Refutation of Qur’an Only Religion on Rasul and Nabi

“Muhammed is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah is ever Aware of all things.” [Qur’an 33:40]

This will be a refutation of an article written by one of the self proclaimed proclaimed Prophet Rashad Khalafa.

You may find the original article here:

Reason and Motivation behind Rashad Khalafa’s deception.

Why would Rashad Khalafa want to create obfuscation with the words ‘Messenger’ and ‘Prophet’?

Well, when we look at the opening verse it clearly says that Muhammed (saw) is the Rasoul of Allah (swt) and that he is the wakhatama l-nabiyina or the seal of the nabiyina (seal of the prophets). Thus, to his credit Rashad understands the finality in the word ‘khatama’. However, his ruse revolves around the word ‘nabi’. Yes, Muhammed (saw) is the final prophet. However, is not the final messenger!

The first problem that many who follow the Qur’an Only Religion have is the problem of language. The overwhelming majority of them do not have recourse to the Arabic language. Thus, they end up making Taqlid to Rashad Khalafa, or that is to say that they put trust in him without sufficient knowledge to second guess what he claiming to be truth.

What this article tries to do is establish obfuscation between the word ‘Messenger’ and Prophet’.

Let us deal with the first piece of ‘evidence’ that is put forth.

“God took a covenant from the PROPHETS, saying, “I will give you the SCRIPTURE AND WISDOM. Afterwards, a MESSENGER will come to CONFIRM all existing scriptures. You shall believe in him and support him.” He said, “Do you agree with this, and pledge to fulfill this covenant?” They said, “We agree.” He said, “You have thus borne witness, and I bear witness along with you.” (Qur’an 3:81)

This of course is just devilish manipulation of the Arabic text and not a very good attempt either. As mentioned, those with no recourse to the Arabic will fall for it. Yet, Al hamdulillah there are readily available tools for those who are interested to find the truth.

Now notice that Rashad likes to translate the Arabic word ‘kitabin’ as scripture. I’ll come to this in a moment.

Why do you think he choose this translation as opposed ‘The Book’?

Now Rashad is very devious because he often will translate the Arabic word ‘Kitab’ which is singular, into English as scripture. He does this because the word scripture in English can be countable and uncountable. It can be a mass noun. Other examples of mass nouns are water, rice and literature, we do not pluralize them. However, they can lean themselves to the one reading or listening to the word to think in terms of plurality, or more than one unit of something.

He than has in English the phrase: “CONFIRM all existing scriptures.” Which word in the Arabic Qur’an in verse 3:81 above is used for scriptures? Can one of his followers point that out to us?

Also in 3:81 when Rashad translates it as “a MESSENGER will come to CONFIRM all existing scriptures.” Who do you think he is referring to? He is referring to himself of course.

Also it is never explained how he confirms that which is no longer in possession. How does the numerology of 19 confirm the Torah or the Injil for example? We are simply not told.

He makes reference to Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall’s translation of Qur’an 3:81:

“When Allah made (His) covenant with the PROPHETS, (He said): Behold that which I have GIVEN you of the SCRIPTURE AND KNOWLEDGE. And afterward there will come unto you a MESSENGER, CONFIRMING that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you)in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear witness. I will be a witness with you.”

One wonders how he thinks this helps his case. “Confirming that which ye possess” is vastly different than “CONFIRM all existing scriptures.”

Now here comes the bizarre admission by Rashad: Also note his transition of the words Nabi and Rasoul into English as ‘messenger’.

“Verse 3:81 among many other verses, provides the definitions of “Nabi” (Prophet) and “Rasoul” (Messenger). Thus, “Nabi” is a messenger of God who delivers a new scripture, while “Rasoul” is a messenger commissioned by God to confirm existing scripture; he does not bring a new scripture. According to the Quran, every “Nabi” is a “Rasoul,” but not every “Rasoul” is a “Nabi.” 

  1. Nabi is a ‘messenger’ of God who delivers a new scripture.
  2. Rasoul is a ‘messenger’ who confirms existing scripture; he does not bring a new scripture.
  3. According to the Qur’an every Nabi is a Rasoul.
  4. Not every Rasoul is a Nabi.

Surely it cannot be missed by the keen eye that points 1, 2 and 3 contradict each other when juxtaposed together. So this is enough proof to show that Rashad was not writing under the inspiration of God. These are his personal musings and nothing more.

Traditionally Muslims say that every Messenger is a Prophet and not every Prophet is a Messenger. The understanding here is that Prophets bring new revelations where as Messengers do not bring new revelations.

The Qur’an refutes Rashad.

“Then in the footsteps of the prophets, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah revealed before him. And We gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light and confirming what was revealed in the Torah—a guide and a lesson to those who fear Allah.” (Qur’an 5:46)

“The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of Allah (Rasulu Allahi) and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him.” (Qur’an 4:171)

“And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah (Rasulu Allahi) to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” (Qur’an 61:6)

The Qur’an tells us that Jesus is Rasoul

The Qur’an tells us that Jesus was given a Gospel.

Allah (swt) has refuted what Rashad has claimed:

“Thus, “Nabi” is a messenger of God who delivers a new scripture, while “Rasoul” is a messenger commissioned by God to confirm existing scripture; he does not bring a new scripture.”-Rashad

Also, it would be rather odd for Jesus to be simply confirming what Yahya brought and mention a revelation called the ‘Injel’ given to Jesus and not mention what the revelation given to Yahya is called!

Basically, what Rashad wants to do is the opposite of what has been traditionally claimed concerning the titles of Rasul and Nabi.

Rashad continues…

“The Quranic definition of Prophet, and how all the prophets were given Scripture to deliver, is also confirmed in the following verse:”

[Quran 2:213] The people used to be one community when God sent THE PROPHETS as bearers of good news, as well as warners. HE SENT DOWN WITH THEM THE SCRIPTURE, bearing the truth, to judge among the people in their disputes.

“Those who are not sufficiently familiar with the Quran tend to think that Aaron was a “Nabi” as stated in 19:53, who did not receive a scripture. This claim can only be made by those who do not believe the Quran, since God ascertains in 2:213 that all the prophets were sent with the Scripture. Moreover, the Quran clearly states that Aaron received what Moses did ; both received a scripture or a statute book” (21:48, 37:117)


Prima Qur’an comments:

Actually if we look at the two references Qur’an 21:48 states: and Qur’an 37:117 states:

“And We gave them the Book (l-kitaba) which helps to make things clear” (Qur’an 37:117)

” And We verily gave Moses and Aaron (l-furqana) the Criterion (of right and wrong) and a light and a Reminder for those who keep from evil.” (Qur’an 21:48)


However, rather than being willfully ignorant, his choice of rendering the Arabic word as ‘scripture’ and uses it in the sense of a mass noun to obfuscate the issue shows a deliberate intent.

Notice that in 3:48 Jesus is being taught four things, the Taurat, the Injeel, the Book, and the Wisdom (hikma).

 “And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:48)

Where as Rashad translates it as: “”He will teach him the scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel.”

Why the redundancy? Why distinctly mention the Torah and the Gospel if they too are “scripture” ?

“Even as We have sent among you a Messenger (rasulan) from among you who recites to you Our revelations and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know.” (Qur’an 2:151)

The above verse is calling the Blessed Messenger (saw) a rasulan. A “Rasoul” as Rashad likes to call it.

Allah (swt) is clearly telling us that this rasulan (Messenger) is teaching us ‘the Book’

Rashad translates 2:151 as:

(Blessings) such as the sending of a messenger from among you to recite our revelations to you, purify you, teach you the scripture and wisdom, and to teach you what you never knew.” (Qur’an 2:151)

That can be explained in the following verse:

“Indeed, We have inspire (awhayna) you, as (kama) We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the tribes, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Zaboor.”
(Qur’an 4:163)

Several things to take note:

  1. This inspiration that is given to the Messenger (saw) is as (the Arabic word ‘kama’) what was revealed to not only prophets, but to ‘the tribes’ as well.
  2. Note that when it comes to David the theme is broken and a specific revelation is mentioned, the Zaboor!

The word ‘l-kitaba’ which is singular is a euphemism for the fact that all prophets share in the divine message. That what ever Allah (swt) inspires to them of truth comes from the same divine source also known as um al-kitab (the mother of the book) or the source of divine guidance in what ever form it may take.

“By the clear Book! Certainly, We have made it a Quran in Arabic so perhaps you will understand. And indeed, it is in the Mother of the Book with Us—highly esteemed, rich in wisdom.” (Qur’an 43:2-4)

This is what is sensible. Because we know that none of the Prophets all taught from a singular kitab or ‘book’ which they all had. Hence, why he has to translate the obvious into scripture to obfuscate the facts. We have not a single shred of empirical historical data that supports Rashad Khalafa and his view that all Prophets were given new scriptures. We do not have to blindly follow Rashad Khalafa and switch off our brains. We can employ historical critical methods and easily determine that his understanding is fallacious.

“We later gave him good news of Isaac—a prophet, and one of the righteous.” (Qur’an 37:112)

We know that Prophet Isaac is not mentioned to have brought any “new scripture” as Rashad claims.


Lastly, Rashad goes about stating the obvious but simply does not connect the dots.

“And mention in the Book, Moses. Indeed, he was chosen, and he was a (rasoulan nabyya) messenger and a prophet.” (Qur’an 19:51)

“And mention in the Book, Ishmael. Indeed, he was true to his promise, and he was a (rasoulan nabyya) messenger and a prophet.” (Qur’an 19:54)

“They are˺ the ones who follow the (l-rasula l nabiya) Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whose description they find in their Torah and the Gospel. He commands them to do good and forbids them from evil, permits for them what is lawful and forbids to them what is impure, and relieves them from their burdens and the shackles that bound them. ˹Only˺ those who believe in him, honour and support him, and follow the light sent down to him will be successful.” (Qur’an 7:157)

Rashad is not stating anything new. Muslims know that there is a difference between being a Prophet and being a Messenger. Yet, Rashad by quoting these verses has done nothing to establish any of his earlier comments. Nor does he quote which scholars he seems to have an issue with or any quotations from any of these scholars.

Also note that where Rashad was rather fond of giving us English transliterations for verse 19:51 and verse 19:54 he stopped short of doing that for verse 7:157.

You would think that Rashad would really think about this. Why are only Ishmael, Moses described in that way and no one else? What was exclusive to them in their role as ‘Messenger Prophets’ that was not shared by any other Prophet? That is simply just not explained.

In the end the motive of Rashad Khalafa is very clear. It is to try and portray to his unwary cult that he is a Messenger of Allah (swt). Though, he has still not made it clear rather or not he considers himself a Prophet Messenger or a Messenger Prophet.

Remember his statement: “In other terms ALL THE PROPHETS are MESSENGERS, but NOT ALL the MESSENGERS are PROPHETS.

Yet he has failed to show us a single example where any one in the Qur’an is called a Messenger (rasul) without also being called a Prophet (nabi).

May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Hadith of the 12 leaders.

“As for those who divide their religion and break up into (sects), you have no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will, in the end, tell them the truth of all that they did.” (Qur’an, 6:159)

I was talking to a ’12er Shi’a’ Muslim brother. I told him that I thought it was bizarre that they would make a big deal of the number 12 when it was simply the number of the 12 tribes of Jacob. That’s it. This idea of the Muslims following 12 Imams is a total concoction.

First and foremost it has absolutely no support from the Qur’an.

We have more than established that here:

Our Sunni Muslim brothers are stuck with the following hadith that the 12er Shi’a will often use against them.

Narrated Jabir Ibn Samura:

I heard the Prophet saying, “There will be twelve commanders (Amir).” He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said the Prophet added, “All of them will be from Quraish.”

Source: (Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.329)

We will come back with our critique of this hadith. However, let us first look at the history of this number 12 prior to the advent of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).


The number 12 is not in anyone shape or form significant or important in Islam. It is the atomic number of atoms in Magnesium. 12 is the number of zodiac characters in both the Western and Chinese models. There are 12 months in a year of the Gregorian calendar. The 12th surah in the Qur’an is called ‘Yusuf’ or Joseph.

The 12th chapter and 12th verse of the Qur’an say the following:

“Send him with us tomorrow to enjoy himself and play, and we shall take every care of him.” (Qur’an 12:12)

“Surely, the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah’s ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred.” (Qur’an 9:36)

Nothing here is analogous to 12 Imams. The verse says of the 12 months, 4 of them are sacred.

Are our 12er Shi’a brothers going to tell us that of the 12 Imams only four of them are sacred?

This holds no significance to 12 tribes, 12 disciples or 12 imams, or 12 rulers at all.

12,12,12 relates to Israel, and the tribes. It has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.


Let us look at Israel (Jacob) and the 12 tribes in the Qur’an and in the Bible.

“Allah made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and We raised among them twelve chieftains, and Allah said: Lo! I am with you. If ye establish worship and pay the poor-due, and believe in My messengers and support them, and lend unto Allah a kindly loan, surely I shall remit your sins, and surely I shall bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow. Whoso among you disbelieves after this will go astray from a plain road.” (Qur’an 5:12)

“Moreover, We divided them into twelve tribes And when his people asked Moses for water, We inspired him, “Strike the rock with your staff!” -after which twelve springs gushed forth from it so that all the people knew whence to drink., And We caused the clouds to comfort them with their shade, and We sent down unto them manna and quails, [saying:] “Partake of the good things which We have provided for you as sustenance.” And [by all their sinning] they did no harm unto Us-but [only] against their own selves did they sin.” (Qur’an 7:160)

“So We dispersed them as separate communities all over the earth; some of them were righteous, and some of them less than that: and the latter We tried with blessings as well as with afflictions so that they might mend their ways.” (Qur’an 7:168)

“Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him, we have surrendered.” (Qur’an 2:136)

“Nay! do you say that Abraham and Ismail and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Are you better knowing or Allah? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:140)

“Truly We gave unto Moses nine tokens, clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty). Do but ask the Children of Israel how he came unto them, then Pharaoh said unto him: Lo! I deem you one bewitched, O Moses.” (Qur’an 7:101)

Why were 9 tokens given? Why weren’t 12 tokens given? Why weren’t 7 tokens given?

“Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham and Ismail and Ishaq and Jacob and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit. ” (Qur’an 3:84)

“Lo! Thus spoke Joseph unto his father: “O my father! Behold, I saw [in a dream] eleven stars, as well as the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves before me!” (Qur’an 12:6)

Here Joseph mentions 11 stars and altogether 13 celestial bodies. No mention of anything 12 here.

There is absolutely nothing in the entirely of the Qur’an that would assign or even remotely hint that the 12 sons of Israel (Jacob) played sny role, that the 12er Shi’i designates for their 12 Imams. Nothing analogous here at all.

Now, what does the Bible say about these 12 sons of Jacob/Israel?

While Israel was living in that region, Reuben went in and slept with his father’s concubine Bilhah, and Israel heard of it. Jacob had twelve sons:

The sons of Leah:

Reuben the firstborn of Jacob,

Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun.

The sons of Rachel:

Joseph and Benjamin.

The sons of Rachel’s servant Bilhah:

Dan and Naphtali.

The sons of Leah’s servant Zilpah:

Gad and Asher.

These were the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Paddan Aram.

Source: (Genesis 35:22-26)

“All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them, giving each the blessing appropriate to him.” (Genesis 49:28)

There is absolutely nothing in the entirely of the Bible that would assign or even remotely hint that the 12 sons of Israel (Jacob) played any role, that the 12er Shi’i designate for their 12 Imams.

Were the 12 Imams the names of 12 tribes? Did the descendants of these Imams fight each other in a bitter civil war as was the case with Judah and Benjamin against the other 10 tribes? I believe the answer to all of this is a resounding No! Nothing analogous here at all.


Jesus had 12 disciples because they were to go to each of the 12 tribes of Israel as previously mentioned. That’s it.

Now let us turn our attention to the disciples of Christ Jesus (a.s), as they are mentioned in the Qur’an.

“When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: “Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the disciples: “We are Allah’s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do bear witness that we are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:50)

“And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger: they said, ‘We have faith, and do you bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims'”. (Quran 5:111)

“O you who believe! Be Allah’s helpers, even as Jesus son of Mary said unto the disciples: Who are my helpers for Allah? They said: We are Allah’s helpers. And a party of the Children of Israel believed while a party disbelieved. Then We strengthened those who believed against their foe, and they became the uppermost.” (Qur’an 61:14)

There is absolutely no mention of the number of disciples anywhere in the Qur’an, which is both telling and interesting.

Now let us turn our attention to the disciples of Jesus (a.s) as they are mentioned in the New Testament.

“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus.” (Matthew 10: 2-4)

“Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:6)

“It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Revelation 21:12)

We have no record anywhere of the 12 sons of Jacob or the 12 disciples of Jesus giving legal verdicts, and so forth to anyone.

Not only that but the analogy creates real problems for the 12er Shi’i concept because the 12 sons of Jacob and the 12 disciples of Jesus were concurrent (not in succession).

