA that is being used. Those are both things that are being done, not necessarily in a particular order.” “In the statement that Zayd and Umar came, it doesn’t mean that Zayd came first. Not in any way does it indicate an order of those things.”

Prima Qur’an comments:

The respected Shaykh knows full well the obvious that ‘mutawafikka’ means ‘I will cause you to die’.

Secondly, he definitely is not on board with the interpretation: “No, he raises him up first and then will put him to sleep in the future!” Or the view that Allah (swt) put him to sleep first and then will raise him up.

Third, the Shaykh, being influenced by the traditions, has to make the Qur’an confirm his presuppositions.  As we have said before, if it were not for the traditions (which the Shaykh brought up quite often) you would wonder if he would have felt the need to use this literary device.  

In English, we call this hysteron proteron.

For example, in the Arabic language you could say I put on my shoes and socks. No one understands that you put the shoes on and then the socks.

So what the Shaykh has given us is a perhaps scenario. And a ‘perhaps’ scenario is not something definitive in aqidah.

Also, do take note of the interesting admissions in the above interview:

@11:24 “There is a weak narration or a weak statement, an opinion that Allah (swt) caused Isa (as) to die for a few moments, or a few minutes or a short period of time, and then resurrected him after that.”

@12:04 “A place of acceptance, elevated and exalted; because Allah (swt) is not confined to space or time.”

Prima Qur’an comments:

This is very important because it shows us that rafi’uka does not necessarily mean a physical location. “I will take these AND raise thee to Myself.”

In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah used Qur’an 3:55 to try and say that Allah (swt) has a location. This was responded to by Ibn Jahbal Al-Kilabi

“Perhaps he believes that elevation (al-raf’) can only be in the upward direction? If this is what occurred to him, then this, also, is inconceivable except in corporeal and dimensional terms. If he holds other than that, then his inference is not on a literal basis at all. If he actually asserts corporeality and dimensionality, then there is no need to point out his error. Perhaps he never heard of elevation being used in the sense of rank and the obtainment of status in the language of the Arabs and in common usage. Perhaps he never heard the phrase “Allah raised So-and-so’s state.”

Source: (The Refutation of Him Who Attributes Direction to Allah translated by Gibril Fouad Haddad on page 178)

Which, by the way, there is no evidence that Jesus (as) was raised with a body in the Qur’an.

Also, do take note. They spent some time talking about Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur, a famous Maliki scholar who wrote a tafsir of the Qur’an. He believed that Jesus (as) died. We did not hear any takfir made of him or any excommunication made of him.

You can read about Ibn Ashur’s view here: (which can easily be translated into English)

So what is important that we take away from this is the following:

  • The Shaykh understands the word mutawafikka in Qur’an 3:55 means death, not sleep. It’s just that he believes it is something that is yet to come.
  • A cursory reading of the text would be ‘I will cause you to die and then elevate you.’ The Shaykh has to rely upon a perhaps scenario. A perhaps scenario is not definitive in aqidah.
  •  The obvious understanding of the text is made to conform to a literary device. This is obviously based upon the presupposition the Shaykh holds in given deference to the ahadith about Jesus (as) coming back.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Ibadi view on Dajjal & End of Times Eschatology

“This (Prophet) is a warner from [i.e., like] those who warned in the past. The inevitable Day draws near.” (Qur’an 56:56-57)

“What are the unbelievers waiting for, other than the Hour to come upon them suddenly? Its Signs have already come. But what good will it be to remind them once the Hour has actually arrived?” (Qur’an 47:18)

﷽ 

As regards the Ibadi school, we are Muslims who are focused on the NOW.

We are not bound by the past. Nor do we have to suffer while waiting for some salvinc figure (Mahdi/Jesus) etc…

The Ibadi school is here to remind the Muslims that Islam is not about the past or even the future. It is about NOW.

Right here, Right NOW! Where do I stand with Allah (swt) right NOW!

Not yesterday, not tomorrow, right now, because death can come at any time.

Tomorrow is too late to be prepared for death. Death may come before tomorrow.

So best to be prepared to meet death, NOW!

The following is from our beloved teacher and Shaykh, Shaykh Hafidh Hamed Al Sawafi (hafidullah)

1. Muhammed (saw) is the last messenger and he is the first big sign. Upon his arrival, the sands of the hour glass started to pour rapidly.

2. We Muslims believe that there will be haqq and batil until the very end.

3. Very importantly, Qiyyamat can come anytime. Unexpectedly, therefore every Muslim
Must be prepared to die, to die upon haqq. Have your affairs in order.

4. Any liar is a dajjal, and there have been many dajjals and the biggest dajjal is the one who lies about the deen.

5. Any Taqiyi (Allah fearing) Muslim is Mahdi. All Allah fearing Muslims collectively =Mahdi, and those who oppose the truth and love for lies to flourish collectively =dajjal.

6. There is no coming of Mahdi, or Jesus (as), and certainly no coming of Dajjal, in the way Sunni and Shia say. None of that at all. Jesus (as) climbing down a ladder in Syria, some epic battle in which Dajjal is killed and then Jesus (as) gets married, and all the pigs are killed, crosses are broken and Jews get slaughtered and then everything goes south once more. None of that.

#3 is the most important and crucial point of all the points.

This is the nasiha (advice) given to us by our respected teacher, Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi (hafidhullah) concerning the so-called “Dajjal”

From Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (hafidullah)

Related by our honourable brother, Assad Al Muharrami, from His Eminence Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (hafidullah) as he states concerning
The Masih Dajjal case:

“Seeking the help of Allah (swt ) from the fitnah of Masih Dajjal is authentic about the Blessed Prophet (saw) as it is also in the Musnad of Imam Al Rabe and the two Shaykhs and others. But this does not mean it is a specific individual who is described by attributes that make them special. As what is said about Dajjal cannot be depending upon on identifying his state and description, even if some have talked about Tawattur narrations that describe him.”

“That which is being pushed by tawatur is conditioned on it being free of disturbance and contradictions (of which there are many). But the authenticity of seeking Allah (swt) help from the dajjal includes all dajjals coming with a fitnah, as dajjal is a description that isn’t limited to one individual. It is a fitting description for all who deprive people and confuse them on matters in relation to their deen. And how many are the dajjals who are cautioned against seeking help from Allah (swt) is required from their evil in our age.?

Source: (Burhan Al Haqq 168/8)

Ibadiya’s Perspective of Christ’s descent, Anti-Christ, Mahdi

Some legends and crises are depicted in a number of Hadiths by some Islamic schools of thought. These show that the Prophet knows the unknown, and he tells about some events and phenomena that will take place right before the Hereafter. Some of these events are Christ’s descent and the Anti-Christ’s appearance.

Ibadiya’s perspective is that these contradict the Qur’an. The Qur’an and Hadiths are complementary, not contradictory.

First: Such Hadiths contradict the Qur’an since they describe the Hereafter as if the Prophet knows exactly the period when the Day of Resurrection comes. The Qur’an informs us that this day will come suddenly and neither the Prophet nor anyone else knows about when it will come. Allah says: “They ask you about the (final) Hour: ‘When will be its appointed time?’ Say: ‘The knowledge thereof is with my Lord [Alone]. None but He can reveal when it will occur. Heavy were its burden through the heaven and earth. Only, all of a sudden, will it come to you.’ They ask you as if you were eager in search thereof say: Say: ‘The knowledge thereof is with Allah [Alone], but most men know not.’ (Qur’an 7:187)

Second: These Hadiths give exact numbers of the dates of these crises. For example:

We said: Allah’s Messenger, how long would he stay on the earth? He (saw) said: For forty days, one day like a year and one day like a month and one day like a week and the rest of the days would be like your days.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2937a)

The Qur’an, however, does not present these numbers with such events. Allah, when promising victory to Muslims, does not specify a period of time for such victory to happen. Allah says: “It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth [Islam] to cause it to prevail over all world views, even though the pagans may detest (it)” (Qur’an 9:33). The promise of victory in the Qur’an is not linked to a specific period. Allah says: “The Romans have been defeated. In a land close by: but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will be victorious. Within a few years, Allah is the Command in the Past and in the Future: on that day, the believers will rejoice.” (Qur’an 30: 2-4)

Third: These Hadiths assume a change of natural laws before the Hereafter. The Hadith mentioned above talks about altering the length of the day from 24 hours to a week or month or year. This length requires slowing down the rotation of the earth, which, in effect, would cause the earth to freeze, destabilize, and would cause scarcity of life on earth. The same goes for Hadiths in Abu Huraira professing the sun to rise from the west as a sign of the Hereafter.


Source:
(https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4635)


This entails that the earth will rotate in the opposite direction, which also would cause slowing down the earth’s movement, then it might stop. It seems that those who innovated and created such stories did not know that the earth is round, and it rotates around itself. They thought that the sun rotates around the earth, which led them to think that the sun could rise from the west. They did not realize that for the sun to rise from the west, it should stop rising from the east first. This is, of course, if we assume that the atmosphere acts normally after all these tremendously notorious changes. Allah says: “(Such has been) the practice of Allah already in the past. No change will you find in the practice of Allah.” (Qur’an 48:23)

Fourth: These Hadiths are geographically restricted as they talk about places of the sons of Israel. They mention Damascus, Iraq, Jerusalem, Constantine as if events will only be restricted and connected to the geography of those who have changed the Injeel and Torah.

Fifth: These Hadiths talk about primitive weapons such as swords and arrows. Such weapons relate to the second century of Hijra [the time when Hadiths were recorded]. They are so primitive compared to the most basic new weapons of this century. How about the coming centuries?! This contradicts the precision of the place, time and characteristics of our current situation.

Sixth: These Hadiths profess the opening of Constantine when the anti-Christ appears, and the Christ descends. Ibn Al Hajaj specifies a chapter in his book, the title of which is “The Chapter of Constantine’s Opening, Appearance of Anti-Christ and Descend of Christ.”

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw as saying:

The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army) which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2897)

In reality, Constantine was opened in 1453 by Muslims and nothing of this sort happened at that time. On the realization of this, it became circulated among the Muslims about conquering Constantinople twice.

It is plausible that these were the hopes and wishes of various Christian sects who were opposed to the particular Christian sect who had control of Constantinople at the time. Seeing that Istanbul was formerly Constantinople, it is also plausible that some Muslims use these hadith to whip up anti-Turkish sentiments. Wallahu Alim. Allah knows best and His help is sought.

Seventh: These Hadith talk about legends as if they are signs of the Hereafter. Whosoever recites the Qur’an will find that the signs of the Hereafter have already taken place. Allah says: “Do they then only wait for the hour that it should come on them all of a sudden? But already come some tokens thereof, and when it comes to them, how shall they have their reminder?” (Qur’an 47:18).

The most important portents are sending the Prophets and Messengers. Allah also says about the sending of the blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) as a Messenger:

“This is a Warner of the series of the Warners of old. The (hour) ever approaches draws nigh” (Qur’an 53:56-57).

He also says: “Or some created thing that is yet greater in your breasts. Then they will say: “Who shall bring us back [to life]?” Say: “He Who created you first!” Then they will shake their heads at you and say: “When will that be?” Say: “Maybe it will be quite soon” (Qur’an 17:51).

