“And why do you not spend in the cause of Allah while to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth? Not equal among you are those who spent before the conquest [of Makkah] and fought [and those who did so after it]. Those are greater in degree than they who spent afterward and fought. But to all Allah has promised reward (l-husna). And Allah, with what you do, is Acquainted.” (Qur’an 57:10)
“Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] – other than the disabled – and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised reward (l-husna). But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a greater reward (ajran aziman).” (Qur’an 49:5)
First neither of these verses are speaking about paradise or promising anyone paradise. Someone will need to show where in the Arabic text it says this.
This is the issue of comparison. Not the issue that all of them will go to paradise.
Those who came after benefited from those who proceeded them. Put it like this. A scholar alive whom starts teaching in 2023 versus a scholar from the 1800s. That scholar from the 1800s has proceeded the scholar in 2023 because that scholar from the 1800s his knowledge continues to benefit people until today, including the scholar who started teaching in 2023.
Allah (swt) differentiates those who do jihad and those who remain at home. Allah (swt) differentiates between those who spend and fought before and those who came latter.
Also if you juxtapose the two verses together look at it closely.
The statement: “with a greater reward (ajran aziman)” cannot mean paradise/heaven. Firstly because the Arabic text does not say so. and secondly because it would exclude from paradise those from the statement: “But to all Allah has promised reward (l-husna)” Because the verse in 49:5 indicates that ajran aziman is distinct from l-husna.
The only way for Sunni’s to solve this is for them to now use strained interpretative devices to suggest that husna means heaven and ajran aziman means seeing Allah, or that husna means heaven and ajran aziman means greater heaven.
The Qur’an speaks in generality. It speaks in terms of generality. When it speaks of the companions as we seen above it speaks in terms of generality.
Contrast those verses above where no mention of paradise is in the Arabic text with a text that has explicit mention.
“And their Lord responded to them, “Never will I allow to be lost the work of [any] worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another. So those who emigrated and were evicted from their homes and were harmed in My cause and fought and were killed – I will surely remove from them their misdeeds, and I will surely admit them to gardens (jannatin) beneath which rivers flow as reward from Allah , and Allah has with Him the best reward.” (Qur’an 3:195)
Also keep in mind based upon the verses in the Qur’an we know that people who die as a shaheed in the path of Allah (swt) will be in paradise. This is also our good opinion and outward perception. However, only Allah (swt) really knows what is in the heart of people.
“It has been narrated on the authority of Sulaiman b. Yasar who said:
People dispersed from around Abu Huraira, and Natil, who was from the Syrians. said to him: O Shaykh, relate (to us) a tradition you have heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Yes. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: The first of men (whose case) will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be a man who died as a martyr. He shall be brought (before the Judgment Seat). Allah will make him recount His blessings (i. e. the blessings which He had bestowed upon him) and he will recount them (and admit having enjoyed them in his life). (Then) will Allah say: What did you do (to requite these blessings)? He will say: I fought for Thee until I died as a martyr. Allah will say: You have told a lie. You fought that you might be called a” brave warrior”. And you were called so. (Then) orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face downward and cast into Hell.”
In principles of interpreting the Qur’an are two fold.
When a text is general and another is specific the specific is regarded as stronger as evidence.
. A clear text is preferable to an interpretation of the text.
An example:
Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
” In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of brahim; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage therefore it is a duty mankind (nas) owe to Allah,- those who are able to perform the journey; but if any deny faith, Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures.” (Qur’an 3:97)
men(nas) includes children, women, slaves, the mentally challenged and all included. It is general. Yet is through the sacred prophetic tradition that we know that children must not go to hajj alone. Women unless they have a mahrim. The mentally challenged are not obligated. All of them are not obligated even though they are nas(people, mankind).
Nass includes children, women, slaves, insane all are included in the word nass (people). When it comes to hadith some are lifted from the obligation. children must not go to hajj. Children unless they have mahrim.
For example the companion/sabaha that Allah (swt) called a fasiq.
“O you who believe! If a Fasiq (liar- evil person) comes to you with any news, verify it, lest you should harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful for what you have done” (Qur’an 49:6)
“And as for those who are Fasiqun (disbelievers and disobedient to Allah), their abode will be the Fire, every time they wish to get away therefrom, they will be put back thereto, and it will be said to them: “Taste you the torment of the Fire which you used to deny.” (Qur’an 32:20)
I said to ‘Ammar: What is your opinion about that which you have done in case (of your siding with Hadrat ‘Ali)? Is it your personal opinion or something you got from Allah’s Messenger (saw)? ‘Ammar said: We have got nothing from Allah’s Messenger (saw) which people at large did not get, but Hudhaifa told me that Allah’s Apostle (saw) had especially told him amongst his Companion, that there would be twelve hypocrites out of whom eight would not get into Paradise, until a camel would be able to pass through the needle hole. The ulcer would be itself sufficient (to kill) eight. So far as four are concerned, I do not remember what Shu’ba said about them.”
The Prophet (saw) said, “Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, ‘My companions!’ Then it will be said, ‘You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you.”
Allah does not cause the loss of anyone who does good.
“Be patient in hard times.(Oh Muhammed) Allah does not fail to repay those who do good.” (Qur’an 11:115)
“So whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, And whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it.” (Qur’an 99:7-8)
If Umar Ibn Al Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him) understood the verses of 57:10 and 49:5 in the way contemporary Sunni Muslims strenuously interpret them then Umar(r.a) would not go to Hudhayfah ibn Yaman (r.a) and ask if he was a hypocrite.
Now someone will reply: “This is a sign of his sincerity.”
Yes that is true, but it is a sign of nifaq to doubt a promise of Allah (swt)!
Rather Umar Ibn Al Khattab (r.a) did this because he was not certain of his place in paradise and he had sincerity and true fear of Allah (swt).
As the following verse reminds us:
“Did they feel secure against Allah’s planning? None would feel secure from Allah’s planning except the losers.” (Qur’an 7:99)
This is an issue of creed (aqidah) for Sunni Muslims but it is not for our school, Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqamah.
The Sunni Muslims state in Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah.
“We love the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. We do not exaggerate in our love for any of them, nor do we disown any of them. We hate those who hate them or who mention them without good, for we do not mention them except with good. Love for them is a part of religion, faith, and spiritual excellence, and hatred for them is unbelief, hypocrisy, and transgression.”
This is the Sunni statement of creed in regards to the companions.
We respond to this with the angels du’a in the Qur’an:
“Those (angels) who bear the Throne and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, and believe in Him, and ask forgiveness for those who believe (saying): ‘Our Lord! You comprehend all things in mercy and knowledge, so forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and save them from the torment of the blazing Fire! Our Lord! And make them enter the Paradise which you have promised them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their offspring! Verily, You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. And save them from the sins, and whomsoever You save from the sins that Day, him verily, You have taken into mercy.” And that is the supreme success.’” (Qur’an 40: 7-9)
The beauty of this du’a is that it says: ‘for those who believe’ and ‘those who repent and follow Your Way’. So than if Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muaviya, Yazid or anyone else are among those people than the du’a lands on them. And if Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muaviya, Yazid or anyone else are not among them than the du’a misses them.
The point being that is the purview of Allah (swt).
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah and do not be divided. Remember Allah’s favour upon you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts, so you—by His grace—became brothers. And you were at the brink of a fiery pit and He saved you from it. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so that you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.” (Qur’an 3:103)
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.” (Qur’an 4:93)
So let us be very clear from the very beginning.
Should the Taliban/Afghanistan and Iran start to have a major war and kill each other their armies should heed what Allah (swt) says:
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.” (Qur’an 4:93)
“Oh Mash’Allah! The Taliban are killing those Shi’a Kafirs and our soldiers who die are martyrs!”
No, it is likely that they will be in hell burning without end.
“Oh Mash’Allah! The Iranian Artesh are killing those Bakri Dogs, and Sunni scum our soldiers who die they are martyr!” No, it is likely that they will be in hell burning without end.
You think my statements are harsh?
It is a verse from the Qur’an. It is not me stating this. Taking the life of believing Muslim without right is a very severe matter.
Also read on…
There is nothing heroic on either end. Just a very sad and dismal end for both.
Just making more mothers widows, more children fatherless, taking more eligible marriageable men from the population that women can marry and have children who worship Allah (swt), follow the Sunnah and strive to make Islam supreme on the Earth.
Maybe now it all makes sense why the U.S government left 7 billion worth of military equipment behind in Afghanistan on “accident”
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.” (Qur’an 4:93)
All the Iranian soldier or Afghani soldiers has to do is to refuse to comply with orders.
However, unfortunately they both have a very easy way of dealing with the above verse Qur’an 4:93 each views the other as kafir to begin with so they have no qualms about killing the other.
So keep that in mind when you think my statements are harsh. Remember it is what Allah (swt) said and not what I said. The only way around it is to make takfir upon the other party. Many misguided scholars both sides certainly wouldn’t have a problem with that.
“Indeed, there is no light at all for the person whom Allâh gives no light.” (Qur’an 24:40)
Disputes over water between Iran and Afghanistan date to the 1870s when Afghanistan was under the British Imperium. A British Imperial Officer drew the Iran-Afghan border along the main branch of the Helmand River. In 1939, the Iranian government of Reza Shah Pahlavi and Muhammed Zahir Shah’s Afghanistan government signed a treaty on sharing the river’s waters, but the Afghans failed to ratify it.
The 44.2-meter (145 feet) Arghandab Dam, 18 miles northeast of Kandahar, was completed in 1952 with a storage capacity of 388,000 acre-feet of water. A few months later, in April 1953, the Kajaki Dam, seventy two miles upstream from Lashkar Gah, was also finished. It created the most important water reservoir in Afghanistan and was built with the objective of providing electricity, water for irrigation, and flood control.
The Helmand is the longest river in Afghanistan, constituting over 40 percent of Afghanistan’s surface water.