Not only that but one of the 12 disciples of Jesus was a traitor.

So if this analogous to the 12er Shi’i do tell us which of the “12 imams” was a traitor to Rasul Allah (saw)?

In fact, the 12er Shi’i seem to catch the unsuspecting Sunni Muslims with something that they may be remotely familiar with or something that seems vague.

“You remember about 12 tribes of Israel?” “Oh yeah”, says the Sunni layman. “You remember Jesus had 12 disciples?” “Hmm sounds right”, says the unsure Sunni Muslim who has never bothered to look into these matters.

So after they ‘establish’ something about how the number 12 is somehow significant then comes the following ahadith from Bukhari and Muslim about 12 rulers, and so forth.

Now, note that these 12 disciples of Jesus according to the above text were with him concurrently, not in succession. None of these disciples ever disappeared waiting until the present. One of these disciples betrayed Jesus. Which of the “12 Imams” betrayed Rasul Allah (saw)?

Also, you will note that these 12 disciples were to go unto the 12 tribes of Israel (Jacob). The whole of the New Testament is about Jesus (The Messiah) coming for his people, not the whole wide world. That is why you have the names of the 12 tribes of Israel at the gates of heaven in the vision.

Are these 12er Shi’i Imams going to have their names on 12 gates for 12 tribes of Arabs (only) numbering 12,000 each?

The only thing analogous between the 12er Imams and the 12 disciples of Jesus, who were sent to the 12 descendant tribes of Jacob is in fact the number 12. That is all.

Now, this may not be very damaging to our Zaidi Shi’i brothers but we have clearly pulled the rug out from the 12er Shi’i idea about there being anything analogous here.

Unfortunately, our respected Imams of Hadith were not infallible in their collection of hadith, they allowed a bizarre narration about 12 leaders to slip in their corpus.

The 12er Shi’i than use that hadith to persuade Sunni Muslims to their perspective.

Mohammad Hashim Kamali explains the situation best.

“Hadith critics have expressed reservations, nevertheless, over the authenticity of various hadith, Some politically tendentious hadith have come under criticism. One such hadith that al-Bukhari has recorded on the authority of Jabir b Samura is as follows:

“I heard the Prophet, peace be on him, saying that ‘there will be twelve rulers (amiran), ‘ and then the Prophet uttered words which I did not hear-but my father believed they were ‘…all of them will be from Quraysh’. “

“The Shi’i scholars have taken this hadith as “decisive evidence”, on the veracity of their belief in the twelve Imams. The Sunnis themselves have advanced different interpretations of this hadith. One interpreter thus understood this to mean that the twelve amirs will be simultaneous, all to whom will be laying claim to leadership, and the context is, therefore, one of tumult (al-fitna). “

“The various versions of probably this same hadith that Muslim and Abu Dawud have recorded say something different. Briefly, Muslim recorded a hadith to the effect “this matter (i.e the Caliphate) will not go away until twelve Caliphs have come and gone.” Abu Dawud similarly recorded a hadith to the effect that “this religion shall remain until twelve Caliphs have ruled, all of them with the agreement and support of the umma.”

“The commentator of al-Bukhari, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, has quoted these views, and reading all of them together, he thought that the reference in that respect was to the Caliphate. But this only added to complication in view of the common knowledge that the approved Caliphs were only four, not twelve, According to Qadi ‘Iyad Al-Yahsubi the hadith “probably meant just leaders (‘a’immat al’adl) of whom four have lived and the rest may emerge any time before the day of resurrection.” This was “just the right sort of interpretation,” according to Jawad Yasin, for its Shi’i readers with which to vindicate their belief in occultation and the return of their twelfth Imam any time before the day of resurrection.”

“Ibn al -Jawzi surmised on the meaning of the hadith at issue and commented that the Prophet had probably meant twelve rulers excluding his Companions. It was then suggested that the hadith had referred to the Umayyad Caliphs. The problem here was that the Umayyad Caliphs, starting from Mu’awiya (d. 41 H) to Marwan al-Thani (d. 127 H) numbered fourteen, not twelve. Ibn al-Jawzi’s response to this was that Mu’awiya may be excluded since he was a Companion. Then he added that Marwan Ibn al-Hakam (d. 65 H) should also be excluded as he was a usurper and took office after the people had elected ‘Abd Allah b al-Zubayr. This rather imaginative interpretation fitted in with the counting of the Umayyad Caliphs at twelve and the image that was consequently conveyed of them was that they were leaders who ruled with the support of the umma.”

“This interpretation was based on several questionable assumptions one of which excluded the first four Caliphs from the counting altogether, then it was assumed that Mu’awiya as not a usurper of political power; that Marwan b. al-Hakam was not to be counted as a Caliph, and that ‘Abd Allah b al-Zubayr had been conclusively elected to be the Caliph.”

“All of these rather weak interpretations were attempted with the pious yet questionable motive of upholding the reliability of the leading hadith collections and also to lend support perhaps to the Umayyad rule. The episode sustained itself simply because the chain of transmitters of the hadith in question appeared sound. Al-Bukhari and Muslim evidently recorded it because of its isnad without praying much attention to its meaning. And then the series of apologetic commentaries followed suit to justify what they had done.”

“If the true purpose of all hadith is to clarify and interpret the Qur’an and those aspects of Islam that can properly be said to be the necessary part of its belief structure and its Shari’a, then the hadith we have just reviewed is so peripheral that it hardly merits all the speculative effort that is undertaken to justify it.”

Source: (A Textbook of Hadith Studies pages 206-208 Mohammad Hashim Kamali)

Very well said!

Imam Bukhari used Shi’i narrators in his hadith.

Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani (Died 211 AH)

Ibn ‘Adi said: They (i.e. scholars) did not see any problem in his (Abd al-Razzaq Al-San’ani) hadith except that they attributed Shi’ism to him…He was a man of honour … he narrated traditions in praise of the Household of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt) and disparaging others… Mukhlid al-Shu’ayri said: I was with ‘Abd al-Razzaq when someone mentioned Mu’awiyah. ‘Abd al-Razzaq said: ‘Do not pollute our assembly by mentioning the descendant of Abu Sufyan!’.

Source: [Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, under “‘Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani”]

Ibn ‘Adi also narrated the hadith from Abd Al Razzaq al-San’ani , “If you see Mu’awiyah on my pulpit then kill him!

Source: [Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-’I’tidal, under “‘Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani”]

And yet in spite of this, his narrations are found in Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-’iman]!

The fact that Imam Al Bukhari would use a Shi’i narrator who also narrated blatantly sectarian ahadith against Mu’awiyah would show anyone who is willing to be fair and honest that he is not above reproach in his compilations.

The brilliant Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun exposed this with the ahadith about the Mahdi.

Please read the following entry here:


Narrated Jabir Ibn Samura:

“I heard the Prophet saying, “There will be twelve commanders (Amir).” He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said the Prophet added, “All of them will be from Quraish.”

Source: (Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.329)

In Sahih Muslim, the tradition isas follows:

“The matter (life) will not end until it is passed by twelve Caliphs.” He then whispered a sentence. I asked my father what the Prophet said. He said the Prophet added: “All of them will be from Quraish.”

Source: (Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, Kitab al-Imaara, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v3, p1452, Tradition #5)


Our critique of this hadith will not focus so much on the chain of narration as it will focus on the text itself, but rather using aql and mantiq.

Is it not odd that Jabir Ibn Samura is to have related something of purportedly such importance from the Messenger of Allah (saw) and yet, did not catch all of it so that his father (or the man standing next to him) has to be the one to inform him of the missing bits?

Why is Jabir Ibn Samura the only one narrating this? He was possibly only 10 years of age at the time.

Why is no clarification sought? The companions are known to ask the Blessed Messenger (saw) about the most minute details of his blessed life. Why is there no clarification sought on a matter of purportedly such weight?

If the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) narrated about the future why not simply mention Abu Bakr, or Ali as his successor?

What if the missing bits were as follows:

“I heard the Prophet saying, “There will be twelve commanders (Amir).” He then said they will all be corrupt and vile. My father said the Prophet added, “All of them will be from Quraish.”

It does seem odd that the Blessed Messenger (saw) would foretell about 12 rulers and yet not state plainly that Abu Bakr, or Ali is to be the successor? Our Sunni Muslim brothers admit there is no explicit statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw) stating that Abu Bakr should succeed him.

Likewise the Shi’i have yet to produce a single hadith where the Blessed Messenger (saw) explicitly stated in no uncertain terms that Ali would should be the Amir of the Muslims, after his death. Not one!

That alone should cause our Sunni brothers to have a pause concerning this hadith. However, our 12er Shi’i brothers will say that this is exactly the point. The Blessed Messenger (saw) would not leave such a weighty issue without clarity.

However, this hadith states the rulers would come from the Quraish but not necessarily the household of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

What should happen is that all of the chains of transmission that relate this particular hadith about 12 commanders/rulers, should be juxtaposed, examined for irregularities, and all the narrators examined.

So there are two possible approaches for our Sunni brothers to respond to us on this.

  1. We have used aql and mantiq to question the veracity of the text. Therefore there should be a stronger aql based and mantiq based response.
  2. Those who simply say that we accept this hadith and we do not need to reply upon aql or mantiq for justification still have not given any satisfactory response on how this hadith gives clarity on any aspect of our faith. The Sunnah provides clarity.

As far as the companions and criticism of them

“Ali b. al-Madini (d. 234/838) wrote an early work (now) lost listing them.”

“The Sunni critics view of the Companions was both ideologically driven and practical. Sunni Islam was built on the idea that the Companions of the Prophet had inherited his authority and passed on his teachings reliably. In that sense, as a group, they were above reproach. In terms of hadith criticism, however, the critics’ reach did not extend far enough back to apply the rules of transmitter criticism to the companions. The earliest critics, al-Zhuri, had met only the youngest of the Companions, and his hadith criticism mostly addressed the reports he heard from the Successors. Al-Zuhri, Malik, and Shu’ba had direct experience with the Successors, but they had no real way to evaluate the uprightness or accuracy of Companions. In a sense, reports such as Aisha’s aforementioned rejection of hadiths for content reasons represent vestiges of hadith criticism from the companion generation. That the collective impunity of the Companions was a later construct of the Sunni worldview is evident when one finds occasional minor Companions listed in early books of weak hadith transmitters.

Source: (Jonathan A .C. Brown Hadith Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World pg 88)

Dr. Musa Al-Musawi (The grandson of Ayatollah Abu L-Hassan al-Isfahani) says the following:

“Although we believe that most of the forged narratives from the Imams, were forged after al-ghiba al-kubra (the disappearance of Al-Mahdi Al Muntadhar)…..but any impartial researcher will necessarily conclude that even during the time of the Shiite Imams, many narratives were fabricated and ascribed to the Imams, in the like manner as they were fabricated and attributed to the Prophet.”

Source: (al-Shi’a wa-l-tashih: al-Sira’ bayn al-shi’a wa-l-tashayyu'(the struggle between Shia and Shiism p. 135)



Filed under Uncategorized

Red Pill & MGTOW The Bastard Children of Feminism.

“And one of His signs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves so that you may find comfort in them. And He has placed between you compassion and mercy. Surely in this are signs for people who reflect.” (Qur’an 30:21)

Let me be very clear at the outset. Red Pill & the MGTOW movement are both bastard children of Feminism. Feminism, and in particular third and fourth wave feminism have carried these movements in their womb, nurtured them and eventually gave birth to them.

You reap what you sow.

I am personally convinced that Feminism is a creation of Misogynistic men. The goals and objectives of that movement are:

  1. Suppression of wages by an increase of labour availability.
  2. Women spend more than men. Thus, women earning their own capital =increased spending =economic growth.
  3. Create battle and competition between the genders. Which ultimately leads to break down of families, the end result being women who are often alone and vulnerable. Vulnerable and alone women =perfect opportunity for predacious men.

*I also wanted to add a note here. That being that women who have sexual inclination towards other women or whom are predacious upon other women may also benefit from increased hostilities between men and women. This may incentivize women to ‘try the other side’ since ‘all men are jerks’.

In the experience of many, women in child protection services as well as child protection agencies are women . These women are often those who have inclinations towards other women; and in general do not themselves have healthy or positive relations with men: including their own fathers.

I believe it was Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad who said it well, “Men and Women are mutually superior.” This is the view that I find best connected to what Islam embraces, and how our Creator designed us.

Ultimately the poison of egalitarianism is problematic. The idea that men and women are equal. Or the idea that any two people are equal for that matter. Equality is too often conflated with sameness. It is a problematic position.

I have laid out a fuller treatment of that topic here:


MGTOW =Men Go Their Own Way. Some of the more broader sentiments of the movement is that we live in a world increasingly hostile and bitter to men. In modern marriage men have everything to lose and very little to gain. The only honest women are prostitutes. The transaction is transparent, simple and not complicated. I give you money in return you gratify my desires.

If you were to live in a high rise building, condominium or simply a landed property and look outside of your window what do you behold? What do you see ? You see a world built by men. The high rise buildings, the construction workers, the streets, roads, concrete layers. The trains, the ports, the ships in the ports etc. The most obvious contribution of women to the world, are the people. Without women you do not get people.

RED PILL & ISLAM The red pill is taken from a popular film franchise: The Matrix. In which the character Neo, is confronted with a choice. The blue pill represents Neo continuing to live in a comfortable world of ignorance. The red pill represents having his whole world view challenged only to be shown the ‘truth’.

RED PILL in the context of the current culture wars of Conservatives vs Liberals, Republicans vs Democrats, To Vaccinate or not to Vaccinate has come to embody many ideas that are cherished by the conservative Right. There are many views that Red Pilled individuals and Muslims have in common.

It is important to know that although there is overlap between MGTOW and RED PILL they are not the same thing. Most MGTOW people are often RED PILLED but not all RED PILLED people are MGTOW. RED PILL people could include Muslims, Christians that believe in traditional marriages and traditional values.

“Guide us to the straight path.” (Qur’an 1:6)

Immediately when confronted with the Hegelian dialectic of two opposing or two opposite sides the Muslim has to be immediately cautious. We ask Allah (swt) to guide us to the straight path.

The Muslim is like the person on the tight rope. That tight rope is the straight path. The balance beam is the Qur’an and the Sunnah. If that person leans a little to much to the left they will fall off the rope. If that person leans a little to much to the right they will fall of the rope. The challenge of the Muslim is to navigate between two extremes. To not fall off the rope by giving into the rhetoric of the left or the right.

The Muslim understands context, and nuance. Not everything in the world is with us or against us, black and white, left or right.

MGTOW is a reactionary movement. One extreme, FEMINISM gave birth to.

MGTOW would not have a very high opinion of the first wife of the Blessed Messenger (saw). A man, 25 years of age marrying a woman in her 40s? According to MGTOW women hit “The Wall” when they reach 30 and they are through the wall at age 35.

MGTOW advocates for men to ‘pump’ and ‘dump’ women. In fact, ANY woman that is willing to sleep with a man outside of marriage, is simply speaking “one to be used”.

While, Islam would discourage both men and women from having intimacy with anyone who is not their spouse. And while it could be argued that a woman who puts herself in a vulnerable position reaps their rewards of her actions, our faith does teach us to be kind and merciful.

The toxic masculinity mantra is this: “The system is rigged gentleman. You get into a marriage and in the event of a divorce, the woman gets it all. She gets your hard earned money. more than what is necessary even. That money you are given her is not going to go towards child support exclusively. She will use that money to sleep around with her new lover. The system will dictate to you when you get to see your own children.”

The Solution: The 1 hour coffee date. It is inexpensive. You put a time limit on the date. You can tell rather you have good chemistry. Go for lunch/dinner and agree to split the bill in advance.

All of this is about the man wisely spending his money. Not allowing himself to be taken advantage of. If you like the woman you keep going until you get into her pants; (have sex with her), and than you stay with her, (if you like), or, until you get fickle, or, want to try something new; and finally you dump her. Basically you do that to her before she does that to you. It’s all about who can get over on the other party.

No thought is given to the fact that many of these women may indeed be sincere, and may indeed be trying to pair bond with the man. Many may indeed be genuinely interested in the man. Hoping and waiting for the man to make the commitment to marriage, only to find out she has been played, lied to, or the man has no intention of being with her at all.

So in the MGTOW a twisted form of psychology is used. It is aimed to disempower women by claiming they hold all the cards. “You see the enemy of women is not men, it is promiscuous women.” So on the face of that there is some truth to it. Women today are promiscuous and giving men exactly what they want. Saving yourself for marriage is the advise that Islam gives to both men and women.

However, MGTOW does not address the promiscuous man. So this woman knows the man is married and she is still willing to meet the husband and have an extra marital affair with him behind the wife’s back. Maybe in hopes that man will leave his wife for her.

Islam would advise a man to tell any interested woman that he is already married. MGTOW would not. MGTOW does not address the point at all. Do married men need to inform interested women that they (the married man) are indeed married?