It is reported that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said:

“Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d As-Sa`idi:

(a companion of Allah’s Messenger (saw) Allah’s Messenger (saw), holding out his middle and index fingers, said, “My advent and the Hour’s are like this (or like these),” namely, the period between his era and the Hour is like the distance between those two fingers, i.e., very short.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5301)

Even if one wants to interpret the following ayat of the Qur’an: “And (He/It) shall be a sign of (the coming of) the Hour (of judgment): therefore, have no doubt about the (Hour). And follow Me” (Qur’an 43:61)

Like the prior prophets, it is speaking about the fact of his already having come. Not some future event.

The following is the correct understanding of the verse:

Eight: These Hadiths describe the Hereafter in exact words and give a lot of numbers and details about that period. A person who lives until that time will not find it hard to realize its arrival. This, of course, contradicts the “sudden” on which the Qur’an insists. Allah says: “Do they then wait for the Hour that it should come on them all of a sudden?” (Qur’an 47:18).

Ninth: The Ummah does not agree on the validity of these narrations. There is, thus, no doubt that this news has spread from the People of the Book.

Shaykh Abdullah As Salmi (hafidullah) says: “Let it be known that the Prophet has no Prophet after him. What people narrate that Christ will descend has not been heard before” — meaning that nothing from this is firmly established.

Shaykh Nasser bin Abi Nabhan (hafidullah) says: “Some people narrate that Allah sends the Mahdi and Anti-Christ appears. They also believe that Christ descends. All of this is a far cry from the truth. What we know is that Jesus is dead.”

Abu Al Hassan asks about whosoever claims that there is a Day of Resurrection before the actual Hereafter in which those who were dead will be killed and those who were killed will die. He answered, “Lie!” Allah says: “Say: “It is Allah who gives you life, then gives you death, then He will gather you together for the Day of Judgment about which there is no doubt” (Qur’an 45:26). He also says: “And if you die or are slain, lo, it is unto Allah that you are brought together” (Qur’an 3:158).

Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:

I saw Allah’s Messenger (saw) pointing with his index and middle fingers, saying. “The time of my Advent and the Hour are like these two fingers.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4936)

Therefore, it is not acceptable to have such claims about the Hereafter.

Jesus (as) descends:

Ibadhiya believe that Jesus (as) has died just like any other human being. Our evidence for this belief is:

1.“Behold! Allah said: “O [Jesus]! I will take you and rise you to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme, and I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject Faith, to the Day of Resurrection, then shall you return unto Me and I will judge between you in the matters wherein you dispute.” (Qur’an 3: 55). This proves that Jesus has died. It also proves that those who believed in what Jesus preached will gain victory over the Jews till the Day of Resurrection. This is what happened when Constantine accepted Christianity as a formal religion of the Roman Emperor. Then, Islam came and instilled Monotheism which Jesus and all the other Prophets have been sent with.

Jesus, as mentioned in the Qur’an, proved his death “Never did I say to them aught except what You [Allah] did command me to say: “Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” And I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them, when you did take me you was the Watcher over them” (Qur’an 5: 117). Until today, the Jews are living in scattered areas.

2. The idea of Jesus descending contradicts the concept of mortality stressed in the Quran. Allah says: “And we granted not to any man before you permanent life (here): if then you should die, would they live permanently?” (Qur’an 21:43). It also contradicts the verse “Before you, also, the Messengers We sent were but men, to whom we granted inspiration: if you know this not, ask of those who possess the Message. Nor did We give them bodies that ate no food, no were they immortals.” ( Qur’an 21: 7-8) Which proves the death of all the Prophets including Jesus (as). Allah’s way on earth that humans die after a while. Jesus’ immortality refutes Allah’s way, and this can not be believable. Allah says: “(Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived Aforetime: no change will you find in the practice of Allah.” (Qur’an 48: 23). Noah, however, lived for such a long time on Earth as mentioned in the Qur’an.

3. It contradicts the verse “Get you down, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling – place and your means of livelihood- for a time. Allah said: “Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, but from it shall you be taken out” (Qur’an 7: 24-25). However, many Muslims believe Jesus is living in Heaven above us!!

4. The idea also contradicts the Qur’anic verses by saying that tax (Jizyah) is exempted from the people of the Book. In the following narration:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — ‘And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them.” (4.159) (See Fath-ul-Bari, Page 302 Vol 7)

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3448)

As known, tax is an obligatory payment by the people of the Book as mentioned in the verse “Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth from among the People of the Book until they pay Jizyah with willing submission.” (Qur’an 9: 29)

So, these narrations establish the idea that Jesus will descend with a new law that exempts Jizyah. As known, the Islamic law is eternal and will not be altered because Muhammed (saw) is the last Messenger. Allah says: “Muhammed (saw) is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets. And Allah has full knowledge of all things.” (Qur’an 33:40). These narrations, however, propose that Jesus is the seal of the Prophets since he will come at the end of the world.

There are three types of Bid’ah introduced in the belief in the second coming of Jesus (as)

  • The idea that a Prophet (saw) left the world with an uncompleted task.
  • Stripping a Prophet from the office of anbiya. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet. No one has the authority to strip a Prophet of Prophethood!
  • The idea of the Prophets coming non sequentially. Which has never happened. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet.

Anti-Christ and the Awaited Mahdi

Many Muslims believe that there is a man with an uncanny ability who will appear at the end of life. This man, the awaited Mahdi, spreads justice after injustice has pervasively spread. Because this belief contradicts the Qur’anic verses, which promise Muslims victory if they follow Allah’s orders, we do not believe in it. Moreover, such beliefs might discourage hard work and the concept of striving to succeed. The concept of Mahdi has Torah roots as it in reality promises the coming of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). The Blessed Prophet (saw) is everything the Children of Isra’il had hoped for and more.

As for the Anti-Christ which such hadiths ascribe, it does not appear in the Ibadi school because miracles are attributed to Prophets and Messengers. Assigning these miracles to impostors negates the Messages of the Prophets. That was exactly what happened with Jews, who created and supported impostors to deny their Prophet’s warnings. Allah says: “Allah has heard the taunt of those who say: “Truly, Allah is indigent, and we are rich!” We shall certainly record their word and the act of their slaying the prophets in defiance of right” (Qur’an 3: 181).

Our school considers any person who fights Allah through bad deeds to be an impostor. Currently, the number of impostors has increased. Imam Abu Al Hassan Al Basiwi (ref. Aljami’. Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Oman) is asked: “What do you think about the impostor? Do they have a specific feature?” He says: “All wrong doers are impostors. I do not know the ‘particular’ impostor to whom you are referring.”

Source: (http://bintibadh.blogspot.com/2020/04/ibadiya-history-methodology-principles.html?m=1) With additional comments and edits by us.

May Allah (swt) bless our sister Bint Ibadh for this! May Allah (swt) bless her and cause her blog to be a testimony for the day of judgement! Amin

One can see that an increasing number of Muslims (both from the Sunni and Shi’i) are starting to move away from the view that a Mahdi will come.

For example:

In summary, these ideas about waiting for some future salvic figure to “save” the Ummah is a trap. It is a trap that will not bring us any good. One 12er Shi’i cleric has been led to tell the truth about their “Mahdi” who is presumably hiding somewhere:

One of the great scholars of Ahl Sunnah has tried to save the concept of Mahdi arriving, and now what are our brothers and sisters from Ahl Sunnah going to do after 59 years have passed and now Mahdi?

So none of these Mahdi types ever brought anything good for this ummah. We have the Qur’an and the Sunnah and that is what we are to base our lives upon. No doubt many think tanks who wish the Muslim Ummah ill would prefer us to not have ambitions of setting up Islamic governance. They prefer us to keep our eyes on the sky seeking and waiting for salvation, rather than having greater economic, military, political, cultural cooperation among our Ummah. Allah (swt) knows best!

If you are interested perhaps you would like to read these articles:

https://primaquran.com/2023/07/19/the-definitive-proof-from-the-ibadi-school-that-jesus-is-dead-and-will-not-return/

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Reality of The Sin

“There shall be sheets of fire above them and beneath them. This is the end against which Allah warns His servants. So dread My wrath, O you servants of Mine!” (Qur’an 39:16)

“When you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah, most serious.” (Qur’an 24:15)

“Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!” (Qur’an 7:99)

﷽ 

Dear respected readers, dear truth seekers, today we will speak with you about a matter of the utmost importance, a grave matter.   

We must be reminded of who Allah (swt) is. The Sovereign, the Most High, The Owner of the Throne.   Look at this universe that has been created.   In it are natural phenomena that are both awesome and terrifying. Allah (swt) is the Most High.  Allah (swt) is the Master of the Day of Judgement.  We are the slaves of Allah (swt).

The Reality of The Sin: by Shaykh, Dr Scholar Abdullah bin Saeed bin Abdullah Al Ma’mari. May Allah protect him and continue to benefit us from him.

Who are we?

“Has there come upon the human being a span of time when he was nothing to be mentioned?” (Qur’an 76:1)

“He created humans from a sperm-drop, then—behold!—they openly challenge ˹Him˺. (Qur’an 16:4)

And our open enemy, Satan, Iblis, the cursed one, vowed to Allah (swt).

“I shall attack them from all directions, and You will find most of them will not be grateful to you”. (Qur’an 7:17)

One of the many ailments and sicknesses of the Muslim ummah and, indeed the human condition is without how light we treat the issue of sin, of open rebellion against Our Creator.

Our Creator who made this universe for us, who told all other creation to bow down in subjugation to us.

May Allah (swt) forgive us and guide us to repentance.

This ummah has been deceived into accepting theological views that are not in line with the Qur’an. They are not in line with the greatness of Allah (swt). They take light the threats of Allah (swt), they take the punishment of the hellfire as some light matter.

Sadd adh-dhara’i’ -blocking the means. In this case, to that which is harmful.

Treating rebellion against Allah (swt) as a light matter.

The belief that believers will go to the hellfire for a little while and then be released from it. (not a single verse in the Qur’an supports this).

What is the meaning of the word MUSLIM?  Have we forgotten?

Doesn’t the word Muslim mean ‘one who submits’ to Allah?

Does Muslim mean one who submits completely or partially?

Can you submit 90% to Allah (swt)? What is the meaning of the word ‘Muslim’?

“But no! Whoever submits their whole selves to Allah and good will have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve. (Qur’an 2:112)

“So whose way of life could be better than that of he who submits his whole being to Allah, does good, and follows exclusively the way of Abraham whom Allah took for a friend?” (Qur’an 4:125)

“Now whoever surrenders his whole being unto Allah, and is a doer of good nevertheless, has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing: for with Allah rests the outcome of all events.” (Qur’an 31:22)

May Allah (swt) guide us to the truth! “Perhaps your Lord will have mercy on you ˹if you repent˺, but if you return ˹to sin˺, We will return ˹to punishment˺. And We have made Hell a ˹permanent˺ confinement for the disbelievers.” (Qur’an 17:8)

May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Dune Agony Box & The Month of Ramadan

“But as for he who feared the exalted station of his Lord and prevented his soul (l-nafsa) from base impulses, Then indeed, Paradise will be the final refuge.” (Qur’an 79:40-41)

﷽ 

Before we begin this article, we want to say that we have never been truly satisfied with any English translation of the Arabic word (l-nafsa)

“But as for he who feared the exalted station of his Lord and prevented his soul (l-nafsa) from base impulses, Then indeed, Paradise will be the final refuge.” (Qur’an 79:40-41)

(l-nafsa) as far as we can glean, is a reference to what psychologists refer to as the ‘Id. This is why the verse then follows with ‘base impulses’. (Thoughwe are certainly open to being corrected on this).