Iran made a huge scientific blunder by introduction of a foreign species of fish into the lakes by Iranian fishery companies. That particular fish ravished the reeds of the wetlands. Reeds are very crucial to the habitat of wetlands.
The situation was further aggravated when the Taliban government of Afghanistan blocked the Kajaki Dam and choked off water to Iran from 1998-2001, a period that also included one of the region’s worst droughts.
Dust storms from the dried Hamoun lakes are considered among the worst in Southwest Asia and have caused a serious public health crisis in Iran. The region’s economy has also been gravely impacted, as thousands of villagers left their homes and moved to cities to have a better chance of survival. The deteriorating economic situation, unemployment, and the loss of income from agriculture in both countries has led to more drug trafficking in the Hamoun region, with all the attendant ill effects on Afghan and Iranian societies.
A total of eight million hectares of Afghanistan’s land is fertile, but only two million are cultivated.
Additionally, due to chronic droughts, land fertility has dropped by 30 percent compared to the 1970s
It seems that former president and U.S Viceroy President Muhammed Ashraf Ghani quickened the pace to build dams throughout Afghanistan knowing that this may well quicken the pace to conflict with Iran.
Rather this was to ensure that the U.S would come to Afghanistan’s aid against Iran under his viceregency or set up future conflict between the Taliban and Iran it seems like a win-win situation for Western policy makers.
Drought is increasingly driving farmers in Afghanistan to switch to poppy cultivation, which requires much less water than other crops and is also more lucrative. For many years, Afghanistan has been the world’s largest opium producer, and Iran has been the main transit route for Afghan opium to Central Asia and Europe. This problem has aggravated Iran’s number one social problem, opiate addiction
Unfortunately there are those on both sides (Iran and Afghanistan) that may press for conflict for various reasons.
As mentioned in a previous article Iran is in a bad way. You can read that here:
Iran may want a war in order to divert away from it’s own internal problems. However, what would that mean? A war with Afghanistan? Do they capture territory?
Capturing territory and holding it can be difficult as Ukraine, Russia, and the United States have all recently learned. Are there think tanks in Iran who think that the best thing they could do is expand eastward and become neighbors with India and China?
What about from the Taliban’s perspective? What would war with Iran mean? Do they capture territories, cities? Is this something that gets ugly?
Keep in mind that Afghanistan really does not have an Airforce. It did repel the Russian Airforce and stinger missiles played a huge roll in this. Alas, it is likely that Iran would practice strafing against Afghan heavy units on the ground.
We are looking at possibly more refugees from Afghanistan pouring into Pakistan, or Afghan unrest in Iran.
Than, just as the honourable Sultan of Oman was reconciling Iran to Bahrain and Iran to Egypt we see strife development between Iran and Afghanistan. Hmm
An open conflict between Afghanistan and Iran would bring more Sunni vs Shi’a strife. Already I have seen the children posing as adults (and yes some actually children) starting in with the insults and digs on social media. It goes something like this.
Pakistanis attacking Afghanis for being ungrateful. Shi’as saying it’s time to bring an end to these Bakri dogs, the Taliban. Deobandis and Salafi’s and other Sunnis saying its time Iran became Sunni and the Taliban will see to it. End the Shi’a kafir etc. You know the same old tired drivel.
Of course these short sighted individuals (both sides) will cheer on the bloodshed from the comfort of their living rooms. If they really cared about the sanctity of human life and coming to real resolution.
. The fact that Afghanistan is landlocked country, with no access to ocean ports. Afghanistan is a nation that has experienced now over 40 plus years of war. Iran has crushing economic sanctions against it.
If there are so called Muslims (involved in kufr niama) who are willing to sell opium to fellow Muslims (involved in kufr naima) what does that tell you about the depraved state of some people in the region? Or how desperate they have become?
Instead of using this time to inflame and incite Sunni-Shi’a strife why not spend even an hour a day online researching various means and ways to solve the issue? What we could do instead is looking into issues of irrigation, crops that survive in arid regions. How to better manage water. Why not create water reservoirs? Sure it is not a frugal project. Yet, you have to wonder how much does war cost? Not just in terms of money but the impact it has on the human psyche and on the soul?
In times of flooding and excess water this can be channeled to the water reservoirs. In times of little water, the caches can be used.
Islam teaches us to use our minds that Allah (swt) gave us. There is allot more to this ummah than lobbing hateful remarks at each other online. None of that is appealing to people who are considering Islam as their way of life.
Insh’Allah perhaps Iran and Afghanistan want to look into cloud seeding:
If a solution comes up and there is a counter proposal due to environmental impact etc. let us not lose heart.
Why not start a petition online urging the Afghan and Iran governments to stay their hands and not shed the blood of Muslims and use their combined talents and expertise to solve the matter.
If both sides truly fear Allah (swt) He will make a way out for them as he has promised.
“And whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make a way for him to get out (from every difficulty). And He will provide for him from sources he never could imagine. And whosoever puts his trust in Allah, then He will suffice him. Verily, Allah will accomplish His purpose. Indeed Allah has set a measure for all things.” (Qur’an 65:2-3)
Do not endanger your eternal after life by needlessly taking the life of a believer!
“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah and do not be divided. Remember Allah’s favour upon you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts, so you—by His grace—became brothers. And you were at the brink of a fiery pit and He saved you from it. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so that you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.” (Qur’an 3:103)
“So set thy face to the way of life that is upright and in harmony with nature, the pattern which He originated mankind. There is no changing Allah’s creation. That is the upright way of life; but most men know it not.” (Qur’an 30:30)
So the responses started to pour in from all over social media to the document: Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam
The attacks ranged from a former disgruntled employee of Yaqeen institute to leftist who have capitulated to the Satanic mantra of “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” The latter is a quote straight from the Satanic Bible.
As regards the people who do not feel the document went far enough they are not entirely clear on what they want. So what are Muslims who live in a secular democracy supposed to do with persons who identify under the LGBTQI+ banner? Are they supposed to imprison them? Are they suppose to physically assault them?
I mean signatories of that document have constantly pushed back against the LGBTQI+ agenda. They have also made it clear that Islam is ‘The’ path to salvation. Not ‘one’ path to salvation. One of the signatories, Dr. Shadee El Masry had a debate recently defending the fact that Islam is ‘The’ path to salvation.
Many of the signatories have made it clear that Islam, a loving and responsive surrender to Allah (swt) and obeying his commands and prohibitions is the only way forward for any of us that sin. Anyone of us.
As far as Daniel Haqiqatjou you can see a brother on Twitter post what Daniel has said about the LGBTQI+ and if you want to condemn the signatories what Daniel wrote seems like a love letter to their community. You can read it here: https://twitter.com/elerrantenomad/status/1661720757603561472
Daniel has made zero attempt any time someone has posted that screen shot under his timeline.
Not good brother Paul. Yes, I do love that you allow different view points. That is certainly a highlight. Yet the differences need to be done in decorum. Daniel has made a recent screed against smiling of all things! Hopefully Paul you will advise him against in the near future insh’Allah.
So back to the point. What do those who think the document “did not go far enough” want those scholars and teachers to do?
On the other side were those who endorse the Satanic ethos of “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
However, they get upset when others follow these exact same Satanic ethos. If you want to do what ever you want to do why can’t others do what ever they want to do? What ever happened to ‘You do you’?
These so called progressive “Muslims” who are nominal “Muslims” if they even attempted to engage in a formatted debate on rather or not LGBTQI+ relationships or marriages between the same sex is permissible in the Qur’an and Sunnah have about as much chance as a snake in a typewriter contest. They stand about as much chance as a moth in a candle stick factory. It is over before it even begins.
Some of them were upset that the signatories have not addressed climate issues, universal healthcare, BLM among other issues. Well, they have.
I am upset that the side that sees themselves as progressive liberals have not come together and condemned the DNC (Democrat National Convention) for their treatment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Marianne Williamson.
Btw Marianne Williamson has a platform of giving 500 billion dollars to the African American community. That is more than the GDP of anyone single African nation with the exception of perhaps Egypt! You think that might get the attention of Black Lives Matter and the progressive types?
Where is there joint statement from these progressive left “Muslim” leaders calling on the DNC to allow debates with Joe Biden?
These people are upset that these signatories to the document don’t talk about the rising ocean waters on the daily. Yet, we haven’t heard them say anything about Al Gore’s very plush very comfortable Ocean Front Property.
“In a move that critics may cite as his own inconvenient truth, former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a house in secluded Montecito, Calif., to their real estate holdings.
The couple spent $8,875,000 on a gated ocean-view villa on 1 1/2 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, according to real estate sources familiar with the deal. The Italian-style house has high ceilings with beams in the public rooms, a family room, a wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms in more than 6,500 square feet of living space.”
It’s as if those waters may not be rising any time soon after all.
Not only this but there is real differences among the LGBTQI+ community concerning the targeted sexualization of children.
There are the “Gays Against Groomers’ which are a group of adults whose platform is basically: “Look in the push to get LGBT acceptance we are sexualizing’s children!” These gays have been targeted and canceled as well by other gays!
I mean all of these transsexuals whom dress and dance in front of small children proactively seem to be doing their own community a huge disservice. Why do self identified trans people like to be type cast? Where are the Trans Astronauts? Trans Math professors? Trans It Technicians? Why is it always the heavy make up, scantly clad types that get access to the children? These are questions that need to be answered.
There is real debate and conversations that needs to be had. How does one transition? Transition in English has the following meaning:
“The process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another.”
How does one go from A to B when neither A or B is something that can be defined by the same group. (leftist) It’s fluid. Transition is the wrong terminology and they have bad PR representatives. The terminology should be ‘Self Identity’ Surgery etc.
If gender is fluid what about race? Ethnicity? If that is the case than allow me to present to you one of the greatest African American actors of all time, Martin Sheen.