What is not addressed is what responsibility does the man, (the husband) owe to his wife?


You need to be warned when searching for this video on YouTube. Though very informative for the purpose of researching the phenomena of the modern and complex relationships between men and women, some of the women in the video are dressed proactively and Andrew Tate uses profanity profusely. Thus, it is not advised to watch such a video around young children, or in a sacred place.

You can search on Youtube: “JustPearlyThings.”

“Andrew Tate & Pearl DEBATE Modern Women | The Pregame Ep 100”

47:00 minutes Listen to what Andrew Tate says:

@48:16 The Married guy in Moscow whom has money is in the club with 19 year old strippers.
The wife is like “What ever don’t care I’m the one who has the money don’t give a $hit.”

Prima Qur’an comment: Does that 19 year old know that the man is married? Now granted there are women who will sleep with a man who is married. But to deny that there are women who will simply not pursue a married man is having a low opinion of virtually all females. That is toxic masculinity.

@48:40 “There has to come a point where you say you know what this guy ticks so many boxes, once a year, twice a year he’s out with is boys does some dumb $hit I’m just going to pretend I didn’t notice because my bills are paid. I’m looked after. I can tell he cares about me. If I have a problem he’s going to fix it. He ticks so many, that’s the smart female move as opposed to go I don’t care how good he is to me he fu#$3d that bi#2ch once so I’m going to leave and f another man who doesn’t love me. It’s just an endless cycle of dumb $hit.You just have to bite the bullet.”

Prima Qur’an comment: So how many times a year does this high profile man get to do some admittedly “dumb $hit?” Is the man advised to be perspicacious? Does he wear protection (a condom) if he is to engage in sexual intimacy with another woman? Or does he bring home venereal disease to his wife, who may also possibly pass it on to any children they have?

If that woman he has sex with gets pregnant? Do they go the abortion route? Is responsibility shirked for a night or weekend of pleasure? Is that something Islam would teach us?

@50:24 “I’m telling you if your a woman the smartest thing that you can do is look after your man. Make him not wanna cheat. Be perfect. But there’s gonna be a time across a 20 year marriage you might just need to be a little bit blind. A little bit. Just a tiny bit. Dont’ look at his phone. It will be cool. You’ll be cool…”

Prima Qur’an comment: What is the data for this? Why would it be across a 20 year span? Why not a 5 year span or 10 year span? How actually dose a woman make the man “not wanna cheat” and yet the man may go out with the boys once or twice a year and so some “dumb $hit” any way?

The host of the program, “JustPearlyThings” is her user name. Ask very good questions.
For example at 52:08 “Do you think men ever fall in love with side chicks?

Prima Qur’an comment: Andrew responds by going on a tirade and totally avoiding her question. It is a very important question that the host ask. Imagine a woman who is loyal to a man and tries to be this “perfect house wife” and does everything she is supposed to do. Than this “side chick” becomes a more permanent part of the relationship. What is odd is that in the whole video discussion Andrew admits to his web cam girls that the men who are giving them (the web cam) women more time and money are more unfaithful than the man who simply sleeps with a woman. Yet, he doesn’t offer advise on how the one night stands, or side hook ups don’t end up being something more long term.

Thus, in fairness to women I have to say this. If a woman is in a situation and she gave it her all and the man does end up spending more and more time with the ‘side woman’ and there is a real fear that her man will leave her for that ‘side woman’ than her move is to go for a divorce and take that man for everything she can. The money, the house, the assets, everything. Why? I tell you why. Survival. She is going to be out of the picture very soon. This is in cases where women in western societies or non traditional societies can get jobs and education. So imagine those places where they can’t. Imagine if those places were to adopt this type of approach to masculinity?

That woman is now going to be divorced, and possibly with his children. Also, according to the MGTOW people her value has dropped significantly. She is “damaged goods”. No other guy wants to raise some other man’s children. She has hit the wall, she is through the wall, she beyond her prime. So in a situation where a man is not going to be honest with the wife (albeit painful) and makes clear his intention to leave her, however, not empty handed. That she was/is a good woman. That she is entitled to financial stability. In the case where the man does not do any of that and we are going to live in a jungle, than the woman’s only recourse is to live by the law of the jungle as well.

Now, how would a woman know if the man intends to eventually tell her about the side chick or not? That’s just it. Without communication there will be a break down of trust. It’s just a matter of who decides to push the big red nuclear button with the letter “D” for divorce first.

@55:30 Andrew Tate says, “Sexual Exclusivity and Loyalty are completely disconnected for males.”

The woman @55:59 Asked a very beautiful question to Andrew. “How do you view sex? Because at the end of the day sex is spiritual unification.

Prima Qur’an comment: Andrew Tate did not engage with that profound question in any meaningful way at all. It is not clear if he see’s sex as a means to have a pleasurable ejaculation, case closed, or a something powerful, where two people pair bond, and/or share something that is very intimate, beyond the physical.

@The 58:00 minute mark the Auntie and the lady in green and shades have an interesting back and forth. The Lady in green and in shades is correct. The average man, working a 9-5 cannot do those things that men with their own business, more free time and more money can do. I should say, usually.

I also want to say that I know plenty of brothers that want to marry more than one woman and also expect both of those women to work. They also expect both wives to just simply agree to this. If they don’t he’s angry and bitter. It’s feminism’s fault! Poligamy is permissible in Islam. However, it is a huge responsibility and many men who desire it need to ensure they are fulfilling their obligations.

To be honest the Lady in Green with shades won that exchange with the auntie.

At 1:01:47 Andrew Tate uses a very twisted form of psychology. One that interestingly enough the women agree with! . (At least in the context of Western or Non Traditional societies) “Women are the gate keepers and women have all the power.”

The Message Andrew Tate is giving women is that men are not your enemy. In a sense promiscuous females are your enemy.

This is why Emory Andrew Tate is not a role model for Muslim men. Don’t get me wrong his message is amazing for those who embrace MGTOW. He is absolutely a role model for teaching you how to get over on women. How to be a player. But that is not the message of Islam.

The truth of it all brothers and sisters and truth seekers is that yes, post modernism is an absolute nihilistic , hedonistic mess.

Feminism is a mess. Feminism begot the MGTOW movement. Feminism has to own that. No question about it. The MGTOW movement is toxic masculinity. A movement that is now growing and threatens the very existence of Western society. Men who are not interested in starting and having families with the modern women. As this ideology grows and spreads it will eventually mean rapid declines in birth rates. Having entire generations brought up in single parent house holds, is not holistic nor healthy.

Another person for the purpose of research that you may want to look into on YouTube is Taylor the Fiend.

You need to be warned when searching for this video on YouTube. Though very informative for the purpose of researching the phenomena of the modern and complex relationships between men and women, some of the women in the video are dressed proactively. I would direct your attention to the comment section. Read it and weep. This is the modern society. By the way this is not meant to be a witch hunt. I do not think that Taylor’s channel needs to be attacked or shut down. Far from it. He is simply trying his best to speak to a generation of men that feel completely sick and tired of the modern woman. Albeit, the channel is an echo chamber, but these people honestly do not see a light at the end of the tunnel.

He is but one channel, there are hundreds like it in almost every language.


Here are some possible solutions that we as Muslims and truth seekers can use to navigate this chaos.

  1. We need to return to Allah (swt). We need to follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah. This is not cliche. We truly need to abide by the teachings. This means that the Blessed Messenger (saw) defines masculinity for us.
  2. Almost all solutions in relation to jurisprudence will always be half baked because we as Muslims are living one foot in and one foot out. This will always be the case until we have Islamic governance. Yes this means doing our level best to re-establish an Islamic Caliphate upon the Qur’an and the Sunnah. This is why some of the solutions I give will be exactly that, half baked, because many of us are living under secular systems.

Imam Ali is reported to have said: “You are only worth the price of paradise, therefore sell yourself at that price.” How beautiful and powerful.

Do not engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sex dear brothers and sisters. It is a way of ruin and it is the way of Satan, who is an open enemy to all of us.

To women out there, never give your body, or give your sacred intimacy to any man who is not your husband. A person who is willing to be committed to you and stand with you through the various trials and tribulations of life.

To the parents: Let your children get married younger. Yes! In Singapore I was surprised to find among Malay, Chinese and Indian people who’s parents were married at the ages of 14 and 15 and grandparents as well. Face it in the United States sexual promiscuity is already happen at a young age. Asking people to remain virgins until they are 30 is anti-fitra and border’s on cruelty and it is simply not compassionate.

For example: Let us say I have a daughter who is going to university in Singapore. There is a young man studying and interested in her. Why can’t they both get married and my daughter still live with me and the young man still live with his parents? Perhaps the marriage, will allow them to focus more on their studies? They girl also feels protected still living under the shade of her parents, and the young man under the guidance and tutelage of his father. Yet, they are both together and if intimacy takes place, it is halal, blessed and not a cause for fitnah.

Allow males to be men!

That is one of the problems. You see there is a difference between being a MALE and being a MAN. Many Muslim males I have encountered are not men. They are 18, 25 and 30 and they are still not a man. They have never been given the opportunity to be a man. Many Muslim males are still 30 plus living at home with their parents, college was paid for by the parents, housing paid for by the parents. They wake up study for school, study for exams, eat meals, go jogging and either play soccer with their friends or scroll endlessly through tiktok and Instagram. The parents have not giving them opportunities to be MEN. They are for all intensive purpose 30 year old boys. That is not very attractive to female suitors. Do encourage your able young males to work if they can. Encourage them to find jobs. Teach them how to be financially stable. Do not give everything to them. If you are allowing males to loaf around your home without contributing financially, physically, doing house work, doing errands for the family, taking charge of task or projects you are encouraging them to be lazy. They will continue to be dainty guys, yet never given the chance or opportunity to be a man. Instill in them responsibility.

If they are given a false image that having a Bugatti, or having a massive physique, or losing your cool and willing to throw hands with another man in the middle of the ring are the only definitions of masculinity our boys will never become men.

Signing prenuptials. Again, Islam as a total system has solutions to marriage dissolution. Yet, my solution is half baked based on the fact that we are one foot in and one foot out. Therefore, I would encourage those who have assets to sign prenuptials. Both the men and the women. Do make sure that during a marriage dissolution that your partner, or ex partner is given what is due to him/her. Beyond that you are not obliged to entertain anything. Surely not the most romantic of suggestions, but Islam does emphasize being practical.

Having better matrimonial sites. Yes, we need matrimonial sites where people can share and upload videos of their families, the places they live. Wouldn’t it be nice to see the perspective family you may marry into? How is their family dynamic or chemistry like? What about the place they live? We also need to cater to those in our Ummah who may have become astray and contracted venereal disease. They need to know that if they have reformed and repented that Allah (swt) is most Loving and Oft Forgiving. That it is possible to share a life with someone who may have a similar condition. Although, admittedly I am not sure how they would protect their identities and data. Yet, it is something that can be and should be looked into.

Chaperone/dating. Yes, I am all about it. Have your son or daughter meet the other person at a park an open area, and have them go for a walk and talk. Have them have lunch together, while you are walking in the mall etc. After all, you should know that they are most likely texting each other without you knowing as is. Best if they meet face to face because that can also cause the hearts to change. A young woman or young man can tell more from a face to face encounter. Do they have chemistry etc.

Being very clear about what you want. I will say this to both the brothers and the sisters, to men and women. You need to be very honest with yourself. What do you feel you bring the table? What is it that you want from life? Who do you think you are as a person?

You see because this is another area where there is no booklet, or speech that is a one stop, fix all solution. There is a scale and the scale can be for various aspects of human existence. One example being sexual libido. There are man and women who are simply asexual and that is fine. There are people in our community who struggle with gender dysphoria. We need to reach out to them with love and understanding. We have men who want a wife, but they also want their space. They may not be that engaged with their partner. That doesn’t mean there is an issue with their partner. It simply means the persona of this guy is that he is more into working on his car, truck, motorcycle, computers, his hobbies. I met many men like this. Many wives think they have no interest in them, or they are even closet gays etc. Yet, there are just men who are like this. It is like a personality trait, introverted and extroverted.

There are men who do want to be with more than one wife. I say to those men. If that is what you want and the first wife you intend to marry is totally against that idea simply do not marry her. Do not marry any woman that is not open to polygamy. If women find themselves unable to find a man to marry because they are not open to that, it is on them.

In my experience in Singapore I have actually had mentioned to be by a Malay Muslim woman, “I am fine with my man seeing another woman, she can have his D@#$ but he cannot marry her. If he dies I do not want the money to be split.”

I mean wow! What to say to that? Than you I had a conversation with a brother who told me flat out: “My wife doesn’t mind if I have a mistress but no second wife!”

So it’s o.k if the husband commits haram, possibly gets this mistress pregnant and exposes your family to shame, and not to mention risk eternal hellfire. Yet, for him to have a second wife is totally off the table?

To be honest this issue used to give me trouble. Because it seemed that Muslim women in general absolutely hated the idea. It was ingrained in their DNA. Or their was an apologetic smack to their response. “Well they can do it but only if they can treat all equal and since none of them can than they better not at all.” In other words, “I am totally against the idea.”

It was only when I encountered couples in poligamous marriages that told me it was a ‘godsend’ and all parties involved were quite happy with the arrangement. It was than I realized it has more to do with conditioning and upbringing than any innate nature. I believe the jealous nature is recognized by Allah (swt) in the Qur’an: “Do not allow yourselves to incline towards one to the exclusion of the other, leaving her in a state, as it were, of having and not having a husband.”

In fact I remember in grade school being very outraged that my friend was spending more time with his other friend than me. So it had less to do with the fact that he had more friends than just me, and more to do with the proportion of time he was spending with the other friend. I felt I was just on ‘stand by’ mode.

So in the scale above 0-3 can represent men who are either asexual, just not interested in sex, or have lower sex drive. They want the company of a spouse, they may even want children. Yet, these people tend to be more in their ‘own world’. Perhaps, 4-6 represents the bulk of men. Fairly active libido, and if given the chance would be polyamorous but are not either due to financial constraints, restrictions placed on them by their spouse. They probably range from those who made their peace with it, to those who probably do suffer in some type of silent resentment. 7-10 Men with very high libido. One partner, the same intimacy with the same individual for 20+ or 40+ years is absolute purgatory for them. They will either cheat on their current spouse, or end up in serial divorces, one after the other.

This scale is only used for sexual libido. There can be similar scales based upon a man’s temperament. The ability to manage emotions. From cool as a cucumber to a man who may have an occasional flair up to someone who is likely to break his wife’s nose and more.

Again, people operate on a scale. People are individuals, and as individuals they are complex.

Advise to Imams/No More Secret Marriages.

The number of Ustaz that are advising men to marry behind their wife’s back is staggering and sad. If you feel that having more than one wife is something you desire, or eventually will have, simply do not marry any woman who is not agreeable to it. No more surprises. Eventually, the first wife, will find out about the other wife. Also, in Singapore we had an Ustaz that was conducting ‘Islamic marriages’ without these being registered by the Registry of Muslim marriages. Yes, they were halal in the sigh of Allah (swt), but because of our half baked , one foot in one foot out situation with secularism the women who were agreeing to this were not protected by the courts.

So Imams, and Ustaz out there. Simply advise the brothers, marry a woman who is agreeable to polygamy or if it is a deal breaker, than divorce his first wife. Sisters, do not do halal marriages, that although accepted and blessed by Allah (swt) afford you no protection in the court system in the event of a divorce.

Better marriage counselors both male/female at Masjids.

This is a huge need in many Muslim communities. Trying to find counselors, that are men and women, who know how to be good listeners and who can walk that right rope not leaning to much to the left or too much to the right, is a challenging task. Yet, one we must not falter on.

Marry those beyond your normal circle. When in Rome… as they say. So, many western men who are simply done with the post modern liberated woman simply decide to find wives over seas. So now you are reading this it means you must have access to the internet. Therefore expand your circle.

Example: In Singapore many Muslim men find marrying women here to be troublesome. This is due to the fact that in too many cases the brides parents will ask for a very large dowry or may want their daughter’s to finish off their doctorate or masters first. So, for the young man who is on his own time line and not someone else’s he will marry from Muslim women in Southern Thailand, Southern Philippines, Indonesia, etc.

Love yourself. After loving Allah (swt) and his Blessed Messenger (saw) in reality the person you need to love the most is yourself. Not in any vainglorious or conceited way. You need to understand you have flaws and limitations. You also have many unique and admirable qualities about yourself. You will not be everybody’s cup of tea. Some people are attracted to plus size men/women and some are not. Some find ebony skin to be very beautiful and some do not. Some like those with pale skin and some do not. There is always at least one person out there for every body. No matter your physical looks, or if you are differently abled as they say, there is always some one out there for you. I believe that. I mean after all why spend effort on someone who is not interested in you as you are? This is not to say that you have unhealthy weight, way above/below bmi index, that you should not work on your health, you should. This is not to say that if we have undesirable personality traits that we should not work to better ourselves, we should.