It is these basic impulses within ourselves that we as humans must master. It is these very base impulses by which we are easily manipulated and controlled by many around us. From the sex industry, food industry, and most things that seek to bring pleasure to sensory perception. Sight, Sound, Taste, & Touch.

From the Frank Herbert Sci-Fi Novel Dune: Below is the script from the book.

Lady Jessica: “Paul… please, Paul… listen to the Reverend Mother and do what she tells you.”

The Reverend Mother speaks to Paul using The Voice, a Bene Gesserit training which permits an adept to control others merely by selected tone shadings of the voice. It sounds as if two people are talking — one normal and the other guttural and slightly electronic. The effect is strange, yet subtle.

Reverend Mother (using The Voice): “Now You! Come here!”

Paul finds he cannot help but obey her, yet he fights her controlling him.

Paul’s (inner voice) “She’s using The Voice.” (out loud) “No!

She sees him struggling.

Reverend Mother (inner voice) “Some strength there. Surprising!” (out loud) “Come here!”

The Reverend Mother holds up a green metal cube. Reverend Mother: “See this… Put your right hand in the box.”

Paul stares at the hole in the box. Paul: “What’s in the box?”

Reverend Mother “Pain!”

Just then, she raises one hand to his neck. Paul sees a glint of metal. He tries to back away.

Reverend Mother (Using The Voice): “STOP! Put your hand in the box!”

Paul’s hand goes in. Fear passes over his face. (Paul’s inner voice) “The Voice again.”

Reverend Mother “I hold at your neck the gom jabbar. Don’t pull away, or you’ll feel that poison. A Duke’s son must know about many poisons —this one kills only animals.”

Paul “Are you suggesting a Duke’s son is an animal?”

Paul: “Are you suggesting a Duke’s son is an animal?”

Reverend Mother: “Let us say I suggest you may be human. Your awareness may be powerful enough to control your instincts. Your instincts will be to remove your hand from the box. If you do so, you will die. You will feel an itching — there… see? Now the itching becomes burning… heat, upon heat, upon heat.”

Paul (whispering): “It burns!”

Reverend Mother “SILENCE… SILENCE!”

Paul (inner voice)(struggling to compose himself)

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear… I will permit it to pass over me and through me.”

The Reverend Mother moves her face up to his. Her ancient face, with its metal teeth gleaming inches away, breathes hotly. She is smiling.

Reverend Mother: “You feel the flesh crisping?”

Paul’s inner mind sees his hand on fire with all sorts of sores. The skin is bubbling.

Reverend Mother “Flesh dropping off.”

He pictures this. The destruction of his hand is complete — now only blood spurts out and burns. Paul’s face registers extreme pain.

(Paul couldn’t help the explosion) “THE PAIN!!!

Reverend Mother: “NO!! ENOUGH!! Qul wahad! No woman child ever withstood that much. I must have wanted you to fail. Take your hand out of the box and look at it, young human…. Do it!”

Paul pulls his hand out of the box. No sign of anything wrong. He turns his hand, flexes hisf ingers. He looks to the Reverend Mother.

Reverend Mother.(explaining) “Pain caused by nerve induction… A human can resist any pain. Our test is crisis and observation.”

Paul: “I see the truth of it.”

=================================================================================

We want to draw attention to certain points in the dialogue.

“I hold at your neck the gom jabbar. Don’t pull away, or you’ll feel that poison. A Duke’s son must know about many poisons —this one kills only animals.”

This was a very powerful point that the Reverend Mother made. The point is that animals act upon instinct and, in this case, the instinct can get one killed. In this case, the instinct of fight or flight.

Paul, obviously in a situation of pain, was not in a position to ponder the truth behind what the reverend mother was saying. His immediate focus was on his discomfort, and so he offers a retort:

Paul: “Are you suggesting a Duke’s son is an animal?”

This is where the Reverend Mother makes her reply:

Let us say I suggest you may be human. Your awareness may be powerful enough to control your instincts. Your instincts will be to remove your hand from the box. If you do so, you will die.”

Now, in the book series, it is very clear that Paul is not your average everyday person. He has had all sorts of disciplinary training. Mental training, physical training and spiritual training, all of which help to shape and mold him. Had Paul been an average person, it is highly likely that they would have died almost immediately.

How many times has the Aql been overcome by the Penis? How many times has reason been overpowered by base impulses? The intellect and human reasoning are outmatched by the ‘Id again and again and again. How many strong men, capable men, men in powerful positions? How often have they been overcome by the penis?

Only a well-disciplined soul is an ally and an aid to the human faults of reasoning.

You can replace the word ‘Penis’ above for practically any other impulse. Driving down the freeway, someone cuts you off. Suddenly you are a ball of uncontrollable rage!

“How dare they!” “I will be late for work!” You speed up the car, cut them off at the next turn giving your favourite hand gesture and they reciprocate. Both individuals get out of the car and the fist start flying. You make your way back to your car, grab the gun and empty the clip! Murder one.

How is that? How did the faculty of reason and of intellect become so easily discarded like an utterly useless item?

Surely 10 to 15 years in prison will make one very, very late for work.

Did that thought not once cross the mind?

“And I do not seek to free myself (nafsi) from blame, for indeed the self (l-nafsa) is ever inclined to evil, except those shown mercy by my Lord. Surely my Lord is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 12:53)

“And I do call to witness the self-reproaching (bil nafsi) self.” (Qur’an 75:2)

The intellect -reason on its own is misguided without divine guidance.

The intellect is overcome by the ‘id without the assistance of a disciplined soul.

An example of #1 would be:

An example can be that we have found four people: one needs a liver, one a lung, one a kidney and one a heart. Reason could lead us to believe that killing one person in order to save four has its own justification. This is because our thinking is linear. We do not see, for example, that the person we killed was responsible in the future for discovering a cure that saved millions upon millions of lives. Thus, the reason that was imposed: kill one and save four backfired. Four were saved and millions were lost.

“Believers! Fasting is enjoined upon you, as it was enjoined upon those before you, that you become (tattaquna) righteous. (Qur’an 2:183)

Fasting is a divinely prescribed prescription for a method of spiritual discipline. It has become one of many tools that Islam gives to aid and arm the intellect against base impulses.

In Islamic fasting, we’re fasting from sunrise to sunset, abstaining from food and drink. Sometimes it is quite easy for people, especially those who fast regularly outside of Ramadan and/or started this discipline quite young. Interestingly, the busier you make yourself in Ramadan, the easier it is too.

Those who struggle are usually people who are idle. Not working, schooling or engaging in anything meritorious. They are simply left with their hunger. There are times some may feel their parched throat, and the urge to drink. “Ya Allah, I am sorry I cannot go on, and I will pay back this fast.” This is where the real war happens. The jihad an nafs. — The struggle with the’ Id.

You either overcome it or it will overcome you. You either make it a slave of Allah or it will make you a slave to it. You either bring it in conformity with the amr of Allah or you become a slave to your base impulses.

Islam has never called for partial surrender to Allah (swt) but complete surrender to Allah (swt) and this happens when the ego submits, the super-ego submits and the ‘id submits.

Fasting is a purification and a chance to discipline the soul, a chance to assist and arm the intellect, which often loses its battle over and over against the penis, against the quick temper, against the base impulses.

You would technically go your whole life (complete the term of your existence) without any sexual interaction of any kind with any human being. Though, for many, that might be a sad, lonely and boring life. You could technically even be a productive and functioning human being in society as such. Though Islam does not recommend this.

You would technically go your whole life (complete the term of your existence) without any emotional outlet of any kind. You could technically even be a productive and functioning human being in society as such. But you are not a robot and Islam does not recommend this either.

Though you cannot continue to sustain yourself, you cannot continue to be a productive and functioning human being in society going forever without food or water.

Thus, if you can overcome that impulse that is intrinsic to your survival (fight/flight), if you can overcome that impulse to eat and drink, which is absolutely necessary for your survival, you can gain mastery over your other impulses, sexual and emotional, which are ancillary to your survival but not necessary. You can master yourself.

And if you are in control …..well then…

“To the righteous it will be said, “O reassured self (l-nafsu), return to your Lord, well-pleased and pleasing to Him.” (Qur’an 89:27-28)

May Allah Guide the Ummah. May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

In Ibadi theology, a Wali of Allah can sin. One who has true spiritual guardianship can be killed.

“O believers! Stand firm for justice as witnesses for Allah even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or close relatives. Be they rich or poor, Allah is best to ensure their interests. So do not let your desires cause you to deviate. If you distort the testimony or refuse to give it, then Allah is certainly All-Aware of what you do.” (Qur’an 4:135)

﷽ 

The position of the Ibadi school concerning the Wali of Allah. Whoever has attained the rank of wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah (true spiritual guardianship), his guardianship is never nullified under any circumstance. Therefore, there is no room for enmity against him, even if he were to commit grave sins.

However, falsehood is never accepted from him, and if he falls into one of the prescribed punishments of Allah, the punishment of Allah is carried out upon him — yet his guardianship is not revoked.

Indeed, the Messenger of Allah (saw) carried out the punishment of stoning on Māʿiz (may Allah be pleased with him), and instructed his companions to seek forgiveness for him. The same was the case with the Ghamīdī woman. Thus, wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah neither nullifies rights nor abolishes punishments.

The Ghamīdī woman & Ma’iz b. Malik al-Aslami -may Allah be pleased with them both.

‘Abdullah b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma’iz b. Malik al-Aslami came to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and said:

Allah’s Messenger, I have wronged myself; I have committed adultery and I earnestly desire that you should purify me. He turned him away. On the following day, he (Ma’iz) again came to him and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery. Allah’s Messenger (saw) turned him away for the second time, and sent him to his people saying: Do you know if there is anything wrong with his mind. They denied of any such thing in him and said: We do not know him but as a wise good man among us, so far as we can judge. He (Ma’iz) came for the third time, and he (The Blessed Prophet) sent him as he had done before. He asked about him and they informed him that there was nothing wrong with him or with his mind. When it was the fourth time, a ditch was dug for him and he (The Blessed Prophet) pronounced judgment about him and he wis stoned.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1695b)

أُرِيدُ أَنْ تُطَهِّرَنِي -I want you to purify me.

