Response to Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri attempt to refute Ibadi’s on Siffin.

“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if 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.

Also, to send some traffic and clout his way this is his YouTube channel for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/@Al-Islaah

You’re welcome! 😃

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:

1. 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.

Please see: https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/sunni-historical-books-mock-abu-hanifa-imam-ahmad-while-pretending-to-mock-other-beliefs/

“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 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)

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.

1. A)Were there two arbitrators or one?
2. 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!

I have explained my explained on the incident of Ghadir Khum here: https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/hadith-on-ghadir-khum/

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.”

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6787

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

Admonishment of Ali Ibn Abu Talib by the Poet 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)