After all doesn’t Martin Sheen tell us that one can be conditioned to believe certain things?
Children are very impressionable. Bombarded enough via TikTok, movies, cartoons, and other forms of multi-media, looking for belonging and identity in the world they can be convinced if not outright pressured to make rash decisions.
What do when we are at an impasse?
If you are a biological man but you feel that you are truly a woman and I insist on calling you sir, and refer to you as ‘He’ I will be seen as hateful, a bigot, transphobic etc.
However, for me if I call you a woman I feel I am portraying logic, empirical data, and most importantly my faith. I feel that a worldview is being forced upon me and that I am being gas lighted if I do not capitulate to that worldview.
My compromise in this situation is to just do what is very natural when I meet any other human being on this planet. What is your name?
I do not need to know your sexual orientation, your gender, your ethnicity, or even your religion or lack there of to simply greet you and say, ‘Hello Linda’ ‘Hello David’.
Let’s be honest. How many of us when we meet a person say, “Hi I’m David and I’ m White” or “Hi I’m White David?” “Hello everyone I’m Lesbian Linda.” It is really just bizarre.
Think bout when you go for a job interview and the HR ask you: “So tell us a little about yourself.”
Do you respond with: “Yeah, Hi, I am David, I’m White and I prefer the missionary position. I think people who eat animals are heartless and cruel.”
Really?
May Allah (swt) continue to guide us on the straight path and continue to guide us on a course that is just.
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, With the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, The Most Merciful.
“Oh my Lord advance me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
As salamu ‘alikum warahmutallahi wabarakuth (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings descend upon you in tranquility).
Going forward we will be posting this every Friday. These classes are on various topics by various authors. I will make it easy for you to find as I will be posting this at the top of Prima Qur’an for ease of navigation.
Good Word – Friday Lessons in English
(Free Online Islamic Lessons for Everyone
The Topic: Reminders from Surat Yusuf Part-1
Speaker: Humaid Al-Shuaili
6th Thilqe’dah 1444 26/05/2023
Friday 9:30am-10:30am Oman Time
To join the session click the link below just before 09.30am and use the provided meeting password. If you don’t have the application installed, the link will guide you to download it first. You’ll be put in a waiting room before the host grants you access.
“We have created you from a male and a female.” (Qur’an 49:13)
The Muslim social media is abuzz over a recent public statement put forward by Muslim scholars , academics and other notables in the U.S, North American community.
The article is nothing less than a very principled defense of the Islamic position on the matter. It is very clear they are defending Islamic values. Those people who are upset with this document (among believing practicing Muslims) did not read it clearly.
“By a decree from God, sexual relations are permitted within the bounds of marriage, and marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. In the Quran, God explicitly condemns sexual relations with the same sex (see, e.g., Quran, al-Nisā’: 16, al-A‘rāf: 80–83, and al-Naml: 55–58).”
“In Islam, the sinful actions of an individual do not and should not dictate his or her identity. As such, it is impermissible for Muslims to take pride in identifying with labels that categorize them by their sins.”
Very well said. In other words there is no Gay Pride for a believer. Just as there is no ‘Liar Pride’, ‘Cheater Pride’, ‘Deceiver Pride’ ‘Adulterer Pride’ ‘Fornicator Pride’ ‘Hypocrite Pride’ for a believer.
There are those in the Muslim community who have condemned the article without even reading it. Such people are a curse for this Muslim ummah. Such people are a curse for this Muslim ummah. Such people are a curse for this ummah!
It takes 5 minutes to read. Some have said it was not harsh enough? It doesn’t need to be harsh at all! It is principled and unwavering and opens the door for forgiveness and repentance and transformation.
Rather I agree with everything they say or believe, Dr. Jonathan AC Brown, Dr. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, and Dr.Shaykh Shadee Elmasry among others, will come under tremendous scrutiny and attack. Indeed it is happening right now. May Allah (swt) grant them taufik.
The signatories were very careful and intelligent in the writing of the document. They are all protected under the U.S constitution.
Amendment I
(ratified December 15, 1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The only thing that any practicing Muslim could find fault with and that is if you went over the document with a magnifying glass could possibly be the following paragraph:
“As such, as a general rule, Islam strictly prohibits medical procedures intended to change the sex of healthy individuals, regardless of whether such procedures are termed gender “affirming” or “confirming.” For individuals born with biological ambiguities, such as disorders of sexual development, Islam permits them to seek medical care for corrective reasons.”
However, anyone who wants to attack this clause would have to than give the legal verdict based upon the Qur’an, and Sunnah to give the concrete solution for those born under such circumstances.
Also you will note that I say practicing Muslims as in all fairness and truthfulness those are the only Muslims there are. Muslim means one who submits/surrenders. So this is a recognition that there are cultural Muslims or we may say ‘nominal Muslims’. That is to say those who do not submit or surrender.
Allah (swt) in the Qur’an called Iblis (who was a Muslim) a kafir the moment Iblis disobeyed his amr (command).
So what ever grievance anyone may have with the signatories or their organizations this ain’t it boss.
As regards those Muslims who are suggesting that all Muslims just leave the United States and other such countries.
#1) You lead the way. I hope that anyone who suggest this is not someone who current lives in a country where Muslims are the minority. That would be pure nifaq (hypocrisy).
#2) Those scholars, teachers and other Muslims who live in Muslim minority countries are often natives of that country. To move to another location is not as easy as one would think.
#3) Those scholars, teachers and other Muslims who live in Muslim minority countries are also people who are fulfilling the commands of Allah (swt) in the Qur’an:
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
Anyone who has lived in the United States for example knows it is a deeply deeply troubled society. There are beautiful human beings in that nation with huge hearts. Very sincere and noble people, may Allah guide them.
Yet the sickness, chaos, utter contempt for the elderly, the young being filmed fist fighting each other and spread all over the internet for clicks and likes. The social injustice. The economic injustice. The promiscuity, the hedonistic society and drug and alcohol dependencies. The narcissism.
Could write an entire blog…an entire website dedicated to all the evils that best that nation from all sides. I believe anyone striving to deliver the haqq (truth) to the people are to be deeply respected.
This takes back bone to do what they did. They took a stand and I stand with them!
If any of our brothers from our school (Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama) read this , than do support them. Make du’a for them at the very least.
With Allah (swt) is success.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
Articles I have written on the subject are as follows:
“Oh mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the one who who has the most fear of Allah and by it attains righteousness. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” (Qur’an 49:13)
Something I have come to the conclusion to after taking off my rose coloured glasses.
That is that multi-culturalism is successful only in that the dominant culture of that particular multi-cultural society does not come under threat.
I remember reading the book: “Reflections of an American Muslim” by Dr. Shahid Athar. In the book he likened the United States to a salad bowl rather than a melting pot. In a salad bowl all the ingredients are encouraged to preserve their original states and flavour.
Often in the melting pot, the process is controlled. Who or want is being added to the pot and what is the shape the smelter is molding?
Often the very people who push for multi-culturalism are the same people who will use terminology like “cultural appropriation”. In a society where there are multi-cultures co-existing someone some where is bound to dress in accordance with a different culture. Alas, this term “cultural appropriation” is often used by cancel culture advocates to create more strife in multi-cultural societies. Ironic!
I began to research and reflect about various scenarios in human history in which one dominant culture was supplanted by another. I have not come across a single scenario in which this happens naturally, or peacefully.
I think about the Aboriginal people of Australia, the multifarious native and indigenous peoples of North America. Many of whom were violently subjugated, expelled, and exterminated altogether.
So multi-culturalism works in as long as the dominant culture (either religious, tribal, ethnic) can co-exist and accommodate other cultural expressions as long as the dominant culture does not come under threat.
Now it is also important in any multi-cultural society that the less dominant cultural expressions be given some form of expression in the society.
Multi-cultural societies often take work because the task is to allow all the various expressions of the different cultures to maximize their expressions in away that does not jeopardies, offend or threaten the other co-existing cultures. This could be even the subjugation of various language expressions.
For example the Welsh Not in the United Kingdom. There are several books in English on the subject of the Welsh Not and how it undermined the Welsh language.
In the example of Singapore I have many Chinese Singaporean friends who lament the fact they cannot communicate with dying grandparents. Other Chinese languages such as Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, Teochew and Hainanese were suppressed in order to solidify Mandarin as one of the lingua franca of Singapore. Truth be told though, Singapore today is for the most part an English speaking nation through and through.
We also have the example of High German being favoured in public schools in Germany over Low German, Fresian etc.
Certainly I feel the loss of a language is a great loss to humanity. Although I can understand why the dominant culture in “multi-cultural” societies want to impose lingua-franca. Hindu for India, Urdu for Pakistan, Bahasa for Indonesia and Tagalog for the Philippines. Speaking the same language can bring cohesion and uniformity.
Yet, now many western societies are struggle with identifying who or what actually is a man or a woman. Struggling with gender pronouns where there need not be such a struggle. The same societies that often demanded uniformity in language now want the very words male and female to be open for debate.
Strange times we live in dear truth seekers.
THERE IS NO OMNI CULTURAL SOCIETY PERIOD!
This is very important to keep in mind. When Muslims debate with liberals, or people who seeming endorse multi dimensional, multi cultural societies gently remind them that there is not a single place on this planet or has there ever been a place which was omni-cultural.
An Omni-Cultural society is theoretical because it cannot exist in reality. That is all expressions are equally valued and equally expressed.
Living in a world with no down syndrome?
For example imagine Lady Gaga or America’s vicegerent Lady Queen Rania on a podium at the United Nations proudly announcing that we will eliminate down syndrome once and for all.
The Qur’an promotes many tribal/racial, phenotypes living together, or in peace distinctively.
“Oh mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.” (Qur’an 49:13)
Although the Qur’an does not prevent people from one phenotype or the other to marry each other. Likewise the Qur’an does not prevent people from one phenotype wanting to actively preserve their distinct tribal, cultural, racial distinctiveness.