He (the narrator) said: There came to him (The Blessed Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (The Blessed Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (The Blessed Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (The Blessed Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Messenger (saw)heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (The Blessed Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1695b)

Buraida told that Ma’iz b. Malik came to the Prophet and said, “Purify me, Messenger of Allah.” He replied, “Out upon you! Go back, ask Allah’s forgiveness and turn to Him in repentance.” He said that he went back not very far, then came and said, “Purify me, Messenger of Allah,” and the Prophet said the same as he had said before. When this went on till a fourth time he asked, “For what am I to purify you?” and he replied that it was because of fornication. Allah’s Messenger then asked if the man was mad, and when he was told that he was not, he asked if he had drunk wine. A man got up and smelt his breath but noticed no smell of wine, so the Prophet asked him if he had committed fornication, and when he replied that he had, he gave orders regarding him and he was stoned to death. Two or three days later Allah’s Messenger came and said, Ask forgiveness for Ma’iz b. Malik. He has repented to such an extent that if it were divided among a people it would be enough for them all.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/mishkat:3562)

The Key Point: After the execution of the punishment, the Blessed Prophet (saw) did not declare them to be enemies of Allah or eternal denizens of Hellfire. Instead, he spoke well of their repentance and even instructed the companions to pray for them. This prayer (ṣalāt al-janāzah) itself is an act that is only performed for Muslims.

This proves that while their sinful action demanded earthly punishment, their essential faith and status as believers (awlīyāʾ in the true sense) were not completely obliterated. Their sincere repentance preserved their wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah

The 10 sons of Yaʿqūb/Jacob -peace be upon him.

We also believe in the wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah of the ten sons of Prophet Yaʿqūb (peace be upon him) who wronged their brother, fabricated false stories to cover their crimes — their falsehood is not accepted, yet their guardianship is not revoked. It remains upon them, their father, their brother, and our Messenger (peace and blessings be upon them all).

“But My Promise is not within the reach of (zalimin) evil-doers. (Qur’an 2:124)

What did these descendants of Prophet Ibrahim (as) get up to?

They cried, “Our father! We went racing and left Joseph with our belongings, and a wolf devoured him! But you will not believe us, no matter how truthful we are.” (Qur’an 12:17)

These Muwahid, The Ahl Bayt of Jacob (as), Sons of a Prophet lied to their father! Imagine telling your own father that his son (your own brother) was eaten by a wolf! Can you imagine the grief it would bring him?!

Allah (swt) tells us in very vivid language how severe the grief and trauma of Jacob (as). The trauma that Prophet Jacob (as) went through on account of his progeny, the progeny of the Household.

“He turned away from them, lamenting, “Alas, poor Joseph!” And his eyes turned white out of the grief he suppressed.” (Qur’an 12:84)

He replied, “O my dear son! Do not relate your vision to your brothers, or they will devise a plot against you. Surely Satan is a sworn enemy to humankind.” (Qur’an 12:5)

Jacob (as) knew among his ahl bayt were schemers!

“˹Remember˺ when they said ˹to one another˺, “Surely Joseph and his brother ˹Benjamin˺ are more beloved to our father than we, even though we are a group of so many. Indeed, our father is clearly mistaken.” (Qur’an 12:8)

Can you imagine talking about your father (a Prophet) like that?

“Kill Joseph or cast him out to some ˹distant˺ land so that our father’s attention will be only ours, then after that you may ˹repent and˺ become righteous people!” (Qur’an 12:9)

They said, “O our father! Why do you not trust us with Joseph, although we truly wish him well? (Qur’an 12:11)

The Ahl Bayt of Jacob (as) Lie #1 to their father.

“Send him out with us tomorrow so that he may enjoy himself and play. And we will really watch over him.” (Qur’an 12:12)

So he can enjoy himself, Lie #2, and they will watch over him Lie #3.

“Then they returned to their father in the evening, weeping. They cried, “Our father! We went racing and left Joseph with our belongings, and a wolf devoured him! But you will not believe us, no matter how truthful we are.” (Qur’an 12:16-17)

“And they brought his shirt, stained with false blood. He responded, “No! Your souls must have tempted you to do something ˹evil˺. So ˹I can only endure with˺ beautiful patience! It is Allah’s help that I seek to bear your claims.” (Qur’an 12:18)

Look at the extent of their manipulation! Fake tears like actors crying on que! A prop piece—his shirt stained with false blood. Gaslighting their father.

Joseph was eaten by a wolf. Lie #4 Brought a shirt with false blood Lie #5

“Return to your father and say, ‘O our father! Your son (Benjamin)committed theft. We testify only to what we know. We could not guard against the unforeseen.” (Qur’an 12:81)

They claimed their other brother, Benjamin, was a thief and lied to their father, yet again. Lie #6

The Ahl Bayt of Jacob, the guilty among them, finally return in repentance to Allah (swt)

“They admitted, “By Allah! Allah has truly preferred you over us, and we have surely been sinful.” (Qur’an 12:91)

“They begged, “O our father! Pray for the forgiveness of our sins. We have certainly been sinful.” (Qur’an 12:97)

Satan ignited rivalry between the Ahl Bayt of Jacob (as)

“Then he raised his parents to the throne, and they all fell down in prostration to Joseph,1 who then said, “O my dear father! This is the interpretation of my old dream. My Lord has made it come true. He was truly kind to me when He freed me from prison, and brought you all from the desert after Satan had ignited rivalry between me and my siblings. Indeed my Lord is subtle in fulfilling what He wills. Surely He ˹alone˺ is the All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 12:100)

What to make of the sons of Jacob (as) Al Muwahid who lied to their father (a Prophet) because they were jealous of their brother? The sons of a prophet can conspire against their brother.

Their falsehood is not accepted, yet their guardianship is not revoked.

Analysis of the Examples Provided

  1. The Sons of Prophet Yaʿqūb (AS):
    • This example is even more striking and is particularly emphasized in Ibāḍī theology to drive the point home.
    • Their crime was immense: they attempted murder on their brother Yūsuf (AS), threw him in a well, lied to their father, and caused him immense grief. This constitutes major sins involving injustice, deception, and breaking familial ties.
    • Ibāḍī Interpretation: Despite this, the Qur’an never refers to them as disbelievers (kuffār). They are still considered among the prophets’ descendants. Prophet Yaʿqūb (AS) and Prophet Yūsuf (AS) eventually forgave them. Their story ends with forgiveness and family reconciliation.
    • This demonstrates that even such heinous sins did not irrevocably sever their essential connection to the legacy of prophethood and faith (wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah), though they were certainly held accountable for their actions in this world and were rebuked in the Qur’an.

The established principle regarding spiritual guardianship (wilayah) is that one who possesses true guardianship never loses it, regardless of sins committed — we are certain they will die repentant. Thus, we reject their wrong actions while maintaining a connection to their essential spiritual station. The converse is equally true.

An example of the converse being true: Bara’ah al-Haqiqa

The example of Abu Lahab.

May the hands of Abu Lahab perish, and he perish! Neither his wealth nor gains will benefit him. He will burn in a flaming Fire, and his wife, the carrier of kindling,around her neck will be a rope of palm-fibre. (Qur’an 111:1-5)

Some Muslims use a flawed argument about Abu Lahab to prove the truth of the Qur’an, saying: “If Abu Lahab had taken the shahādah, it would have made the Qur’an false.”

This is incorrect. The words of Allah (swt) are absolute truth, whereas Abu Lahab’s actions (if he had ever claimed faith) would have been deception. Allah (swt) has already decreed his fate. He is the very definition of one being in barā’ah ḥaqīqah (the true dissociation), being truly cut off.

If Allah (swt) did not reveal this about Abu Lahab, and he took the testification of faith, he would be in Walayah al-Dhahir – The apparent friendship. This is a matter of jurisprudence.

However, since Allah (swt) revealed his state Bara’ah al-Haqiqah – The real dissociation. This is a matter of theology.

The example of Adam -upon him be peace.

We believe in the true spiritual guardianship of our father Adam (as), while Allah explicitly states in Scripture that he disobeyed and erred, then sought forgiveness and repented. We affirm his true guardianship while disassociating from his wrong actions. Similarly:

“They said: ‘Our Lord we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers’ ” (Quran 7:23) 

“So Adam disobeyed his Lord, and lost his way. Then his Lord chose him, accepted his repentance, and guided him.” (Qur’an 20:121-122)

Thus, Adam-upon him be peace, is in true spiritual guardianship.

The Ahl Bayt of Adam (as). The household of the Prophet Adam (as)

The first murderer in human history was a descendant of a Prophet.

Cain killed his brother Abel.  Both were descendants of the Prophet Adam (as).   Yet, one was righteous and the other became the ‘first’ murderer.  Such that Allah (swt) made an example of this particular incident throughout time.

“So his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:30)

And recite to them the story of Adam’s two sons, in truth, when they both offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], “I will surely kill you.” Said [the former], “Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him]”. (Qur’an 5:27)

Humanity is not even in its infancy and here we have two descendants of the Prophet Adam (as). One of them has the hallmark of being remembered for all time as being the first murderer. Allah (swt) said that one of them was (mutaqi) righteous, meaning the other was not.

Does the son of Adam (as) get a pass for murdering his brother simply because he is the son of a Prophet?

“Then Allah sent a crow digging in the ground, in order to show him how to bury the corpse of his brother. He cried, “Alas! Have I failed to be like this crow and bury the corpse of my brother?” So he became regretful.” (Qur’an 5:31)

The regret here is not from his action but because he was not able to cover up his action. This son of Adam is in Barā’ah. This son of a Prophet is in Barā’ah

It is from the Sunnah of the Prophet to disavow any Muslim (including a companion) when they commit a sin.

First and foremost, to disavow any Muslim when they commit a sin is from the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw). This includes the companions.

Narrated Salim’s father:

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

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4339)

‏ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَيْكَ مِمَّا صَنَعَ خَالِدٌ- allahuma ‘iiniy ‘abra ‘iilayk mimaa sanae khalid

Core Principles of the Ibāḍī Position on Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah

The Separation of Status from Action: A person’s fundamental spiritual state (ḥāl)—their belief, inner conviction, and love for Allah—is distinct from their outward actions. A major sin is a catastrophic failure in action, but it does not automatically annihilate the foundation of faith (īmān) in the heart.

Two Types of Wilāyah: Our scholars often delineate between:

  • Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah (True/Essential Guardianship): This is the inner, spiritual reality of being a friend of Allah. It is based on sincere belief, knowledge of Allah (maʿrifah), and righteous intention. This state, once truly attained, is considered by us Ibāḍīs to be a permanent reality that is not nullified by subsequent sin. It is a matter of the heart’s condition, which is known only to Allah.
  • Wilāyat al-Dīn (Religious/Legal Guardianship): This is the outward, legal expression of that friendship. It governs how the community interacts with the individual. This can be nullified by public, major sin because the community must judge based on what is apparent (ẓāhir). Loss of wilāyat al-dīn means the person is no longer considered part of the community of believers in a socio-legal sense; they may be ostracized or subject to legal penalties.

If they sincerely repent, they are put back into Wilāyat al-Dīn. If they have committed an offense that comes under qisas, hadd, or ta’zir, they are dealt with accordingly.

Our examples perfectly explain the consequence of this distinction: the inner wilāyah remains, but the outer consequences of sin are not waived.

To find out more on this please see our article here:

Ibadi positon Contrast with Other Schools

This position places classical Ibāḍīsm in a unique middle ground between other schools:

  • Vs. Khawārij: The Khawārij held that any major sin makes a person a disbeliever (kāfir), nullifying any form of wilāyah and making them eternally damned. The Ibāḍīs vehemently reject this, as shown by our text.
  • Vs. Murjiʾah: The Murjiʾah held that sin does not harm faith at all; a person’s faith remains complete regardless of their actions. We, the Ibāḍīs reject this, insisting that sins have real consequences and that outward wilāyah is lost.