To the Christians and truth seekers reading this. Islam is balanced and Islam speaks to the realities upon which human beings are made and fashioned.

Divorce is not desirable in Islam, yet it can be a solution. To ask someone to stay in a marriage of abuse is not in the spiritual well being of the individual.

Polygamy. Many marriages end because of marital infidelity. Women in Islam are entitled to stability and not having to have their life be in a state of flux and chaos. Thus, poligamy is allowed in Islam to address the man who may have a higher libido than other men. However, that is not the only reason. There are a plethora of other reasons why it maybe allowed and encouraged. All with the aim of keeping family stability.

Islam offers timeless, real and concrete solutions to the challenges faced by humanity. The West is in a constant dance, moving from left to right. It is on a pendulum that never fully rest upon its axis. It swings some times more further to the right and others further to the left. The task of the Muslim is to be balanced, upon the guidance of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

Neither feminism nor mgtow offer solutions to the Muslim. They are misguided attempts and human efforts to correct perceived injustices. It is very obvious that feminism and mgtow are not helpful towards the continued survival of Western culture and civilization.

In the words of Sherly Crow: “If it makes you happy Then why the hell are you so sad?”

May Allah (swt) guide us all to a way that is just.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A difference with Deoband. Can Allah (swt) lie?

“The Truth is from your Lord.’ Then whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an 18:29)


I would not be truthful if I did not tell the reader that I was very disheartened to learn that this is a position held among those who hail from the Deobandi movement.

To see them fall short on this particular point of theology is hurtful.

This is an important point of theological difference as it can undermine our confidence in some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of our faith, such as:

How can we trust anything from Allah (swt)

The truth about Allah (swt), his oneness.

The truth about Rasul Allah (saw) being a Messenger of Allah (swt).  That he is the last and final messenger.

The truth about the Qur’an is that it is a revelation from Allah (swt), the last and final message.

Issues of certainty and morality all of these things become issues of doubt and speculation due to the theological disposition of the scholars of Deoband.

I know these words maybe quite strong and that is because I never have in my life come across a belief that is certainly so problematic for Muslims theologically that it is challenging to understand how anyone could entertain it, to begin with.

The theological musings of Darul Uloom Deoband have concerning Allah (swt) have to be among the most dangerous of theological speculations that have come from speculative theology.

If I am to speak using emotive I would say that it is perhaps the absolutely most monstrous attributions to Allah (swt)! Not even the Christians ascribe lying to Allah (swt)!

On this website/blog I have constantly advocated for unity and cooperation among Muslims.   However, as with all things, there has to be a limit to this. Out of all possible points of contention between us as Muslims, there is probably nothing that would gain my ire more than the theological speculation of this position. This is my red line!

This of course is not speaking to the laity and the regular adherents of the Deobandi school of thought, the common man. To those valiant brothers in the Tabligh Jamaat that go out in the path of Allah (swt) and call people back to the deen of Allah (swt). They are for the most part ignorant of this position and so to them they are my brothers and sisters and I will assist them, lower the wing of humility and do my best to be a brother to them in all respects within my means and capabilities granted by Allah (swt).

That being said I absolutely and utterly abhor the theological position that the Deobandi scholars have. Namely that Allah (swt) can lie. (May my Rabb forgive us and bring us back t our senses.)

Do the scholars of Deoband believe that Allah can lie

Notice in the above article they say:

Falling into the topic which you have mentioned in your question, is extremely dangerous for the Iman of a believer

My response: Yes, it should cause anyone who has an ounce of love for Allah (swt) and understanding of sound doctrine to flee as far away from this speculation as they can!

The ulama of Deoband have explained this issue to the best of their knowledge according to the Quran and Sunnah. Therefore we need to look at this from an academic perspective rather than an emotional one.”

My response: They have no basis in either the Qur’an or the Sunnah for this speculation.    The emotion that I may express in this article is because of my ‘Izza for Allah (swt) and for Al-Islam. I would hope the reader would pardon me.

The article in the link above after affirming that Allah doesn’t lie they then turnaround and affirm the following possibility:

“Thereafter they explained that Allah has the power to do whatever he wants. SO IF HE WANTED TO LIE, NOBODY CAN STOP HIM. No one can take that power away from him. There is a difference between “Allah does lie” and “ALLAH CAN LIE.”

Or the monstrous assertion that it is possible for Allah (swt) to create another like him!

Watch the following video:

@ 2:11 He says, “Let no man go away today and say Shaykh Mumtaz was saying Allah CAN lie, No!”

However, he turns around @ 1:38 and says, “But the OPTION Is there for Allah (swt), because he is Haqq he will never take that OPTION.”

My comment: So he is saying that he CAN and worse he says that Allah (swt) could create another Allah (swt) but chooses not to! Yikes! (Oh Allah (swt) Rabb of Grace and Abundant Mercy, please forgive us and forgive our brothers and guide them to a course that is more just than this!) Amin!

The following verse of the Qur’an that absolutely grinds to powder and scatters into the four corners of the known existence such absurd theological speculation!

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

So what is Shaykh Mumtaz have in mind should Allah (swt) wish to create another Allah (swt)?  Some type of Binitarian belief? Or if can create another like himself what’s the limit three? Some type of Trinitarian belief?

It is my sincere hope that those from Deoband will refrain from this type of theological speculation. I hope that they recant from this position in public and do sincere repentance to Allah (swt).  Death waits for no one.

By Allah (swt) my heart has never felt more heavy and filled with sadness than to know that these people hold these positions!

It really does go to show you that Allah (swt) spoke the Haqq (unlike what scholars muse) when He said:

“Is not Allah sufficient for His Servant? And yet, they threaten you with those they worship other than Him. And whoever Allah allows to stray-for him there is no guide. And whoever Allah guides-no one can misguide. Is not Allah Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution?” (Qur’an 39:36-37)

First, lying is never a praiseworthy trait or quality.

“They think to deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive it not.” (Qur’an 2:9)

“In their hearts is a disease, so Allah has increased their disease, and for them it is a painful punishment because they habitually used to lie.” (Quran 2:10)

“So He penalized them with hypocrisy in their hearts until the Day they will meet Him – because they failed Allah in what they promised Him and because they habitually used to lie.” (Qur’an 9:77)

“And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah or says, ‘It has been inspired to me,’ while nothing has been inspired to him, and one who says, ‘I will reveal something like what Allah revealed.’ And if you could but see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of death while the angels extend their hands, saying, ‘Discharge your souls! Today you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme] humiliation for what you used to say against Allah other than the truth and that you were, toward His verses, being arrogant.’” (Qur’an 6:93)

Humans may need to lie or deceive due to some need, want, desire, or fear from danger. None of this is applicable to Allah (swt).

I sincerely implore the scholars of Deoband – to read these verses and immediately fall into sujud begging the Almighty Allah (swt) for forgiveness!

Dear brothers, this theological position is unbecoming of people who have produced some of the best scholars and students of knowledge in other fields. However, this belief of the Deobandi’s is pure kufr. Anyone who believes that Allah (swt) CAN lie has committed kufr. I would urge them to understand the other futility and evilness of their theological speculation and to make repentance to Allah (swt) and renew their shahadah.

Is this verse not befitting of them?

“Who is more unjust than one who events a lie about Allah (swt).     One who says ‘it has been inspired by me’.” (Qur’an 6:93)

So these human beings were musing about Allah (swt) and suddenly there were some dark whispering to the subconscious mind that found fertile ground within their minds and souls to plant the most insidious theological speculation.

Surely Allah (swt) is our salvation! May Allah (swt) protect us from the evil insinuations of the one who whispers.

Allah (swt) says:

“Moreover, they have no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)

“And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, ‘Do you kill a man merely because he says, “My Lord is Allah” while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is the consequence of his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar.’ ” (Qur’an 40:28)

“However, if they intend to deceive you – then sufficient for you is Allah. It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers. “(Qur’an  8:62)

“However, We have certainly tried those before them, and Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.”(Qur’an 29:3)

“Only they forge the lie who do not believe in Allah’s communications, and these are the liars.” (Qur’an 16:105)

“So who is more unjust than he who invents a lie about Allah? Those will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses will say, “These are the ones who lied against their Lord.” Unquestionably, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers.” (Quran 11:18)

They have no measure to know whether they are deceived.  They can only trust that they are not being deceived but they have no certainty.   This destroys the very foundation of the religion of truth, the science of hadith, and everything else along with it. The big question for anyone who holds the position that Allah (swt) CAN lie is this:  

If you believe that Allah (swt) CAN lie on what objective basis can you determine anything from Allah (swt) to be true? I have recently asked one of them this question 7 times and each time he evaded it.

They have certainly erred in their theological speculation about the divine by having absolutely no shame and having been filled with haughtiness to have the audacity to attribute to Allah (swt) the capacity and capability to lie!

May Allah (swt) protect our minds, our hearts from the whispers of devils, and from the approach of the hellfire and from theological speculation that brings us to the very depths of darkness where there is no light therein.

Their shameful musings about Allah (swt) opened the doors of sophistry which in turn would call into question the probity of the sources of religious knowledge altogether.

In reality, this theological speculation is an absolute feast for atheists and Christians!

Deobandis have effectively stripped every argument Muslims have against atheists, Christians, or anyone else.  Why should an agnostic trade in his/her uncertainty for the uncertainty of Muslims?

They have also put themselves in a precarious situation. It would be very difficult for any other Muslim to take seriously or even discuss any matter or point of jurisprudence, theology, etc with a representative of Deoband because there is nothing to be discussed. They can’t even say with all sincerity that they are upon the Haqq.

These people the Deobandi believe that it is possible for Allah (swt) to both lie and to be truthful! Because if Allah (swt) is Haqq and Allah (swt) does not change then why the theological speculation in regards to this?

To say that Allah (swt) has the potential to be both liar and truth sayer not only imputes lies to Allah azzawajala but it would entail a logical contradiction.

This reminds one of the atheists.

The Atheist who poses the following paradoxical question.

If Allah is Infinite and Unlimited in Power can He create a rock he cannot lift?

Which is a non-question? It is like asking if Allah (swt) can make a squared circle. It is a no-thing.

Such a rock can’t exist not because Allah (swt) is not All-Powerful but because He is!

Allah (swt) has Unlimited, Infinite Powers. This theoretical rock would also have to have MORE than infinite and unlimited powers so that Allah (swt) could not move it.
There’s no such thing as beyond infinite and unlimited so the question is flawed.

Infinity +1.  There is no such thing, there is simply infinity.

I have answered that in detail here:

Allah (swt) cannot act contrary to his being. Allah acts consistently within his own essence, his own being.

The reason people fall into this trap is because of very poor training in theology and/or philosophy. They do not have an excellent foundation concerning the divine being. After all don’t they accept power as a basis for Allah (swt) being God? That is the whole point. There are certain qualities that make Allah, God.

Allah cannot, for example Not-Be Allah. Allah (swt) cannot be a sinner or be unholy. Allah (swt) cannot commit shirk.

Allah (swt) cannot be contained by space/time. All these things are inherent to the divine logic that is Allah (swt).

Based on logic there are things that cannot exist if another thing exists.

As Allah (swt) is Infinite and Unlimited in Power,  a thing he can not do cannot exist because it violates the very principle of being Infinite and Unlimited in Power.

“He knows what is before them and what will be after them, but they do not encompass in knowledge. And all faces will be humbled before the Ever-Living, The Self Existent. And he will have failed who carries injustice.” (Qur’an 20:110-111)

Allah (swt) is described as the Ever-Living so it is IMPOSSIBLE for Allah (swt) to die.  Allah (swt can’t will himself to die because it goes against what is intrinsic to the divine logic.  

Their ridiculous claim is that you deny the power of Allah (swt).  So ask them this very simple question that will crush their falsehood.

If Allah (swt) can do anything Can Allah (swt) create a reality where he can’t do everything?

If the answer is no: They just admitted that Allah (swt) can’t do everything.

If they say yes, then it means they admit the possibility of a reality where Allah (swt) is not able to do all things.

Another point that crushes their speculation is the following:

The difference between us and those who hold the view that Allah (swt) CAN lie when it comes to the power of Allah (swt) is this. They believe Allah (swt) is All-Powerful based upon speculation.  Whereas the believers we believe Allah (swt) is All-Powerful based upon certainty.

“To Allah is your return, and He has power over all things.'” (Qur’an 11:4)

The basis for which those who say that Allah (swt) CAN lie is this verse. However, this verse is dependent upon Allah (swt) being Haqq and only Haqq.  The Deobandis have no objective basis on which to rest their argument. Because if both Truth and Lies can come from our Lord on what objective basis do they know that the verse in Qur’an 11:4 is true to begin with?   Whereas the believers we believe that Allah (swt) is Al Haqq and thus we have certainty in what Allah (swt) reveals to us. It is not POSSIBLE for Allah (swt) to lie to us.

So coming to the doctrine of the Deobandis let us see what Allah (swt) says about Truth.

The Truth is from your Lord.’ Then whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an 18:29)

Allah (swt) clearly says that Truth is from Him.  Otherwise the phrase -“sadaqallahul azeem” -The Truth from Allah the Almighty, it would lose all meaning.

As truth is from Allah (swt) it is not even a POSSIBILITY for non-truth to come from Allah (swt).

Allah (swt) says:

“That is because Allah He is the Truth (Al Haqq) -the Only True God of all that exists, Who has no partners or rival, the ultimate reality, and what they (those who associate) invoke besides Him, it is Batil (falsehood) And verily, Allah He is the Highest, The Most Great.” (Qur’an 22:62)

Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Surely, falsehood is ever bound to vanish.” (Qur’an 17:81)

“No! We hurl the Truth against Falsehood, and it crushes it. Behold, falsehood does perish! Woe to you for the false things you ascribe.” (Qur’an 21:18)

Oh, Allah (swt) please guide these people from Deoband back to Islam. Guide them and us. How can they attribute to Allah (swt) a possible attribute that can vanish or be overcome by other attributes?

Subhan’Allah! What more evidence do the Deobandi human beings need?

May Allah (swt) bring us from darkness into light and may Allah (swt) cause the Muslims to be on guard against this type of theological speculation.

Allah (swt) says that He is Al Haqq. Allah (swt) says that is The Truth.  Allah (swt) clearly contrasts himself with batil (falsehood).    Allah (swt) cannot contain both batil and haqq and have as part of his being. Both can never be attributed to Allah (swt)

Allah (swt) says:

“Truly, it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts which are in the breast that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)

Allah (swt) says:

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

Mixing truth with falsehood is something that sinful man does. Are we going to really attribute the ability to mix truth with falsehood to the one who shaped and formed us in the womb, who provides for our every need, who is the very Lord of the Throne?!!

Moreover again we have:

“So to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them. And leave [the company of] those who practice deviation concerning His names. They will be recompensed for what they have been doing.” (Qur’an 7:180)

How could they even conceive as a possibility that one of the best attributes of Allah (swt) could be “The Untruthful” ?!?

This is what Allah (swt) says about those who believe that Allah (swt) has the potentiality of having sons.

“Where at the heavens might well-nearly be rent into fragments, and the earth be split asunder, and the mountains fall down in ruins!” (Qur’an 19:90)

This is for attributing to Allah (swt) the mere potentiality of having sons can you imagine what Allah (swt) has in store for those who would attribute the mere possibility and potentiality of being “The Lord of Untruthfulness“? May Allah (swt) forgive them and us. May Allah (swt) guide them and us.

Deoband certainly needs to reconsider this. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by simply stating that this is no longer a theological position that they hold to. Their scholars believe that Allah (swt) CAN lie.

They give arguments and ammunition that will unfortunately tickle the imagination of the enemies of the faith.

As shown in the video above even one of their learned people believes that Allah (swt) CAN create another Allah (swt) !!

“Therefore be patient; surely the promise of Allah is true and let not those who have no certainty hold you in light estimation. (Qur’an 30:60)

Dear readers, fellow Muslim brothers and sisters reading this.  I strongly advocate for unity and cooperation among all Muslims. I am very strongly against this theological position from Deoband. This belief of theirs is Kufr. In terms of this belief being Kufr I am in agreement with Shaykh Salek Bin Siddina Al Maliki.

My only hope is that they would recant from this vile doctrine and renew their shahadah. I would implore, urge, beg them to reconsider it. If not for the good of this Muslim ummah for the safety and passage of their own well being into the next life. To refrain from stating with the tongue theological speculation that can not bring any good.

“And say: …So, after the truth, what else can there be, save error?” (Qur’an 10:32)


Filed under Uncategorized

What is Tawhid? Athari Creed vs Islamic Philosophy

“The servants of the RaHmān (the All-Merciful, Allah) are those who walk on the earth humbly, and when the ignorant people speak to them, they reply peacefully.” (Qur’an 25:63)

So it was just after Farj on Jumaa morning here in Singapore when I checked my WhatsApp and there from that gentle and noble soul, brother Nazzam were the latest links of interest.  Bless him! I would get updates from time to time on articles, blog posts and vlogs and debates that have taken place.  So this particular morning was a debate between two people I had not really known before.

So I head over to twitter and what do I see, already that one side has censored comments.  So, I go and click on the link to the debate posted on YouTube.  The comment section was clearly pro Dr. Khalil.  I saw many people in vigorous exchanges with followers of the Athari creed; and they were getting pressed. I then recalled that the first time I heard of this Jake guy. I believe he was introduced by Mufti Abu Layth (Naheim Ajmal) in one of his episodes.  I believe it was pointed out that he used arguments he pinched from Professor Emad Hamdeh’s against the Quraniyoon, to use as reasons why (he), Jake, was no longer intrigued with that movement.  From there on this Jake threw in his lot with the Athari/Salafist crowd. In this day and age if you want to gain followers and notoriety quickly through social media that is the most strategic decision one could make.

Not knowing of Dr. Khalil Andani, however, was clearly a loss for me. It is clear to me that Professor Andani is quite formidable. There is no doubt in mind that anyone who ever had the blessing of attending his class got their hard-earned money’s worth. Beyond that, they learned at the hands of an adept.

As for those people who are sitting comfortably in their homes drinking high grade coffee shrugging their shoulders and saying ‘who cares’ about such a debate.  Welcome to the world of privilege and security! Professor Andani is doing you and everyone else a huge service!  He is debating a person who is representative of a certain strain of thought that on the regular participates in the anathematization of other Muslims.

It is no stretch of the imagination to say that by putting a dent in such creedal positions he could be saving lives! Imagine an impressionable young Muslim who believes that Professor Andani and all like him hold such abhorrent aberrant and dangerous views that they must be dealt with. Imagine a gathering of high profile Muslim philosophers conducting a symposium, Professor Andani is in attendance, suddenly an attacker unleashes a few rounds killing many people in the process.  

Imagine that same impressionable young Muslim saw the disasters performance on behalf of Jake, and although he may not be inclined to agree with everything Professor Andani says, he witnessed enough to make him question the absolute certainty that he once placed in the Athari creedal position.  Instead of wanting to pop off a few rounds into a crowd of people who have been anathematized; this youth leaves Salafism altogether, or he becomes convinced of his own position, while holding space for other views.

I will be fair to say that Al Qaeda, Al Nusrat, ISIS and others do not necessary represent Salafism per say. However, it is not even a point of debate to say that Al Qaeda, Al Nusrat, ISIS have more in common with Salafi/Athari thought than they do Ashari/Maturidi/Mutazali theological positions.

Make no mistake about it, this debate is a watershed moment. The Athari creed has never been laid bare, deconstructed and destroyed in such a public formatted debate as it was in this debate.

Jake went in so cocksure of himself thinking Dr. Andani would be easy prey.

It was like watching a Discovery Channel documentary where you see the Mongoose carefree through the forest, and you spot a cobra skulking and slithering its way through the foliage, poised to strike.
Yet, this Mongoose will be no prey! On the contrary, once the Mongoose caught on to the scent, and pressed the attack, the poor cobra takes such a thrashing that you almost feel sorry for the elapid.

Let us look at the opening statements of each of the debaters. The big surprise for me not really knowing anything about these two debaters is who actually used more naql or text? My presumption would be that Professor Andani would come in using more philosophy, and logic and less textual proofs. My presumption is that the Athari would come to a debate loaded with textual proofs and evidence.

This was simply a no contest!

Professor Andani used 7 positive arguments from the Qur’an.  Jake used 4. Andani gave us some commentary on how these text support his position. Jake simply quoted them without explaining how they support the Athari school. Jake used two other text from the Qur’an from Khusraw and Al Tusi in a polemical fashion against Andani.  When it came to the Sunnah or ahadith, Professor Andani gave 5 a hadith. Firstly to show us that the guardians of proper understanding of the primary and secondary sources come from the Ahl Bayt.  Secondly he gave two ahadith for his argument concerning the pen.  Professor Andani quoted no less than 20 different source showing questionable ahadith that are an affront to the idea of a transcendent divine being.  When it came to giving positive ahadith for the Athari position Jake gave us nothing. When it came to ahadith bringing into question Islamic philosophy Jake gave us nothing.  Since Jake lacks the trade mark beard of the bulk of Salafi/Athari Muslims one could easily mistake Andani for being the Athari in the debate.

Since Athar means remnant or report, clearly not only is Professor Andani an adept in Islamic science, he is actually the true Athari between the two! Jake on the other hand, a nothing burger.

Not necessarily an argument against either Ismaili doctrine or Islamic Philosophy in general Jake repeated several times the Professor Andani asserts that anyone who claims that who ever states that Allah (swt) has names and attributes is tantamount to shirk and anthropomorphism. Please see @22:06 minute mark:

“Khalil does not believe that Allah is the direct creator of the heavens and the earth. He does not believe
that Allah is All Knowing, All Powerful and Perfect, in fact HIS BOOK states: that to ascribe such names and attributes to God is shirk and anthropomorphism.”

A similar claim is made at the 23:37 minute mark.

Why didn’t Jake show us the extract from Professor Andani’s book?
He claims that these are the beliefs of Professor Andani yet he doesn’t give us the quotes for this.
This would certainly help Jake, as Jake has made takfir of Andani, he can now turn around and claim that Andani did the same thing.

Professor Khalil gives 5 arguments for refuting the Hanbali creed. He gives 5 arguments for the Absolute Oneness of Allah & His Creation of First Intellect.  Although, I feel Professor Khalil more than proved his case in regards to the Absolute Oneness of Allah (swt), he possibly needed more time to flesh out his argument of the creation of the First Intellect.

Professor Khalil showed quite forcefully the issue with Tafwid.

Affirming the apparent meaning, or do ta’wil for metaphorical meaning. Jake must affirm the apparent meaning and reject ta’wil. This leads us to Tafwid al-Ma’na where you deny the apparent meaning and deny the opposite of the apparent meaning. This position is logically incoherent.
If you say you do not know the meaning, then there is no meaning that is accessible to humans. This is a devastating argument because it shows that Athari are actually the one with some esoteric belief in the divine. The Qur’an and Sunnah conveys that which is not intelligible to humanity. Another devastating point given by Professor Khalil @39:27 minute mark that if you want to argue for Tafwid al-Ma’na and Tafwid al-Kayf and say ‘Bi Li Kayf’ than you should stop debating with Christians.  The argument here is that Athari are in reality believers of Mysterianism.

All of the points given in Professor Andani’s slides are effectively devastating for the Athari position.

“No Qur’anic verse and NO Prophetic Report teaches that God possesses real attributes (sifat) that are additional to and distinct from His Essence.”
Where did they get the idea from? They got it from speculative theology.

During his first 10 minute rebuttal.

Surprisingly for someone who has done many debates Jake seemed to forget how the rebuttal part of a debate goes. Instead of showing why Dr. Andani’s five points against Athari creed were wrong, Jake continued his opening presentation of attacking Andani’s views. The only thing he really interacted with was that which was easy pickings. He scanned the list of the slide Professor Andani put up and picked out Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani. (An Athari).  Even, I am not sure why Professor Khalil had him on that list.

When quoting Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani

“We believe that Allah CONSTRICTS, EXPANDS, rejoices, loves, dislikes, becomes pleased, becomes angry, and abhors, he has two hands and both of his hands are right.
The hearts of his servants are between two of his fingers and he is in the direction of uluh…..” Jakes says @ 50:35 “This sounds like Athari creed to me.”

What did Jake mean when he says Allah (swt) constricts and expands? Does he mean that it is an action that Allah (swt) does to the creation? As in constricting the breast or expanding the breast? Or does he mean that Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani is asserting that Allah (swt) himself, his essence, expands/constricts?  This sort of irresponsible reading of the text in English without proper explanation is no Bueno. Jake did not deal with the issues of divine simplicity or the problem of the ontological collapse of his position.  

Professor Andani’s first 10 minute rebuttal.

@1:03:27 They were not putting up Professor Adnani slides. It is hard to know if that was intentional or not.

@1:11:36 Professor Adnani claims that Jake was intellectually dishonest by admitting a fact from Nasir al-Din Tusi’s work by not admitting the fact of what he had actually written.
@1:12:07 Professor Adnani bemoans the fact that Jake cannot read Arabic and therefore cannot go to the primary sources. He is overly reliant upon Orientalism and Orientalist.

Jake’s second 5 minute rebuttal.

@1:18:34 Jake puts up the claim that he has a document ‘with all these references if anyone is interested I’ll make them publicly available and you can read them yourself.”
This statement is followed up with a dig @ Professor Khalil doing Taqiyyah, practicing obfuscation or lying.

@1:19:44 “No it does not mean there are multiple necessary beings, we don’t say there are multiple humans, that Jake is multiple humans just because I have multiplicity within me.
I’m still one being. We don’t say that there are multiple uh beings within Jake. This is not the language that we use”

Did he just use himself to compare with Allah (swt)? This is very problematic. It is a violation of “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)

@1:20:07 “My argument is quite simple, just read the Qur’an, for the most part.” WHAT?? 

@1:21:23 Jake says that he trusts someone else over going directly to the text himself! Especially doesn’t trust Professor Andani.  “You keep talking about Arabic but you cannot even pronounce basic words, which I find to be quite shocking.” You can tell that Jake felt the sting of Professor Andani’s comment about Jake not being able to go to the primary sources because Jake lacks the requisite command of Arabic to do so.

Professor Khalil second 5 minute rebuttal.

@ 1:24:06 Professor Adnani wanted to know whom Jake will rely upon for creedal positions.
Prior to the debate Jake gave Professor Andani the creed of Ibn Qudama. Ibn Qudama says: “We do not go beyond the traditions from the Prophet and his companions;
nor do we know the how these, save by the acknowledgement of the Messenger and the confirmation of the Qur’an.”-Ibn Qudama (Tahrim)

“Debate is for people who can use logic and reason which you are not allowed to do!”

Ouch! That was yet another stinging point from Professor Andani.

@1:26:00 Professor Adnani makes another great point. Jake did not specify what he meant by necessary attributes.

1:26:34 I almost fell out of my chair, Captain Planet? It is good to see that Dr. Khalil is forceful in his presentation and can keep a serious topic light-hearted.

@1:26:45 Professor Adnani bemoans the fact that Jake is severely handicapped in this debate by not being able to read the primary sources.

@1:26:58 Professor Adnani puts forth a very blunt question to Jake. “How do you define wujud, existence?

15 minute cross examinations. Jake cross-examines Professor Andani

During his 15 minute cross-examination, Jake spent less time asking questions and more time giving a sermon. As regards demeanor, Jake was like this angry child, who ran away from home only to find a wise and comforting father in Dr. Khalil Andani. Khalil was warm and had presence, Jake was bitter and needed consoled.

@ 1:30:19 Jake ask Professor Andani about true knowledge of Allah (swt) only coming through the Imams. Through the intellect or the imams (qualified scholarship). Jake himself admits its from qualified scholarship when he even queerly offered, “just read the Qur’an, for the most part.”

1:30:57 Jake could frame his question another way. ‘During the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was true Tawhid known only through the Prophet (saw), whom would be the ‘rightly guided Imam’ or through other means? If we can understand this, it will help us to understand the position of not only Ismaili Shi’a but our Shi’a brothers in general. Even if we disagree with them.

When Professor Adnani gives his reply that there are two types of ‘ilm and one is supra discursive, also known as marifa. This is something that adherents of Sufi paths would appreciate. Where as those who have no familiarity with the Seeker-Shaykh relationship would have no appreciation of this.

@1:33:41, Jake moves on to the next point because he saw no way in. Usually if you strongly argue, you will overwhelm your opponent and press the attack until you get them to capitulate through the sheer strength of your argument.@1:34:12 Jake started to bite his fingernails which is usually a sign of stress or anxiety. I don’t know if it is me but it looks like he proceeds to chew for a moment on a piece of fingernail.

@1:37:40 Professor Andani makes the point that there is no way Kirmani is refuting Ibn Sina because Ibn Sina has not even written his works yet!!! “Remember Ibn Sina died in 1037 and Kirmani died in 1020. There is no way Kirmani is refuting Ibn Sina because Ibn Sina hasn’t even written his major works when Kirmani is writing. Kirmani is likely referring to a pre Ibn Sina falsifa tradition.”

@1:38:40 Professor Andani enlightens Jake who confuses the Ashari position of the divine will that is entirely self determined, with that of the Ismail’i position.

1@:40:00 Jake when pressed on whether he knows what type of shirk Al Sharistani is referencing,
Jake replies, ‘You can’t respond with a question.” Professor Khalil is not familiar with debates or debate territory. So, he could have used the most common trick there is in this situation, which would be to ask a statement of clarity, ‘I’m not sure the type of shirk you are referring to?’ Interestingly, as a point of order Jake ignored the ‘you are not supposed to respond with a question’ when he was being questioned. He (Jake) did this multiple times.

Anyway, Jake gets educated on the two different types of shirk, shirk kafi and shirk jalil. This itself shows further lack of preparation on his behalf.     

@1:40:40 You really have to love Professor Andani at this point, he is totally, relaxed and having a great time.
That slight smile on the face is transporting him straight to the class room where he is tenured Professor
teaching a subject he has full grasp of to a first year student, thirsty for knowledge and information.

More Than an interlocutor or debate opponent, Professor Andani at this point takes on the role of a willing teacher, trying to help Jake in writing a thesis paper.
It’s delightful to watch the good Professor work and it has made me keen to read his published works and follow up with more of his material.

@1:42:11 Jake asks Professor Andani the question: “If creation did not exist would God exist?  Khalil asks a question, but Jake doesn’t’ pause him. At this point Jake is clearly forsaken any crusade he may have thought he was upon. Jake actually looks tired.

@1:42:31 Jake asserts about Professor Andani “You said he couldn’t exist without creation” -Always not a good sign in a debate when the opponent wants to put words in the other’s mouth.

@1:43:54 Professor Andani again asserts that Jake is unfortunately relying upon secondary sources. Jake responds that’s not true. “Well it is!” Quick to the rejoinder Professor Andani is!

15 minute cross examinations. Professor Andani cross-examines Jake.

@1:45:24 “Do the attributes depend on God’s essence or are they ā sē necessary in themselves?

@1:45:27 Jake ask a question: “What do you mean by depend?” As you can see as a point of order Jake violates the stipulations of the debate.

Professor Andani presses the question again: “Does the existence of an attribute of Allah depend on the essence?”

Jake responds: @1:45:34 “In the SAME WAY that for you the existence of creation or God’s existence depends on the existence of creation.”

This is what happens when you are in attack mode and you do not think your arguments through.

Here Jake is involved in pure speculative theology upon which he has provided no clear proof text from the Qur’an or the Sunnah. He is comparing the creation of Allah (swt) with his attributes.
He is also arguing against Athari creed; because, if he is saying he believes THE SAME WAY (that he assumes Adnani believes) this is a problem.

Again Professor Andani presses: “Do the attributes depend on God’s essence, either they do or they don’t?”

@1:45:44 Jake responds: “Yes, in the SAME WAY you would say that God’s existence depends upon creation.”

Trust me people there are Muslims who are Athari/Salafi in Aqidah listening to these statements of Jake and their jaws are gaping open and they are stroking beards repeated ‘astaghfirullah’ over and over upon hearing these things.

@1:46:15 Professor Andani ask: “Are the attributes of Allah are they ā sē or not ā sē?

1:46:22 Jake breaks the rules again and asks a question: “Why are you changing the question?”

The reason he is changing the question is you are so elusive and Professor Andani is trying to get you to clarify your position. @1:46:30 Professor Andani has to bring in the moderator because Jake is evading the questions.

@1:47:24 Professor Andani is having none of it. He presses Jake ‘You define dependence and tell us whether the attributes depend upon the essence or not.”

@1:47:42 Professor Khalil “Let’s make some breakthrough here. Creation depends on God I said that? Are you saying the attributes depend on the essence the same way creation depends on God?”

@1:47:50 Jake responds: “I am saying there is a counterfactual dependence.”

May Allah (swt) guide us and protect us from being among the lost! At this point I began to wonder if Jake really is a Muslim.  Because, if he is now stating there is a counterfactual dependence, which is to state that the attributes and the essence are mutually dependent or inter-dependent.  Not necessarily problematic in and of itself; However, either one in Islam is major shirk, especially if you juxtapose that statement to Jake’s earlier admission:

Thus, Allah (swt) and his creation are counterfactual? They are mutually dependant or inter-dependant?  That is not the belief of the Muslims, and for us, Jakes’ statements take him out of Islam.  That is unless Jake claims he misspoke or he was confused during the debate. Hopefully he will clarify in the future. Those statements juxtaposed together take one out of Islam.  

Listen @1:48:48 “In a sense, one cannot exist without the other. We don’t say it’s a casual dependence.” @1:49:12 Professor Andani says, “The attributes depend upon the essence.”

Moreover, Jake responds: “Only in the sense that they cannot exist without each other.”

I was surprised by Professor Andani’s continued line of questioning considering Jake’s admission that he believes the essence and attributes are counterfactual and that the attributes depend on the essence in the same way that God depends on the existence of creation.

Nonetheless @1:49:45 “If something is not ā sē (aseity) can it be God?”

Jake responds: “Sorry”  I do not believe that Jake is familiar with the Latin terminology for aseity.

Professor Andani continues: “If something is not ā sē is it contingent?”

Jake is uncertain about what he is being asked. He is not supposed to ask questions but answer them. Nonetheless: “Anything that is not God is a contingent is that the question?”

Jake responds: “Yeah sure.”

@1:51:00 Jake is buckling under the pressure, disengaging the rules of the debate, speaking out of turn. Jake established that he believes that God is the essence and the attributes.

@1:52:08 Professor Andani “So God contains and essence and real distinct attributes?”

1:52:22 Professor Andani presses the point: “The attributes are not identical to the essence and not identical to one another.”

“Jake responds: “Correct.”

@1:52:25 Professor Andani states: “O.K Therefore your God is a conglomerate of different entities. Thank you for confirming that. Next, I’m gonna move on now.”

@1:52:47 A very classic moment in this debate. Professor Andani set this up nicely. “My view is this, O.K.? The will of God is necessary. Every decision, choice that God has made could not have been any other way O.K.? Its the best possible choice. And any choice God has made it is impossible to conceive it could have been other way. This is my position.” “Is that position compatible with Islam according to you or not?

@1:53:24 Professor Andani “Does it go against Tawhid?” To which Jake responds: Yes it does!”

“It goes against Tawhid in the sense that your saying God does not have free will, that creation is just a necessitated by his essence. Yes that goes against Islam because the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah say otherwise.”

An odd statement from Jake considering he just stated earlier:

Jake responds: @1:45:34 “In the SAME WAY that for you the existence of creation or God’s existence depends on the existence of creation.”

This Jake does not have a sound aqeedah position. Nonetheless, go back and read Professor Andani’s statement above @1:52:47 you will see that he is reading from either a piece of paper or screen. He is reading verbatim a statement from Mohamed Hijab!

That was very cunning of Professor Khalil. Remind me never to debate that guy!

If Professor Andani made any “bad” move during the debate it was @1:54:26. It is not an error per say.
It’s just that he should have saved that explosive bit of information for his closing remarks!
Because, the way that Professor Andani puts the bait on the hook, Jake caught on real fast, and knew what was up.

@1:55:05 Jake is sensible enough to know the trap that Dr. Khalil is laying out before him.
However, he is reluctant to make that commitment. This shows the shifting nature of his own doctrinal position. Haqq is Haqq.  How can you be firm on a position literally just 3 minutes ago and now you are hesitant!

@1:55:43 Professor Andani drops the bomb on Jakes “I read to you the words of Mohamed Hijab during his Londoniyyah video published 6 months ago! You can go see it! He literally says, what I just said!”

Professor Andani doesn’t stop there: “

“So Mohamed Hijab is teaching a view of Tawhid that you think is not Tawhid yet you go and work for the Sapiens Institute!” If there was a debate equivalent of Khabib Nurmagomedov making Conor McGregor submit during their UFC bout that was it! @1:55:57 “Can you read it?”

Jake at this point is desperate to find any contentious point to avoid the devastating blow just dealt to him. “Your claiming he is my Ustadh.” “How is he my Ustadh?”

Asking Professor Andani to read a text is a strategic move. It also gives Jake a breather, so that Professor Andani will just stop asking more devastating questions and the timer can run out.

You wanna know something telling. Is the heavy weights in the Athari/Salafi community.
Those most visible out there in the Daw’ah. If anyone thinks for an iota of a second that Jake won this debate
surely the silence of the Athari/Salafi dai’ee is deafening.@ 2:00:42 Professor Andani asks: “Where is Allah? Can you point with your finger?”

Jake pointing towards the direction of Allah (swt). The Earth spins on its axis on a 24 hour rotation. Now imagine if we placed someone on the polar opposite side of the Earth and asked the same question at the same time.  Allah’s throne would have to be somewhere in the middle of the Earth.  Then next we put Jake in a space suit in zero gravity and ask him the same question.

@2:00:50 Professor Andani asks: “Is the Throne below Allah?”
Jake responds: “Yes”

Professor Andani ask: “Is the lowest heaven below the throne?”
Jake responds: “Yes”

@2:01:26 Professor Andani ask: “Do you affirm Allah as per the hadith descends every night to the lowest heaven?”
Jake responds: “Yes I affirm Nuzul.”

@2:01:41 Professor Andani ask: “Do you affirm that Allah descends from above the throne to below the throne?”
Jake responds: “He never leaves the throne.”

22:01:51 Professor Andani asks: “What is the meaning of a descent here? Because descent means to go from above to below. So what does Nuzul mean?”
Jake responds: “Yes we understand it in the plain meaning which is mentioned in a hadith….it’s very clear I think everybody knows what descent means.”

2:2:02:11 Professor Andani asks: “So you affirm that Allah descends from above the throne to the lowest heaven below the throne.”
Jake: “Without entering his creation. Yes”

Jake just posited pure speculative theology. Where is there a text from the Qur’an or Sunnah that says that Allah (swt) does not enter his creation? Where did he get that idea from?!

2:02:08 Jake claims: “It’s very clear I think everyone knows what descent means.”

@2:02:25 Professor Andani asks: “What is the meaning of descent that everybody knows?
Jake responds: “I just explained it to you.”

As one person on Twitter described this segment: “Descending means descending but not descending as descending can be descending when we say descending but you know and I know you know what descending is.”

Another point of contention. From what text of the Qur’an and Sunnah do the Athari get the idea that Allah (swt) is above the throne as some ‘default position‘?

Jakes closing remarks:

@2:06:36 Jake claims he will have a talk with Mohamed Hijab. So it will be interesting in the future, if Jake retracts his claim or claims Mohamed Hijab’s views on Tawhid are mistaken.

@2:08:30 Jake is clearly upset that he couldn’t turn this into an Athari Sunni vs a Shi’a Ismaili debate.
This is also why either he or his team changed the name of the YouTube Video.The misleading and dishonest title vs the agreed upon debate topic and correct title.

@2:08:50 An admission from Jake that he did not address many of Khalil’s points.

Professor Adnani closing remarks:

In his closing remarks Dr. Khalil Andani had made comments about
Jake that was not insulting. He said that Jake is certainly a smart individual; however, Jake needs practice in defending his creed (which he does).

In my humble opinion, Professor Andani messed up with giving good will points. Professor Andani means well but unfortunately in Jake’s mind saying that he (Jake) is intelligent but utterly demolishing
his (Jakes) ability to defend the Athari creed was worse than if Andani had not said anything in good will at all.

@2:18:25 Professor Andani brings up a point that should have been brought up during his rebuttal period.  I am not a fan of either party introducing pertinent points of a debate during closing statements.
However, it would be interesting to see if Jake has any rejoinders to that statement in the future concerning Kashf Al Asrar-‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani

@2:19:35 Professor Andani comments on how Jake calls his presentation a machine gun approach, because he (Jake) was utterly unprepared. Which is true.

@2:21: Professor Andani likened Athari creed to mysterianism which was a very tight intellectual slap.
It certainly hurts the Daw’ah and prepared Christians WILL use these counter arguments, as well they should.

Conclusion: Final Thoughts.

Professor Andani put on a clinic in that debate! If someone mentions his name to me I will reply, ‘Oh you mean the excellence of execution?’  Because Jake was excellently executed by the excellence of execution, Professor Andani. The man is not even a seasoned debater, but he was methodical, lucid and on point!

In fact as stated before, this is a watershed moment. Never that I can think of has Athari creed been laid bare in public in such a way. Professor Andani reached deep and took a piece of Jake’s soul. Not that this was the good Professor’s  intention; however, you can tell by Jake’s Kamkazi approach after the debate that he realized he got destroyed.

Observe: Jake: The Kamkazi: I got destroyed in this debate but I am going to do my best in my little Mitsubishi A5M to take you down with me!

Who won this debate?

When I was first told about the debate in the early morning hours of 17/6/2002 I went to see the video and I observed in the comment section the Athari’s were getting pressed. The majority of comments were in favour of the Professor. So they deleted comments in favour of the Professor. They deleted comments of exchanges where athari were not doing too well. They changed the title of the debate. Finally, they stopped comments altogether.

You want to know something telling? It is this. The heavy weights in the Athari/Salafi community, those most visible out there in the Daw’ah, if they think one of their people did well in a debate it will be broadcasted all over social media. It will go viral. The after math of this debate is radio silence.   If anyone thinks for an iota of a second that Jake won this debate surely the silence of the Athari/Salafi community is deafening. May Jake repent of the blasphemy he uttered during the debate and renew his Shahadah.  May Allah (swt) bless Professor Andani, illuminate the way for him, forgive him and us, guide him and us.

Oh I see we are already playing games of censorship and control my Salafi friends?

Good thing I came prepared. For those of you who do not want to watch the debate (on a channel that blocks comments) I have uploaded the debate here:


Filed under Uncategorized

The men who never became Muslims: The cases of Dr. Keith Moore & Dr. Maurice Bucaille

“Or do you say that Abraham, Isma’il Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do you know better than Allah? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah? but Allah is not unmindful of what you do!” (Qur’an 2:140)

Just as Allah (swt) knows best the tradition which the blessed Abraham was upon; Allah (swt) knows best the tradition which Dr. Maurie Bucaille and Dr. Keith Moore died upon.

The fact is that thousands of people come to Allah (swt) every day of the week around the world. Our Daw’ah (call to Islam) is on the ascendancy. A person who is an Atheist today is a Muslim tomorrow! People who hate Islam and attack it today end up embracing it and becoming champions of the faith. 

I am hoping that in the Muslim community we can be people of integrity and truth.  I don’t want us to make claims just for the sake of trying to ‘sell‘ the religion to people.  I don’t think Islam is up for sale.  I also believe in using good character and manners when inviting people to Islam; however, I do not believe that we ‘package‘ Islam as if we are trying to convince a group of board members to give us funding for an upcoming project.

This is what Islamic daw’ah (calling people to the faith) has become, unfortunately.

I remember a few years after I embraced Islam it seemed that the whole world was right on track.    One seemingly sincere brother recalled that Neil Armstrong heard the call to prayer on the moon!

Then came all the lectures and videos floating around about the Qur’an and science!   Well, the Qur’an must be true because it talks about aliens, black holes, embryology, fingerprinting, and atoms!   Who could deny such obvious signs right?

Around this time (l would say late 80s early 90s) came the book, ‘The Developing Human’ by Dr. Keith Moore.

Apparently, there was a blurb or a small piece in his book about comparing the text of the Qur’an which he felt corresponding to the development of the fetus in the womb.

This was latched on to and propagated far and wide.   A Non-Muslim Caucasian American Doctor has now confirmed something of a miraculous nature in the  Qur’an!    Can you believe it?

Well, it certainly was a faith booster for me!  I thought to myself, well that is impressive indeed.  I was always wondering if I could meet this Muslim brother, but that was the problem.  Dr. Keith Moore never converted to Islam.

My friends once asked me why I don’t smoke cigarettes and I replied, ‘When the CEO of Winston smokes than I will smoke.’  In other words, if what he found was not compelling enough for him to embrace Islam as a way of life why make such a huge fuss over it?

In fact here is a video on YouTube with a very dishonest title to it.

Followed by the very direct question posted to Dr. Keith Moore himself here:

Now we as Muslims could put ourselves in a state of ease and dismiss it all with a flippant remark by saying, “Well Allah (swt) guides whom he wills and leaves to stray whom He wills.

Yet there is something very frightening in revealing to Non-Muslims deep scientific statements found in the Qur’an, that were not revealed to Muslims themselves; and yet not guiding that person to Islam.

In fact, the ‘Islamic awareness’ web site touts both Dr. Keith Moore and Dr. Maurice Bucaille as people in the field of science that found the Qur’an containing outstanding information of a scientific nature.  I would invite you to go to the web site and possibly cache it before it disappears.

As my grandmother used to say, “You can take the horse to the trough but you can’t make it drink.”

Another curious example is that of the late Dr. Maurice Bucaille.   A surgeon by profession his book, ‘The Bible, the Qur’an and Science’ is still being pushed today by many Muslim missionary organizations as a ‘must-read‘ book.

I remember making my way through the book some time ago and walking away thoroughly impressed.    However, in retrospect, I think that his over-reliance upon liberal scholars that do not hold to a supernatural world view in dealing with the Bible was in hindsight problematic.    Also, no citation of sources is very problematic.   Where are the books, periodicals, and research journals that Dr. Maurice Bucaille consulted in his research?

Ultimately ,all this to do about the Quran and amazing scientific discoveries  Dr. Maurice Bucaille did not embrace Islam.

Here is another site which unfortunately has the misleading title “Why I embraced Islam

Read the above entry carefully.

Q: Have you embraced Islam?

A: I wanted to make it quite clear in the very beginning that even before I learned the first letter of Bismillah, I was convinced that God was unique and all-powerful and when God guided me to undertake a study of the Quran, my inner soul cried out that Al- Quran was the Word of God revealed to His Last Prophet Mohammed    (S.A.W.).

In my book “Quran,    Bible, and Science,” I have mentioned these facts and the book has met with instant success in the entire Christian world. In this book, I have devoted myself to discuss all problems from a purely academic angle, rather than that of faith or belief which would have revealed only my personal convictions.    This was because I desired to be treated by the world as an academician rather than a theologian. About my faith and belief, God knows what is in one’s heart. I am convinced that if I identify myself with any creed, people will invariably dub me as one belonging to such and such group and feel that whatever I say or do, I do so from only the angle of such and such creed group. I know my fellow beings very well and understand their mentality only too well.  I wanted to assure them that all my pronouncements are based on scientific knowledge and not on any religious dogmas.

Q: This is O.K., but since you have referred to God’s complete awareness with what is in one’s heart, may we ask what is your opinion about the human heart?

Even in his book Dr. Maurice Bucaille never once mentioned that he embraced Islam.  He never finished the book with what would usually be afterthoughts and a declaration of one’s faith.

Again Allah (swt) knows best in what state any human being dies in.   However, it is dishonest if we as Muslims are not transparent and use ‘bait and switch’ tactics in our conveying the message of Islam to people.   That is why I am no longer apart of such organizations and nor do I have any desire to be a part of any Muslim organization that does not believe in being transparent, that uses bait and switch tactics to lure people into becoming Muslims.  It’s simply dishonest.  The fact is that thousands of people come to Allah (swt) every day of the week around the world. Our Daw’ah (call to Islam) is on the ascendancy. A person who is an Atheist today is a Muslim tomorrow! People who hate Islam and attack it today end up embracing it and becoming champions of the faith. 

Allah (swt) is the final argument.


Filed under Uncategorized

Does the Qur’an disclose information of a miraculous scientific nature? Part 3


“Allah disdains not to use the similitude of things, lowest as well as highest. Those who believe know that it is truth from their Lord; but those who reject Faith say: “What means Allah by this similitude?” By it He causes many to stray, and by it many He leads into the right path; but He causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path),-” (Qu’ran 2:26)

Recently when I published  part 1 of this series one of the visitors to Prima-Qur’an brought the following to my attention.

“Wonderful brother. Looking forward to the next part. I do think there are references to what might be called ‘scientific’ however, the whole ‘scientific miracle’ thing is overblown.

Another proponent of this was Hamza tzortzis. He however has since renounced (I post the link as it is not against the theme of the article)”

I am thankful to brother Ammar for this link.  Indeed Hamza Tzortzis renunciation of Bucailleism is very insightful.

Brother Hamza Tzortzis had made some of the following remarks in his article:

“This movement has classical and modern origins. The Islamic classical scholarly tradition was engaged in a debate as to whether to use science as an exegetical tool to explain the Qur’ānic verses. However, it was during the eighties that the apologetic expression of this movement was born. I would argue there are two main events that facilitated the emergence of this movement. The first was the publishing of the book Bible, the Qur’ān and Science in 1976 written by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, and the second was the 1980s video This is The Truth produced by the Islamic scholar Abdul-Majeed al-Zindani. Dr Bucaille’s book argued that there were no scientific errors in the Qur’ān and that the Bible was full of scientific inaccuracies. Dr. Bucaille’s book became a best seller in the Muslim world and it was translated into many languages. Even though the book has faced academic criticism[2], it is still a popular read and used as a reference for Islamic apologetics and proselytisation.

The Islamic Scholar Abdul-Majeed al-Zindani, founder of the Commission on Scientific Signs in the Qur’ān and Sunnah, produced a video entitled This is the Truth. Al-Zindani invited prominent Western academics to attend one of their conferences. During the conference al-Zindani claimed that a group of eminent non-Muslim scholars in several fields testified to the fact that there were scientific miracles in the Qur’ān. However, theCommission received criticism that it had spread out of context and misleading statements to justify its narrative.[3] Relatively recently an Atheist video blogger and commentator personally contacted some of the scientists who had attended the conference and conducted interviews with them. The interviews were recorded and uploaded on YouTube. All of the scientists he interviewed claimed that their statements had been taken out of context, and that there is nothing miraculous about the scientific statements in the Qur’ānic discourse.[4]”

The references for the curious are to the following:

This is the link to the Wall Street Journal article here:

This is the video of Alfred Kroner here:

This is very disturbing.   Imagine if you will that I proposed to a public symposium.  I proposed that the discussion would be .  ‘Historical Fact: Did Jesus die on the Cross?‘   Yet when you arrived all I did was talk about the latest finds in astrophysics.  I am sure you would be a bit taken a back.

In other words Mr. Kroner is telling us that scientist were brought to this conference under false pretense.

That is simply not acceptable.

That the Saudis in conjunction with many daw’ah ( so called missionary organizations) did this is really not surprising.

When I was in Manama Bahrain  I attended a conference on A.T.M.T  (Awareness Through Mosque Tour).   One brother from Saudi Arabia showed me on his computer ‘hundreds of workers from China embracing Islam.’   To be honest with you I was really appalled.  The men in the video could hardly pronounce the words of the testimony of faith, which led me to believe that they also did not really understand what they were getting themselves into.

Big elaborate parties and ceremonies were held where the men were paraded on stage.  They all tried to pronounce the statements and were all given some gifts.  Now I could be greatly mistaken but nothing in the videos he showed me led me to conclude that these men were making an informed decision to embrace Islam.

If Dr. Alfred Kroner is reading this I simply want to say on behalf of the Muslim community, truth seekers every where and in particular those who embody the Prima-Qur’an approach. “Thank you respected Dr. Alfred Kroner!”

I would also strongly encourage anyone else who partook in this conference to come out and denounce the deception that was done in the name of science and also in the name of my faith tradition!

It is simply put, disingenuous.

Another gentleman  Allison (Pete) Palmer can be seen in his interview here:

Mr. Palmer says in the video above:

My stuff was pretty much peripheral because I didn’t really have anything that they could hang a case on.” (19:11 minutes into the video)

I never, never to my knowledge believed that this had a divine origin. It had a rational human origin.” (22:26 minutes into the video)

Also keep in mind that Mr. Palmer does not understand Arabic.  He had no way of knowing the various ways in which certain verses of the Qur’an could be translated.  In other words he primarily relied upon the perceived graciousness of his host.

As well as the statement from the Wall Street Journal here:

“Similar prodding failed to sway geologist Allison “Pete” Palmer, who was working for the Geological Society of America. He stuck to his position that Muhammad could have gleaned his science from Middle Eastern oral history, not revelation. On one video, Mr. Zindani acknowledges that Mr. Palmer still needs “someone to point the truth out to him,” but contends that the geologist was “astonished” by the accuracy of the Quran. Mr. Palmer says that’s an overstatement. Still, he has fond memories of Mr. Zindani, whom he calls “just a lovely guy.” He and the other American scientists say they had no idea of Mr. Zindani’s ties to Mr. bin Laden. And in any case the U.S. didn’t regard Mr. bin Laden as an outlaw at that time.”

The next video here interviews William Hay whom also was misrepresented.

Concerning waves of darkness mentioned in the Qur’an

Mr. William Hay says,

But actually there is knowledge of these that goes back a long long way, the Vikings knew about them and so on.” (5:05 minutes into the video)

In the video 6:48 minutes we find:

The gentleman doing the interview reads from some annotated foot notes in a copy of the Qur’an that he has:

And when he was asked about the source of the Qur’an, he replied, ‘Well, I would think it must be the divine being.'”

The interviewer ask Dr. William Hay, “So are you saying that that must be a misrepresentation?

To which Dr. William Hay replies: “That’s a misrepresentation.”

In the conclusion of the interview Dr. William Hay thought that the conference was going to be a way to make it smoother for scientist coming from the West to be able to live and work in the Muslim world.  With the possibility to be informed on Muslim cultural sensitives.  However, he makes it clear that he felt he was lured there under false premises and false pretense!

Again, a dark day for us as Muslims if these are the tactics that we need to employ to get people to embrace Islam.

He is quoted by the Wall Street Journal here:

Marine scientist William Hay, then at the University of Colorado, was assigned a passage likening the minds of unbelievers to “the darkness in a deep sea … covered by waves, above which are waves.” As the videotape rolled, Mr. Zindani pressed Prof. Hay to admit that Muhammad couldn’t have known about internal waves caused by varying densities in ocean depths. When Prof. Hay suggested Muhammad could have learned about the phenomenon from sailors, Mr. Zindani insisted that the prophet never visited a seaport.

Prof. Hay, a Methodist, says he then raised other hypotheses that Mr. Zindani also dismissed. Finally, Prof. Hay conceded that the inspiration for the reference to internal waves “must be the divine being,” a statement now trumpeted on Islamic Web sites.

I fell into that trap and then warned other people to watch out for it,” says Prof. Hay, now at a German marine institute.”

In other words Professor William Hay was saying that a person would have to absolutely preclude other possibilities before you could state for certain that it was knowledge from a divine being.  Than and only than after doing such could you conclude:

must be the divine being.”

The next interview is with Professor Thomas Armstrong (Professor of Astronomy and Physics)


Reconfirm your faith through dishonest tactics and quoting people out of context? ? ? < link to out of context statements of respected gentleman.

Sadly while I was volunteering at Singapore Sultan Mosque I gave the following book out to hundreds if not thousands of tourist who visited.  I regret doing such not knowing the facts about what the respected scientist have said.  < link to more out of context statements of the respected gentleman.

May Allah (swt) forgive me for transmitting any information that was misleading and inaccurate.  I hope that those whom I had given such publications to learn the truth. I also hope that this does not dissuade them from Islam, but that they realize there are people who are dishonest in all faith traditions.

This does not reflect upon the tradition but rather the individuals themselves.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does the Qur’an disclose information of a miraculous scientific nature? Part 2


“Allah disdains not to use the similitude of things, lowest as well as highest. Those who believe know that it is truth from their Lord; but those who reject Faith say: “What means Allah by this similitude?” By it He causes many to stray, and by it many He leads into the right path; but He causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path),-” (Qu’ran 2:26)

In part 2 of our series we will continue to investigate rather or not the Qur’an discloses information of a miraculous scientific nature.

Thus far we have found that certain passages may lend themselves to certain interpretations; however that does not mean that they inherently have those particular meanings.

Let us take a look at other passages that are often the subject of even more creative interpretations.

“And verily in cattle (too) will you find an instructive sign. From what is within their bodies between excretions and blood, We produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it.” (Qur’an 16:66)

First this passage is simply stating that Allah (swt) has given his bounties and mercy people.  Milk is indeed a refreshing treat to a people who may have a scarcity of food supplies.

However, as a statement of science it is simply not true that milk is pure and agreeable ‘to those who drink it’. There are for example people who are lactose intolerant.   They cannot drink or stomach milk!  So it is not ‘pure and agreeable‘ to those who drink it; rather it is a very generalized statement.

This may very well be the reason that people like  Harun Yahya  tinkered around with the translation a little bit so that we could get the following translation:

“There is instruction for you in cattle. From the contents of their bellies, from between the dung and blood, We give you pure milk to drink, easy for drinkers to swallow. (Qur’an, 16:66)

Do you see what was done here?   If the text was making a profound scientific statement why the need to be a bit playful with the translation?

There is a huge difference between saying, “it is agreeable to those who drink it” to “its easy for drinkers to swallow” It seems to me that Harun Yahya  perceived a possible flaw in the translation of the text; especially in relation to matters of scientific fact.

So basically what the translators of Harun Yahya’s site are becoming apologist for the Qur’an and science.

It as if they were trying to say:

Well, o.k maybe milk is not agreeable for those who drink it (meaning everyone) but if we can shift the meaning we can say, “Well, See!  They can still swallow it at least!

In fact if you want to talk about the natural order of things human beings are the only animals that take milk past infancy.   Sure cats and dogs will drink up milk if you offer it to them in a bowl. (I have done exactly that).    However, it is something of a curiosity. There is currently much debate in various circles on rather or not human beings should indeed be drinking milk past infancy.  Plus the fact that there are allot of people who cannot take milk and milk products at all.

Another Muslim saw this text as being problematic from a scientific standpoint so she thought it best to take the word ‘cattle‘ to mean camels, goats, sheep etc.  To me this creative exegesis. You still would not escape from the over generalized statement of, “it is agreeable to those who drink it.”

However, if your going to live in this world in which the Qur’an advances claims about science that the Blessed ‘Prophet couldn’t possibly know‘  than perhaps resulting to such exegetical stretches help smooth such bumps in the road.  Allah (swt) knows best.


Here is yet another example of a text that is abused.

That He is the Lord of Sirius (the Mighty Star) (Qur’an 53:49) -Yusuf Ali translation
And that He (Allah) is the Lord of Sirius (the star which the pagan Arabs used to worship) -Muhsin Khan translation
I think it is pretty clear that the text says ‘the star‘.
Yet some Muslims clearly are very creative when grafting scientific interpretations on to the text of the Qur’an.
I quote the article in full:

When certain concepts mentioned in the Qur’an are studied in the light of 21st century scientific discoveries we find ourselves imparted with yet more miracles of the Qur’an. One of these is the star Sirius, mentioned in Surat an-Najm 49:

… it is He Who is the Lord of Sirius. (Qur’an, 53: 49)

The fact that the Arabic word “shiaara,” the equivalent of the star Sirius, appears only in Surat an-Najm, meaning only “star,” 49 is particularly striking. Because, considering the irregularity in the movement of Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, as their starting point, scientists discovered that it was actually a double star. Sirius is actually a set of two stars, known as Sirius A and Sirius B. The larger of these is Sirius A, which is also the closer to the Earth and the brightest star that can be seen with the naked eye. Sirius B, however, cannot be seen without a telescope. The Sirius double stars orbit in ellipses about one another. The orbital period of Sirius A & B about their common centre of gravity is 49.9 years. This scientific data is today accepted with one accord by the departments of astronomy at Harvard, Ottawa and Leicester Universities.

This information is reported as follows in various sources:

Sirius, the brightest star, is actually a twin star … Its orbit lasts 49.9 years. (Exposes Astronomiques, La troisième loi de KEPLER,

As is known, the stars Sirius-A and Sirius-B orbit each other in a double bow every 49.9 years. (

The point requiring attention here is the double, bow-shaped orbit of the two stars around one another.

However, this scientific fact, the accuracy of which was only realized in the late 20thcentury, was miraculously indicated in the Qur’an 1,400 years ago. When verses 49 and 9 of Surat an-Najm are read together, this miracle becomes apparent:

… it is He Who is the Lord of Sirius, (Qur’an, 53: 49)

He was two bow-lengths away or even closer. (Qur’an, 53:9)

The description in Surat an-Najm 9 may also describe how these two stars approach one another in their orbits. (Allah knows best.) This scientific fact, that nobody could have known at the time of the revelation of the Qur’an, once again proves that the Qur’an is the Word of Almighty Allah.”

Yes indeed Mr. Harun Yahya …. Allah indeed knows best!

This kind of manipulation may be off putting to many sincere Non-Muslims who are looking at these issues and weighing them carefully.

Many non Muslims may feel that if this is what we have to resort to in order to impress upon them the ‘superiority‘ of Islam they may not want anything to do with our faith tradition at all.

The fact that Harun Yahya would ignore the context of the following verse was very discomforting for me:

“And was at a distance of two bow lengths or nearer.” (Qur’an 53:9)

The text of the verses before and after verse 9 is completely ignored.

“The description in Surat an-Najm 9 may also describe how these two stars approach one another in their orbits. (Allah knows best.)”

Hmmm… I wonder what it ‘originally described‘  in addition to Harun Yahya’s very creative interpretation?

In fact we could charge that instead of introducing scientific miracles embedded in the Qur’an 1400 years ago, people like our brother Harun Yahya only introduce blatant scientific errors in the Qur’an!

In fact in the article he himself admits…

The fact that the Arabic word “shiaara,” the equivalent of the star Sirius, appears only in Surat an-Najm, meaning only “star,”

Shiaara-means only star!  Where did they even get Sirius from?  For that matter Sirius A or Sirius B?

Yet another text that is abused…

Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food,- for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel; but forbidden is the pursuit of land-game;- as long as you are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. And fear Allah, to Whom you shall be gathered back.: (Qur’an 5:96)

“It is He Who has made the sea subject, that you may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender, and that you may extract there from ornaments to wear; and you see the ships therein that plough the waves, that you may seek (thus) of the bounty of Allah and that you may be grateful. (Qur’an 16:14)

Let me address the second text  (16:14) first Allah-willing.

the sea subject, that you may eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender,”  Allah (swt) did not say that everything in the ocean was lawful and permissible to eat.   Allah (swt) simply said the sea was made subject to man. You can eat the flesh that is fresh and tender.  Allah (swt) didn’t say what kind or in what quantity.  Allah (swt) left that to the discretion of human beings themselves.

Now let us deal with the second text.  It is directly related to the pilgrimage to Mecca itself!

Lawful to you is the pursuit of water-game and its use for food,- for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel

This again has to be understood in the context of what the people of that time and place were accustomed to eating.

This again is not a blanket statement saying everything in the ocean is lawful and permissible for human beings to eat.

However, if brother Harun Yahya wants to graft science onto every text of the Qur’an  it could do more harm than good.

See for yourself the following translation:

Notice how Harun Yahya translates the text in (5:96)

Anything you catch in the sea is lawful for you, and all food from it, for your enjoyment and that of travelers… (Qur’an, 5:96)

Here is just a small list of things from the ocean that we should not be eating (blanket statement)

Trust me when I tell you that if you dare dine on the blue dragon mollusk you are dead dead dead…


More to come in this series Allah-willing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does the Qur’an disclose information of a miraculous scientific nature? Part 1

One of the things that we used to hear so much about in the Muslim Daw’ah circles is how the Qur’an discloses information of a miraculous scientific nature. This was made popular by the likes of Dr. Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya. This line of argumentation for the veracity of Islam has fallen out of use.

Used only by those who are not in the know. Meaning that we have moved on from that line of argumentation.

“Allah disdains not to use the similitude of things, lowest as well as highest. Those who believe know that it is truth from their Lord; but those who reject Faith say: “What means Allah by this similitude?” By it He causes many to stray, and by it many He leads into the right path; but He causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path),-” (Qur’an 2:26)

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied,

“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”  (Matthew 13:10-17)

Touching on a post related to Dr. Keith Moore and Dr. Maurice Bucaille and what I feel was deliberate obfuscation on the part of Muslim missionary organizations in regards to the personal convictions of the two men I felt it would be appropriate to begin a series discussing the now popular topic of text in the Qur’an that are thought to anticipate modern scientific discoveries.

All too often Muslims use this approach to convince people of the divine authority of the Qur’an.  One wonders what Muslims were doing to convince people of the divine authority of the Qur’an before the floodgates opened in the 20th century that lead to all these ‘profound’ discoveries in exegesis.

First let me state that I do not believe that the Qur’an is a book of science. I also do not believe that the Qur’an is protected by an interlocking mathematical code based upon the number 19*

For my article taking a look at that claim you my refer to:

I believe that the Qu’ran itself makes it very clear its purpose as outlined here:

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;And who believe in the Revelation sent to you, and sent before your time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper. ( Qur’an 2:2-5)

This book will be guidance for you without doubt IF the following conditions are met.

1) You are in awe of the Creator.  -Which would mean having a belief in a Creator to begin with.

2)  Belief in the unseen. If you don’t believe in the unseen put the book down it will have no effect on you.

3)  You are what is called ‘a seeker’.  You establish a connection to the divine through some form or pensive reflection, supplication, prayers, meditation.

4) You give to others from what you have been given. -If you are in a situation to be able to do so.

5) Afterlife.  You believe in life after life. In other words you don’t believe we are a body with a soul; but a soul with a body.

However, none of the above precludes the possibility that the Qur’an could contain information that coincides with science.

The problem with those who see amazing scientific breakthroughs of a scientific nature in the Qur’an is that amazing feats of imagination, and huge stretches in exegesis are required to put forth many of these claims.

As the saying goes, “I’ll see it when I believe it.”

We will be dealing with issues of literary devices among them, poetic expression, ambiguity, analog,  and parables.

Let us begin shall we?

“The parable of those who take protectors other than Allah is that of the spider, who builds (to itself) a house; but truly the flimsiest of houses is the spider’s house;- if they but knew.”  (Qur’an 29:41)

I understand this that a spider’s web can be destroyed by a strong gust of wind. The spider’s web and the wind both being creations are vulnerable.  Ultimately if we put our faith or our trust in anything other than Allah (swt) we are putting our faith in something that is not solid.  I see it as a literary device or a play on words used to encourage believers to put their faith and trust in nothing other than Allah (swt).

However, if I demand literalism and try and push the Qur’an as a book of amazing scientific breakthroughs I am left with a rather embarrassing fact.  Measure for measure the silk in the spider’s web is the strongest fiber on the Earth!

Please see the following:

We could have asked our friends when the Qur’an says, “but truly the flimsiest of houses is the spider’s house”  flimsiest in comparison to what?  No comparison is given.

But watch someone come along and say, “Actually this verse proves the Qur’an is even more miraculous!”  “Allah knew human beings would discover that the spiders web is so strong but in reality compared to Allah it is nothing!”

To which believers like myself would be stretching our heads and saying, ‘Huh?

Another example using idioms as a literary device.

“When he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! (you have authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.” (Qur’an 18:86)

Now the phrase in question here is: Hatta itha balaghamaghriba ashshamsi wajadaha

Now many commentators who want to force the issue of the Qur’an preempting science will only focus on the Arabic word ‘wajada’.  Meaning that the sun doesn’t really set in the ocean but only that he (Zul Qarnian) perceived it as such. That is fine and well but what they conveniently leave out is the phrase ‘Hatta itha balaghamaghriba ashshamsi’  which mentions the setting of the sun.

Many of you may recall the meaning of maghrib prayers is the ‘sunset‘ prayer.

Now everyone knows our daily news papers and television use the terms ‘sunset‘ and ‘sunrise’ knowing full well that is not literally the case.  Again the Qur’an is using terminology that is familiar to its readers.   This is why in a so called ‘sahih‘ or sound  hadith we find the thoughts of the prevalent culture on the matter here:

Sufyan (al-Thawri)- Al-A’mash- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Narrated Abu Dharr: The Prophet asked me at sunset, “Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?” I replied, “Allah and His Messenger know better.” He said, “It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: “And the sun is quickly proceeding towards its destination. That is the designing of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. ” (36.38) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Hadith 421)

Yet another example and this is one is rather disappointing as well.

“And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil, shall see it.” (Qur’an 99:8)

This is another text of the Qur’an abused by people trying to make it seem as if the Qur’an was making profound comments about particle physics or sub atomic particles in general!

The word in question is the Arabic word dharra

Taken from the following site:

“Dharra – smallest thing imaginable. To the arabs, the smallest thing imaginable was the ant’s egg, and they called it dharra. We might describe dharra as an atom or speck in the english language. Dharra – the light dust you see floating in the air when the sun is shining – through the window – on a sunny day. Each of these dust particles is a dharra. This signifies the smallest and most lightest imaginable thing being a dharra of good or evil which will be seen on that Day.”

“The smaller something is, the lighter it is in weight, and the smallest speck may seem worthless, but on that Day there will be full justice on big and the smallest of matters.”

In other words the Qur’an was not on some mission to disclose information about sub atomic particles or atoms, neutrinos or even the higgs boson but was simply relating to humanity that the smallest of things will not go unnoticed be it good or bad.

Here are how some translations deal with this text here:

Interestingly the Muhsin Khan translation says, “And whosoever does evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it.”

Dr. Zakir Naik  is a proponent for this kind of wild interpretation of the text.  Here is a classic example of Dr. Zakir Naik making leaps with the text:

You can see another example in the translation here:

You will note that Pickthall translates the word dharra as such:

“Lo! Allah wrongeth not even of the weight of an ant; and if there is a good deed, He will double it and will give (the doer) from His presence an immense reward.” (Qur’an 4:40)

However, not to be outdone people like Harun Yahya and others have begun translating the verses in question as “sub atomic particles” because an atom is not the smallest ‘thing‘.

However, with current breakthroughs in particle physics I guess one would need to revise their translation of the Qur’an every 10 -15 years so they could replace electrons with neutrinos and quarks and than re-revise the translation to read higgs boson and so forth.

I sincerely call upon my Muslim brothers and sisters to stop this. Just stop.  Its enough already.   The best way to translate  Qur’an 99:8 is ‘iota‘ or ‘smallest thing‘  very simple, that way it covers everything that could possibly be discovered!

The Arabic word dharra has come to adopt words such as atom and sub atomic particles as part of its meaning.  However, it is not the meaning inherent in the word.

Yet this is what happens when over zealous individuals start to read things into the text that simply is not there.

I hope that you will stick with us as we continue this series:

Does the Qur’an disclose information of a miraculous scientific nature?


Filed under Uncategorized

Make something like the Qur’an? Is it a fair challenge in light of the hadith literature?




Or they may say, “He forged it,” Say, “Bring then ten suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever you can, other than Allah!- If you speak the truth!  (Qur’an 11:13)

I have often looked at the challenge to make something like the Qur’an.   I am more than convinced that this is a subjective challenge and I will lay out my reasons. 

  In fact I do not think it is a challenge at all.  I believe that Allah (swt) was giving a rhetorical lesson for the Arabs in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw).


There are many issues that we in the Muslim community would have to grapple with when dealing with the ‘produce something like it‘ challenge.

However, those who take the hadith literature along side the Qur’an as an authority have an even deeper hole to dig out of.

Here are the issues that we all would have to deal with.


Was the order to make something like the Qur’an going from greater amount of verses required to lesser; or from lesser amount of verses required to greater?

This is very important.  Logically one would assume the challenge would be a proverbial ‘line in the sand so to speak’.  That is that initially the challenge would be to produce 10 surahs like the Qur’an .   However, when this is not met the challenge is than to produce a single surah.  Once this challenge is also not met than to produce a recital the like of the Qur’an.

These are the relevant challenge passages under consideration.


“Say: “If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.” (Qur’an 17:88)


“Or do they say, “He fabricated the (Message)”? Nay, they have no faith! Let them then produce a recital like unto it,- If (it be) they speak the truth!” (Qur’an 52:33-34)


“And if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like it; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.” (Qur’an 2:23)


“This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book – wherein there is no doubt – from the Lord of the worlds. Or do they say, “He forged it”? say: “Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!” (Qur’an 10:37-38)

“Or they may say, “He forged it,” Say, “Bring you then ten suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than Allah!- If you  speak the truth!” (Qur’an 11:13)

So logically it would make sense that the challenge would go from demanding a greater quantity to a lesser quantity of Qur’an  to be produced.  The scholars who hold the opposite view that it goes from lesser quantity to greater quantity have not explained why this would  not be rather embarrassing. To think that the divine would challenge a group of humans only to have them meet a certain threshold  only to be issued yet another challenge of greater complexity just seems rather embarrassing.


The truth of the matter is that it is hard to understand which verses came in which order issuing the challenge.   The traditionalist Muslims will resort to secondary sources to resolve the matter.  The followers of the Quran Only religion really have nothing to draw upon other than logic or inference.



The second issue one with have to deal with and perhaps more serious is who would be the judge in such a contest?

Would a Muslim judge honestly say that someone made something like the Qur’an?  What would happen to both the Qur’an -the foundation of Islam if a Muslim judge were to admit that someone was able to do just that?  Such an admission would be the downfall of our faith.  Thus, even for me I find it very difficult to believe that any Muslim judge would be fair and partial on the matter.

Would a Non-Muslim judge be fair and partial on the issue of rather or not someone made something like the Qur’an?   Let us say that some non-Muslim orientalist (that are respected in the Muslim community) said ”Yes indeed, someone has made something like the Qur’an”.)  What real weight would such a person carry in the Muslim community?  Wouldn’t he/she simply be dismissed as the opinions of a biased orientalist, no matter how well their intentions were?


The Qur’an itself does not really give any criteria on what one would have to do in order to meet such a challenge.   For example, if I said that Jesse Owens was able to jump 6 meters and all you had to do was have your champion to jump exactly 6 meters or more to meet my challenge than this is very clear. So what happens in the case of the Qur’an is that the criteria to make something like the Qur’an would be left up to Muslim theologians; and they themselves may differ on the essentials needed to make such a list.

This gets even more problematic when we consider the following two points.

point a)

Accordingly to the Muslim traditionalist when the Qur’an was being compiled they needed testimony from other people to confirm that what they had was indeed the Qur’an.  This is extremely odd in light of the challenge of the Qur’an to produce something like it.  Wouldn’t the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw), and those who were most intimate with the Qur’an be able to recognize what is and what is not Qur’an simply based upon the contents?

Umar said: Who ever received anything regarding the Quran from the Prophet (peace be upon him) then let him bring it. And they used to write it on the manuscripts and boards and date palmed stalks. He said that nothing would be accepted from anyone until two witnesses testify to it. “And this points out that Zayd was not satisfied with only finding it written down until someone testified that he heard it, even though Zayd himself had memorized it, and they used to take this extra precaution in order to be more cautious.And Abu Dawud contained a narration on the authority of Hisham bin Arwa that his father said that Abu Bakr said to Umar and Zayd: Sit down on the door of the Mosque and whoever of two witnesses come to you regarding the Quran then write it down’. The men of this narration are trustworthy despite the chain being brokenand the intended meaning regarding two witnesses was memorization and writing, or it meant that they both testify that what was written down was actually written down under the authority of the Messenger peace be upon him, or it meant that they both testify that it was sent down as Quranic revelation.And it was their way that nothing was written down except that they receive what was written down during the time of the Prophet peace be upon him and not just from memorization. (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Fadaa’il Al Qur’aan, Bab: Jami’ Al Qur’aan, Commentary on Hadith no. 4603,)


I would like to call the attention of the reader to the line above “or it meant that they both testify that it was sent down as Qur’anic revelation.”   So are we to understand that if someone brought 10 surahs or even one surah alone as an individual without anyone else testifying to it, or any recorded revelation that it would not be known rather or not that it was indeed revelation?

That these people themselves would not be able to identify something as the Qur’an simply based upon its eloquence and all other features that make it inimitable is truly a bit troubling. Surely this is cause for reflection.


point b)

Secondly we are told that the Blessed Messenger (saw) had a lapse in which he thought something was the Qur’an but it was not. The incident of the so called ‘Satanic verses‘.

The following information comes from Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad.

You can find the information here:

Here is the section that really stand out in the above link

7. Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari, 1959 ed. vol. 8:

[p. 439] All the paths of this hadith are either weak or cut off, except for that of Sa`id ibn Jubayr… However, the profusion of the chains show that the story has a basis, furthermore, there are two other “mursal” chains whose narrators are those of Bukhari and Muslim. The first one is that narrated by al-Tabari through Yunus ibn Yazid from Ibn Shihab [al-Zuhri]: “Abu Bakr ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham narrated to me,” etc. The second is what al-Tabari also narrated through al-Mu`tamir ibn Sulayman and Hammad ibn Salama from Dawud ibn Abi Hind from Abu al-`Aliya…. Contrary to what Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi and al-Qadi `Iyad have claimed whereby the story has no basis at all…. When the paths of a hadith are many and distinct, it shows that the report has a basis.… So, as I said, there are three sound but ‘mursal’ chains for it, among them what meets the criteria of the two Sahihs but for the fact that they are ‘mursal’. These constitute proof for both those that accept ‘mursal’ reports as proofs and those that do not, due to the mutual strengthening of the chains.

This said, it is required to interpret the incident and address what appears to be reprehensible, namely the statement “the devil interjected upon the Prophet’s tongue – Allâh bless and greet him – the words ‘Those are the elevated cranes: truly their intercession is dearly hoped.'” Such a thing is precluded from being accepted in literal terms for it is impossible for the Prophet – Allâh bless and greet him – to add something to the Qur’ân that does not belong to it whether deliberately (`amdan) or erroneously (sahwan). ..”

It is interesting and yet unfortunate that someone of the caliber of Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani (may Allah have mercy on him) found that the story had a basis.  However, equally unfortunate is the tendency among the Shi’a and many Sunni Muslims (especially among the various rival Sufi paths) to explain away any event that would otherwise be embarrassing to their doctrine.  In this case the idea that Satan’s words could be interpolated upon the tongue of the Blessed Messenger (saw) would do allot to bring down the lofty and untouchable status of the many Sufi Shaykhs that revel in being surrounded by sycophants.

Though I have digressed from the topic at hand, a couple of interesting points about  Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad in the above article.

His subtle endorsement of a Salafi publication. Namely the following:

– Al-Gharaniq: Qissatun Dakhilatun `ala al-Sirati al-Nabawiyya (“The Cranes: A Story Interpolated into the Prophetic Sira”) by Albani’s student Salih Ahmad al-Shami, 1st ed. 1998.

This shows to me a number of things about Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad as a person and student/teacher of knowledge.

a) As a Sufi devotee he was not comfortable with the story about Satan interjecting words into the mouth/heart/mind of the Blessed Messenger (saw).  It obviously troubled him which is a good sign for you small fries (like me) reading this.  If someone of the stature of Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad can be troubled in his heart over such traditional sources of information than do not for one moment feel awful because you second guess traditional conclusions. Hence his reliance upon Salafi sources. 

b) So uncomfortable was Shaykh Gibril over traditional sources he did the exact same thing that I do here at Prima-Qur’an.  That is, to see how different Muslims groups would try and tackle a difficult a subject.   After all Allah (swt) gives knowledge and wisdom to whom he pleases.  It seems that the respected Shaykh Gibril understands this well.

c) Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad is over all an excellent and objective researcher.  He is willing to endorse arguments and presentations that are well thought out and researched; even if they go against the scholastic tradition that he holds to.  This means to me he is a person of immense character.

Any way let me continue on with the entry.

In the above article the following realization should be upon those who uphold the hadith above or along side the Qur’an.

That if even Satan himself can craft up some words and slip them in upon the tongue of a Messenger of Allah (swt) without the Messenger of Allah (swt) realizing it than this challenge to make something like the Qur’an would seem to be without any judges that could be fair and partial.

This whole incident (if we are to believe it) leads us to believe that ultimately only Allah (swt) can know what constitutes his verses and what do not. This is not a feat achievable by human beings.

On another note let me bring forth a verse from the Qur’an that absolutely shatters the idea that the Blessed Messenger (saw) could be under the control of or vexed by Satan.

“And Satan will say when the matter is decided: “It was Allah Who gave you a promise of Truth: I too promised, but I failed in my promise to you. I had no power over you except to call you but you listened to me: then reproach not me, but reproach your own souls. I cannot listen to your cries, nor can you listen to mine. I reject your former act in associating me with Allah. For wrong-doers there must be a grievous penalty.” (Qur’an 14:22)



Lastly we do not have all the ahruf of the Qur’an.

I would point the reader to the following article: (Salafi/Deobandi) in Orientation.


There is not a shaykh or scholar in all of Islam there is not a single orientalist that can give to us the 7 ahruf.  Nor can they tell us what constitutes the contents of these 7 ahruf.

This is important for the Para-Qur’an Muslims who hold ahadith and other extraneous sources along side and even above the Qur’an in weight and authority.

Why is it important?

 In order to meet the challenge of the Qur’an it would be fair to know what one was up against.  

The challenge does not state to make something like the Qur’an in ahruf or 3 or 7.   Now of course the Para-Qur’an Muslims could say, they just have to make something like the Qur’an, in the hafs recitation.  That is sufficient.  Yet, the problem with this is that the verses that contain the challenge say nothing of the kind!

However, that is not the point. The point is that if you want to hold to traditions that state we have 7 versions of the Qur’an than in order for someone to meet the challenge of making something like the Qur’an it would only be fair to have all the available Qur’an in the various transmissions to assess and analyze the grammatical structure, syntax, idioms, etc. and so forth.

“to assess and analyze the grammatical structure, syntax, idioms, etc. and so forth.” Which is problematic. No one has laid down the criteria of what the challenge would entail. 

In Summary:

We do not know what the challenge would entail. 

Scholars are not unified if the challenge is to make something greater going to lesser quantity or lesser than greater quantity. Logic dictates the first option. 

We do not know who would be the unbiased judges or panelist that would decide if the criteria would be met. On the one hand it allows for bravado and chest thumping on behalf of those who simply claim, ‘You don’t know the Arabic’.  So it is a win for Muslims. 

On the other hand it does little to convince non Muslims. I have personally yet to meet a single Muslim convert that was convinced by this argumentation.

Alas, there are millions of Arab Christians in places like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq etc. They hear the Qur’an in shopping malls, in taxi’s recited methodically from the Masjids through out their lives. How many of them have converted to Islam based upon this challenge? 


In the end putting one’s trust in the ahadith literature as a source equal in authority and weight to divine revelation will only put Muslims in situations that are frankly untenable.

When presenting the case for the Qur’an, often, we as Muslims shift the discussion away from the Qur’an into a discussion about the case for Islam. To me that might be the best approach.  Allah (swt) knows best and the help of Allah (swt) is sought. 


Filed under Uncategorized