So if there is a segment of white people or black people or hutu or tutsi or wolof or pashtuns that only want their people to marry those of a similar racial, cultural or phenotype that is their prerogative.
I remember a shocking discussion I had with a native of Bahrain when I visited that amazing country. He objected to the idea of Caucasian/White converts marrying Asians and/or others. He said than the whites would die out. They(the Arabs) would not have a pool of Caucasian women to choose from in the future. How bizarre!
A country of conscientious objectors in a time of war?
So what do multi-cultural societies do with a culture of conscientious objectors in times of war?
Well in some cases like the Quakers (A Protestant Christian sect in the United States) they are exempted from fighting altogether. When most people think about the Vietnam war they think about the United States. They do not think about the more than 60,000 Australians that served in the Vietnam war. The following link shares the story of the first Vietnam War conscientious objector to be jailed.
What were to happen if a society was facing extinction and the a good portion of that multi cultural society (let’s say 40%) were conscientious objectors?
The Singapore government gave a very excellent reply to the United Nations on the matter here:
“Singapore does not recognise the universal applicability of the right to conscientious objection to military service. In our view, HRC resolution 20/2 goes beyond what is prescribed in international law and applicable human rights instruments.”
“The resolution refers to the conscientious objection to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. But Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises that the exercise of such rights and freedom is subject to limitations to meet the requirements of public order and the general welfare of society.”
“National defence is a fundamental sovereign right under international law. As a small city-state with limited manpower and resources, Singapore has no choice but to base our defence on citizen armed forces.”
“National Service is the bedrock of our defence and internal security. It underpins the peace and prosperity we enjoy, and safeguards our independence and sovereignty.”
Mash’Allah what an articulate and intelligent response!
What happens when the native population or the dominant culture is replaced by non native cultures?
We are probably seeing this on a very rapid scale in the GCC countries of the Middle East.
Nationals & Non-Nationals
UAE 11% 89% Saudi Arabia 63% and 37% Qatar 14% and 86% Oman 54% and 46% Kuwait 30% and 70% Bahrain 47% and 53%
What does this ultimately do for the native population? Of course having foreigners come and do jobs that natives are not willing to do is of course helpful. Yet, what does this do for the national identity of a population or people? This is an ongoing debate around the world, for the most part.
I remember once hearing about how Christianity was growing in the gulf countries and at first thought I was wondering if this was not more missionary propaganda. However, on second thought in a sense they are correct. But not just Christianity, Hinduism as well for that matter. Because those people who are brought to work there from the Philippines, India, and other places are people who are often Christian or Hindu.
Clothing uniformity vs non uniformity.
In Singapore in the school system all the children wear the same uniform. This is for public and private schools. In the United States in the public school system children wear their own clothes, purchased by themselves and most often their parents. Of course ironically in the United States private schools have uniforms.
I often thought that if the United States was to move to have school uniforms the first to come “to the aid” of the “oppressed children” would be the shoe brands, Nike, Adidas, Converse, Reebok etc. There would be simultaneous out crying from the retail clothing outlets. Walmart, Abercrombie & Fitch, Levi Jeans. A loss of revenue is after all a loss of revenue.
On the positive side in Singapore there is less distinction between economic class by using this model. Those whose parents can afford branded clothing for their kids and those who cannot. Often in many inner city schools the clothes you wear mark you as a member of a gang and can land you in violent confrontation. British Knights (Blood Killer) or Calvin Klein (Crypt Killer), wearing red or blue shoe laces on the right or left shoe etc.
Though Singapore can do more to engage with bullying; as we have a very distraught youth population often beset by a pressure cooker society, is not helped by going to school and dealing with bullies.
I would say Singapore in terms of having uniformity in clothing is probably a safe bet.
Yet, very often in these “multi-cultural” societies a certain look is the smart look when it comes to business attire. Surprise, surprise if that attire , the “you look smart look” is not western dominated. I guess if the Chinese wear a Cheongsam to a business meeting they lose IQ? I am not quite sure.
Kuddos to the GRCC Arabs for wearing traditional attire and not succumbing to mono-culture.
The Qur’an is not on a mission to promote religious pluralism. Who ever thinks this has lost the plot completely.
The Qur’an is only a mission that Islam will be the dominant world view. Not only religion but the supreme worldview. This does not mean that there cannot be different religious expressions under a Muslim dominated government but just as with all multi-cultural societies the dominant culture will maintain its status.
“It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the world view of Truth, to proclaim it over all world views: and enough is Allah for a Witness!” (Qur’an 48:28)
“They wish to extinguish Allah’s light with their mouths, but Allah will only allow His light to be perfected, even if the ungrateful disbelievers are compelled to be dismayed by it.” (Qur’an 9:32)
In closing the discussions and the debates are not really about being pluralistic, and inclusive, and multi-cultural.
The debates and the discussions are on how pluralistic, how inclusive, and how multi cultural can any given society afford to be?
Muslims wake up!
Do not allow those who claim they want diversity but suppress expression, that they are tolerant but shadow ban, that everyone else should mix and but the same preserve their tight knit culture to be the decision makers for the Muslims.
May Allah (swt) continue to guide us to a course that is just.
“There is no compulsion in religion, the right direction is clearly distinguished from the wrong.” (Qur’an 2:256)
“And say, “Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart.” (Qur’an 17:81)
The American vicegerent Rania al-Abdullah gave a recent speech and in that speech she made it clear what is at stake for the believers.
The speech she gave was very eloquent. There were many things in the speech that one would want to applaud. Whoever wrote the speech, her self or her speech writer did a very well.
Rania al-Abdullah gives her pitch for the Third Way which is the Only Path.
@6:55 “The Third way is the Only Path” …. which is an exclusivist statement.
So she claims the world is divided into two camps and two extremes. A world of binaries. Yet, her proposal is to give the world another binary!
A binary that is supposed to be a third way but it turns out this binary is as follows:
‘A world in which no one can be certain that their values, ethics, metaphysics are true. The only truths are those given to us by science’. Versus the opposing view that people can be certain about matters of ethics, values, metaphysics.
She states:
@ 4:05 “A path I will call the Third way. This third way is not the average of extremes; but rises above the binary elevating us to higher ground that can become common ground as well. To walk this path we must recognize that none of us is wholly right or wrong. Villain or victim. Enlightened or in the dark.”
None of us is wholly right or wrong. This is the sweet buzzing of the bee and the swift sting that follows.
You all have a place at the table just don’t believe in absolutes. Problematic for a Muslim.
“And say Allah is absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1)
ih’dinā l-ṣirāṭa l-mus’taqīm -The Straight Path
When Muslims say 17 times a day (2 in fajr, 4 in dhur, 4 in asr, 3 in maghrib and 4 in Isha)
“ih’dinā l-ṣirāṭa l-mus’taqīm” translated often as “guide us to the straight path” can also be translated as “keep us guided on the straight path”.
This is clarified further here:
“As for those who believe in Allah and hold fast to Him, He will admit them into His mercy and grace and guide them to Himself through the Straight Path.” (Qur’an 4:175)
This is important because Rania seemed to use this as Muslims were not already on the straight path.
Understand that the life of a Muslim is the prayer five times a day. The plead to keep us guided on the straight path is that between Isha and fajr keep us on the path that we already on. Between fajr and dhur keep us on the path that we already on. Between dhur and asr keep us on the path that we already on. Between asr and maghrib keep us on the path that we already on. Between maghrib and Isha keep us on the path that we already on.
“Only that we need other points of view to see a multi-dimensional picture.” -Rania.
“To walk this path means avoiding sound bites and embracing nuance. It means respecting science and research, data and detail. And when someone makes the claim that defies those things rather online or in print or behind a podium it means we refuse to dignify it with our attention.”-Rania
Who are the one’s that give us the science, the research, the data and the details? Are they free of biases? Are they themselves peer reviewed?
In the New Testament there is a verse that explicitly tells believers in Christ not to marry non believers.
It is a very powerful verse it states:
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14)
So in my own way of showing that I too am multi-dimensional I have quoted this verse from the Christian Bible to say that we as Muslims can take something from it.
For what partnership has righteousness and lawlessness? In what fellowship has light with darkness.
Rania al-Abdullah may be well intentioned. She may be speaking from a good place. But her proposed third way being the only path is problematic. There could be a fourth way or a fifth way for that matter.
I have found that often when people speak like this it is used to buttress and solidify leftist ideology and left leaning world views. Indeed the idea that none of us are wholly right is a left leaning talking point. It is not about coming from a place of humility but what kind of people look for comfort and security and do not want certainty that comes with comfort and security?
Certainty that even if I am not in a place of comfort or security, even if I am suffering from injustice I will have my share not only in this life (which is fleeting) but in the eternal here after.
The one thing I can say about Rania al-Abdullah and her husband Abdullah the 2nd is that they have done the very best they can in dealing with the refugees from Syria. So for that may Allah (swt) reward everyone in the great country of Jordan who has aided their brothers in sisters in faith and those in humanity.
Though we do not need to just talk about embracing refugees. We need to deal with why people become refugees to begin with. It is not often that people want to leave their cities, countries, farms, the familiar, their day to day to seek refuge in foreign lands. So, though it is great to see Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey take in the refugees we need to be laser focused on why this happens?
Surely, Jordan feels the economic strains of displaced people in their territory. Each country does its level best to assist those in need. Indeed Rania mentioned that we live in a world of abundance. As she hob knobs with the wealthy and the influential and the powerful she will work with them not just on delivering powerful speeches but bringing tangible concrete solutions to those who do not see that world of abundance.
Many Muslim women around the world face discrimination and oppression for choosing to loving embrace and follow what Allah (swt) has laid down in wearing the khimar, the head scarf. I long for the day in which such a woman can be given the spot light in a way that Rania is.