A person’s essential spiritual identity as a friend of Allah (wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah), once truly established through sincere faith, is a resilient reality that is not erased by sin. However, this inner state does not provide immunity from divine law or its consequences in the world. The community must uphold justice (execute punishments, reject falsehood) while maintaining a principled optimism about the depth of Allah’s mercy and the potential for a sinner’s heart to still be oriented toward Him.

Understanding Qur’an 49:9

First, regarding the noble verse: ‘If two groups of believers fight each other…’ (Quran 49:9)
Note here that before identifying which party is the aggressor, Allah says “from the believers” and not “two believing groups”, commanding reconciliation because mistakes may occur. As stated: ‘It is not for a believer to kill another believer except by mistake.’ (Qur’an 4:92) 

Through reconciliation, the aggressor party becomes known and must repent to remain within the circle of faith. If they persist in their aggression, then fighting them becomes obligatory – this being one of Allah’s prescribed limits (hudud), like the punishments for theft, slander, adultery, brigandage, and alcohol consumption. Whoever violates these divine limits must face the prescribed punishment, even if they possess true spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah).

This is why Ammar (ra) fought against the Mother of the Believers, Aisha (ra), in the Battle of the Camel while still affirming her status.

The example of Aisha-may Allah be pleased with her.

The amr of Allah belonged with Ali. Ayesha (ra) opposed him and later repented. We also know this because she (Ayesha) — may Allah be pleased with her is in real spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah).

Narrated Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Aasadi:

“When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and Hasan bin `Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. Al-Hasan bin `Ali was at the top of the pulpit and `Ammar was below Al-Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard `Ammar saying, “`Aisha has moved to Al-Busra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him (Allah) or her (`Aisha).”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7100)

So even though Aisha (ra) is acknowledged by Ammar bin Yasir (ra) to be the ‘wife of the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter‘, he was not about to leave the commands of Allah (swt).

Whoever violates these divine limits must face the prescribed punishment, even if they possess true spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah).

Allah makes known the status of the wives of the Blessed Prophet (saw) when he states:

“The Prophet has a stronger affinity to the believers than they do themselves. And his wives are their mothers.” (Qur’an 33:6)

Yet, Allah (swt) also informs us:

“O wives of the Prophet! If any of you were to commit a blatant misconduct, the punishment would be doubled for her. And that is easy for Allah.” (Qur’an 33:30)

We affirm the true guardianship of Aisha (ra) while disassociating from her wrong action in fighting against the Imam of the Muslims.

Summary of the battle of the camel and the actions of Aisha -May Allah be pleased with her.

Quranic Mandate: Qur’an 49:9 provides a clear command: if two groups of believers fight, Muslims must seek reconciliation. If one group is clearly the aggressor (baghat), the community must fight that oppressive group until it returns to the “command of Allah” (amr Allah).

Historical Application: In the conflict between Imam ʿAlī and the group led by ʿĀ’ishah (ra), Talḥah, and Al-Zubayr, we posit that the amr Allah (the legitimate command and authority) was with ʿAlī. Therefore, the group that took up arms against him was, in that specific instance, the oppressing party (al-bāghiyah).

Theological Principle: This is where we link it to the previous concept. Even though ʿĀ’ishah (ra) holds the rank of wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah (“the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter”), this spiritual status does not grant immunity from the consequences of worldly actions that violate divine law and order.

Consequence: Therefore, it became obligatory to oppose her military action and fight to bring that group back to obedience, exactly as ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir (ra) stated. The punishment for this political transgression was the worldly consequence of battle.

Status Preserved: Following the event, ʿĀ’ishah (ra) repented and was deeply remorseful, which is a key point. Her repentance and her esteemed status indicate that her wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah was not nullified by this error in political judgment and action.

Analysis and Further Context:

The ḥadīth we cited is crucial. ʿAmmār (ra) perfectly encapsulates the dilemma and its solution:

  1. Acknowledgment of Status: He begins by unequivocally affirming ʿĀ’ishah’s (ra) unparalleled status and virtue. This establishes the principle of wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah.
  2. Primacy of Obedience to Allah: He immediately follows by stating that this status is not the ultimate factor in deciding political allegiance. The test from Allah is whether Muslims will obey Allah by obeying the legitimate authority He has placed, or obey a person, no matter how esteemed, in opposition to that authority.

The example of Fatima-May Allah be pleased with her.

Narrated `Aisha: Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6787)

Now, does one need to hate Fatima (ra) in order to administer the justice of Allah? How do people reason? Does anyone think that Adam (as) did not love both his sons? Even though one is a murderer?

The core question is about reconciling love/respect for individuals with the obligation to uphold Allah’s laws.

Does one need to hate Fatima (ra) to administer the justice of Allah?

Absolutely not. In fact, the opposite is true. One must love and respect her so much that they will uphold the command of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (saw) even upon her.

The hadith we cited is one of the most powerful illustrations of the principle of blind justice in Islam. The Blessed Prophet’s (saw) statement is the ultimate expression of his commitment to divine justice.

  • Love for Allah and His Law Supersedes Personal Love: The Prophet’s (saw) love for his daughter was immense. But his love for Allah and His commandments was greater. By declaring he would punish her, he was teaching that no personal relationship, no matter how cherished, can stand between a Muslim and the fulfillment of Allah’s law.
  • Administering Justice is an Act of Worship: The judge who would carry out the ruling is not doing it out of personal hatred for the criminal. He is doing it as an act of obedience to Allah, fulfilling a trust (amanah) placed upon him. Carrying out a hadd punishment on a beloved individual would be one of the most difficult tests of faith, precisely because it requires separating personal feelings from divine obligation.
  • True Love is to Want What is Right for Someone: From a spiritual perspective, allowing a beloved person to escape punishment for a crime corrupts their soul and increases their burden of sin in the Hereafter. Enforcing the law, as difficult as it is, serves as a purification for the offender and a deterrent for society. In this sense, administering justice is a form of tough love that seeks the ultimate good of the individual and the community.

Therefore, the reasoning is: We love and honor Fatima (ra) because, first and foremost, she is a righteous believer and second, because she is the daughter of the Prophet (saw). And because we love and honor him, we would uphold his command and his Sunnah without exception, even if it were to apply to her.

People who struggle with this concept often conflate two separate domains:

  1. The Legal Domain (Justice – Haqq Allah/ Haqq al-‘Ibad): This is the realm of objective, applied law. Here, relationships, status, and personal feelings are irrelevant. The law must be applied equally to the prince and the pauper.
  2. The Emotional/Spiritual Domain (Love/Hate): This is the realm of personal feeling and spiritual assessment (wilayah).

The error is to believe that these two domains must be connected—that administering a punishment requires personal hatred, or that loving someone requires being lenient with them regarding Allah’s laws.

The Islamic reasoning, as demonstrated by the prophets, is that these domains are separate and must be kept separate. A judge can deeply love his own son while convicting him of a crime. A parent can love a child while disciplining them. The action is condemned, but the person is still loved.

The example of Ibrahim (as) and his son (as). A Wali of Allah proceeds to kill another Wali of Allah.

If we are to ask is Ibrahim (as) a wali of Allah? The answer would be yes.

If we are to ask the son of Ibrahim (as) a wali of Allah? The answer would be yes.

Yet this did not stop Ibrahim (as) to kill another wali of Allah (his son) because it was an ‘amr (command) of Allah.

“Then when the boy reached the age to work with him, Abraham said, “O my dear son! I have seen in a dream that I sacrifice you. So tell me what you think.” He replied, “O my dear father! Do as you are commanded. Allah willing, you will find me steadfast.” (Qur’an 37:102)

If someone were to say that Ibrahim (as) knew that his son would be spared, then this would hardly be a test of faith or obedience. The point here is that one wali of Allah was asked to kill another wali of Allah in order to show his obedience.

This is when the son of Ibrahim (as) is not known to us to have done any violations that would require the forfeiture of his life.

How much more for those who commit violations that require such a forfeiture?

And can it be said that Ibrahim (as) in carrying out such an act had hatred for his son? 

We seek protection in Allah from that! Of course not! His obedience to Allah (swt) was foremost. 

We judge by the apparent-the dhahir.

‘Abdullah bin ‘Utbah bin Mas’ud reported:

I heard ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab (ra) reported saying: “In the lifetime of Messenger of Allah (saw) some people were called to account through Revelation. Now Revelation has discontinued and we shall judge you by your apparent acts. Whoever displays to us good, we shall grant him peace and security, and treat him as a near one. We have nothing to do with his insight. Allah will call him to account for that. But whosoever shows evil to us, we shall not grant him security nor shall we believe him, even if he professed that his intention is good.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:395)

Synthesis with the Concept of Wilayat al-Haqiqah

This brings us full circle to the initial principle of wilayat al-haqiqah:

A person’s spiritual status (wilayat al-haqiqah) does not invalidate their worldly responsibilities or protect them from the consequences of their actions. Likewise, our love and respect for an individual (their spiritual status) does not invalidate the need for justice.

  • Fatima (ra) is revered and loved, but had she stolen, the law would apply.
  • The Sons of Ya’qub (as) were among the chosen family of prophets, but their crime against Yusuf (as) had consequences and they were rebuked in the Qur’an.
  • Cain was the son of a prophet, but he was punished for murder.

In conclusion: Islamic justice is not built on the emotion of hatred but on the principle of objective, divine command. True faith is demonstrated when one can uphold the law of Allah without being swayed by personal love or personal hatred. The greatest examples of this are the Prophets themselves, who administered justice and taught truth, all while maintaining love and compassion in their hearts for their people, even for those who wronged them.

This is why Imam Abu Sa’id al-Kudmi (May Allah have mercy on him) said: ‘We accept no falsehood from the blessed, nor reject any truth from the wretched.’

If you want to learn more about this all too important concept in Islam we recommend the following articles:

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ramadan Mubarak From Prima Qur’an.

“Behold, We revealed this (Qur’an) on the Night of Power.” (Qur’an 97:1)

﷽ 

May Allah bless us and grant us forgiveness, mercy, guidance, closeness to Allah (swt) and overflowing love for his Messenger (saw).🌹❤️ We, at Prima-Qur’an are thankful you all are here.

Welcome to all the newcomers!!

May Allah continue to bless and guide you and us. Remember all the oppressed wherever they are in this world. Please keep us in your du’a this month. Please forgive our shortcomings. From our ❤️ ‘s to your heart ❤️‘s

Our du’a for you this Ramadan is that Allah (swt) grants you many openings
and many beautiful resolutions to any and all challenges you may be facing. 

We can only du’a that Allah is pleased with us all, considers us among the obedient slaves; that we are all spoken well of by Allah swt’s Angels and we all are protected and comforted by them; that our loved one be blessed ameen 

{space for Nurul, Haider, ‘Abdullah to share their thoughts}

*The Grace of Ramadan*

Ramadan as Allah said is the month of the Qur’an, and Allah exalted commanded the believer to fast during this month, but contrary to what most people believe, fasting is not about abstaining from eating and drinking only, but fasting is abstaining from everything that Allah forbids, The Blessed Prophet (saw) said: “Backbiting breaks the fast and Wudu'”, and said: “No fasting except by abstaining from the prohibitions of Allah” and based on this we conclude that the importance of Ramadan is not just in abstaining from food and drink, but Ramadan is an entire school in patience and purification, the prophet peace be upon him said signifying the grace of Ramadan: “Who ever fasts Ramadan with faith and hope of retribution, his former sins will be forgiven, and if you knew the virtues of Ramadan you will wish it lasted a year”.

———————

*Ignorance of the religion*

Ignorance is not an excuse in the religion after obligation

Obligation in this context is directing the commands and prohibitions to the creature by his creator, and it has three conditions:

1- Intellect

2- Puberty

3- Establishing the argument

The argument is the proof, if someone meets the conditions then he is not excused for his ignorance, in addition to these conditions, there is “the absence of deterrent”, meaning: to be able to do what Allah commanded you to do, as Allah says: “Allah does not require of any soul more than what it can afford”.

Another aspect of this topic is the importance of seeking knowledge in Islam, Allah says: ” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Are those who know equal to those who do not know?” None will be mindful ˹of this˺ except people of reason.” and the prophet peace be upon him said: “whoever Allah wants his goodness will give him knowledge in the religion” and said: “whoever purses a path seeking knowledge, Allah will make his path to paradise easier”.

———————

*Breaking the fast intentionally and unintentionally*

1- If someone unintentionally breaks his fast by forgetting and eating for example, he should continue his fasting and he doesn’t have to redo that day later

2- If someone intentionally breaks his fast by eating, drinking, having intimacy…etc, he has to redo that day after Ramadan and has to perform Kafarah Mughalladah, which is to free a slave or fast two months, and if he can’t then to feed 60 poor people.

May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dogs are pure in Islam, according to the Qur’an.

“They ask you what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are all things good and pure: and what you have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)

﷽ 

This is written to show that the practice of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is that dogs are pure in Islam, and this is the way of many Muslims all over the world until today. It is possible that outsiders of Islam have the perspective that the view that dogs are ritually unclean is due to the fact that one of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence (The Hanafi school) is also the most prevalanet Islamic school. This is also the position of other Islamic schools.

This blog entry will attempt to show the validity of those of us who hold that dogs are pure. By using the primary and secondary sources of Islam. It will also show the inconsistency of the views opposed to this understanding, as well as common objections to this view, usually by citing oral traditions.

Some people who have been brought up and trained their whole lives to hear that dogs are not tahir (clean or pure) are going to have to rethink what they were taught in light of the evidence presented.

Imam Ash-Shawkaani (rahimahullah) states in his masterpiece: “Nayl Al-Awtaar Sharh Muntaqaa Al-Akhbaar” the following:

It has been attributed to the Prophet Muhammed (saw)

“From Abu Hurayrah who said that Rasulullah (alayhis salaam) said, “When a dog licks one of your vessels (e.g. bowl), apply dirt to it and then wash the vessel seven times.”

[Says Shawkaani]: And this narration also proves that the dog is najaasah (impure)…and the Jumhoor (majority) hold this opinion. And ‘Ikrimah and Malik in a report from him ,state ,“Verily it is Taahir (pure)”. And their proof is the statement of Allah ta’alaa,

فَكُلُواْ مِمَّا أَمْسَكْنَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاذْكُرُواْ اسْمَ اللّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ

(Say: lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)

Another proof is what is established in Abu Dawud from the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar with the words, “Dogs would come freely into the masjid and urinate in the time of the Rasulullah (‘alayhis salaam), and they would not pour water over it (i.e. the urine).” 

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:174)

[Note that Ibn Hajr states this occurred before doors were put on the masjids and the command to keep them clean was established.This is the opinion of a Shafi’i and not that of the Maalikis] – End quote from Nayl Al-Awtaar.

The Shafi’i Judge and Jurist Qadhi As-Safadi states, “Malik says that dogs are pure and what they lick is not made impure, but that a vessel licked by a dog should be washed to avoid filth.”

The following quotes are statements from Imam Malik as reported in the Mudawwanah of Imam Malik regarding the dog:

“One may eat what it catches in a hunt. How then can we declare Makrooh (hated or disliked) what it drinks (or places its tongue in).” (page 116)

Malik said, “If one desires to make wudhu’ from a vessel wherein a dog has drunk (or put its tongue in), it is OK for him to make wudhu’ from it and pray.” (pg 115)

Malik said, “If a dog puts his tongue in a vessel of milk (labn) there is no harm (la ba’as) if one takes (i.e. eats) from that milk.” (ibid)

Note that there are many other quotes from him within Volume 1 of the Mudawwana regarding the purity of the dog. We have chosen these only as a sample. Source: (Vol. 1 published by Daar Al Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah published in 2005 CE)

The Maliki Faqih (jurist consult) of Andalus, Ibn Rushd states in his “Bidayatul-Mujtahid”,

“Malik held the view that the leftovers of a dog should be spilled, and the utensil should be washed, as it is a ritual act of non-rational worship, because the water that it has lapped up is not unclean (najas). He did not require, according to the widely known opinion from him, the spilling of things other than water, which a dog had licked. The reason, as we have said, is the conflict with analogy, according to him. He also believed that, if it is to be understood from the tradition that a dog is unclean, it opposes the apparent meaning of the Book, that is, the words of Allah ta’alaa, “So eat what they catch for you…” meaning thereby that if the dog had been unclean the prey would become unclean by the touch of the dog’s (mouth). He supported this interpretation by the required number of washings, as number is not a condition in the washing of unclean things. He held that this washing was merely an act of worship. He did not rely upon the remaining traditions as they were weak, in his view.”

Source: (pg 27 published by Garnet; also see Al-Hidayah of Imam Al-Ghumaari Vol. 1 page 288 for a detailed discussion of the chains of narration)

This narration is reported by Imam Muslim in his Sahih 89/279 as well as by An-Nasaa’i hadith number 66

Source: Taken from “The Mercy in the Difference of the Four Sunni Schools of Islamic Law” translated by ‘A’ishah Bewley, printed by Dar-al-taqwa. Page 4

    May we turn our attention to the hadith again, which seems to bring a lot of misunderstanding in relation to dogs in Islam.

    “When a dog licks one of your vessels (e.g. bowl), apply dirt to it and then wash the vessel seven times.”

    We would encourage the reader to look at the following information ,and then we would like to comment about this as well.

    The hadith above that requires us to wash the utensil licked by a dog seven times is pretty much explained away as follows:

    First, if it is done with the intention in the heart to obey the Messenger (saw), then it counts as worship, Furthermore, as Ibn Rush stated, the fact that the washing is a set number of times is a proof that this constitutes a ritual act of worship.

    Second, the command for us to perform this action is purely for hygienic reasons and has nothing do with ritual purity. It’s a leap of reasoning to connect the command to ritual purity.

    Modern science is testament to the fact that there are certain strains of bacteria in dog saliva which are not part of the human normal flora. If a container licked by a dog is left unwashed (especially in hot climate regions), it provides a fertile breeding ground in which those bacteria will multiply at geometric rates and render the container useless thereafter. Thus, the command to wash the container is purely a medical precaution.

    And similar to what was alluded to in Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd, this only applies to containers which contain water. Containers which contain other useful contents are not to be discarded and washed.

    Overall, it appears as if Imam Malik had high respect and esteem for dogs. They had a special status with him, unlike any other animal, as the following excerpt from the Mudawanna shows us:

    Regarding ablution with the leftovers of animals, chickens, and dogs: [Ibn Al Qasim] said: I asked Malik about the leftovers of donkeys and mules and Malik said: There is no problem with them. I [Sahnun] said: Did you see if he communicated regarding anything other than such? Ibn Al-Qasim said: it and others beside it are equal. Ibn Al-Qasim said: And Malik said: There is no problem with the sweat of the horse, mule, or donkey; Ibn Al-Qasim further added, and Malik retorted: In the container that contains water licked by a dog with which a man makes wudu? Ibn Al Qasim said: Malik Said: If he makes wudu with it and subsequently performs salah, then this is permitted. Ibn Al Qasim said: And [Malik] does not see the dog like other animals. Ibn Al Qasim Said: Malik Said: If those repugnant species of birds and predatory animals drink from the water container, one is not to make wudu with that container. Ibn Al Qasim said: And Malik said: If a dog licks a container which contains milk, then there is no problem with consuming that milk. I [Sahnun] said: Did Malik use to say wash the container seven times when the dog licks inside the container? Ibn Al Qasim Said: Malik Said: This tradition has definitely come to us and I do not know its truth/authenticity. Ibn Al Qasim said: And it is as if (Malik) viewed the dog as if the dog was a member of the household (Ahl Al-Bayt) and that it was not like other predatory beasts, and Malik used to say: the container is not washed of margarine or milk and what the dog licked from that IS to be eaten, and I see it as an enormity to purposefully intend (waste) towards the bounty from the bounty of God and discard what the dog licked.

    Here is something that we would like to ask people.

    Let us say that, indeed, we did witness a dog lick from a dish that we left on a carpeted area and then this dish was washed 6 or 7 times and with earth as well. How many of you would actually drink this dish afterward?

    Not many, which is exactly our point!

    People are trying to make the halal (permissible) into the haram (forbidden). Now you want to make the whole of the contents and the dish unusable?

    Case in point: The Shaf’i School of jurisprudence.

    People who are not aware that Shaf’i critiqued Imam Malik have not read or are unfamiliar with the Shaf’i corpus known as Al-Risala (The Message).

    Thus, as history has it,Imam Shaf’i’ and his critique of Imam Malik would not go unanswered.

    MALIKI SCHOLAR IBN AL LABBAD’S REFUTATION OF IMAM SHAF’I

    The following information is taken from a small tract in which a Sunni Maliki scholar, Ibn Al Labbad, gave full response to Shaf’i. This is where we will take our information from, since it critiques the Shaf’i view on the matter.

    The following is titled:

    Kitab fihi radd(u) Abi Bakr ibn Muhammed ala Muhammed ibn Idris Al-Shaf’i fi munqadaati qawlihi wa fima qala bihi min al-tahdid fi mas’ail qalaha khalfa fiha al-Kitab wal-sunna (A treatise containing Abu Bakr Muhammed’s refutation of Muhammed Ibn Idris Al-Shaf’i for the latter’s self contradictions and his arbitrariness in setting legal limits in matters regarding which his doctrine violated the Book and the Sunnah).

    Al’Shaf’i added, however, that both the vessels and their contents were rendered ritually impure.

    This extrapolation drew heavy criticism from Ibn Al-Labbad, who argued that while the Prophet (saw) ruled that vessels from which dogs had drunk had to be washed seven times; he never stated that either the vessels or their contents were ritually impure. This was simply al-Shaf’is invention, according to Ibn al-Labbad, which he concocted on the basis of his own ra’y (reasoning) and then injected into the hadith. That al-Shaf’i’s position was deficient could be easily proved by reference to the Qur’an, where there are verses permitting the eating of game seized by hunting dogs. (Qur’an chapter 5:4)


    To make matters worse, Ibn al-Labbad cites Al-Shafi’is argument to the effect that neither the vessels nor their contents were rendered ritually impure if such contents exceeded two qullas in volume, since, according to al-Shaf’i, anything more than two qullas was not subject to ritual impurity.