As regards living in a multicultural world that is something we as Muslims embraced and have embraced. As far as living in a world where we have to give up a belief in absolutes that is a leftist agenda. It is a poisoned well. It is not something that the wary traveler finds relief from thirst but that which will still the very life away.
“And they say, “The fire will most certainly not touch us for more than a limited number of days.” Say: “Have you received a promise from Allah for Allah never breaks His promise – or do you attribute to God something which you cannot know?” (Qur’an 2:80)
A recent picture published by Blogging Theology:
This reminded me of people who claim that the Ibadi school and it’s perspective on salvation is harsh.
“Oh wow I did this big sin and I don’t go to heaven.”
First. Our position is the position of Islam
Second.
The reason a person does not go to heaven is because they despaired of Allah’s mercy.
It is your disbelief in the mercy of Allah and indirect disbelief in Allah that dooms you.
Say: Oh my slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily, Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 39:53)
“Oh my sons! Go and search ˹diligently˺ for Joseph and his brother. And do not lose hope in the mercy of Allah, for no one loses hope in Allah’s mercy except the ungrateful disbelievers.” (Qur’an 12:87)
[He exclaimed]: “And who – other than those who have utterly lost their way -could ever abandon the hope of his Lord’s grace?” (Qur’an 15:56)
How do people disbelieve in the mercy of Allah (swt) and not having faith in Allah?
By refusing to repent for their sins. By refusing to reform themselves.
“They are also the ones who, when they have committed a shameful deed or wronged themselves, remember Allah and implore Him to forgive their sins – for who will forgive sins save Allah? – and do not persist knowingly in whatever they have committed.” (Qur’an 3:135)
“Rush toward forgiveness from your Lord and a Heavenly Garden as wide as the heavens and the earth, prepared for those who are mindful of Allah.” (Qur’an 3:133)
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“When the believer commits sin, a black spot appears on his heart. If he repents AND gives up that sin and seeks forgiveness, his heart will be polished. But if (the sin) increases, (the black spot) increases. That is the Ran that Allah mentions in His Book: “Nay! But on their hearts is the Ran (covering of sins and evil deeds) which they used to earn.” [83:14]
“But no! In fact, their hearts have been stained by all ˹the evil˺ they used to commit! Undoubtedly, they will be sealed off from their Lord on that Day. Moreover, they will surely burn in Hell, (Qur’an 83:14-16)
“But I am truly Most Forgiving to whoever repents, believes, and does good, then persists on true guidance.” (Qur’an 20:82)
“And whoever repents and does good has truly turned to Allah properly.” (Qur’an 25:71)
“O you who have believed, repent to Allah with sincere repentance. Perhaps your Lord will remove from you your misdeeds and admit you into gardens beneath which rivers flow on the Day when Allah will not disgrace the Prophet and those who believed with him. Their light will proceed before them and on their right; they will say, “Our Lord, perfect for us our light and forgive us. Indeed, You are over all things competent.”(Qur’an 66:8)
Most Muslims today unfortunately believe unrepentant sinners can go on living in sin and than go to heaven and that many believers will spend brief sojourn in hell before going to heaven. As regards major sins; Rape, killing children, not praying. No worries just say “There is no god but Allah” will get one into heaven.
May Allah (swt) guide us. May Allah (swt) forgive us.
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, With the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, The Most Merciful.
“Oh my Lord advance me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
As salamu ‘alikum warahmutallahi wabarakuth (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings descend upon you in tranquility).
Going forward we will be posting this every Friday. These classes are on various topics by various authors. I will make it easy for you to find as I will be posting this at the top of Prima Qur’an for ease of navigation.
Good Word – Friday Lessons in English*
(Free *Online* Islamic Lessons for *Everyone
The Topic: Magic and Demons in The Holy Qur’an*
Speaker: *Saif Al-Ruahili*
Ramadan 2, 1444 12/05/2023
Friday *9:30am-10:30am* Oman Time
To join the session click the link below just before 09.30am and use the provided meeting password. If you don’t have the application installed, the link will guide you to download it first. You’ll be put in a waiting room before the host grants you access.
“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. Butif one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
“Moreover, it is not for a believing man and it is not for a believing woman when Allah has decided and His Messenger a matter that (there) should be for them (any) choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger certainly, he (has) strayed (into) error clear.” (Qur’an 33:36)
This post is in regards to some messages that sister Roxanna Irani had send me via our conversations/exchanges through WhatsApp. I believe it all started when she had shared a post of mine from Prima-Quran. That post was the following: https://primaquran.com/2022/10/17/ismaili-shia-and-circular-reasoning/
My sincere feedback to the sister was that any time when we are in any chat group that has it’s own agenda or focus it would not be prudent for us to go into that group with any attempt to derail it. I believe I gave some off the cuff remark about a WhatsApp group created for the history of bow-ties. Imagine someone goes in there and starts talking politics. That is not what the group was intended for.
So for those from the Ibadi school reading this. If there are Facebook groups, WhatsApp, Telegram, or Discord servers created specifically for Sufism, or Shi’a or the Sunni, please do not go into those groups and bring anything that speaks against their narrative. Please do not try and derail the focus of those groups. Let them be.
Thus, as she tells us it this got this Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri quite worked up. Which is understandable. Reformist or not he is still a Shi’a and Ali is central to their identity. Apparently she was threatened with gong to hellfire for even entertaining the thought that Ali could be on the wrong side of history when it comes to the decisions at Siffin.
So apparently this Syed Ali Hur Kampoonpuri was going to do a YouTube series refuting the Ibadi (nothing better to do). Yet, all the while claiming he wanted an Ibadi to appear as a “guest”. So you have to wonder how sincere that is.
Than, this wily character claimed that he “debated Ibadi scholars”. This naturally causes a raised eye brow from myself So I asked her to ask him who are these “Ibadi scholars” he “debated with”.
His response was quite coy. I predicted as much because this guy is a talker with nothing substantive. He is pretentious. You don’t have intention to invite an “Ibadi guest” on a program while having the intention to do a refutation series. That doesn’t come across as sincere as all.
So sister Roxanna replies:
“This was the response I got when I asked which Ibadi scholars he had discussions with:”
“Walaykum Salaam. They were mostly from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Zanzibar when I used to live there. And some who visited India. But I don’t know if they would be pleased at my sharing their names given how secretive and low key they prefer to remain.”
“They were mostly from Dar es Salaam (would indicate 1 scholar), Tanzania and Zanzibar (would indicate at least 1 scholar) and “some who visited India” that some would indicate more than one.
So that is a total of 4 Ibadi scholars at the very least he has claimed to have debated. Now I wouldn’t be surprised if this person looks up Ibadi scholars who have passed away and than proceed to claim he has debated them! 😉
Do note that Roxanna has changed that he had debated with such people to he had discussions with such people. I do not know if that was Roxanna’s attempt at trying to cover for Syed Ali. Yet you can see by her emoji it is one that conveys mild irritation. I had asked Shaykh Juma Al Mazruii if he had ever heard of this Shaykh and he said no. Shaykh Hilal al Wardi and Shaykh Hafidh Hamed Al Sawafi has not heard of him either.
You see the Ibadi community is quite small it would not be very hard at all to ascertain the truth of his statements. For example his statement “when I used to live there.” We could get from him the years he says he lived there and from there simply ask in our very tight knit and very small community have you ever heard of this guy?
So to be quite frank this is a huge stumbling block from my side to have anything to do with him. Also, to be quite frank it also caused doubt in me towards those who which to associate with such a duplicitous individual. I am certain he has not debated Ibadi scholars because the arguments that he brings up are are so ignorant, and devoid of any basic knowledge of our fiqh in regards to matters of arbitration.
His straw man arguments, contradictions are such that a layman like myself can tear them apart with ease.
So if there is an attempt from his circle or himself to engage one of our teachers in the future he would need to first clear this up. No sense in engaging with this furtive individual.
So who is Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri? To be fair I have not heard of him until the sister brought up his name. Good ol Shaykh google has revealed that his father was one Dr. Syed Mujtaba Hasan Kampoonpuri, who served as the Dean Faculty of 12er Shia Theology at Aligarh Muslim University.
I understand he is trying to reform 12er Shi’ism. In this regards may Allah (swt) grant him success. Any attempts to build bridges among the Muslim community may Allah (swt) grant him success. However, when it comes to his “knowledge” of the Ibadi school, It is a naked display of ignorance, mischaracterizations and straw man “arguments.”
These are his two voice clips sent to Roxanna Irani. You listen and be the judge. I have my own response to these as well as other things the sister was harangue over.
“Ali had already answered these doubts. He said, “Who told you we made human beings arbitrators? We made the Qur’an the arbitrator. The job of the human beings is simply to deliver the verdict of the Qur’an. You understand? The arbitrator is the Qur’an. And that no one in the Ummah can deny. Even the Qur’an itself says that Allah is supposed to be the hakam right? Allah is supposed to be the arbitrator. But how does Allah be…how does Allah act as the arbitrator? He’s not gonna, he’s not an old man in the sky as the as some of those who believe in Israliyaat (narrations from the children of Israel) would perceive him. Or as the Anthropomorphist would perceive him. That he will that he’s an old man in the sky authbillah (seek refuge with Allah) and that he will descend, you know he will send down on a ladder and he will descend and he will come and issue the verdict. When the Qur’an promotes takheem (arbitration) of Allah. When ever you have a dispute or iktilaaf (difference) the hukm (judgment) will come from Allah. Hukm will not come from Allah in the sense that you look towards the sky and Allah will write the verdict on the sky. He has already, he has already revealed the book. The book contains the judgement. But the book does not have a mouth, with which it can pronounce the judgement. So the mouth Allah has given to the human being. Human agents. O.K? They will bring out the judgement of the Qur’an. And and obviously the judgement of why do you have a qadi in courts then? You know tell tell the government of Oman to fire all the qadis. Who are they? Why are they bringing human agents? You know they should just put a Qur’an on the seat of the qadi; and let the Qur’an give the judgement. So this is Imam Ali’s problem with the Khawarij. He is telling them you are foolish. This is not how it works. You can’t ahh directly ask the Qur’an to issue the judgement. You need to appoint human beings the hakam (judge)O.K.? And those hakam (judges) will extract the verdict from the Qur’an. And than they will say, Why did you appoint Abu Musa Al Ashari say by the way he’s he was not my choice. Why do you allow them to appoint Amr Ibn Al ‘As say Baba this is not my choice. They have their own ah army, they have their own separate government. Uh we cannot impose, we cannot dictate who they will choose. You understand? We cannot impose our choice on them. If we could impose our choice on them at this stage than why are we having the battle between them? The, the reason why we are having the we were having the battle with them is because our authority on them had not yet been established. They have not accepted our authorities. So how can we start appointing people on their side when they don’t even accept they have not even submitted to our authority? But yes they are prepared to submit to the authority of the Qur’an. And they are saying that they are ready and willing to appoint someone from their side who will uh at least as far as they are alleging will sincerely try to extract the verdict, verdict of the Qur’an. So yeah we have to go with that! We can’t determine. We can’t impose our choice Imam Ali was not allowed by the Khawarij in his army to choose his own arbitrator also. He wanted to choose Ibn Abbas or Malik al Ashtar or someone of that sort. But no they imposed Abu Musa Al Ashari because they wanted someone who is anti-war, not pro-war. And let us not forget that it was the Khawarij who applied all the pressure, or the major part of the pressure in getting Imam Ali to uhh to enforcing him to accept takhim (arbitration). And uhh they they at that it seems they were completely you know enamored with this they were they were hypot-they were sorry they were hypnotized by this um by this um by this call to come to the judgement of the Qur’an. They were like how can we fight when people are inviting us towards the Qur’an? Now as far as the verse of surah Al Hujrat (chapter 49) is concerned uhhh Imam Ali did not violate it. Allah says, The obligation to fight the rebellious party only is binding okay soo far as the party is not willing to submit to the Amr (command) of Allah. But as long as as soon as the rebellious party says, even if they don’t accept your authority, and your caliphate, and the ij, bayah (oath) and mashura (collective decision) of the muhajirin (those who migrated) and ansar (those who helped) all of that no problem. As soon as the rebellious party says look we are ready to surrender to the Qur’an. Ah what is the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the amr (command) of Allah is it not? Ahhh so at that point if you want you can invoke this part of the verse and say that look Allah say, until it returns to the Amr (command) of Allah. By raising the Mushahif (Qur’an on parchments) on the spears they are at least zahiran (outwardly apparent) even if if they are batinan (hidden) and munafiq (hypocrites) there you know not serious they are not sincere whatever you say about their batin (what is hidden). But Zahiran (outwardly apparent) so long as the rebellious party is offering to submit to the judgement of the Qur’an. Then you cannot say that Quranically we are still obligated to continue fighting them. No. At that point the Qur’anic obligation is lifted and now it becomes a matter of the what is the requirement of the political and military wisdom. So now poli, the rules of politics and military wisdom dictate that you should try to ascertain are these people really sincere or not. Now, We have already, Imam Ali had already seen these people are not sincere because the beginning of the battle we did call them towards the Qur’an. They didn’t accept it than. Now that they are losing the battle all of a sudden they now want the Qur’an to be the judge? So on that basis politically Imam Ali even after the arbitration continued to maintain he said yes politically what you people forced me to do was not the best. Uhmm it was not the best approach you should have listened to me I was telling you even though the Qur’anic obligation at that point now starts to rest on on a, you see the the critical point the Khawarij did not understand. o.k Which is that Allah’s commands in the Qur’an are absolute, they have to be followed under all circumstances right? But, sometimes they are predicated upon uh worldly, politically and military ijtihad (striving to derive rulings from the sources). So, For example, Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an that we have to fast. O.K we have to fast. And the Sunnah has already made it clear that as soon as you see the moon start fasting shahru Ramadan (month of Ramadan) right? But seeing the moon on shahrul Ramadan this is a human worldly astronomical matter. It is not an absolute uhh divine yani(you know) Allah does not inform us when the moon has been sighted. This is something we human beings have to apply our ijtihad to find out ehh uh has the moon been sighted or not. Here there can be mistakes. So if lets say a human being by mistake has a hallucination or some illusion and he ends up seeing the moon or lets say because of some defect in his eyes he is not able to see the moon and no one is able to see the moon and they don’t fast the next day when in reality the moon had appeared in the ilm (knowledge) of Allah the moon had appeared, Allah doesn’t have a case against such people. You can’t say but I sa my command was to start fasting as soon as you see the moon. The problem is we didn’t see the moon even if it may have been there so yes the requirement of worldly wisdom should have been that we should have put enough arrangements in place to ensure that you know that the moon is sighted. But we failed in that. So similarly Imam Ali is saying that look Allah’s obligation to fight against the forces of Sham (Syria) was only binding so long as they were completely stubborn and they were not re, Muaviya this is how he came to Siffin. He said I don’t have anything for you except the sword. Imam Ali tried to negotiate with him. He wrote letters to him. All of that! Everything failed. That’s why the battle happened as a last resort. When his side attacked the side of Imam Ali and committed aggression against him. So he fought them in defense. So this is what the fight was about. Now when Allah says, You keep on fighting them until they return to the Amr of Allah. Now this until they return to the Amr of Allah this is going to be determined by how do you determine when a party has returned to the Amr of Allah? This will be determined by worldly factors. Which are not God is not going to send you wahy telling o.k now they have returned or ok no no no they have not actually they are not sincere keep fighting. No these are human ijtihadi matters. Now the army of Imam Ali not Imam Ali himself Imam Ali’s ijtihad was correct wal hamdulillah (praise be to Allah)from the beginning he, Ibn Abbas, Malik Al Ashtar they all saw through this and they said yeah but look the correct worldly and military ijtihad requires us to continue this fight. Because we have enough against these people to prove to Allah that they are not sincere. We can see that. But the rest of the army uhhmm and especially these um foolish khawarij were not able to see through that. They were deceived. And in some of the reports indicate that its not just that they were deceived its it’s that the battle had really broken them. They just wanted an end by any means. Some of them were like that. Their were people in the army of Imam Ali that were completely the battle had been so fierce and it was so much bloodshed they were psychologically effected by it, and they were just looking for any excuse to stop the battle. And these are the first people to have jumped on this thing that no no no let’s stop the fighting. Let’s stop the fight. They were desperate. So this desperation caused them to make this faulty ijtihad and Imam Ali said o.k if they had gone against the Qur’an with this ijtihad Imam Ali would have said you know what let us die. It is better to die than to go against the Qur’an. But because their faulty worldly ijtihad was only a worldly political mistake and military mistake that they were making Imam Ali tried to warn them against it but he did not stick to his gun. He did not impose it on them very ferociously. In the end you see him saying that o.k I can clearly see you people have lost the will to fight and it does not befit me as your leader to force you in a direction that you are not pleased with. You people don’t’ wanna fight o.k What you are proposing because it does not go against the Qur’an and established sunnah accepting arbitration a call to make the Qur’an the judge between two parties is never against the Qur’an and Sunnah. In fact it is 100% in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah. The only issue is that the worldly aspect of it. The worldly aspect is you have to you have to determine rather the other party is really sincere or not. You people are just taking their word for it. Which is not uuh a good thing to do from a worldly political military perspective. But it’s uh ah yani if this is what you have determined. Than yeah it’s fine. Doesn’t go against the Qur’an or Sunnah. Da da they are outwardly calling us towards the Qur’an yeah? So fine uh the Allah (swt) in the Qur’an promotes this idea that the Qur’an and his his revelations should be made the judge in all disputes. and the appointment of two human beings from both sides this mirror’s uuuhh Qur’anic uh prescription such as in the case of husband and wife Allah says, “send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people” and the husband does not get to decide who the wife will choose as her hakam. The woman should have the right to bring her arbitrator, whoever she chooses from her family and whoever her family is agreed upon and happy with and the husband uuhh should have the right to bring whoever he is pleased with from his side. Right? Th zz You can’t impose you know this foolish argument that Imam, why did Imam Ali let them choose a wicked man like Amr ibn Al As yeah you can’t dictate terms to the the other army. If the Khawarij were really interested in not having Amr Ibn Al As as the hakam they should have continued fighting as Imam Ali instructed them to do at first. But they disobeyed him. And their disobedience of him there was uhh it was worldly foolishness. Ummm and that is why Imam Ali maintained until the end he said you people did something foolish and now your trying to pin the blame for your foolishness on me because you’ve now seen with your own eyes the results of your foolishness so in any case Imam Ali appointed these two arbit he he agreed he acquiesced in the appointment of these two arbitrators he put strict conditions that they will make the Qur’an and the Qur’an alone the hakam and in areas where the Qur’an is silent the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw) and then latter on as you see what happened in takhim u-ma? Imam Ali says, they went astray these two arbitrators. They broke the terms and agreements the the the terms of the agreement. They followed their whim desires and so it was very clearly mentioned in the contract and in the pact that if you know if they go against the requirements of the Qur’an aaa and the Sunnah then their decree is not binding. And therefore when they deposed Imam Ali it was an illegal verdict and when the verdict is illegal you go back to the default which is as mentioned in the contract the original state of war and the original state of war was based on what status quo on the status quo that the Muhajirun and Ansar. The vast majority of them ah have given bayah to Imam Ali he is the rightful legitimate caliph and Muawiyah has to submit to that bayah if he doesn’t he’s a baghy (rebel) and a rebel against the Muslims and the Muslims have the right to impose their authority on him and this is exactly what Imam Ali went back to to doing. Preparing the next campaign against Muaviyah.”
Prima Qur’an response:
Syed Ali Hur is often incoherent.
Part of my frustration with Syed Ali is that there are so many cut off sentences and his thoughts seem to be jumbled on this. He will begin a sentence and just when you think he is about to make a point or an assertion he quickly changes course to something else. It is very incoherent. You the listener/reader be the judge.
2.Syed Ali Hur does not understand Ibadi jurisprudence. Rather willfully or not misrepsents the school with strawman “arguments”
It is clear to me that Syed Ali Hur neither understands the Ibadi school nor our jurisprudence. This is clear when he makes this gargantuan error concerning our school:
“When ever you have a dispute or iktilaaf (difference) the hukm (judgment) will come from Allah. Hukm will not come from Allah in the sense that you look towards the sky and Allah will write the verdict on the sky. He has already, he has already revealed the book. The book contains the judgement. But the book does not have a mouth, with which it can pronounce the judgement. ” -Syed Ali Hur
” And and obviously the judgement of why do you have a qadi in courts then? You know tell tell the government of Oman to fire all the qadis. Who are they? Why are they bringing human agents? You know they should just put a Qur’an on the seat of the qadi; and let the Qur’an give the judgement. ” -Syed Ali Hur
This is also part of a foolish statement attributed to Ali where he is alleged to have put the Qur’an on a seat and say “rule”.
Can you imagine Ali using such a foolish and bizarre argument? Syed Ali Hur has no problem to do so.
In fact it is very reminiscent of the straw man “arguments” and bizarre statements and actions that Sunni’s attribute to their imams when attempting to refute the points of others.
“You see the the critical point the Khawarij did not understand. o.k Which is that Allah’s commands in the Qur’an are absolute, they have to be followed under all circumstances right? But, sometimes they are predicated upon uh worldly, politically and military ijtihad.” -Syed Ali Hur
Notice the word sometimes. That is exactly the point! Allah (swt) says,
“Moreover, it is not for a believing man and it is not for a believing woman when Allah has decided and His Messenger a matterthat (there) should be for them (any) choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger certainly, he (has) strayed (into) error clear.” (Qur’an 33:36)
When Allah (swt) has decided upon a matter it is not for human beings to have any choice on something decided upon by Allah (swt). This text is nass-it is clear a known, clear legal injunction, or a divine decree.
However, in matters of ijtihad he needs to bring evidence to show the Ibadi school has disagreed with this, which he has not. It is naked ignorance. Willful or not I leave that to the reader to decide.
3. Syed Ali Hur contradicts himself.
Then, this Syed Ali Hur says, “This is not how it works. You can’t ahh directly ask the Qur’an to issue the judgement.”
Prima Qur’an response: You contradicted yourself in the previous statement. Your previous statement contains truth, you said ‘sometimes‘.
However, this new statement that you cannot go directly to the Qur’an is falsehood.
What does the Qur’an instruct us if we were to ask rather or not Muslims can marry the Mushrik?
“Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe; for a believing slave-woman is better than a free polytheist, even though she may look pleasant to you. And do not marry your women to polytheistic men until they believe, for a believing slave-man is better than a free polytheist, even though he may look pleasant to you.” (Qur’an 2:221)
4. Allah creates circumstances favorable to Muaviya and against Ali?
“They were deceived. And in some of the reports indicate that its not just that they were deceived its it’s that the battle had really broken them. They just wanted an end by any means. Some of them were like that. Their were people in the army of Imam Ali that were completely the battle had been so fierce and it was so much bloodshed they were psychologically effected by it, and they were just looking for any excuse to stop the battle. And these are the first people to have jumped on this thing that no no no let’s stop the fighting. Let’s stop the fight. They were desperate.” -Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments: Is it not interesting that if we are to believe these reports that this just so happens to coincide with Muaviyah’s army putting the Mushaf of the Qur’an on spears and swords just when the battle was not going well for Muaviyah’s side?
You can deduce from this the following:
a) Allah (swt) himself wanted both parties to talk by creating this fatigue and exasperation. Thus, Ali’s alleged decision to “keep fighting” was wrong. Muslims do not believe in coincidence.
5. The people who were for arbitration wanted a good thing and Ali did not want the good thing!
“If they had gone against the Qur’an with this ijtihad Imam Ali would have said you know what let us die. It is better to die than to go against the Qur’an. But because their faulty worldly ijtihad was only a worldly political mistake and military mistake that they were making Imam Ali tried to warn them against it but he did not stick to his gun. He did not impose it on them very ferociously. In the end you see him saying that o.k I can clearly see you people have lost the will to fight and it does not befit me as your leader to force you in a direction that you are not pleased with. You people don’t’ wanna fight o.k What you are proposing because it does not go against the Qur’an and established sunnah accepting arbitration a call to make the Qur’an the judge between two parties is never against the Qur’an and Sunnah. In fact it is 100% in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah. ” -Syed Ali Hur
” As soon as the rebellious party says look we are ready to surrender to the Qur’an. Ah what is the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the amr (command) of Allah is it not? Ahhh so at that point if you want you can invoke this part of the verse and say that look Allah say, until it returns to the Amr (command) of Allah. By raising the Mushahif (Qur’an on parchments) on the spears they are at least zahiran (outwardly apparent) even if if they are batinan (hidden) and munafiq (hypocrites) there you know not serious they are not sincere whatever you say about their batin (what is hidden). But Zahiran (outwardly apparent) so long as the rebellious party is offering to submit to the judgement of the Qur’an. Then you cannot say that Quranically we are still obligated to continue fighting them. No. At that point the Qur’anic obligation is lifted and now it becomes a matter of the what is the requirement of the political and military wisdom.” -Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
a) so supposedly these people are “making faulty ijtihad”
b) but than turns around and says, “accepting arbitration a call to make the Qur’an the judge between two parties is never against the Qur’an and Sunnah. In fact it is 100% in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah”
c) This is because “ But Zahiran (outwardly apparent) so long as the rebellious party is offering to submit to the judgement of the Qur’an.”
6. Ali is portrayed as half hearted reed blown by the winds and not the Imam and resolute believer who trust and reliance is solely upon Allah (swt). He shirks from personal responsibility for his actions.
“Now, We have already, Imam Ali had already seen these people are not sincere because the beginning of the battle we did call them towards the Qur’an. They didn’t accept it than. Now that they are losing the battle all of a sudden they now want the Qur’an to be the judge? So on that basis politically Imam Ali even after the arbitration continued to maintain he said yes politically what you people forced me to do was not the best.”-Syed Ali Hur
“If they had gone against the Qur’an with this ijtihad Imam Ali would have said you know what let us die. It is better to die than to go against the Qur’an.”Syed Ali Hur
“So in any case Imam Ali appointed these two arbit he he agreed he acquiesced in the appointment of these two arbitrators he put strict conditions that they will make the Qur’an and the Qur’an alone the hakam and in areas where the Qur’an is silent the Sunnah of the Messenger.” Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
a) So on the one hand: “you people forced me to do”
b) On the other hand: “you know what let us die. It is better to die than to go against the Qur’an.”
c) And on the other hand: “he agreed he acquiesced in the appointment of these two arbitrators.”
How come Ali wasn’t aware of these verses of the Qur’an?
“How often has a small host overcome a great host by Allah’s leave! For Allah is with those who are patient in adversity.” (Qur’an 2:249)
“When people said to them: ‘Behold, a host has gathered around you and you should fear them’, it only increased their faith and they answered: ‘Allah is Sufficient for us; and what an excellent Guardian He is!”(Qur’an 3:173)
Now again we are only going by the narrative that Syed Ali Hur has given us. We do not know if these are his surmising’s based upon an oral narrative or actual historical data.
7. Syed Ali Hur claims without evidence that the so called “Khawarij” selected Abu Musa Al-Ashari? What is the reference for this?
“But no they imposed Abu Musa Al Ashari because they wanted someone who is anti-war, not pro-war. And let us not forget that it was the Khawarij who applied all the pressure, or the major part of the pressure in getting Imam Ali to uhh to enforcing him to accept takhim (arbitration).” -Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
Is Ali so weak that not only is he supposedly forced into arbitration and now he cannot even accept his own arbitrator? Which brings us to his example of the separation of man and wife which falls back on him in a bad way.
8. Syed Ali Hur’s lack of understanding of the Arabic language and verse 4:35 of the Qur’an.
“The appointment of two human beings from both sides this mirror’s uuuhh Qur’anic uh prescription such as in the case of husband and wife Allah says, “send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people” and the husband does not get to decide who the wife will choose as her hakam. The woman should have the right to bring her arbitrator, whoever she chooses from her family and whoever her family is agreed upon and happy with and the husband uuhh should have the right to bring whoever he is pleased with from his side. Right?”-Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
a)
Wrong! This actually shows a poor grammar in understanding of this ayat. The Arabic text is fa-ib’ʿathū (they choose), meaning the family of the respective party choose the arbiter. Not the wife chooses or the husband chooses. Their families choose. So even if the allegation of the so called ‘Khawarij’ choose Abu Musa Al Ashari by the understanding of the verse it would be correct. Which by the way Syed Ali Hur did not give evidence that they choose him!
b)
In the example of the husband and wife Allah (swt) says, fa-ib’athu (appoint arbiters)
“If two parties among the believers start to fight against each other, restore peace among them. If one party rebels against the other, fight against the rebellious one until he surrenders to the command of Allah. When he does so, restore peace among them with justice and equality; Allah loves those who maintain justice. ” (Qur’an 49:9)
It is in the imperative form faqatilu! That is the amr the command of Allah (swt). There should be no talk of a document. There should be talk of bayah!
Ali was the one in his letters who told Muaviyah that they can investigate the murder of Uthman, yet Muaviyah will need to recognize the legitimate government of the Muslims. Now Ali is laying all this aside for discussion? What is their to discuss? Give the bayah or perish!
“Th zz You can’t impose you know this foolish argument that Imam, why did Imam Ali let them choose a wicked man like Amr ibn Al As yeah you can’t dictate terms to the the other army. “-Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
Thankfully, Syed Ali Hur went to the verse 4:35 of dispute between man and woman. He did not go to the verse of 5:95. Because the argument that the sahabah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who were at Narhawan had against Ibn Abbas was the following:
“O you who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you does so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka’ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, AS ADJUDGED BY TWO JUST MEN AMONG YOU; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition, Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution.” (Qur’an 5:95)
‘As adjudged by two just men among you’. Keep this in mind as well. This is a key part of the text.
The sahabah of Nahrawaan replied to Ibn Abbas :
“Are you comparing the law relating to the killing of game animal on the sacred land or the law that is intended to resolve the misunderstandings that occur between a man and his wife, with the law that is intended to govern the matters of greater magnitude such as the act of shedding of Muslims’ blood?”
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 13.)
Also, another point concerning the text that Ibn Abbas brought forth.
Naturally, people would ask “Are you saying Amru bin Al-As is a man of justice when it was he who spilled our blood yesterday? If you believe that he is just then we (including you -Ibn Abbas and Ali) are not just because we all fought the war against Mu’awiya and Amru bin Al-As!”
So the unfilled questions were.
A)Were there two arbitrators or one?
B) Were they just or unjust?
Now could a person may think they are just and sincere in what they are doing?
9. Syed Ali Hur does not have a cohesive narrative concerning the so called kharijites and rather or not they are pro/anti-arbitration.
So on the one hand: “you people forced me to do” -Syed Ali Hur
“And let us not forget that it was the Khawarij who applied all the pressure, or the major part of the pressure in getting Imam Ali to uhh to enforcing him to accept takhim (arbitration).”-Syed Ali Hur
However, he than turns around and says:
“The, the reason why we are having the we were having the battle with them is because our authority on them had not yet been established. They have not accepted our authorities. So how can we start appointing people on their side when they don’t even accept they have not even submitted to our authority? But yes they are prepared to submit to the authority of the Qur’an. “-Syed Ali Hur
His contradiction is obvious for all to see. If the so called Kharijites were forcing Ali into Arbitration why is he having to explain to them that these people do not accept our authority we cannot impose it on them? Seems like you are preaching to the choir.
“Imam Ali maintained until the end. He said you people did something foolish and now your trying to pin the blame for your foolishness on me because you’ve now seen with your own eyes the results of your foolishness.”-Syed Ali Hur
Also, if these people forced Ali into arbitration and they “with their own eyes the results” than why go their separate ways after? This is not adding up at all.
Especially, in light of the following:
“Now, We have already, Imam Ali had already seen these people are not sincere because the beginning of the battle we did call them towards the Qur’an. They didn’t accept it than. Now that they are losing the battle all of a sudden they now want the Qur’an to be the judge? So on that basis politically Imam Ali even after the arbitration continued to maintain he said yes politically what you people forced me to do was not the best.“-Syed Ali Hur
Why are people who are fighting, spilling blood, fighting for you at the battle of the Camel why are they now leaving? They could have said, yes Ali in hindsight was correct and we were wrong.
It is pretty clear to the camp that left that Ali wanted to go for arbitration. The companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who left Siffin for Narhawan they are famous for their cry
“La Hukma Illa Lillah” (There is no rule but that of Allah)
In the end in regards to arbitration what is the result of it? What is the fruit? Did it return to the amr of Allah (swt) ? No! It did not!
What is that the Shi’i believe was so insufficient about his letters to Muaviyah that he needed to give in to this arbitration? What is it that is not so clear in the Qur’an about what this “amr of Allah” is that we need to make a document, and have court recess and go our own ways?
And the key thing that Shi’i keep running from again and again and again is this one simple straight forward question. “If the Qur’an is the arbiter what is the verse or verses that make Ali in the right in his dispute with Muaviyah?”
The command of Allah (swt) is not clear?
Yes indeed it is!
In the example of the husband and wife Allah (swt) says, fa-ib’athu (appoint arbiters)
“If two parties among the believers start to fight against each other, restore peace among them. If one party rebels against the other, fight against the rebellious one until he surrenders to the command of Allah. When he does so, restore peace among them with justice and equality; Allah loves those who maintain justice. ” (Qur’an 49:9)
It is in the imperative form faqatilu! That is the amr the command of Allah (swt)
Unless the Shi’i now want to say, that Ali did not know what the amr of Allah (swt) is than let that stand on the record.
Unless the Shi’i want to say that Ali has no Qur’an based text to support him, than let that also stand on the record.
How does what return to the Amr of Allah (swt)?
Very simple and easy to answer.
Avoid what Allah (swt) asked you to avoid and by doing what Allah (swt) has ordered you to do. Example: You are not making your prayer, than start praying. This is not rocket science.
When ever the Shi’i are cornered in an argument and have run around of things to throw out they without fail turn time and time again to the incident of Ghadir Khum. It is what they believe is their instant win card!
Also, do correct your Shi’a friends and (Shi’a in hiding) friends. There is no such thing as ‘THE’ hadith of Ghadir Khum. However, there is THE incident of Ghadir Khum and various versions of that incident, which means hadiths (plural) some of these variants have accretions and variations.
Remember that our position is Prima-Quran.
Some groups try to elevate the hadith over the Qur’an. Where as for us, we do not elevate the hadith above the Qur’an. Nor can hadith clash with the Qur’an.
The verse in question describes the two opposed groups as believers.
Logic dictates that Ali could be in either group A or group B.
Let us say that Ali is in group B, The group that is being oppressed. How can it be reasoned that the people in group A are being labeled as enemies of Allah, yet still be called believers by Allah (swt) himself?
“Allah is the Friend (Waliyy)of those who believe He brings them out of darkness into light. And those who disbelieve, their friends are the devils who take them out of light into darkness. They are the companions of the Fire; therein they abide.” (Qur’an 2:257)
Surely Allah (swt) the All-Knowing is aware that Ali could be in category A or B.
You must hate those whom you apply the judgement of Allah (swt) to? No, not necessarily.
Based upon mantiq (logic) and the fact that this particular statement of the narration would clashes with the qati’i (decisive) nature of Qur’an, such that particular understanding of being infallible or not accountable becomes null and void.
Secondly. There is a story, which you can read here full of grandiose verbiage that many are familiar with. Ali fights a man and the man spits in Ali’s face. Ali is said to have sheathed his sword. You can read that here: https://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/n-I-3721.html
The point is that just because you oppose someone does not necessarily entail hatred.
An example is this:
Narrated `Aisha:
Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict the legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”
So let us imagine a scenario where Fatima did steal and she did get caught. Would one necessarily have to have hatred in his/her heart towards Fatima when executing the punishment?
That means that every judge or Qadi would need to hate the person they pass sentence on?
That would mean that Ali as an Amir, any time he inflicted a punishment upon anyone who transgressed means he would need hatred in his heart as a prerequisite?
If this is how the people reason, reason is in a state of decline.
“The Khariji-Ibadi tradition was chillingly pragmatic. Individuals were lauded only for their deeds and their commitment to justice. Nothing else guaranteed a person’s righteousness.” (pg. 287-288) -the Legacy of the Nawasib in Islamic literature -by Nebil Husayn
Allah (swt) says,
“Never will your family blood lines/ties or your children be of any use to you on the day of Resurrection. He will separate you and judge between you. For Allah is All-Seeing what you do.” (Qur’an 60:3)
This means Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, your parents, your Shaykh, your children. It will be you. You alone with your soul and what you have sent forth into this world. You alone with a Sovereign, Holy, Just and Mighty God!
Also, does this statement: “Whoever is the friend of Ali I am his friend who ever is the enemy of Ali I am his enemy?”
Does this exempt Ali for the rest of his life from adhering to the book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw)? Does this mean Ali would be free from error?
Of course it doesn’t. Ali is not infallible. Not even prophets were infallible.
Adam made a mistake.
“Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went Astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance.” (Quran 20:121-122)
David made a mistake.
“And David perceived that we had tried him by this parable, and he asked pardon of his Lord: and he fell down and bowed himself, and repented.” (Qur’an 38:25).
Saying that Ali, is infallible in his decisions puts him above Prophets. It also makes the following verse not applicable to him.
“Then did they feel secure from the plan of Allah ? But no one feels secure from the plan of Allah except the losing people.” (Qur’an 7:99)
Are we to say that Ali was from the losing people because he felt secure from the plan of Allah (swt)? Certainly not!
Ibadis are not the people known for hating and hatred, contrary to what you have heard.
Read for example the poem concerning Ali Ibn Abu Talib by Abu Muslim Al Bahlani
A a group of six great Ibadi scholars, J’afer bin A’Simak, Abu AlHur Ali bin AlHusain Al’Anbri, AlHattat bin Kateb, AlHabab bin Kulaib, Abu Suyan Qanber AlBasri, and Salim bin Thakwan among other unnamed scholars, they went to Umar bin Abdul Aziz and exhorted him to stop this cursing from the pulpits, this includes Ali.
If they hate Ali will they really exhort people to stop cursing him from the pulpits? The pulpit is the place where the tongue should be moist with the remembrance of Allah (swt) and exhortation to those in attendance to obey the commands of Allah (swt) and the Blessed Messenger, the Beloved Prophet Muhammed (saw)
Insh’Allah , will be responding to the second note in conjunction with an article: “What really happened at the Battle of Narhawan.”
“Such is Allah, your true Lord. And, beyond truth, what is there except falsehood? So where else can you turn?” (Qur’an 10:32)
6th Thilqe’dah 1444 26/05/2023 
Friday 9:30am-10:30am Oman Time
Prima Quran 