    On this view, he ends up, according to Ibn al-Labbad completely undermining the Prophet’s rule. On the one hand, he holds vessels from which dogs have drunk but which contain more than two qullas not to require ritual washing, while the Prophet (saw) stated explicitly that whenever a dog laps from a vessel it is to be washed seven times. On the other hand, he holds the contents of vessels containing less than two qullas to be ritually impure, while the Prophet himself never designated them as such.

    At first blush, it might appear that ibn Al-Labbad is donning the Shaf’i-inspired robe of Zahirism in order to slam the door to logical inference in Al-Shaf’is face. But this turns out not to be altogether true. Ibn al-Labbad is not saying al-Shaf’i is wrong for attempting to understand the underlying implications of the Prophet’s command but merely that the results of this attempt were flawed.

    For while it may be reasonable to assume a connection between the command to wash vessels and the status of their contents, the Prophet made it clear, according to Ibn al-Labbad, that dogs drinking from vessels constitute a sui generis category. As proof, he cites instances as the Bedouin who urinated in the mosque and the infant who relieved himself on the Prophet’s lap. In neither case did the Prophet order a seven-fold washing. This, according to Ibn al-Labbad, clearly indicated that urine and other ritually impure substances constituted one category. Meanwhile, vessels from which dogs have lapped constitute another. The two issues, in other words, were simply unrelated, and Al-Shaf’i was misguided in extending the logic of ritual impurity to vessels from which dogs had lapped and their contents.

    Once again, however, Ibn al-Labbad case would not end there. Al Shaf’i had extended the ruling on dogs drinking from vessels to pigs, arguing that ‘if pigs were not worse than dogs, they were certainly no better than them.’ This, argued Ibn Al Labbad was pure ra’y, for the validity of which Al-Shaf’i had provided no textual proof. Similarly, regarding the use of earth for the first or last cleansing of vessels, Al Shafi’i held that if one was unable to find earth (turab), one could use something that functions like earth,

    e.g., potash or the like. Yet, when it came to tayammun, al Shaf’i flatly disallowed these things, insisting instead on the use of pure earth (turab). All of this went to show, according to Ibn Al-Labbad, just how inconsistent and arbitrary Al-Shafi could be. In the end none of this was based upon information related on the authority of the Prophet (saw).

    Source: (“Setting the Record Straight: Ibn al-Labbād’s Refutation of al-Shāfiʿī” (published in the Journal of Islamic Studies), Sherman A. Jackson analyzes the critiques leveled by the 10th-century Maliki jurist Muhammad b. Idrīs al-Labbād (d. 333/944) against Imam al-Shāfiʿī)

    This is an intra-Sunni critique. A scholar of the Maliki School of jurisprudence giving a rebuttal to the founding jurist of one of Sunni Islam’s most prominent schools of jurisprudence.

    Now let us take a look at the contradictory hadith reports concerning dogs in various situations and see if we can make sense of all of this.

    The Hadith should be understood in light of the Qur’an and the practice of the Sunnah that was orally transmitted and practiced by the masses of Muslims across all cities and regions.

    So first let us take a look at what the Qur’an itself says concerning dogs.

    There are three places where the Qur’an mentions dogs.

    “They ask you what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are all things good and pure: and what you have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)

    “This is of the signs of Allah. He whom Allah guides, he is on the right way; and whom He leaves in error, you will not find for him a friend to guide aright. And you might think them awake while they were asleep, and We turned them about to the right and to the left with their dog outstretching its paws at the entrance. If you did look at them, you would turn back from them in flight, and you would be filled with awe because of them. And thus did We rouse them that they might question each other. A speaker from among them said: How long have you tarried? They said: We have tarried for a day or a part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. Now send one of you with this silver (coin) of yours to the city, then let him see what food is purest, and bring you provision from it, and let him behave with gentleness, and not make your case known to anyone. For if they prevail against you, they would stone you to death or force you back to their religion, and then you would never succeed. And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them, that they might know that Allah’s promise is true and that the Hour — there is no doubt about it. When they disputed among themselves about their affair and said: Erect an edifice over them. Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed in their affair said: We shall certainly build a place of worship over them.(Some) say: (They were) three, the fourth of them their dog; and (others) say: Five, the sixth of them their dog, making conjectures about the unseen. And (others) say: Seven, and the eighth of them their dog. Say: My Lord best knows their number — none knows them but a few. So contend not in their matter but with an outward contention, and question not any of them concerning them. And say not of anything: I will do that tomorrow, Unless Allah please. And remember your Lord when you forget and say: Maybe my Lord will guide me to a nearer course to the right than this. And they remained in their cave three hundred years, and they add nine. Say: Allah knows best how long they remained. His is the unseen of the heavens and the earth. How clear His sight and His hearing! There is no guardian for them beside Him, and He associates none in His judgment.” (Qur’an 18:9-26)

    The question from reading this is why would a dog be worthy of mention in the last revelation given to humanity if it is such an unclean and impure animal? These are the questions that need to be answered.

    However, here is a passage from the Qur’an that compares the behavior of dogs to some people who reject faith.

    “Thus, If it had been Our Will, We should have elevated him Our Signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our Signs, so relate the story, perchance they may reflect.”(Qur’an 7:176)


    Can you see this verse giving explicit command to attack dogs? No! It simply says that ‘IF’ you were to attack him, this dog is going to behave in the same way even if you let him be. This is the only thing that we could see in the Qur’an portraying the dog in a negative light. Yet the similitude is more directed at mankind than it is making any statement about dogs.

    THE AHADITH AND DOGS

    Allah forgave a prostitute her sins because she gave water to a dying dog.

    Allah’s Messenger (saw) is reported to have said, “A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tied it with her head-cover. She drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3321)

    Of course, this means that the woman was sincere in repenting for her sins and this action, coupled with her repenting of her sins, became a source of mercy for her.

    Question: If dogs are so vile and evil, why was a prostitute forgiven by Allah because of showing this act of mercy and kindness to the animal?

    TheBlessed Prophet is reported to have said, ‘A man felt very thirsty while he was on the way, there he came across a well, He went down the well, quenched his thirst and came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. He said to himself, “This dog is suffering from thirst as I did.” So, he went down the well again and filled his shoe with water and watered it. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him. The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals? He replied: Yes, there is a reward for serving any living being.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2466)

    Question: If dogs are so vile and evil, why would Allah thank a man for the act of kindness that he showed this particular animal?

    The Blessed Prophet (saw) is reported to have said, “A man saw a dog eating mud because of the severity of thirst. So, that man took a shoe and filled it with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him enter Paradise.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:173)

    And narrated Hamza bin ‘Abdullah: My father said. “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, the dogs used to urinate and pass through the mosque (come and go), nevertheless they used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog.)”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:174)

    KEEPING DOGS AS PETS

    The Blessed Prophet is reported to have said, “Angels do not enter a house which has either a dog or a picture in it.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3322)

    Narrated Salim’s father: “Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, “We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3227)

    Prima Qur’an Comment: This is not a command not to keep dogs but simply that they should have seperate areas from where people reside.

    Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Whoever acquires a dog other than a sheepdog or hunting dog, will have two qirats deducted from the reward of his good actions every day.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/54/13)

    It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allah ibn Umar said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Whoever keeps a dog, except a dog for herding livestock or a dog that is trained for hunting; two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day.” 

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1574a)

    It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (saw) said,“Whoever keeps a dog, except a dog for herding, hunting or farming, one qiraat will be deducted from his reward each day.” 

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1575a)

    In a hadeeth narrated by Ibn ‘Umar, The Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever keeps a dog which is neither a watch dog nor a hunting dog, will get a daily deduction of two Qiraat from his good deeds.” 

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5480)

    Prima Qur’an Comment: The above hadith mentions that the dog should have a utility. Thus, it has been argued by some scholars that seeing eye dogs that help blind people are utility dogs. Dogs that guard the home and property from would-be attackers and thieves are utility dogs. Animals can also generate soothing effects that relieve high blood pressure in people.

    IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO KEEP A DOG TO GUARD HOUSES?

    Al-Nawawi said: “There is a difference of opinion about whether it is permissible to keep dogs for purposes other than three, such as guarding houses and roads. The most correct view is that it is permissible by analogy with these three and based on the reason that it is to be understood from the hadith, which is based upon necessity. ”

    Source: (Sharh Muslim, 10/236)

    Prima Qur’an Comments:

    If we look at all the hadith evidence above, something becomes very obvious and that there is not an explicit prohibition on keeping a dog as a pet.

    There are reports that talk about one or two good deeds being removed from a person who keeps a dog other than for the purpose of (hunting, sheepdog, guard dog, guards live stock, guarding family).

    So, for example, a person may get a poodle and claim that it is for guarding the family and this may be an unlikely scenario. However, dogs also make noise when there is intrusion, and they serve their purpose to guard human lives.

    The former United States of America (under the Zionist occupation) has one of the highest percentages of gun ownership out of any populace on earth. Think of how many people have access to guns in the family. Many people may agree that it is more safe to have a dog securing the parameters of the house, protecting and guarding the family than it is to own a gun.

    Again, there is no prohibition against owning a dog in one’s home. Simply saying that rewards are moved for keeping a dog for an intention other than serving some use is also not a prohibition.

    Even if a person said it was their intention to keep a dog simply for the purpose of entertainment, the traditionalist may consider that person to be negligent.

    Today, in the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, West Africa, Oman and places where the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is practiced and maintained with vigilance, we find that people keep dogs as pets.

    Blind people also need dogs as a part of their life to help protect and guide them. The issue of angels not entering houses is because the presence of a dog is not because the dog is impure. The dog is pure in the ‘law’ of Islam. If the angels did not enter because the dog was not pure, then the angels would not enter houses and mosques (masjids) because of the presence of toilets.

    You can also find a hadith that has been narrated that includes the phrase (except the angel of death) which should raise an eyebrow. Most likely, if angels never entered an abode where a dog was present, this would mean the angel of death and thus a person could be guaranteed eternal life on the basis of keeping a dog as a pet!

    So you will find the above hadith to include the exception (except the angel of death).

    Those who are still opposed to dogs, namely the Shaf’i and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence, are really going to have to rethink their positions in today’s world that we live in. What works for the Shaf’i in Somalia and for the Hanafi in India and Pakistan is not going to work in New York City, London or Minneapolis, where a man or woman may get into a cab with his or her seeing eye dog.

    Not only that, but angels ‘not entering the house’ should be pondered over due to the fact that many people live in apartment complexes, so what would actually constitute a house? Could an angel be in your apartment while your neighbor has a loud barking dog? These questions have to be answered to keep people from doing extreme things or taking issues out of context.

    The hadith about Angel Gabriel not entering the house where Prophet Muhammed (saw) was because he had a female dog under his bed with puppies needs to be taken into context with all the other information that is given.

    DIDN’T THE BLESSED PROPHET MUHAMMED (SAW) ORDER DOGS TO BE KILLED?

    “Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Whoever acquires a dog other than a sheepdog or hunting dog will have two qirats deducted from the reward of his good actions every day.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/54/13)

    Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered dogs to be killed.

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/54/14)

    Without going into the various hadeeth that talk about the killing of dogs, the two statements above alone will suffice.

    Why?

    They suffice because Imam Malik, the ‘founder’ of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, related both ahadith, but he understood the practice. He did not take ahadith (lone narrator reports) in isolation as do many Muslims today.

    He is taking the whole of the practice as it was orally mass transmitted and practiced by the people of his city in Madinah.

    The reports about killing dogs seem to be in the context of a mass outbreak of some virus, rabies, scabies, ring worm and Allah knows best!

    If you have actually seen a dog with a severe case of the mange or scabies, it is a very sad sight to behold.

    The point is that the Muwatta of Imam Malik (quoted above) and the views he holds and transmits from the people of Madinah and those before him is that dogs are not to be killed.

    We hope Muslims will better understand Islam. This is why we ask Muslims that it is imperative for them to take the Qur’an and the mass transmitted practice over the Hadith.

    The vast majority of Muslims, YouTube Preachers, and even those who have taken ‘alim courses are not very well grounded in Islamic jurisprudence. Also, when it comes to Hadith transmission, it was never meant to be understood in isolation as it is being done today.

    One of Imam Malik’s major shaykhs, Rab’a Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman, nicked named Rabi’a al-Ra’y, stated: “I will take a thousand from a thousand before I will take one from one, because that one from one can strip the practice out of your hands.”

    If the Muslims insist on taking hadith (one from one) in isolation over the practice (mass transmitted tradition), then we will continue to be a source of embarrassment and rage.

    We leave you with the following story in which an old blind man was denied entry on a bus because of the ignorance of us Muslims.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-38745910

    If you enjoyed the above article you may be interested in reading the following:

    https://primaquran.com/2020/09/12/dastardly-bowl-licking-dogs-and-the-thought-process-of-some-muslim/

    May Allah (swt) continue to guide us to that which is beloved to Allah (swt)!

    May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah! May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah!

    4 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

    6 months of darkness & 6 months of light how to fast?

    “He is the One Who made the sun a radiant source and the moon a reflected light, with precisely ordained phases, so that you may know the number of years and calculation ˹of time˺. Allah did not create all this except for a purpose. He makes the signs clear for people of knowledge.” (Qur’an 10:5)

    “Indeed, in the alternation of the night and the day and [in] what Allāh has created in the heavens and the earth are signs for a people who fear Allāh.” (Qur’an 10:6)

    (Ramaḍan is the month (shahru) in which the Quran was revealed as a guide for humanity with clear proofs of guidance and the decisive authority.” (Qur’an 2:185)

    Say, “Have you considered: if Allah should make for you the night continuous until the Day of Resurrection, what deity other than Allah could bring you light? Then will you not hear?
    Say, “Have you considered: if Allah should make for you the day continuous until the Day of Resurrection, what deity other than Allah could bring you a night in which you may rest? Then will you not see?” (Qur’an 28:71-72)

    ﷽ 

    Subhan’Allah!

    “And He is the One Who spread out the earth and placed firm mountains and rivers upon it, and created fruits of every kind in pairs. He covers the day with night. Surely these are signs for those who reflect.” (Qur’an 13:3)

    “Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of day and night, there are signs for people of reason.” (Qur’an 3: 190)

    “Will they then not reflect on the Qur’an, or are there locks on the hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)

    If you are a teacher, you can easily give your student the answer to a question. However, it is much more fulfilling, not necessarily for the teacher but for the student to give the student the tools needed to find the answer.

    We often expect that we can open the Qur’an, this chapter of that verse and find the answer. However, Allah (swt) has asked us to ponder upon the Qur’an. Simultaneously, Allah (swt) has asked us to ponder upon natural phenomena.

    When is the last time any of us have reflected upon time? When is the last time anyone of us has reflected upon the calendar? The nature of the calendar. Who invented the calendar? What purpose does the calendar serve? Why is there a solar calendar and a lunar calendar? What is the difference between the two?

    Please take some time to research this.

    Now, we want to propose a thought experiment. Let us suppose that we are a people who live in the circumpolar arctic. All we know is 6 months of darkness and then 6 months of light.

    Between a solar calendar and a lunar calendar, which of the two are we most likely to invent on our own based upon observable phenomena? We will give you a huge clue. The question is a trick question.

    If today you were to travel to the circumpolar arctic and ask the people what day it is today. They would say that today is 4/4/2024 on the Julian calendar (a solar calendar).

    If we ran into any Muslims they would say 24 of Ramadan 1445 (a lunar calendar).

    Yet if we pressed them on this: Where did you get this information from? The most obvious answer would be the calendar. Yes, but where did they get this information from?

    In other words, the concept of time that we find in the circumpolar arctic is not intrinsic to the people of that region. We have searched and not found any archeological evidence of the people of that region developing a calendar or a system independent of the solar or lunar calendars that are used by people the world over. You could say in a sense (forgive the pun) they are frozen in time. Though we know that this is not the case.


    The point is that their concept of a month is not intrinsic to that region.  Their reality is taken from the people nearest to them. Those who they had contact with. Those who migrated to those regions with this concept of time.

    “And eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread at dawn . Then complete the fast until the night. And do not have relations with them as long as you are staying for worship in the masjid.These are the limits [set by] Allah, so do not exceed them. Thus does Allāh make clear His verses to the people that they may become righteous.” (Qur’an 2:187)

    There are a few interesting highlights from this verse.

    A) Eat and drink until the white thread/black thread becomes clear at fajr (dawn).

    B) Then complete the fast at night (al-layli) (not maghrib) — this is because maghrib* in Arabic is a euphemism for “sunset” and or “west”. It, too, can be used to describe heavy, thick darkness (Qur’an 35:27) (al-layli encompasses maghrib), which is because layl begins at sunset.

    *To clarify you fast until maghrib because it is the night. As has been mentioned, al-layli encompasses maghrib. In English, people say nightfall, which is another word for sunset.

    “Do you not see that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and We produce thereby fruits of varying colors? And in the mountains are tracts, white and red of varying shades and [some] (wagharabibu) extremely black.” (Qur’an 35:27)

    C) Those are Allah’s limits: keep well within them.

    D) Allah makes clear his ayat (verses/signs) to people.

    (Ramaḍân is the month (shahru) in which the Quran was revealed as a guide for humanity with clear proofs of guidance and the decisive authority.” (Qur’an 2:185)

    So, what is a shahr? A month is 29/30 days according to lunar calculations.

    “He is the One Who made the sun a radiant source and the moon a reflected light, with precisely ordained phases, so that you may know the number of years and calculation ˹of time˺. Allah did not create all this except for a purpose. He makes the signs clear for people of knowledge.” (Qur’an 10:5)

    This verse also proves to us that time is not absolute. However, to have a functioning society, Allah (swt) has given us time relative to celestial bodies.

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

    Months are used to calculate many aspects of Islamic law.

    “Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve months in the register of Allah(kitabi-l-lahi), the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous.” (Qur’an 9:36)

    What is very interesting is that we have a template given to us by Allah (swt). This template is used for many aspects of Islamic law.

    “And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – for their wives is a bequest: maintenance for one year without turning them out. But if they leave , then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable way. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 2:240)

    ” And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind – they, [the wives, shall] wait four months and ten days. And when they have fulfilled their term, then there is no blame upon you for what they do with themselves in an acceptable manner. And Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” (Qur’an 2:234)

    “It is not lawful for a believer to kill another except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer unintentionally must free a believing slave and pay blood-money to the victim’s family—unless they waive it charitably. But if the victim is a believer from a hostile people, then a believing slave must be freed. And if the victim is from a people bound with you in a treaty, then blood-money must be paid to the family along with freeing a believing slave. Those who are unable, let them fast two consecutive months—as a means of repentance to Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise(Qur’an 4:92)

    This same template can be used anywhere on Earth as well as anywhere we travel in the stars. For example, let us say, for the sake of discussion, that it is feasible to live on Venus.

    A day on Venus lasts for 243 Earth days or 5,832 hours!  However, if we traveled to Venus we would travel with the flow of time relative to us. We would take our conceptual model of time with us.

    So, for example: let us say that we left Earth on the 4th of April 2024. Let us say it takes 30 ‘earth days’ as that would be the unit of measure. When we arrive, it will be the 4th of May 2024. In all of our logs and journals we will record events relative to Earth UT (Universal time).

    Of course, all the variables, via the science of mathematics, can be worked out with regard to method and mode of travel, the speed at which one was traveling and so forth.

    The important point is that we have a template!

    (Ramaḍân is the month (shahru) in which the Quran was revealed as a guide for humanity with clear proofs of guidance and the decisive authority.” (Qur’an 2:185)

    “Believers! Fasting is enjoined upon you, as it was enjoined upon those before you, that you become righteous. Fasting is for a fixed number of days, and if one of you be sick, or if one of you be on a journey, you will fast the same number of other days later on. For those who are capable of fasting there is a redemption: feeding a needy man for each day missed. Whoever voluntarily does more good than is required, will find it better for him; and that you should fast is better for you, if you only know. During the month of Ramadan the Qur’an was sent down as a guidance to the people with Clear Signs of the true guidance and as the Criterion (between right and wrong). So those of you who live to see that month should fast it, and whoever is sick or on a journey should fast the same number of other days instead. Allah wants ease and not hardship for you so that you may complete the number of days required, magnify Allah for what He has guided you to, and give thanks to Him.) (Qur’an 2:183-185)

    1. Fasting is enjoined us.
    2. Those who live to see that month (Ramadan) should fast.
    3. Complete the number of days
    4. If sick or on a journey fast the same number on other days.
    5. Fasting is for a fixed number of days.

    “And eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread at of dawn . Then complete the fast until the night . And do not have relations with them as long as you are staying for worship in the masjid. These are the limits [set by] Allah, so do not exceed them. Thus does Allāh make clear His verses to the people that they may become righteous.” (Qur’an 2:187)

    1. We can eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct from the black thread at dawn.
    2. We complete the fast at night, which begins at sunset.
    3. We know those are the limits (template) set by Allah.
    4. Allah makes his signs/verses clear.

    We know that the concept of time that we find in the circumpolar arctic is not intrinsic to the people of that region. That they (those 10 million souls) in the circumpolar arctic follow the template of time to those near to them. It makes logical sense that they follow the template of fasting to those nearest to them with a true ‘sunrise’ and true ‘sunset’.

    Just as a blind person would be dependent upon the one who can see to navigate for them. Thus, Allah (swt) creates relationships both dependent and inter-dependent.

    It is actually a template that could theoretically be brought to other planets and/or star systems.

    The other point we found fascinating is this. Everything is relative to our perception of things. As mentioned in another article if the Qur’an wording things differently we would have been accused of being flat earthers.

    Please see the following article:

    https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-quran-and-the-setting-of-the-sun-in-a-murky-spring

    May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah.

    May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah. May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized