Category Archives: Uncategorized

Answering Qur’an Only Religion

“We sent them with clear proofs and the Zabur. And we revealed to you the message that you may make clear to mankind what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” (Qur’an 16:44)

Insh’Allah this section will deal with common arguments among the federation of sects that are known collectively as the ‘Qur’anist‘.

This section will be refuting their many bold assertions as well as showing why this particular approach to Islam is deeply flawed.

Why I don’t follow the Qur’an Only Religion.

Questions for the Qur’an Only Religion that can’t be swept under a rug.

The Claims of Self Proclaimed Prophet: Rashad Khalafa Father of the number 19 theory.

Over it are 19: Critique of the number 19 pattern used by Quraniyoon.

Refutation that oral traditions came 300 years after the Prophet.

Even though they used to say that the hadith -oral traditions came some 300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw).  Praise be to Allah the more educated among them have backed away from that claim. However, this article is here because many in that movement may be unaware.

See Harold Motzki (a Non-Muslim orientalist and academic) who made short work of that Quranist claim

Prohibition against writing hadith? Refuting the claims of the Quraniyoon.

Does the Qur’an itself tell us to reject all hadith?

This article is a nail in the coffin for the entire movement. Some from their movement have commented but ended up leaving in frustration. It looks at their arguments and misquotations of the Qur’an. Also given in this article is an irrefutable example of Allah confirming a hadith to the Blessed Messenger [saw].

The appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children according to the Qur’an alone.

Contrary to what the Quraniyoon may tell you a woman can get married as young as 12 years old according to the Qur’an.

Did the Blessed Prophet Muhammed write the Qur’an?

I had written a refutation like this many years ago on the ‘Qur’an only‘ web site known as or it used to be known as ‘Galaxy Dastak‘. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed founder of the forum had me banned. This was also the last I heard from my friend and former teacher Hamza AbdulMalik. Hamza AbdulMalik used to be the director of IPCI international until he dropped off the radar and re-emerged as a Quranist.

Well, I may have been removed from the forum but here is the refutation of their arguments for all to see here:

Is Showing Love and Reference for the Noble Prophet Idol Worship? Refutation of the Qur’an Only Religion.

A pre-eminent argument used by ‘Quranist’ ripped to shreds By Dr. Jeffery Lang.

The most oft-quoted verse used by Quranist is analyzed and ripped apart by a Muslim convert, academic, and professor of math, Dr. Jeffery Lang.

This is a centerpiece argument used by Edip Yuksel, Sam Gerrans, “Joseph Islam”, Rashad Khilafa, Shabir Ahmed and the lot of them. The reason why this argument is especially devastating coming fromm someone like Dr. Jeffry Lang is that Dr. Lang is critical of the hadith corpus as we have it today.

My mother’s conversation with representatives of the Qur’an Only Religion from India.

An interesting conversation in which I gave advice to my mother who engaged with some Quranist.

Use and abuse of the word hikma by Quranist.

The following is a look at how Quranist have both misunderstood the word hikma as a reference to the Qur’an and how they do not understand that it is something that Allah gives his messengers to deal with situations and context not immediately addressed by the revelations they were given.

Hating a hadith just for the sake of hating a hadith.

This article a hypothetical question is posed. What if a particular ahad hadith turned out to be correct? Especially one that is of a scientific nature? What would the Quranist do in such a scenario?

You can read about that here:

Is the Qur’an clear?

An introduction to this topic. A brief discussion about the Mutazlite Shafi’i theologian Shaykh Abd Al Jabbar.

Qur’an Only religion is intellectually bankrupt.

Salaat in the Qur’an is not ritual prayer? Examining the claim of some Quranist.

This article looks at one Quranist claim that salat is not ritual prayer. This is what happens when you abandon the understanding of the Blessed Messenger and follow the ‘every man for himself’ approach of the Quranist.

More articles coming insh’Allah…

My discussion with Joseph Islam on the Qir’aat and Ahruf.

Quranist Sam Gerrans claim that the Earth is flat

Kala Kato violent Quranist extremist of Nigeria

Further Mutazalite refutation of the Quran Only Religion


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Where is Allah? Allah is in London England!

Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.(Qur’an 7:33)

Once I was approached by a Muslim in a Masjid who asked me,
Brother where is Allah?” I thought this was a very strange question to ask but I asked him “what time it was“. He seems puzzled but told me the current time. I thereby responded, “Allah is in London, England!”

He rapidly started to stroke his beard repeatedly repeating “istaghfirullah!'” “‘istaghfirullah!” “Allah forgive you!” “Allah forgive you!”

This seemed like very neurotic behavior so I offered the following mutawatir hadith.

“Our Lord – Blessed and Exalted is He! – descends every night to the lowest heaven in the last third of the night and says: Who is supplicating Me so that I may answer him? Who is asking forgiveness from Me so that I may forgive him?”

Source: (Narrated from Abu Hurayra by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Malik, and al-Darimi. It is narrated from twenty-three Companions, as stated by al-Kattani in Nazm al-Mutanathir.)

I don’t see what was so wrong with saying that Allah was in London, England considering that it was around 4:45 a.m London time (which would be the last third of the night).

I guess that was not the answer he was expecting. He was visibly upset as he said, “But brother Allah is in the highest heaven.” “What?!” I responded. I thought this was very strange for how could Allah be in London England and inheaven at the same time! Surely this man does not believe that Allah is multi-present? Could it be that he believed that Allah (swt) was in many places simultaneously?

Who said Allah is in heaven?” I asked.

Firaun (Pharoah) said Allah is in heaven.” the brother offered.

Where does he say this?” I demanded!

The brother quoted the following,

“And Fir’aun (Pharaoh) said: “O Hâmân! Build me a tower that I may arrive at the ways, The ways of the heavens, and I may look upon the Ilâh (God) of Mûsa (Moses) but verily, I think him to be a liar.”(Qur’an chapter 40:37)

I was simply shocked by this! “Brother,” I said, “I do not think we need to be taking our Aqidah (belief) from Fir’aun (Pharaoh)! We do not need to build a tower of babel to reach heaven.

This was a real conversation that happened between me and a Malay Salafi brother in Singapore while in a Masjid in Singapore. Needless to say, I feigned ignorance of the subject and admittedly baited the brother because I am all too familiar with these topics.

But keep in mind he did approach me first.

However, I did advise him that in the future he may wish to use the hadith of the blind woman pointing upwards into heaven or when asked, ‘Who said Allah is in the heaven‘ perhaps he could say, ‘Allah himself says this.’ I am quite sure that our Salafi brothers continue to improve their techniques.

Yet the problem remains. The issue of Allah (swt) presumably being over the throne and descending down into the lowest part of the earth every night of course (in a way that befits his majesty) …..of course.

Now the Ashari and Maturidi among our Sunni brothers are quite sensible on this issue. However, those Sunni Muslims from the Salafi, Hanbali, Athari can get quite agitated over this very sensitive issue.

So sensitive that they basically tell you to just shut up and accept it! Blind faith!

You can’t make taqlid to a legal school but you damn well better make taqlid to their belief system!


Don’t worry yours truly has screenshots of the entire Q & A as many people make web sites, articles, and entries that disappear in a flash!

So here we go… I’ll highlight the text of interest.


When asked, “Where is Allah ?”
I reply “Above the seven Heavens and the Arsh”
But taking the Hadith regarding that Allah descends to the lowest heaven in the latter part of the night.
If someone asks where is Allah and they state it is the latter 3rd of the night now. What reply should you give? Another point is that some people say it is the latter part of the night all the time (somewhere on the earth at a particular point in time) From this they conclude that Allah is not above His Arsh.


Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly, we have to know the ‘aqeedah (belief) of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah concerning the names and attributes of Allaah. The belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is to affirm the names and attributes which Allaah has affirmed for Himself, without distorting or denying them, discussing how they are or likening them to anything else. They believe that which Allaah has commanded them to believe, for Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer”

[al-Shooraa 42:11] 

Allaah has told us about Himself. He says (interpretation of the meaning): 

Indeed, your Lord is Allaah, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and then He rose over (Istawaa) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty).

My comments: “The Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty)…” So now they are going to say no one knows how but then use the word ‘really’. Interesting.

[al-A’raaf 7:54] 

The Most Gracious (Allaah) rose over (Istawaa) the (Mighty) Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty).

[Ta-Ha 20:5] 

and there are other ayats which mention that Allaah rose over His Throne. 

The rising of Allaah over His Throne, which means that He Himself is High and above the Throne, is of a special nature which befits His Majesty and Might. No one knows how it is except Him. 

This was proven in the saheeh Sunnah, where it is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that Allaah descends during the last third of the night. It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Our Lord descends every night to the lowest heaven when the last third of the night remains, and He says, ‘Who will call Me that I might answer him, who will ask of Me that I might give him, who will ask My forgiveness, that I might forgive him?’” (narrated by al-Bukhaari, Kitaab al-Tawheed, 6940; Muslim, Salaat al-Musaafireen, 1262)

According to Ahl al-Sunnah, the meaning of this descent is that Allaah Himself comes down to the lowest heaven in a real sense, as befits His Majesty, and no one knows how that is except Him. 

Comments: I thought that the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunnah according to the Hanbali, Salafi, and Athari is that no one knows how? So how are they saying tongue in cheek, “comes down to the lowest heaven in a real sense, as befits His Majesty.”

They continue:

But does the fact that Allaah comes down means that He vacates the Throne or not? Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said concerning a similar question: we say that this question is based on unnecessary and excessive questioning and that the one who asked this is not to be thanked for his question. We ask, are you keener than the Sahaabah to understand the attributes of Allaah? If he says yes, we tell him, you are lying. And if he says no, we tell him, then be content with what they were content with. They did not ask the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), ‘O Messenger of Allaah, when He comes down, does He vacate the Throne?’ Why do you need to ask this question? Just say, He comes down. Whether or not the Throne is vacated is not your business. You are commanded to believe the reports, especially concerning the essence of Allaah and His attributes, for this matter is above rational thought.”

Comments: I have read many of Shaykh ‘Uthaymeen’s legal verdicts and this is as close toShut the hell up as I have ever seen the Shaykh get. The whole of his response is about intimidation and shutting down the inquiry of the questioner.

They continue:

Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh Muhammad al-‘Uthaymeen, 1/204-205 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said concerning this matter: 

The correct view is that He descends and that He does not vacate the Throne. A person’s soul remains attached to his body night and day until he dies, but when he is asleep it ascends… It was said, night varies, and the last third of the night comes sooner in the east than in the west, so the descent of Allaah to the lowest heaven, of which His Messenger spoke, happens in the east first and then in the west…” 

My comments: Whoa there Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah! Hold your horses! Are you now likening the descent/ascent of Allah (swt) to a human soul leaving the body? Furthermore are you saying that Allah (swt) has division with him self? A part of him that travels and a part of him that remains? By saying that Allah (swt) does not ‘vacate‘ the throne you are in fact establishing a ‘how’ for Allah swt! Authubillah min dhalik!

They continue:

See Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Taymiyah, 5/132 

Rising over (istiwaa’) and descending are two of the practical attributes which have to do with the will of Allaah. Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah believe in that, but in this belief they avoid likening Allaah to any of His creation or discussing how He is. It cannot occur to them that Allaah’s descending is like the descending of any of His creatures or that His rising over the Throne is like the rising over of any of His creatures, because they believe that there is nothing like unto Allaah and He is the All-Hearer, All-Seer. They know on rational grounds that there is a great difference between the Creator and His creatures, in their essence, attributes and actions. It cannot occur to them to ask how He descends, or how He rose over His Throne. The point is that they do not ask how His attributes are; they believe that there is a ‘how’, but it is unknown, so we can never imagine how it is

My comments: Respected Shaykh Taymiyah you said, ‘we can never imagine how it is’ and yet you also say in the paragraph above, A person’s soul remains attached to his body night and day until he dies, but when he is asleep it ascends.

We know for certain that what is narrated in the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is true and is not self-contradictory, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

Do they not then consider the Qur’aan carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”

[al-Nisaa’ 4:82]”

My comments: Well, you see 4:82 actually is a reference to the Qur’an. It is not a reference to hadith, sunnah, fiqh, ijtihad of imams, or anything else. How you lump the sunnah in with the Qur’an is anyone’s guess.

He continues:

because contradictions in the reports would mean that some of them were showing others to be false, and this is impossible in the case of that which Allaah and His Messenger tell us. 

Whoever imagines that there are any contradictions in the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or between the two, it is either because of his lack of knowledge or because he has failed to understand properly or to ponder the matter correctly, so let him seek further knowledge and strive to think harder until the truth becomes clear to him. Then if the matter is still not clear to him, let him leave it to the One Who is All-Knowing and let him put a stop to his illusions and say, as those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:7 – interpretation of the meaning]. Let him know that there is no contradiction in the Qur’aan and Sunnah and no conflict between them. And Allaah knows best.”

My comments: Well, you see 3:7 actually is a reference to the Qur’an. It is not a reference to hadith, sunnah, fiqh, ijtihad of imams, or anything else. How you lump the sunnah in with the Qur’an is anyone’s guess.

He continues:

See Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 3/237-238 

Imagining that there is a conflict between Allaah’s descending to the lowest heaven and His having risen over the Throne and His being high above the heavens stems from making a comparison between the Creator and the created being. For man cannot imagine the unseen things of His creation, such as the delights of Paradise, so how can he imagine the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted, the Knower of the Unseen. So we believe in what has been narrated of His rising over (the Throne), His descending and His being High and Exalted. We affirm that (and state that it is) in a manner that befits His Majesty and Might.”

My comments: So there you have it. ‘Uthaymeen basically telling a person to shut up. Ibn Taymiyah basically resorted to blatant Tashbih and Tamthil. (Making resemblance and drawling parallels to) the creation.

Being accurate and circumspect in our beliefs. So the next time someone ask you, “Where is Allah?”’ in order to answer the question accurately one would need to ask the person back. “Do you believe Allah is the creator of all things?” “Do you believe Allah is the creator of space and time?

Because apparently Allah (swt) is separate and distinct from his creation. Who said that? This website affirms that Imam Ahmad (r) said that.

So Yoosuf bin Moosaa al-Qattaan, the Shaykh of Abu Bakr al-Khallaal, said: It was said to Abu Abdullah (Ahmad bin Hanbal): “Allaah is above the seventh heaven, over His Throne, separate and distinct (baa’in) from His creation, and His power and knowledge are in every place?” He said:

Yes, He is over His Throne, and nothing escapes His knowledge.”

If the answer is yes you have to wonder if the throne is a creation or not. If the throne, space, and time are all creations you have to wonder at the question: “Where is Allah?” before the creation of the throne.

We also have this interesting verse. This has to be taken into consideration since some of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah say that Allah (swt) will “come in ranks with the angels.”

And your Lord comes and also the angels in ranks..” (Qur’an 89:22)

We also have to take into account this hadith:

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The Hellfire and Paradise disputed each other. Hellfire said: The arrogant and the tyrants will dwell in me. Paradise said: What is the matter with me that only the meek and humble of the people will enter me? Allah said to Paradise: You are my mercy with which I show mercy to those of my servants whom I will. Allah said to Hellfire: You are punishment with which I punish those of my servants whom I will, and both of you will be full. As for Hellfire, it will not be filled until Allah puts his foot over it and Hellfire will say: Enough! Enough! All of its parts will be filled together and Allah will not wrong any of his creatures. As for Paradise, Allah will create a new creation with which to fill it.”

Source: (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 4569, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2847) 



So what does all this mean? Especially if it is admitted that Allah (swt) is separate and distinct from his creation?

It means that the true answer of an Athari, someone who takes the apparent meaning of a text, that the true answer to the question “Where is Allah?” is to respond by saying:

Allah is as he is before space/time. While also being over the throne, while also coming down in the third part of the night (depending upon the time) and coming with rows of his angels. Allah’s foot is on the hellfire. All of that in a way that befits his majesty.

Because here is the point. I challenge anyone to show me where the Blessed Messenger (saw) or any of the companions disputed any of those points above?

Why is ‘Allah being over the throne’ THE DEFAULT POSITION? Again I challenge anyone to show me where the Blessed Messenger (saw) or the companions made ‘above the throne’ as the default position to the exclusion of the other text/positions? Thus, making everything else like ‘coming down’ or ‘existing as he was before creation’ or ‘coming in rows’ relational to that?


Because keep in mind the person is asking you, “Where is Allah?”  They are not asking you, “When is Allah?” They are not asking you ‘Where is Allah now?” Because ‘now‘ does not apply to Allah (swt). 

Who gave them the authority to make ‘the throne’ the default position? So yes, when someone asks, “Where is Allah?” You could reply, “London England” depending upon what time of day/night it is where you are.

Those who say that Allah (swt) is over the throne bi dhati (in essence) have made a reprehensible innovation because we have nothing reliably transmitted to us on this account.

This is the state of these people who want to police the beliefs of the Muslims and do actually approach people in the Masjid and ask random people, “Where is Allah?” With beliefs like this no wonder, they go around asking such a question, because it certainly seems they have lost their Lord.

May they find him.


Filed under Uncategorized

Top Shi’a Imam admits waiting for ‘Hidden Imam’ has been a waste of time


Say, “None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.” (Qur’an 27:65)

A Shia scholar from the 12er Shia of Islam (as opposed to the Zaydi Shia or Ismaili Shia)

Mash’Allah look at this man. He certainly has the light on his face. You know as people get older they often say things that they wanted to say before but didn’t. As each of us approaches death, we become more concerned with what Allah (swt) thinks of us and less concerned with what people think of us.


Imam Muhammad Asif Muhsini  (May Allah cover him in mercy) said in his book “Mashra`at Bihar al-Anwar”, volume 1 page 408:

الغيبة التي امتدت أكثر من ألف سنة وربما تمتد إلى آلاف أو ملايين السنين. فإن المؤمنين لم ينتفعوا ولا ينتفعون من إمامهم الغائب – عجل الله تعالى فرجه – في الأصول والفروع ، وما يقال بخلاف ذلك فهو تخيل وتوهم ولعب بالعقول
[This Ghaybah that has taken more than a thousand years and maybe it shall keep going for thousands or millions of years.
The believers living in it did not and do not benefit from their hidden Imam(may Allah hasten his appearance) in Usool or Furu`, and all else which is said is nothing but illusions and imaginations and playing with people’s minds.]

Muhammad Asif Muhsini said in the same book volume 2 page 223:

ولا يمكن القول بانتفاعنا منه عليه السلام في زمن الغيبة في الأمور الدينية إلا ممن سلب الله عقله
[It is not possible for us to say that we benefit from him (peace be upon him) in religious matters during his Ghaybah, except those whom Allah has robbed them of intellect.]

Finally, Muhammad Asif Muhsini said in footnote #1, in volume 1 page 82:

وأي فائدة لهذه الأحكام المخزونة عند الأئمة: والمكلفون يحرمون منها في أكثر من ألف سنة ولعله في ألف مليون سنة
[And what benefit does this knowledge stored with Imams hold: when the Mukallafoun(Shia) are deprived of it for more than a thousand years, and maybe it’ll last for a billion years.]

So yes you can imagine as women get raped and murdered and children become fatherless, and mosque becomes decimated and the landfills the cup with the injustice that this so-called ‘hidden Imam’ is somewhere waiting for just the right moment………getting ready and prepared…………some time……….any time…..or maybe waiting for the Mahdi is just a waste of time. 


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized



O Children of Israel, call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.” (Qur’an 2:47)

O Children of Israel, call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.” (Qur’an 2:122)

And We indeed delivered the Children of Israel from the abasing chastisement, From Pharaoh. Surely he was haughty, prodigal. And certainly, We chose them above the nations, having knowledge” (Qur’an 44:30)

And when Moses said to his people: O my people, remember the favor of Allah to you when He raised prophets among you and made you kings and gave you what He gave not to any other of the nations.” (Qur’an 5:20)

And certainly Allah made a covenant with the Children of Israel, and We raised up among them twelve princes. And Allah said: Surely I am with you. If you keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and believe in My messengers and assist them and offer to Allah a goodly gift, I will certainly cover your evil deeds, and cause you to enter Gardens wherein rivers flow. But whoever among you disbelieves after that, he indeed strays from the right way.” (Qur’an 5:12)


“The Lord said to Moses, “Send men to reconnoiter the land of Canaan, which I am giving the Israelites. You shall send one man from each ancestral tribe, all of them princes.”
(Numbers 13:1-2)


This article is written so that those who call themselves Jews or people who hold to the faith of Judaism can understand the true position of Islam as concerning Jews and Israel. Islam does not teach racism. Thus Islam does not teach to hate any tribe or race of people.


O mankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female and made you races and tribes that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.” (Qur’an 49:13)


Thus Islam does not teach hatred of the Jews.

Let me quote from “The Secret Jews” by Joachim Prinz, pp 20, 21 55:

“While thousands of Jews suffered in the rest of Europe, while the crusaders murdered them in the Rhineland and wherever they carried the cross toward Palestine in their holy war, Spanish Jewry celebrated its Golden Era… But the financial backing essential to the battle had come, as we know, from Abravanel, the Jew, who was now in exile. Not a single believing Jew was left in all of Spain or in the Balearic Islands. The Muslims were defeated. Spain was a purely Catholic country. And on August 3, 1492, another glorious triumph was beginning. Christopher Columbus sailed his three ships towards an unknown world on a voyage which was to fulfill two of the great goals of Spain, gold, and honor”

The following is taken from this web site and written by a Jewish woman Rebecca Weiner

The Golden Age

The situation improved in 711 when Spain fell under the rule of the Muslim Moors. Both and Jews built a civilization, based in, known as Al-Andalus, which was more advanced than any civilization in Europe at that time. Jews were able to coexist peacefully with their neighbors; however, they were still treated as “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) who are protected under Islamic law. Jews did not have complete autonomy and had to pay a special tax, the jizya, but were able to freely practice their religion.

The era of Muslim rule in (8th-11th century) was considered the “Golden Age” for Spanish Jewry. Jewish intellectual and spiritual life flourished and many Jews served in Spanish courts. Jewish economic expansion was unparalleled. In Toledo, Jews were involved in translating Arabic texts to the romance languages, as well as translating Greek and Hebrew texts into Arabic. Jews also contributed to botany, geography, medicine, mathematics, poetry, and philosophy.

A number of well-known Jewish physicians practiced during this period, including (915-970), who was the doctor for the (leader of). Many famous Jewish figures lived during the Golden Age and contributed to making this a flourishing period for Jewish thought.

Jews lived separately in aljamas (Jewish quarters). They were given administrative control over their communities and managed their own communal affairs. Jews had their own court system, known as the Bet Din. Rabbis served as judges and rendered both religious and civil legal opinions.

Islamic culture also influenced the Jews. Muslim and Jewish customs and practices became intertwined. For example, Arabic was used for prayers rather than Hebrew or Spanish. Before entering the synagogue, Jews washed their hands and feet, which is a practice done before entering a mosque. Arab melodies were used for Jewish songs. Jews wore the clothing style of their Moorish neighbors, although they were not allowed to wear silk or furs.

Jews lived peacefully in Al-Andalus for 400 years. The Golden Age for Jewry in Muslim declined after the Almovarides gained power in 1055 and continued to deteriorate after the Almohads came to power in 1147. Jews continued to work as moneylenders, jewelers, cobblers, tailors, and tanners, however, they had to wear distinguishing clothing, such as a yellow turban.”

It should be noted that the above web site doesn’t always have favorable things to say about Jews under Muslim rule. However, the facts remain that obviously, Islam does not teach annihilation or hatred of the Jews as seen by the example of Muslims who flourished in Muslim Spain and Portugal.



The prophet Muhammed (saw) commanded respect for the Jews in the following example.

“A funeral procession passed in front of us and the Prophet (saw) stood up and we too stood up. We said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle (SAW)! This is the funeral procession of a Jew. He (SAW) said, ‘Whenever you see a funeral procession, you should stand up’.” Source: (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 2, Book 23)



Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made because they are oppressed. And surely Allah is Able to assist them. Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and SYNAGOGUES, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps Him. Surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.” (Qur’an 22:39-40)


NOTE: Muslims are to sacrifice not only to stop their own persecution by their opponents and to save their own mosques but to save churches and SYNAGOGUES as well.



The following is a story about one of the wives of Prophet Muhammed (saw). She was a Jewish woman by name of Safiyyah bint Huyayy.

It was for these reasons that Huyayy secretly decided to oppose and fight the Prophet Muhammed (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) while in public he and the other leaders of the Jews made peace treaties with the Muslims and the Jews broke as soon as it seemed a favorable time to do so. Although Safiyyah was Huyayy’s daughter, she had a pure heart and had always wanted to worship her Creator and Lord, the One who had sent Moses, to whom she was related, and Jesus, and finally Muhammed (saw).

Thus as soon as the opportunity arose, not only to follow the last Prophet but also to be married to him, she took it. Although Safiyyah had in Muhammed (saw) a kindest and considerate husband, she was not always favorably accepted by some of his other wives, especially when she had first joined the Prophet’s household. It is related by Anas that on one occasion, the Prophet (saw) found Safiyyah weeping. When he asked her what the matter was, she replied that she heard that Hafsah had disparagingly described her as ‘the daughter of a Jew’.

The Prophet (saw) responded by saying, “You are certainly the daughter of a Prophet (Harun), and certainly your uncle was a Prophet (Moses), and you are certainly the wife of a Prophet (Muhammed), so what is there in that to be scornful towards you?” Then he said to Hafsah, “O Hafsah, fear Allah!”

Once the Prophet was accompanied on a journey by Safiyyah and Zainab bint Jahsh when Safiyyah’ s camel went lame. Zainab had an extra camel and the Prophet asked her if she would give it to Safiyyah. Zainab retorted, “Should I give to that Jewess!” The Prophet turned away from her in anger and would not have anything to do with her for two or three months to show his disapproval of what she had said. Some three years later, when Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was in his final illness, Safiyyah felt for him deeply and sincerely. “O Messenger of Allah,” she said, “I wish it was I who was suffering instead of you.” Some of the wives winked at each other which made the Prophet cross and he exclaimed, “By Allah, she spoke the truth!”





Does Islam teach hatred of Israel?

Before we get into this discussion we need to know what is Israel (Isra’il) according to the Qur’an and Islam? In every passage of the Qur’an Israel is referred to as a Yaqub (Jacob) or Isr’ail his other name. The Qur’an also refers to Israel as Bani Isra’il which is to say the tribe or offspring of Isra’il (Yaqub).


The Qur’an NEVER EVER makes a statement that Israel is a political state or political entity.


The following should make that abundantly clear.

And when We made a covenant with the Children of Israel, You shall serve none but Allah. And do good to parents, and to the near of kin and to orphans and the needy, and speak good words to all men, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. Then you turned back except a few of you, and you are averse.” (Qur’an 2:83)

Say: We believe in Allah and that which has been revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them and to Him do we submit.” (Qur’an 2:136)

Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do you know better or Allah? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And Allah is not heedless of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:140)

And when Moses prayed for water for his people, We said: March on to the rock with your staff. So there flowed from it twelve springs, Each tribe knew their drinking places. Eat and drink of the provisions of Allah, and act not corruptly, making mischief in the land.” (Qur’an 2:60)



  1. Reuben
    2. Simeon
    3. Judah
    4. Issachar
    5. Zebulun
    6. Ephraim
    7. Manasseh
    8. Benjamin
    9. Dan
    10. Asher
    11. Gad
    12. Naphtali
    (Numbers 1:1-16)

Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of E’dar. And it came to pass when Israel traveled in that land that Reuben went and lay with Bl’hah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zeb-lun: The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin: And the sons of Bil’hah, Rachel’s handmaid; Dan and Naphtali. And the sons of Zillah, Leah’s handmaid: Gad and Asher these are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padan-a’ram.” (Genesis 35:21-26)

The following points need to be made:

1) Israel in the above passage refers to Jacob (Yaqub)

2) A nation-state does not ‘pitch a tent’ and a nation-state does not ‘travel’ and a nation-state does not ‘hear’ things.

Israel is a nation in the same way the native Cherokee of the United States is a nation. When the native Cherokee were banished to live in the state of Oklahoma they did not cease to be a nation.



1) Israel/ Jacob (Yaqub) is the name of a prophet of Allah! It is not the name of a nation-state. The Qur’an nowhere recognizes Israel as a nation-state.

2) Israel is not in neither the Torah nor the Qur’an a political state; rather it refers to the 12 tribes/offspring of Jacob who may or may not be obedient to Allah’s will.






But on account of their breaking their covenant, We cursed them and hardened their hearts. They alter the words from their places and neglect a portion of that whereof they were reminded. And you will always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them-so pardon them and forgive. Surely Allah loves those who do good to others.” (Qur’an 5:13)

Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.” (5:78)



“And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water,
and made the children of Israel drink of it.” (Exodus 32:19-20)

That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, you have been rebellious against the Lord and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.” (Deuteronomy 31:25-29)

“The Lord said to Moses,
Tell the Israelites: You are a stiff-necked people. Where I go up in your company even for a moment, I would exterminate you, Take off your ornaments, therefore; I will then see what I am to do with you. So, from Mount Horeb onward the Israelites laid aside their ornaments.” (Exodus 33:5-6)

The above passages from the Qur’an should only be understood in the context of that which both Moses and Allah stated in the Torah.

If the Qur’an is promoting hatred of Jews or Anti-Semitism then so is the Torah. The facts are that Allah is condemning those on account of their breaking their covenant and the Children of Israel who rejected Faith.

This should be understood in light of the following passages that also tell us once again not all the Jews are the same and they are of course not all bad the same with any particular people.


“Not all of them are alike: of the People of the Book are a portion that stands (for the right); they rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong, and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: they are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knows well those that do right” (Qur’an 5:113-115)


Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their rewards with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.” (Qur’an 2:62)

The theme stressed time and time again in the Qur’an is that they of all people are particularly troublesome. What is the sincere Jew to do? Cry Anti-Semitism and show animosity towards Muslims? No! The sincere Jew who takes this matter seriously should repent and pray to Allah to open his or her heart and guide them ever more to the truth. This is the same thing anyone should ask for.



The Qur’an teaches that neither the Jews nor Israel is alone in receiving the blessings of Guidance from Allah. The Jews today cannot claim good standing with God simply on being descendants of Abraham and neither can the Arabs for that matter.

All Israel have a portion in the world to come” (BT Sanh 90a; cf. Mishnah Sanh 10:1) This statement is from the oral “Torah” of the Jews.

Hagigah 27a (p.171). No rabbi can ever go to hell.

This statement is also from the oral “ Torah” of the Jews. If any Jew or someone from the tribes of Israel makes any of the following claims they are totally unfounded and untrue.

1)”God loves Israel alone of all the nations.”
2)”God will judge the Gentiles with one measure and the Jews with another.”
3)”Abraham sits beside the gates of hell and does not permit any wicked Israelite to go through, any wicked Israelite Abraham will keep out of hell.”
4)”They who are the seed of Abraham according to the flesh shall in any case, even if they be sinners and unbelieving and disobedient toward God, still share in the eternal Kingdom.”

Allah refutes any notion that heritage from Abraham itself makes the Jews saved.


O Children of Israel, call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations. And be on your guard against a day when no soul will avail another in the least, neither will any compensation be accepted from it, nor will intercession profit it, nor will they be helped. And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commands he fulfilled them He said: Sure I will make thee a leader of men. Abraham said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the wrong-doers said He.” (Qur’an 2: 122-124)


Allah most high simply states that on Yom Al Qiyyamah (The Day of Judgment) that no one will be able to intercede on behalf of the Children of Israel. It also needs to be understood that when Abraham upon whom be peace asked about his offspring it simply states that his covenant is not with the wrongdoers.

Moses calls God “God of the spirits of all flesh(Numbers 27:16)



(Bismillah Ir Rahman Ir Raheem)
Praise be to Allah,
the Lord of the worlds!
(Al hamdulillahi rabbil al’ameen)
(Qur’an 1:2)


“And messengers We have mentioned to thee before and messengers We have not mentioned to thee. And to Moses Allah addressed His word, speaking (to him).” (Qur’an 4:164)

And for every nation, there is a messenger. So when their messenger comes, the matter is decided between them with justice, and they are not wronged. (Qur’an 10:47)

That the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) may know that they control naught of the grace of Allah, and that grace is in Allah’s hand. He gives it to whom He pleases, And Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.” (Qur’an 57:29)



Muslims believe that Allah Most High had indeed given Moses the Torah to guide the Children of Israel. That this Torah consisted of written documents and oral tradition is confirmed in the following verses of the Qur’an.


And certainly We gave Moses and Aaron the Furqan and a light and a reminder for those who keep from evil.” (Qur’an 21:48)

Furqan means filter/judgment/discrimination


And certainly We gave the Children of Israel the Book and Hikmah and prophethood and provided them with good things, and made them excel the nations.” (Qur’an 45:16)

Hikmah means wisdom, discernment.



This is taken from the following web site

The Torah also is silent on many important subjects. We take it for granted that the large majority of couples want their wedding ceremony to be religious, but the Torah itself has nothing to say concerning a marriage ceremony. To be sure, the Torah presumes that people will get married – “Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24) — but nowhere in the Torah is a marriage ceremony recorded. Only in the Oral Law do we find details on how to perform a Jewish wedding.

Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah’s laws would be incomprehensible. In the Shema’s first paragraph, the Bible instructs:


“And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart. And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:48)

“Bind them for a sign upon your hand,” the last verse instructs. Bind what? The Torah doesn’t say. “And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.” What are frontlets? The Hebrew word for frontlets, totafot is used three times in the Torah — always in this context (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18) — and is as obscure as is the English. Only in the Oral Law do we learn that what a Jewish male should bind upon his hand and between his eyes are tefillin (phylacteries).

Finally, an Oral Law was needed to mitigate certain categorical Torah laws that would have caused grave problems if carried out literally. The Written Law, for example, demands an “eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24).


Did this imply that if one person accidentally blinded another, he should be blinded in return? That seems to be the Torah’s wish. But the Oral Law explains that the verse must be understood as requiring monetary compensation: the value of an eye is what must be paid.

For these three reasons-the the frequent lack of details in Torah legislation, the incomprehensibility of some terms in the Torah, and the objections to following some Torah laws literally — an Oral Law was always necessary.

Strangely enough, the Oral Law today is a written law, codified in the Mishna and Talmud. Orthodox Judaism believes that most of the oral traditions recorded in these books date back to God’s revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. When God gave Moses the Torah, Orthodoxy teaches, He simultaneously provided him all the details found in the Oral Law. It is believed that Moses subsequently transmitted that Oral Law to his successor, Joshua, who transmitted it to his successor, in a chain that is still being carried on (Ethics of the Fathers 1:1).




There are many things in the Oral Torah that were transmitted faithfully from Moses through Joshua and the Qur’an agrees with this.

For example.

  1. In the standard edition of the Mishnayot, the wording is: “Whoever destroys the life of a single human being [nefesh a`hat mi-bnei adam] … it is as if he had destroyed an entire world, and whoever preserves the life of a single human being … it is as if he had preserved an entire world”.


For this reason, We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a person, unless it is for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all men. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all men. And certainly, Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them commit excess in the land.” (Qur’an 5:32)


However, there are many things in the Oral “ Torah” Muslims would argue is not from Allah.

Sanhedrin 58b. (p.398). If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew (the Gentile must be killed. hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

Yebamoth 63a (p.42O). States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus (“Yeshu” and in footnote #6, Yeshu “the Nazarene”) was executed because he practiced sorcery.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman, or a slave.

Baba Mezia 59b. (p. 353). A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

This one of the reasons the last Prophet Jesus the Son of Mary referred to the Mishnah (“Oral tradition of the elders”) which would later comprise a major portion of the Talmud.

“In vain do they worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mark 7:7)

“Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such like things do you.” (Mark 7:13)

Jesus referred to the Mishnah (“tradition of the elders’) which would later comprise a major portion of the Talmud:


Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at the feast and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi, But be not you called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:1-9)

But woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer you them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like unto white sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous. (Matthew 23:13,27,29)


There are also many other things written in the Tanach TNCH that the Jews hold sacred that Muslims would not ascribe to Allah.

“Thus said the Lord of the host, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid in wait for him in the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and kill Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)


“And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father.
But the children of the murderers he slew not: according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children are put to death for the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

The above statement is found in Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children are put to death for the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (2 Kings 14:5-6)

Whoever ascribed that Allah (swt) would give permission to kill innocent babies and children in warfare made a very serious error in light of what Allah revealed to Moses in the Torah.


Thus Allah says,

“Woe! Unto them to those who write the Book with their hands then say, This is from Allah; so that they may take for it a small price. So woe! to them for what their hands write and woe! to them for what they earn.” (Qur’an 2:79)

This verse is most certainly in reference to the following section of the Torah. 

You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.”

“If you make a vow to the Lord your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the Lord your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin.” (Deuteronomy 23:20-21)

This particular text which has been engineered by the hands of man has not only perpetuated the economic imbalances of today, it has the focus of so many anti-Jewish tropes around money.


“…and the rabbis and the priest (judged according to their Scriptures),

For to them was entrusted the protection of the book of Allah and they were witnesses to it.” (Qur’an 5:44)


“How can you say we are wise, and the ‘law of the lord'(Torah) is with us’? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it (the Torah) into a lie.”



It is revealed in the Qur’an that Allah has never slept or has ‘taken a fifteen-minute break’. Such a concept is blasphemous to Allah and it degrades the creator of the universe.

The following is taken from

In Exodus 20:11, after Fourth Commandment is first instituted, G-d explains, “because, for six days, the L-rd made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and on the seventh day, he rested; therefore, the L-rd blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.” By resting on the seventh day and sanctifying it, we remember and acknowledge that G-d is the creator of heaven and earth and all living things. We also emulate the divine example, by refraining from work on the seventh day, as G-d did. If G-d’s work can be set aside for a day of rest, how can we believe that our own work is too important to set aside temporarily?


Allah- there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-subsisting by whom all subsist. Slumber overtakes Him not, nor sleep.” (Qur’an 2:255)

In conclusion, it can be seen that during the time of Moses upon whom be peace Arabs and people of all ethnic backgrounds and tribes would have had a moral obligation to themselves and their creator to accept the divine revelation that Moses had received.

There is nothing Anti-Semitic in admitting the truth that the Arabs and other non-Israelite tribes during the time of Moses were polytheists (idol worshipers) and people of error.

However it now the Bani Isr’ail the Children of Israel who are upon error, and we call them to the Haqq (the undisputed truth).


Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian, but he was righteous a Muslim; and he was not one of the polytheists.” (Qur’an 3:66)

Before there was a Jesus or a Christianity Allah had a relationship with humanity.

Before there was Moses or Judaism Allah had a relationship with humanity.

Allah tells us that Abraham was a Muslim.

MuSLiM, SaLaM, iSLaM all come from the Arabic root (SLM) which means Peace, safety, security, surrender, return to wholeness, submission.

Abraham was a submitter to the will of Allah. If 12 tribes can come together and worship Allah then surely the descendants of both Ishaq and Ismail came come together and worship Allah. In fact, all of humanity can come together in worship of our one common creator Allah the Most Gracious the Most Merciful.

Allah truly spoke through the mouth of Moses and said to the Children of Israel “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18-19)

For more on prophecies about Muhammed in the Torah please read my article

n closing I leave with this following quotation from the Glorious Qur’an to the Jews, the Christians and all would listen to the words of their Lord


And who forsakes the religion of Abraham but he who makes a fool of himself. And certainly, We made him pure in this world and in the Hereafter he is surely among the righteous. When his Lord said to him, Submit, he said: I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds. And the same did Abraham enjoin on his sons, and Jacob: O my sons, surely Allah has chosen for you (this) religion, so die not unless you are submitting ones. Or were you witnesses when death visited Jacob when he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: We shall serve your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, one God only, and to Him do we submit” (Qur’an 2:130-133)

May the One True God of Abraham guide us all amin!


Filed under Uncategorized

Between Rebellion and Oppression A Middle Way

And DO NOT OBEY the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend their ways” (Qur’an 26:151-152)


O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result.” (Qur’an 4:59). 

In this clear verse, we find that in matters of disagreement between those in authority and those under authority, we need to refer back to Allah and the Messenger. Had it been that those in authority were infallible or divinely appointed then, Allah wouldn’t have given any scope to disagree with them.

The fact that there is disagreement proves that “those in authority aka the Ulil Amr”, are neither an absolute nor an infallible authority.

Before we get into this article let it be said that in truth good governance and a stable society are indeed a blessing from Allah (swt). Many of us who have the leisure time to read a post like this life in relative comfort and safety. The worse thing anyone could want for their government or any other government is chaos and ruin.


We should also reflect that there are indeed a very few key components that make for a stable society, regardless of the social-political worldview of that government. Those components are being able to drink clean water and afford food. Being able to afford comfortable housing, and in many places being able to have access to electricity. Another component is the ability of the government (in whatever form it takes) to be able to implement law and order.

If you were to remove three of these five factors, let us say, water, electricity, and the ability to access food for as much as a few days, many countries would quickly descend into chaos.

Therefore indeed a stable government and stable governance is a blessing from Allah (swt).

According to Maslow’s pyramid of hierarchical needs the very basic needs of any human being or group of human beings are psychological and safety needs. To be honest many governments of the world fail to address these very basic needs. Some of them through no fault of their own, such as a devastating natural disaster and some of them through social engineering and social-economic systems that benefit the few and leave the masses to want.


The second aspect of this pyramid is the feeling of belonging and the feeling of self-esteem. Now usually nation-states try and invoke feelings of belongings by nationalism. The feeling of self-esteem presents itself through merit through the education system, feats of valor in military service, and/or sports. However, even then most feelings of self-esteem and prestige come from the privileged group continuing to hold on to their privilege and in usually in today’s market economy where materialistic nihilism is the new spirituality by making oneself feel superior to the next guy.


You have a better this. You have more of that. You have greater access to….and so forth. These all give false feelings of accomplishment.

In the last part of Maslow’s pyramid, the feeling of self-actualization is never reached or even encouraged in any government that I am aware of. Often for some people reaching that state of self-actualization and a sense of true freedom and/or awakening means going against the status quo.

So indeed having a stable government is a blessing from Allah (swt). That being said having a government that oppresses itself people, does not allow legal representation, has kangaroo court systems, sends death squads, inquisitors, police, and other people to crush those who have different ideas and world views is not a blessing from Allah (swt).


 “So stand firm in your devotion to the faith, inclining to truth, [according to] the innate nature Allah has instilled in [all] people. There is no changing Allah’s creation. This is the correct religion, but most people do not know it..” (Qur’an 30:30)

The innate nature (fit’rata)

When your Lord told the angels, “I will place a steward on earth,” they said, “Will you put someone there who will corrupt it and shed blood, while we glorify, praise, and sanctify You?” He said, “I know things you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:30)


The English definition of violence is as follows:

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.

So we speak of a violent storm or we say that the volcano had a violent eruption.


Tariq Ramadan (May Allah have mercy on him) held a debate with Christopher Hitchens on the topic: “Is Islam a Religion of Peace” Which to be honest was a horrible proposition for Tariq Ramadan to debate.

@19:50 marks you can see Tariq Ramadan express his reservations about the title for the debate. However, as Christopher Hitchens rightly pointed out he knew the proposition beforehand.

The better title would have been. “Is Islam a Religion of Violence.” Christopher Hitchens could have argued that it is evident whereas Tariq Ramadan could have made his point that Islam deals in war and peace and thus it deals with peace and violence.

@20:50 Tariq Ramadan made the point that Islam deals with humans and has such you deal with violence and you deal with peace.



“So stand firm in your devotion to the faith, inclining to truth, [according to] the innate nature Allah has instilled in [all] people. There is no changing Allah’s creation. This is the correct religion, but most people do not know it..” (Qur’an 30:30)

Keep in mind the English definition of violence is as follows:

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

There is not a creature on this earth even among plants and corals that do not act violently in some way shape or form or have not been given the means to defend themselves from aggression.

Vegans and vegetarians do violence to plants. Insects, fish, and all manner of plants, flora, fauna, and creatures do violence to each other in this world.

Even if we were to witness a Jain in meditation one may not see the battlefield of violence inside the devotee’s body as different types of bacteria unleash violence on other types of bacteria.

I do not think there is a man reading this that if someone was to go into his home and try and rape his mother, daughter, sister, wife, or anyone else that he would put his life on the line to defend that person.

This is natural. Even among animals that try to flee a situation if given no other opportunity, they will stand their ground and fight.

“So stand firm in your devotion to the faith, inclining to truth, [according to] the innate nature Allah has instilled in [all] people. There is no changing Allah’s creation. This is the correct religion, but most people do not know it..” (Qur’an 30:30)

Now let us do some thinking for a moment. Let us look at some passages from the Qur’an.

“And if he [Muhammed] had made up about Us some [false] sayings
We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta valve.” (Qur’an 69:44-46)

 “Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right – only because they say, “Our Lord is Allah.” And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.” (Qur’an 22:39-40)

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 2:190)


Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they are impaled…” (Qur’an 5:33)

A prophet may not take captives until he has thoroughly decimated [the enemy] in the land. You desire the transitory gains of this world, while Allah desires [for you] [the reward of] the Hereafter and Allah is all-mighty, all-wise.” (Qur’an 8:67)

So if you come upon such people in war, make a harsh example of them to deter those coming after them so that hopefully they will pay heed.” (Qur’an 8:57)




The closest verse to pacifism or turning of the other cheek that one will find is the following:

And We ordained therein for them: Life for a life, eye for an eye, nose for a nose, ear for an ear, tooth for a tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him, an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the wrong-doers.” (Qur’an 5:45)

So in this verse, a person can forgive a wrong that is done to them; however, they are not required to do so.

These verses are only a handful of many many more than can be quoted. This is to ask us all to reflect. Islam a religion that regulates violence. We are commanded to sacrifice animals on certain occasions. Those of us who are magistrates (judges) are commanded to enact the penalties of the Islam penal code on those who transgress the limits. The Blessed Prophet (saw) is threatened with extreme violence if he even were to think of pretending to write something on authority from Allah (swt). Allah (swt) commands Muslims to fight those who fight them, and that some times Allah (swt) uses some people as a means of checks and balance upon the Earth.


When it comes to the leader Islam demands complete and total obedience?

Something seems very off about this.



First, it should be understood that if there is a dispute among parties that they refer the matter back to the book of Allah (swt).

“Do you not see those who have been given a portion of the Book being invited to let Allah’s Book be the judge between them? But then a group of them turn away.” (Qur’an 3:23)

So the first point of reference is to the Qur’an.

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 2:190)

If two groups of believers should fight each other, then try to reconcile them. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight the oppressing group until it complies with Allah’s command. Once it has complied, make peace between them with justice and be equitable. Allah loves those who are equitable. “ (Qur’an 49:9)

Understanding the first proof:

These two verses together absolutely debunk the idea that Muslims cannot rebel against a leader. It is not reasonable to think that if two groups of believers were fighting each other (with intent to kill) that the leader would not be opposed (if not among one of the two warring factions). Notice that it uses the word ‘believers’ when discussing those who would be fighting (with intent to kill). Also says until it complies with Allah’s command (amri-l-lahi). Notice it does not say until it complies with the uli-l-amri (those that are given authority over you).

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result. (Qur’an 4:59). 

Understanding the second proof.

In this clear verse, we find that in matters of disagreement between those in authority and those under authority, we need to refer back to Allah and the Messenger. Had it been that, those in authority were infallible or divinely appointed, or to be given absolute obedience then, Allah (swt) wouldn’t have given any scope to disagree with them.

The fact that there is disagreement proves that “those in authority aka the Uli-l-amri”, are neither an absolute nor an infallible authority, nor are Muslims to submit to their seat of power in all things.

In fact, often those who argue that we should obey the ruler no matter what will use this verse to deceive the masses! They will quote, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.” However, they do not quote the full verse! Why is that? Because it is proof against them!


“People, be mindful of your Lord, who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them spread countless men and women far and wide; be mindful of Allah, in whose name you make requests of one another. Beware of severing the ties of kinship: Allah is always watching over you. (Qur’an 4:1)

“O you who believe,
do not take your fathers nor brothers as allies if they prefer rejection to belief. And whoever of you takes them as such, then these are wicked.” (Qur’an 9:23) 


Understanding the proof.

The proof here is from inference. There can be no greater bonds than that of family, kith and kin. Yet even these blood ties are to be forsaken when our family turns to evil. If this is the case of blood ties how much more to an unjust, impious, or evil ruler?


“For that cause, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it will be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoever saves the life of one, it will be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came to them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterward lo! many of them continued to commit excess on the Earth.” (Qur’an 5: 32)

Understanding the proof.

No commentary, no tafsir that I have ever come across said that the verse above applies to everyone except the Khalif/Sultan/Leader, etc. If there is bring forth the evidence.

If you saved the life of the Khalif/Sultan/Leader it will be as if you saved the life of the whole mankind.

If you took the life of the Khalif/Sultan/Leader unjustly it will be as if you saved the life of the whole of mankind.

Now there are two caveats here the verse tells us.

You can take a life if someone has taken a life unjustly. You can take a life if someone is spreading fasadin (corruption). Who better to spread corruption on the Earth than a corrupt Khalif/Sultan/Leader who is in a position of authority, influence, and power.

The killing of one person from a practical perspective outweighs the millions of lives that can be lost due to a leader who continues to kill and oppress.


And that was ‘Aad, who rejected the signs of their Lord and disobeyed His messengers and followed the order of every obstinate tyrant. and they were [therefore] followed in this world with a curse and [as well] on the Day of Resurrection. Unquestionably, ‘Aad denied their Lord; then away with ‘Aad, the people of Hud.” (Qur’an 11:59-60)

Understanding the proof.

Allah (swt) contrary to the hadiths that “Ahl Sunnah” will quote, did not find following the orders of every obstinate tyrant to be something meritorious and praiseworthy but rather something blameworthy and shameful, even to the point of being cursed in this life as well as the life to come! May Allah (swt) protect us from it!


And those who, when tyranny strikes them, they defend themselves, Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, whoever pardons and makes reconciliation – his reward is [due] from Allah. Indeed, He does not love the unjust. And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged – those have not upon them any cause [for blame].  The cause is only against the ones who wrong the people and tyrannize upon the earth without right. Those will have a painful punishment. And whoever is patient and forgives – indeed, that is of the matters requiring determination.” (Qur’an 42:39-43)

Understanding the proof.

While this verse has in two places that discuss forgiveness when retaliation is due, it also has two places that mention retribution for injustice and avenging oneself if wronged that this person is not to be blamed.

Now of course this verse is not encouraging vigilante justice or taking matters into one’s own hands. However, this verse is general and it equally applies to anyone in authority. No one understands that this verse excuses an officer, a judge, an imam, or in-person in a position above others, including the Khalif/Sultan/Leader.

Interestingly the word used for tyranny l-baghyu is also used for injustice, rebellion, discord. So it is not that masses who are the only one’s who rebel, but rulers, who do rebellion against Allah (swt) and against their sacred trust and duty towards people.

Now you will note that for us we rely heavily upon the revelation of Allah (swt) for our position and our proofs. Whereas those who differ with us rely heavily upon the oral traditions for their positions and their proofs.




#1) It should be known clear as day that we follow the Manhaj of the Blessed Prophet (saw) who is reported to have said…

On the authority of Abu Sa`eed al-Khudree (r.a) who said:

I heard the Messenger of Allah (swt) say, “Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart — and that is the weakest of faith.”

Understanding the proof:

Note that the very first recourse was to change the situation with the hands ……not to abide it with patience, not to run and hide like a coward but to change it with your hands…..first….not last…

Lastly, notice that it says clear as day that hating it with your heart (is the weakest of faith).


Also, keep in mind that those who say and claim it is a sin to go against the ruler the well-known exchange between Umar Ibn Al Khattab (r.a) and a companion.

One day Khaleefah Umar bin al-Khattab stood up and delivered a speech in which he said: “O people, whoever among you sees any crookedness in me, let him straighten it.” A man stood up and said: “By Allah if we see any crookedness in you we will straighten it with our swords.” Umar said: “Praise be to Allah Who has put in this ummah people who will straighten the crookedness of Umar with their swords.”

Source: (Dr Muhammad as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, His Life and Times,’ vol. 1, p. 213)

This is well known.

Umar (r.a) was humble and pious and just. The people had the right to say such statements because people like him and Abu Bakr (r.a) were immense people and great leaders.

However, when the “Ahl Sunnah” started to be ruled by dynasties and oppressors and people who were less than these great men, they made such excuses for them.

Verily, tyrannical rulers will come after me and whoever affirms their lies and supports their oppression has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him, and he will not drink with me at the fountain in Paradise. Whoever does not affirm their lies and does not support their oppression is part of me and I am part of him, and he will drink with me at the fountain in Paradise.” Source: (Sunan An-Nasa’i 4207)

Understanding the proof.

One of the objectives of the Prophets is to establish justice in the land. It is contrary to the teachings of mercy and justice that people should support and affirm the lies of the oppressors.

Attempts to distort what the Blessed Messenger (saw) gave us concerning oppression and rulers.

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

Source: (Al Bukhari 7142 Book 93, Hadith 6 Vol 9 Book 89 Hadith 256)

“If an Ethiopian slave with a cut off nose and ear were appointed as your ruler, you would have to listen to and obey his orders as long as he rules in accordance with the Book of Allah.Source: (Sunan Ibn Majah 2861)

Understanding the proof.

This hadith puts to bed the idea that “Ahl Sunnah” have first that the ruler can only come from the Quresh. However, notice that this hadith comes to us with a very interesting addition. That we are to under no circumstances to rebel against a leader/ruler/khalif/sultan of any racial/ethnic background as long as that person rules in accordance with the Book of Allah (swt).


Narrated ‘Abdullah:

The Prophet said, “A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it. Source: (Al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 258 & Hadith No. 203, Vol. 4)

Understanding the proof.

The hadith before this one mentions that we are to obey the ruler as long as they rule in accordance with the Book of Allah (swt). The hadith quoted above states that we are to obey the ruler as long as they do not impose upon those they rule over disobedience to Allah (swt).

So we can see that allegiance to a ruler is conditional upon two points.

a) That this ruler actually rules in accordance with the book of Allah (swt).

b) That this ruler does not impose upon the Muslim disobedience to Allah (swt).

Narrated ‘Ali:

The Prophet sent an army unit (for some campaign) and appointed a man from the Ansar as its commander and ordered them (the soldiers) to obey him. (During the campaign) he became angry with them and said, “Didn’t the Prophet order you to obey me?” They said, “Yes.” He said, “I order you to collect wood and make a fire and then throw yourselves into it.” So they collected wood and made a fire, but when they were about to throw themselves into it, they started looking at each other, and some of them said, “We followed the Prophet to escape from the fire. How should we enter it now?” So while they were in that state, the fire extinguished and their commander’s anger abated. The event was mentioned to the Prophet and he said, “If they had entered it (the fire) they would never have come out of it, for obedience is required only in what is good.” Source: (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 259 & hadith No. 629. Vol. 5)


Understanding the proof.

This hadith has shown that thankfully the companions were not dimwitted. These people had the intelligence to understand that throwing themselves into fire even though the commander commanded them to do so, that this was something ridiculous. Also again the hadith states that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said, ‘obedience is required only in what is good.’


“There is no obedience to the created in the disobedience of the Creator.”

Source: (Ahmad Al-Musnad Vol 1. p. 366, tradition no. 1065, p 372-373, tradition no, 1095, Al-Nasai Al Kubra Vol. 8 p 71 traditions 8667-8668, Mariful Qur’an pg 481 Volume 5)


Understanding the proof.

This can be used on many occasions. We are exhorted to obey our parents but they asked us to worship other than Allah (swt) we can refuse them. If a husband asked his wife to do something immoral she can refuse. If the wife asks the husband to do something immoral he can refuse. If a government or any authority asks us to do anything that is in disobedience to Allah (swt) we do not have to obey them.



Now let me also mention to you (the reader) that the position of the Ibadi school (Ahl Istiqamah) is as follows:

  1. We are absolutely to obey the just and good rulers in our society.

  2. To go against the just and good rulers in our society is a major sin.

  3. To go against an unjust and corrupt ruler who is spreading fitna and fasad is meritorious, praiseworthy, and obligatory.

Now there is a caveat to point 3.

A) If going against the unjust and corrupt ruler will actually meet with little chance of success and cause more bloodshed and chaos than if one had not, it is a sin to go against the rulers.

B) If going against the unjust and corrupt ruler will actually meet with a great chance of success and it will cause less bloodshed, suffering, and chaos than as mentioned it is obligatory and meritorious to do so.

That is our position (the position of the Ibadi).

Now a few points to make about some of our brothers from “Ahl Sunnah” and those that take an opposite stance.

  1. The Majority sect does not have consensus on the issue no matter what they claim. In fact, they even say that one can go against a ruler if they commit a clear act of disbelief.

  2. Their claim of ‘ijma’ of course excludes us (Ibadi), Zaidi, and 12er Shia. Because in their fanaticism they consider us as heretics.

  3. Name a single scholar in the history of “Ahl Sunnah” that was against the rebellion of an unjust ruler or tyrant that was A) Not on the government payroll or patronized by the government & B) Not admired and patronized by the elites.

  4. The fact that the “Ahl Sunnah” will claim that going against the ruler will result in more bloodshed and death and yet they will not even entertain the idea that replacing an obstinate tyrant by force would actually result in less bloodshed and death in the end.

  5. Their inconsistency in saying that those who rebel against the sultan/khalif have left Islam but their recognition that if such a rebellion is successful that the new leadership (taken by force) is now legitimate!

  6. Their inconsistency regarding the companions. Which we will discuss now.



We hold fast to the following:

“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result.” (Qur’an 4:59). 

That’s it. If we are all Muslims than we can certainly turn to the book of Allah (swt) to settle our disputes.

In conclusion:

We should all do our best to be loyal, productive citizens of whatever state that we live in. We should abide by its rules and dictates. If we are not happy where we live there is nothing wrong with us immigrating to a place we feel may be more suitable for us.

However, if our lives and our property begin to be taken unjustly and we have no recourse to legal representation or no recourse for justice there are certain situations where it is in the best interest of the people to rise up against oppression and bring about better governance for themselves.

Allah (swt) knows best and the help of Allah (swt) is sought.

I dedicate this particular article to the struggle of the Palestinian people, the people of Syria, the people of Iraq, Kashmir, Yemen, the Muslims of Myanmar, the Muslims of Western China.

I dedicate this particular article to all people suffering from oppression and injustice all over the world. If Muslims are oppressing Non-Muslims than may Allah (swt) soften the heart of those Muslims and if not may Allah (swt) give victory to any Non-Muslim suffering from oppression from Muslims.

May this world be filled with peace and justice. Amin.

And DO NOT OBEY the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend their ways” (Qur’an 26:151-152)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Who are the Kharijites? Are Ibadi Muslims Kharijites?

Oh my Lord, increase me in knowledge.”  (Qur’an 20:114)

Answering misconception about Ibadis. One thing that you will often hear from Orientalist as well as from our fellow Muslim brothers are two mistaken ideas.

#1) That Ibadi are Khawarij.

#2) That Ibadi grew out of the Khawarij.

Let’s address the first point.


The definition of Khawarij

Khawarij = “The ones that have gone out or have come out.”

In the Arabic language, it has no negative connotation in and of itself.

One of the largest Muslim daw’ah groups in the world our brothers” The Tablighi Jamaat” go out on Khuruj -going out in the path of Allah for 40 days.


So from wherever you go out (kharajta)turn your face toward al- Masjid al-haram, and indeed, it is the truth from your Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.” (Quran 2:149)

The Day they will hear the blast in truth. That is the(yawmu-khuruji) Day of Emergence.” (Qur’an 50:42)


The other point is that this term has is a polemical term used to disparage certain groups of Muslims. If we examine the polemical usage of the word than all the qualities that are used to say this particular sect is khawarij are equally applicable to all other factions and sects.

Unless suddenly we are going to pretend that we don’t have people saying that if you claim the Qur’an is created you should be killed.    

In fact, for those who are genuinely interested in this subject, I highly recommend you read this 47 page PDF file. That has a nice big font and easy to read. Straight to the point.   Al-Khawarij

The points that are made in the above article are sound.

#1 Ask your people to define the term Khawarij.

What is the Arabic etymological root of the word and what does it mean in the Arabic language.   Once this is done please proceed to point 2.

#2 Now with that definition in mind ask on what consistent basis is this not applied to Talha and Zubhair?

Why are Talha and Zubhair not called Khawarij for opposing Ali?

Ali Ibn Abu Talib was the rightful amir of Muslims at that time was he not?

#3 Now with that definition in mind ask on what consistent basis is this not applied to Mu’awiya or Amr ibn Al ‘As?

Why is not Mu’awiya and Amr ibn al as not called a Khawarij for opposing Ali?

Ali Ibn Abu Talib was the rightful amir of the Muslims at that time was he not?

This in and of itself shows the supreme bias and inconsistency when the narrative is being told by certain historical narratives.


The group that orientalist and our brothers from among the Shi’a and Ahl Sunnah as  “Khawarij”  believed that the blood of other Muslims who simply differ with them is permissible to take. They often make takfir of other Muslims -whereas we Ibadi Muslims do not do this.


Those other groups do not recognize Uthman (r.a) and Ali (r.a) as rightful Amir’s of the Muslims whereas we Ibadi Muslims recognize them. We simply admit that the latter part of Uthman’s reign suffered from nepotism and other issues. With Ali’s reign, It was his decision to abandon the Qurra as well as the clear guidance that Allah (swt) gave in the Qur’an.

Now while we are on the subject of taking the life of a fellow Muslim being a small matter let us take a look at something interesting.

Ali said:

Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah () believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said. When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for the battle is an outwitting. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement.”

Source: (Sahih Muslim 1066 aIn-book reference: Book 12, Hadith 199 Book 5, Hadith 2328)


Now my dear fellow Muslims, and researchers of truth. The very wording of this hadith is bizarre. First, the way that Ali Ibn Abu Talib (r.a) words the hadith as if he is saying, “By the way, I know you people may have some doubts in me but trust me I won’t lie about the Prophet.”

The way that Ali(r a) prefaced the hadith merits some sober reflection.

So what does this particular hadith suggest that you do with these extremists? Does it suggest you try and reason with them? Does it suggest that you capture them? No. It tells you that you should kill them and that in fact, Allah will give you a reward for it. That sounds quite extreme indeed.


Let us now address the second point:

Ibadi did not come from the so-called “Khawarij” nor are we a branch of them. It is more appropriate and truthful to say that this polemical term has been used about us Ibadi’s as well as those from the Azraqi, Najdi, and Surfriya. The only point that we Ibadi hold in common with them is that all three of these groups are in AGREEMENT on ONE FINE POINT history.

In the sense that all these groups are in agreement that Ali (r.a) was in error in his decision to make arbitration with Muaviya.


Thus, in that sense, we are all known previously as (Al Muhakkimah), or those who adopt Quranic verses for resolving any issue or quarrel, it is just what Allah (swt) told us we should do. Please refer to the Qur’an (5:50 & 4:65, in the least)


With the coming of Abdullah ibn Ibadh al-Murri al-Tamimi (raheemullah) this is when the Al Muhakkimah already became subgroups.

All that can be said about the above groups is that are in agreement that Ali (r.a) should not have made arbitration with Muaviya.  Just like all Muslims are in agreement that Allah (swt) is one. Logically this does not mean that all Muslims have the same ideas about everything else. The Nukkaris broke away from the Ibadi’s briefly than came back to the Ibadi. The Surfriyya eventually became absorbed into the Ibadi school in North Africa.  The Najdiyya, Azraqi, Bayhasiyya, and whomever else did not survive until today.

Some groups are known as the Azraqi, Najdi, and others, these are the people whom the Shi’a, Sunni, and Orientalists refer to as “Khawarij”. It is these groups that became quite extreme in their views. For anyone who has studied history knows that Ibadi’s directed polemical writings towards these other groups, especially the Azraqi and the Surfriyya.


For those of you who understand and speak Arabic, I would highly recommend this lecture.

Insh’Allah may your eyes be opened wide! 


For those who do not speak or understand Arabic see the excellent write up by sister Bint Ibadh here:

The Ibadi after Abdullah ibn Ibadh (raheemullah). -They believe in peaceful existence and dialogue with other Muslims. They marry other Muslims and perform the funeral prayers for them as well. One brother from Saudi Arabia recently said to a friend of mine, “You Ibadi are Khawarij, Shi’a,  you support Iran!”   

To which my friend replied, “We don’t support Iran, or Saudi Arabia or anyone. We support the Muslims. Who is doing to killing in Yemen? It is Sunni and Shi’a. Who is doing the fighting in Iraq? It is Sunni and Shi’a. Who is doing the killing in Syria? It is Sunni and Shi’a not us.  You will not find a single Ibadi scholar anywhere giving a fatwa in support of any side of these conflicts.”

In fact, the only struggle I know that I’m aware of that Ibadi scholar support is the struggle of the Palestinians (Muslims) against the state of Israel (Zionist). It seems that these other sectarian wars are a diversion to distract from this!

I would like to imagine that if we Ibadi had a powerful state today that we would come to the aid of Muslims anywhere, no matter if they are Sunni, Shi’a, Salafi, or Sufi, as they are all the ummah of Muhammed (saw)!! 


In fact, the proof is in the example of the Ibadi community in Oman. We marry both Sunni and Shi’a and we have a beautiful and fruitful relationship with them. In fact, out of all the Arab nations, there is not a single representative in ISIS from Oman! Al hamdulillah! I would direct you to the following article:


I would also like to add that in this world of chaos and turmoil it is more important than ever not to intentionally misrepresent one another.  It is very important that we cooperate and work together as much as possible.

For example, Our brothers among the Sunni have actually mocked their own intellectual giants, Imam Ahmed (r) and Imam Abu Hanifa (r) while in the process of mocking others.  The following article is demonstrative of that.  By mocking the beliefs of others it shows that these two giants among our brothers from Ahl Sunnah are people who are ignorant of the views of their interlocutors.

This certainly is embarrassing and not the way forward dear Muslims and fellow truth seekers.

The most glaring example used by our brothers from Ahl Sunnah as well as uniformed orientalist is that we Ibadi’s do not believe in arbitration.

Please see the following article to understand what I am talking about.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Abu Hanifa Ikrima and the Truth

Abu Hanifa (r) and Ikrima (r.a) and the truth.

Abu Abdullah al-Madani, Mawla Abdullah bin Abbaas (r.a)

This is an article I have been wanting to write for some time now.  The companion Ikrima (r.a) has come under attack by both Shaykh Atabek Shukurov An-Nafsi (May Allah continue to bless him)  and his former student Sulaiman Ahmed (May Allah continue to bless him) in their joint book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith” as well as in the following article:


This article also contains statements taken from other websites/blogs wherein people have replied to the attacks on Ikrima (r.a) and I have not seen any cogent responses to it whatsoever. It is my hope that this article will be free from personal attacks, insults, and emotive language. 

Certainly, the article I linked to above is up to the reader to decide if personal attacks, insults, and emotive language are contained therein or not. I think that people who are undecided on this matter deserve the very best from us. 

So let me just come directly to the point. 

The first point that nobody can escape from is the fact that Abu Hanifa (r) had not a single jarh (criticism) against Ikrima (r.a).  The second point that nobody can escape from is the fact that Abu Hanifa (r) narrated from Ikrima (r.a).

The first point is responded to by using an argument from silence. That is to say, because we do not have any historical documents from Imam Abu Hanifa (r) that criticizes Ikrima (r.a). We can’t say that he never criticized him. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

However, we can’t say with certainty that Imam Abu Hanifa (r) critiqued Ikrima either. If there was even a modicum of evidence for it certainly Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman would have used it. 


The second point is responded to by showing Imam Abu Hanifa (r) narrating from someone and then disparaged that same narrator.

Does this say something about everyone Imam Abu Hanifa (r) narrates from or only that particular person?

So to me when Imam Abu Hanifa (r) critiques someone he narrates from that only shows he critiqued the person he narrated form otherwise how do you establish proof for Abu Hanifa(r) from anyone he narrates from? 

So I will not be bringing into this discussion hadith quoted from Abu Hanifa (r) since according to Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman it doesn’t account for much.

The following bit is not directed at Shaykh Atabek nor brother Sulaiman but a person I had an exchange with on social media, perchance he may read this.

I have recently encountered a brother online who mentioned Abu Hanifa (r) lived during the Ummayads. So what was he trying to suggest by this?

A) That Abu Hanifa (r) was more terrified of Ummayads than Allah (swt)?

B) That Ummayads forced Abu Hanifa (r) to narrate from Ikrima (r.a)?

In fact, if Ikrima (r.a) is so-called “khawarij” it means he believed against the established opinion of the Sunni majority that Muslims can rebel against the unjust rulers. Abu Hanifa (r) could have used this as a point against Ikrima (r.a) but didn’t.

So the very powerful fact should merit some reflection. 

Imam Malik stated that he did not accept hadith unless it was taken from the fuqaha (jurist as opposed to simple hadith scholars). On one occasion it is reported that Abu Hanifa took Imam Abu Yusuf to his library. Abu Yusuf saw that it contained many tomes of hadith but Imam Abu Hanifa said that he only narrated a few of them, namely those which would benefit people.”  Source: (pg 89 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

Interestingly out of this massive tome Abu Hanifa (r) managed to narrate from Ikrima (r.a) 


In reality, when all is said and done the best that could be brought against Ikrima (r.a) was an argument by way of innuendo. Even then the argument from innuendo doesn’t hold up. 

The following is from Mufti Zameel  found here:

Atabek’s Double Standards in Assessing Reports from Abū Ḥanīfah

Regarding a particular report from Abū Ḥanīfah that he regarded ‘Ikrimah as being from the ‘seniors/great ones’ (kubarā’), Atabek rejected it primarily on account of a problematic narrator in its chain of transmission. But at the same time he quotes the following with full confidence:

Imam Abu Hanifa said; “Do not take knowledge from the scholars of Royal Palace. I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is.””


But, just to underline the dishonesty and poor level of Islamic knowledge on display, Abu Hanifa said; ”Take the knowledge from everyone except the following” and he listed the ones who are around the royals and rulers (as Ikrima most certainly was and as his erstwhile interlocutors accept). He said; ”But don’t take from the ones who are around the royals! I don’t say they lie, but they don’t say the truth as it is!””

He did not give a source for this quote. (My guess is he got it from the footnotes to Qawā‘id fī ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth).

The original source for this quote is al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah of al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī as follows:


Abū Bishr Muḥammad ibn ‘Umar al-Wakīl (350 – 438 H) reported to me, he said: ‘Umar ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān al-Wā‘iẓ [Ibn Shāhīn] (297 – 385) narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ [al-Naqqāsh] (266 – 351) narrated to us, he said: ‘Abdullāh ibn Maḥmūd al-Marwazī (d. 311) narrated to us: Aḥmad ibn Muṣ‘ab narrated to us, he said: ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhīm (d. ca. 220 H) narrated to us, he said: I heard Ibn al-Mubārak say:

Abū ‘Iṣmah asked Abū Ḥanīfah: “From whom do you order me to listen to narrations?” He said: “From every moderate one in his deviation, besides the Shī‘ah, since the foundation of their doctrine is to regard the companions of Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) as misguided; as well as those who attend the ruler wilfully. Pay attention, I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate, but they pave the way for them so the masses are loyal to them. These two ought not be from the imāms of the Muslims.”’ (al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, p. 126)

First, one will notice the clear differences between the actual account and the “translation” of Atabek. Atabek’s translation (deliberately?) omits the unfavourable reference to Shī‘ah. Atabek’s translation is also inaccurate, as the actual report says: ‘I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate’ from which Atabek somehow got: ‘I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is’.

But secondly, and more importantly, this narration is inauthentic. There are two highly problematic narrators in this chain:

1. Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ al-Naqqāsh (266 – 351). Ṭalḥa ibn Muḥammad al-Shāhid said: ‘He would lie in ḥadīth.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 7:78). Abū Bakr al-Barqānī said: ‘Every narration of Naqqāsh is rejected’ (ibid.); Khatib said: ‘In his narrations are absurdities despite the chains being famous’ (ibid. 7:79). Al-Dāraquṭnī regarded him as extremely weak (ibid.). Ibn al-Jawzī mentioned two ḥadīths which he believes al-Naqqāsh falsified (ibid.). Dhahabī said: ‘My heart is not satisfied with him; according to me he is suspect [i.e. of being a liar].’ (Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, 15:576)

2. ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhim ibn Khālid al-Kurdī (d. ca. 220). Al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘A rotten, flagrant liar.’ (kadhdhāb khabīth). (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62) Al-Khaṭīb said: ‘He narrates absurdities from reliable narrators.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62)

These are the most serious issues with the chain. As one can see from the above, it can never be accepted according to the standards Atabek applies to the other narration. Yet he accepts this report and rejects the other. Is this anything but clear double standards (i.e. agenda-driven bias)?”


Let me also make it clear that to say that Mufti Zameel (May Allah have mercy on him) made a good point is not an endorsement of all his points. That should be basic logic. However, it is crystal clear to me that Mufti Zameel exposed a fundamental flaw in Shaykh Atabek’s reasoning.


Not only that but the point about Imam Abu Yusuf (r) being employed by Harun Al Rashid was completely sidestepped. Why I did see was a paragraph from my point of view was filled with emotive. You be the judge.


“Also, I saw the hilarious ‘argument’ being proffered on these secret forums that if we criticise Ikrima for accepting money and being in thrall of genocidal maniacs such as the rulers of his time, then we must likewise criticise Imam Abu Yusuf, the student of Imam Abu Hanifa, because he was in the employ of Harun Al Rashid. Obviously, this is not even an argument at all and barely even qualifies as emotional blackmail – it is merely saying that ignore the bad stuff that one person did because other people perhaps did it too. So I eagerly await the canonisation of this ‘principle’ which can excuse anything and everything which more than one famous person does. Thus the Iraq War mist have been good, because if you criticise the West for doing it you would have to criticise Saudi and Muslim countries for supporting it too. So you shouldn’t criticise anyone. Excellent moral ‘principles’!”-Sulaiman Ahmed 

 “It is merely saying that ignore the bad stuff that one person did because other people did it too.”

My response: Is it really saying that or is it saying that we should apply consistent standards and consistent principles? 

“Thus the Iraq War mist have been good, because if you criticise the West for doing it you would have to criticise Saudi and Muslim countries for supporting it too.”   

My response: Or how about we be consistent and criticize both the West and Saudi Arabia? What would not be moral or consistent is to suggest that the West (Ikrima) be castigated for his involvement in the war and Saudi Arabia (Abu Yusuf) be let off the hook for his involvement. 

An argument from Ra’y:

“as well as those who attend the ruler wilfully.”

Let’s assume that the hadith that Shaykh Atabek brought was sound. Doesn’t both history testify to the fact that there has been Muslim faithful in every court of rulership in Muslim history? Is it not within reason to say that just like Abu Yusuf that not every person is corrupt due to some affiliation with rulers?

Wouldn’t the reasonable thing to do in this situation is to sift through the reports individually and see where a report actually might be something that benefits rulers etc? 

 In fact, the hadith narrated from Ikrima (r) can be used against rulers. How often do you think rulers used siege engines and firebombed besieged strongholds? In the process of killing innocent men, women, and children? In fact couldn’t that very hadith be used against let’s say, the use of Nuclear weapons? 

So the following statement is absolutely rejected. “Imam Abu Hanifa rejected all narrations from Ikrima as well but this reasoning was different. He held a principle that he would not take any narrations from a person associated with the rulers, as it could affect their righteousness due to the loyalty they may hold to those in authority.” Source (pg 227 Hanafi principles for testing Hadith)


Conclusion: Imam Abu Hanifa (r) has no jahr (criticism) of Ikrima (r.a).  Out of the ‘tomes of hadith’ that Imam Abu Hanifa (r) had in his collection Imam Abu Hanifa (r) narrated from Ikrima (r.a).The hadith about the rulers has problems in its chain of narrators. If consistent principles were applied this would mean we would need to steer clear from Imam Abu Yusuf (r). Also, the objection doesn’t pass the test from Ra’y.  


That should really be the end of the article at this point.

However, there are many other ancillary issues surrounding this that I feel should be addressed.

So you have to wonder what is the issue they have with Ikrima (r.a) to begin with?

If the main point was to establish evidence against killing apostates?  They themselves admit:

It is largely based on the following hadith, which both groups like to use to justify the killing of those who leave Islam and to portray this as the ‘true teachings of Islam’. ” Source: (pg 226 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

If it has to do with weakening the view of killing apostates than why not go after the other narrators? Or why not go after Ali Ibn Abu Talib (r.a) himself who said to have narrated this hadith about killing people who go out of Islam.

Let’s analyze the text of this hadith.

Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (saw) believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (The Holy Prophet) which he never said.”

Such a disclaimer. Have you never noticed Ali (r.a) to ever preface a hadith like that? 

“When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is outwitting.”

An interesting statement. Errors might creep in things he said and battle is about outwitting. Hmmm.

“There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement.”

At the very least that is an open license to kill apostates and at the most, it’s an open license to kill fellow Muslims. “They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats.”

On what consistent basis is an attack launched upon Ikrima(r.a) but not Ali (r.a)? 


They seem to take real issues that Ikrima (r.a) narrated hadith about Ali (r.a) that shows Ali (r.a) being criticized by Ibn Abbas (r.a) for setting people on fire.

This report was narrated by al-Bukhary (6922) on the authority of `Ikrimah who said: Heretics were brought before Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and he burnt them. When Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) was informed about this, he said, “If I were in his place, I would not have burnt them for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade this saying, “Do not torment with the torment of Allah” and I would have killed them, for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”

What will be noted is that neither Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah nor Bassam Zawadi attacked the chain of narrators nor Ikrima (r.a) himself. 

You can see a fuller discussion on that here:


Next, you would have to go after the other narrators. You would have to weaken the chains of the following hadith:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.” Source: (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271)  

As regards the above hadith Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman have stated in their book: 


The Known Narrators

The known narrator is one who is recognized by knowledge and rulings such as The rightly guided Caliphs, Abdullah bin Masood, Abdullah bin Abbas, Zayd bin Thabit, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and Aisha, etc.”

Their narrations are considered as proofs, irrespective of their conflict with analogy or conformance with it.”

Source: (pg 53-54 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith). 

As these two are known for their knowledge and their rulings what is deficient about their knowledge in regards to the laws of apostasy? 


Narrated ‘Abdullah:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” Source: (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17)


Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman Ahmed on pages 228 and 229 of Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith give ample evidence from the Qur’an that killing is murder. They give examples from the Qur’an and ahadith that seem to justify the freedom of disbelief. 

However, they both seem to miss that quoting all of that does nothing to attack the chain of the narration from Ikrima (r.a).  They are holding assumptions that Ali (r.a) didn’t do that act because it would go against established principles.  However, if we are holding assumptions we could also assume that Ali (r.a) did do that act, Ibn Abbas (r.a) reprimanded him for it and Ikrima (r.a) is simpy narrating the incident.   

I hope they are not making the argument that just because the Qur’an mentions to do or not do something that Muslims automatically follow these dictates. Wouldn’t that be amazing if they did! 

It is possible that people who have philo-Shi’a tendencies would be troubled with Ali (r.a) making an error in his ijtihad.  After all, as brother Bassam Zawadi (May Allah bless him) stated:


Nevertheless, if someone is not willing to accept any of the above explanations and is persistent that `Ali (ra) actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is that `Ali’s decision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to criticism on Ali’s decision – not a criticism on Islam.”

After all, `Ali (ra) was but a human being, he may have erred in his decision.” 

Source: (

Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed are not suggesting that criticism of Ikrima (r.a) is a criticism of Islam right? Likewise, criticism of Ali (r.a) is not a criticism of Islam. 

It is also possible that people who have philo-Shi’a tendencies would be troubled with Ikrima (r.a) given his weight on the tafsir of a key point of conflict between Ahl Sunnah and the Shi’a.

Because he (Ikrima) said the following:

Ibn Jarir recorded that `Ikrimah used to call out in the marketplace:(Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification. (33:33)) “This was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.

Source: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 33:33).


Ikrimah said: Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet, I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.” Source: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 33:33)

More investigations into Ikrima (r.a).

There are some interesting points from Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman Ahmed in their book.

So regardless of who he is, we need to bear in mind that scholars also have biases and sometimes sectarian affiliations too.” Sources: (pg 195 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

A very good point!

Scholars can have biases and sectarian affiliations that may colour their investigations. 


Therefore criticism needs to be valid and not based on sectarian or personal reasons and as we have seen, even some of the senior scholars were not above this.” Source: (pg 197 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith). 


An Innovator is someone who holds to a view which does not conform to the position of the ‘Ahl Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah’ which are the Maturidi and Ash’ari Schools of creed.” (pg 94 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith).

This statement itself merits reflection. The statement itself is bias and sectarian. It means that the Shi’a are innovators. Ibadi’s are innovators. Sunni Muslims from the Mutazalite and Athari schools of theology are innovators.


The narrations of all innovators are accepted unless there is an innovator who believes that lying is permissible or their view constitutes disbelief.” Source: (pg 133 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

So for example, Imam Bukhari takes hadith from the Khawarij such as Ikrima and Waleed ibn Kathir, who believe lying equates to disbelief.” Source: (pg 133 Hanafi Principles for Testing hadith) 

If the narrator is from the Khawarij, some do not accept them as they are a deviant sect, whereas others do as they state that for the Khawarij lying equates to disbelief and therefore they would be even more careful to ensure that the hadith were narrated accurately.” Source: (pg 199 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 

My comments:

Classifying someone as being from a ‘deviant sect‘ is itself a sectarian reason to discard a hadith. Also, it is quite clear that Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed believe that Ikrima (r.a) is a “Khawarij” (a sectarian term applied by sectarians rest assured).  They also show in their book that the belief of the “Khawarij” is that lying equates to disbelief.

So as the narrations of all innovators are accepted unless they believe in lying (the Khawarij don’t) or unless their view constitutes disbelief I have a very pointed question for both Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed. 

Does either of you regard Ikrima (r.a) as a kafir? 

If your answer is: “Yes Ikrima is a kafir” What is this based upon?

If your answer is no then my next question is: “Was Ikrima (r.a)  a liar?”

If your answer is: “Yes Ikrima is a liar”  What is it based upon? 


Especially in light of the overwhelming view that the “Khawarij” equate lying to disbelief. 


Contradictions and no sources quoted in regards to Ikrima (r.a) 


“The next topic that needs to be analysed is Kirma’s religious idealogy. it is agreed by consensus that he was from the Khawarij. He ALLEGEDLY declared many Muslims to be disbelievers due to the extreme methodology of the Khawarij. Dhahabi, a hadith scholar who considers Ikrima reliable wrote “the first reason for rejecting the narrations of Ikrima is based on the fact that he is Khawarij. The second reason is that being a Khawarij, he justified the killing of his fellow Muslims.”  Source: (pg 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 

So he ALLEGEDLY (no proof, no evidence) declared many Muslims to be disbelievers. This is a far cry from what Sulaiman Ahmed states in a tirade that is filled to the brim with emotive language. Dhahabi (raheemullah) considers Ikrima (r.a) reliable.   

“The second reason is that being a Khawarij, he justified the killing of his fellow Muslims.”   The response to this is who didn’t find justification for killing fellow Muslims?

Ali directed his army to attack the Khariji camps, and his forces MASSACRED many of them at Nahrawan. At this point, Ibn ‘Abbas seems to have doubted his initial support of ‘Ali. He resigned from the governorship of Basra and stigmatized ‘Ali’s killing of his Khariji opponents”

Source: (Scott Riraj Al Haqqa Kugle in his book: Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender pg 107) 

Did Ali (r.a) feel he had justification to kill the forces of Muawiya in Syria? Did Ali (r.a) feel he had justification to kill Muslims at the battle of the camel?


But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)


Bakrah Ath-Thaqafi reported – The Blessed Messenger (saw) is reported to have said: “If two Muslims meet each other with their swords, then both the killer and the killed will be in the Hell-fire.I said, “O Allah’s Messenger, that is the case for the killer but why should that be the case for the killed?” He answered, “Because he wanted to kill his companion.

Source: (Sunan an-Nasa’i 4118 Book 37, Hadith 153 Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4123)


Narrated Ibn `Umar 

“I heard the Prophet (saw) “Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another.” Source: (Al -Bukhari 707 Book 92, Hadith 28 Vol. 9, Book 88 Hadith 198)


In light of this verse of the above Qur’an and these ahadith every group among the early Muslims is trying to find justification for what they are doing.

Recall what I quoted above: So “he ALLEGEDLY (no proof, no evidence) declared many Muslims to be disbelievers.” 


Yet Sulaiman Ahmed says:

Since releasing my on Ikrima the Liar and Kharijite, I have received a lot of positive feedback from readers who were either blissfully unaware of the genocidal propensities of some of the people that groups such as Deobandis and Salafis expect them to ‘respect’ as ‘Imams’ or had already heard about Ikrima (who narrates some of Salafis favourite hadiths, such as those about burning apostates and gays) and his ‘tendencies’ and had their faith shaken, as they mistakenly believed that such individuals who sanction the murder of senior Sahahbah were somehow nonetheless indispensable to Islam. I also received a few sincere emails with requests of clarification of some issues.” -Sulaiman Ahmed 


The questions put Sulaiman Ahmed are as follows: 

  1. What are these ‘genocidal propensities’ of Ikrima (r.a)?
  2. Ikrima (r.a) didn’t burn apostates, Ali (r.a) did. Ali (r.a) also narrated the above hadith about getting a reward for killing ex-Muslims. Why is this not touched by yourself or your former teacher?
  3. Believed in and sanctioned the “murder” ? of senior sahabah? What’s the source for this?  



I have to clarify, because these peoples’ feelings and ‘right’ to display academic incompetence are not more important than the reputation of Islam.” -Sulaiman Ahmed

Up to this point, I have tried not to be personal at all. However, I too have to clarify because what is contained in the following paragraphs is so far from academic. 

What is sad is that despite endangering the faith and reputation of Muslims whilst ‘responding’ to my article and insisting that someone who takes money from tyrannical governments that kill sahabah, calls Ali and Uthmaan, senior companions of the Prophet, apostates who will burn in Hell forever, is a ‘reliable Imam’ that is ‘accepted by everyone’, these people never explain how this is the case: they in no place denied that he is a Kharijite (and a Safari and Ibadi i.e worst type at that) nor his attacks on the Sahabah nor his genocidal tendencies: they merely keep repeating that he was ‘accepted’ by Abu Hanifa because he (they claim) quoted from him (as if everyone who quotes from George Bush for any reason is automatically a Republican). They never, you will note, stop to explain how you can be reliable if you have such beliefs and practices nor will they ever once even condemn him for holding these beliefs. It is entirely lost on these people that by prostituting the reputations of Imams Abu Hanifa and Bukhari to rescue that of Ikrima all they do is cast doubt on the latter two real imams for ‘accepting’ such a vile and deranged individual in the first place. “-Suliman Ahmed


Questions for Sulaiman Ahmed:

What is the source that he called Ali (r.a) and Uthman (r.a) apostates?

“Kharijite (and a Safari and Ibadi i.e worst type at that.”   I almost spit my drink out reading this. If you realized what he said was akin to saying ‘Sunni (and a Shafi’i and Hanafi i.e worst type at that”!  Does that even make sense to anyone?  This person is not read on the subject of the Ibadi school or he would not have made the most rudimentary of mistakes.


Finally, if Ikrima is ‘truthful’ and ‘doesn’t lie’ then is he being truthful and accurate when he says that the Sahabah are kaafir and should be killed?”- Sulaiman Ahmed

Where did Ikrima (r.a) state this? A source until this very day has not been given.


Also, if you have to believe everything that an authority you quote believes, then do these guys, who so vociferously quote Ikrima, believe that Ali and the senior Sahabah were apostates and should be killed?” -Sulaiman Ahmed

I saw no source given for this.


Also, maybe these people can show me where in their books this ‘presumption of reliability’ for narrators, i.e narrators are all reliable even if they takfir or anathematise the Sahabha or call for mass genocide, unless specifically mentioned otherwise, is found?” -Suliman Ahmed.   

Ikrima (r.a) called for mass genocide? Is there a source for this?


“He ALLEGEDLY declared many Muslims to be disbelievers due to the extreme methodology of the Khawarij.” Source: (pg 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 


So did he indeed say the things you are claiming brother Sulaiman or is this alleged? If he said these things can you furnish the proofs for them?  If he did not say those things and they are alleged are you willing to repent to Allah (swt) and retract these comments?


I have also noticed this in their book:

“This means Wasil ibn Ata would thus take the utmost precautions before narrating anything. As we have seen, many top Muhaditheen narrated from the Khawarij, who were violent radicals who attacked Ali (r.a) since they too believed that lying equates to disbelief, Anthropomorphist (who attribute a human or other form to God) and those who insulted Ali(r.a).” Source: (pg 197 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)


I certainly hope that this is a syntax issue that needs correction. Because, to put ‘Anthroporphism’ next to the Khawarij, or to attribute that to them is to speak ignorantly about their views. That is not something that can be attributed to them at all. So I am willing to chalk this error up to an error in syntax. 


Then you have to wonder all that time and association with Ibn Abbas (r.a) Was it hidden from Ibn Abbas that Ikrima (r.a) was a “Kharijite”? Wasn’t Ibn Abbas (r.a) aware of Ali (r.a) and the command to kill such people?

Especially in light of Ibn Abbas (r.a) and his known correspondence with Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi (r.a) a known “Kharijite”. “If I were not afraid of hiding the knowledge (and of the severe punishment) I would not have replied to him.”

Source: (pg 42 Studies in Early Hadith Literature M.M Azami)


For that matter aren’t all those people who take hadith from Ikrima (r.a) aware of the so-called hadith that command the killing of “Kharijites”?

I’ve always found it interesting that the Orientalists think that Ikrima (r.a) was enticed by the ‘Kharjite” doctrine due to egalitarianism. Is that not a tacit admission that Sunnism was not a champion of egalitarianism? However, why can’t it be conceivable that as a slave of Ibn Abbas (r.a) that Ikrima was privy to some of the thoughts of Ibn Abbas (r.a) and possibly overheard Ibn Abbas (r.a) make comments that were pro “Kharijite” and/or at the very least hear Ibn Abbas (r.a)  admit that they were right.


If we are going to question centuries-long assumptions about Ikrima (r.a) in relationship to the Hanafi school why not question centuries-long assumptions the Hanafi school has towards the so-called “Kharijites”?

Why not question the centuries long-held assumptions about the “Kharijites” from the Ahl Sunnah altogether? 

So after having failed to establish that Imam Abu Hanifa (r) had criticism for Ikrima (r.a) Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed pull out all the stops. Any criticism against Ikrima (r.a) throw it to the wall and let’s see what sticks.

After the death of Ibn Abbas, his son Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas imprisoned Ikrima and when he was asked for the reason he said: “He is narrating likes on behalf of my father.” Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib, A tab’i, was one of the leading Faqih scholars. He is renowned as one of the seven Fuqaha of Medina, one of the pillars upon which the Maliki School is based and the most eminent of those Fuqaha’ He is narrated to have said to his servant Burd; “O Burd, do not lie and attribute to me like Ikrima lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas” Ibn Umar also said the same to his slave Nafia, “Do not like on behalf of me as the slave of Ibn Abbas lied on behalf of him.” (although this specific narration of Ibn Umar is disputed by the Muhaditheen.) Sa’eed ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sirin also considered him a liar. Ibrahim Nakhai the grand-teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa also rejected all narrations of Ikrima.” 

Source: (pg 227 Hanafi Principles on Testing Hadith)

 This in turn is taken from Source: (Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman Al-Dhahabi al Shafi Mizan al I’tidal fi Naqd Arrijal) -Darul al-Ma’rifah , Beirut Lebanon, Volume 3 pg. 93 and Biography number 5716.)

So the primary source that Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed use to disparage Ikrima is from Imam Al-Dhahabi.

What did they tell us about Imam Al-Dhahabi? So what was Al-Dhahabi’s conclusion after having access to the same information that Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed used him for? 

“Dhahabi, a hadith scholar who considers Ikrima reliable.” Source: (pg 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 


1) Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas 

Yazid bin Abi Ziyad reported that Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas once tied up Ikrimah with a door when he was asked about the reason, he said: This filthy person lies upon my father” Source: (Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/373)

What can we say about Yazid bin Abi Ziyad?  Well…..


2) Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib  

do not lie and attribute to me like Ikrima lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas”

Sources: (Al-Ma’rifa wal Tarikh: 2/5) & (Siyar A’lam An Nubala, 5 page 22)

As this is criticism among peers. Ikrima (r.a) and Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib (r.a) Characteristic of personal animosity.

Imam Malik (r) called Ibn Ishaq (r) a liar and an imposter for writing false stories about Prophet Muhammed. Imam Malik has said that Ibn Ishaq “reports traditions on the authority of the Jews”.  Source: (Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila. Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7)

When Sufyan ath-Thawri (r) heard the news about the death of Imam Abu Hanifa(r)he said: ‘Praise bet o Allah that such a man had died as he was gradually destroying Islam. There could not be a worse person born in Islam.” Source: (Ta’rikh Saghir, Biography of Imam Abu Hanifa)



Ibn Umar

Abu Khalf Abdullah bin Isa al-Kharaz narrated from Yahya bin Muslim Yahya al-Baka: I heard Ibn Umar said to Nafi’: Fear Allah O Nafi’ and do not lie upon me as Ikrimah lies upon Ibn Abbas” Source: (Tahdhib al-Kamal fi asma’ al-rijal 20/279)

Ibn Hajar al-Asqlani said: He is Thiqah Thabat, the Scholar of Tafsir, the accusing of lying on him from Ibn Umar is not proven, nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) is proven from him”  Source: (Taqreeb: 4673)

Also, are we to regard Nafi (r.a) as someone who lied about Ibn Umar (r.a)? The golden chain?  Even Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed admit: 

“Ibn Umar also said the same to his slave Nafia, “Do not like on behalf of me as the slave of Ibn Abbas lied on behalf of him.” (although this specific narration of Ibn Umar is disputed by the Muhaditheen).”


3) Sa’eed ibn Jubayr 

Actually, Imam Sa’eed bin Jubayr said: If Ikrimah stops narrating his hadith to them, people would travel to him” Source: (Tabaqat al-Kubra: 2/294)


4) Ibn Sirin

I do not have l-Dhahabi’s source to see how he dismissed Ibn Sirin’s critique. 


5) Ibrahim Nakhai

I do not have l-Dhahabi’s source to see how he dismissed Ibrahim Al Nakhai’s critique.   In the end, Imam Dhahabi looked at the justifications and various statements attributed to the 5 above and his conclusion is that Ikrima (r.a) is reliable.


Lastly, I want to say something that I have refrained from speaking about on my website/blog. Those who are close to Shaykh Atabek and brother Sulaiman Ahmed know about the falling out between the two. When I first heard of this I was very disheartened. I reached out to them both through social media sending thoughts of goodwill and my du’a for justice. I have not hesitated in the past to blog about the controversy in the Muslim community on my website/blog.  However, I did not write about the falling out between these two men (May Allah make it easy on them both). That is because of my respect for them both. 


That being said it should be as daylight to the readers that there can only be one victor in their struggle. If the court rules in favour of Shaykh Atabek this would mean that Sulaiman Ahmed would not be accepted as hadith critique nor could we take the hadith from him. Ijaza. Also, if the court rules in favour of Sulaiman Ahmed this would mean that Shaykh Atabek would not be accepted as a hadith critique nor could we take the hadith from him. Ijaza. 


May justice be done.  May our pens write the truth. May our tongues speak the truth. May our hearts desire the truth. May Allah (swt) guide us to truth and may the destination of us all be the truth.


And whatever strikes you of disaster – it is for what your hands have earned, but He pardons much.” (Qur’an 42:30)



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What has your God done for you?


Once while in the Sultan Mosque in Singapore a Christian missionary paid us a visit. The man came up to me and after introducing himself he asked, ‘What has your God done for you?’

To which my immediate reply to him was, “You see my brother that is the wrong question. The question is not ‘What has God done for me’, the question is ‘What has God not done for me?’

My life, my faith, the air we breathe, the ability to see and behold objects of great beauty, to hear the most softness and soothing of sounds, to taste the most delicious of foods, to be healthy, to have been in love to have been the object of someone’s love. To have parents that loved me and raised me. This beautiful world that we live on. The fact that if we were so much closer to the sun that we would all burn alive and if we were that much further away this earth would freeze over. This beautiful day, gravity, the opportunity to meet you and share with you some of what God has done for us.”


I then quoted to him the following verse from the Qur’an.


And if whatever trees in the earth were pens, and the sea and seven more seas even after it were to replenish it, yet in no way would the Words of Allah be depleted. Surely Allah is Ever-Mighty, Ever-Wise.” (Qur’an 31:27)

If I was to spend my entire life writing words of thanks and praise to Allah (swt) for everything he has done for us, I would need seven more lifetimes, and even than I would fall short of writing words of praise and gratitude.

Subhanallahi Wa Bihamdihi, Subhanallahil Azeem!!!




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Quran: Created or Uncreated: The Proof Text


The Qur’an: Created or Uncreated: The Proof Text.


“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)


“And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or, what is faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed you are guiding to a straight path.” (Qur’an 42:52)


What will follow are strong proof text from the Qur’an that substantiate the position that the Qur’an is created.


Our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ are all divided on this issue. The truth is one. 

They take as their primary evidence the following two texts of the Qur’an.


And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)

Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)


Regardless of the three theological schools that divide our brothers from the ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ we can simplify this into basically two approaches. 

After finding out if our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ believe that the Qur’an is literally the speech of Allah (swt) or it is not literally the speech of Allah (swt) it can help to further the discussion.


So what is meant by literally/not literally? 

When we are speaking of conscious beings like humanity this is understood by man’s external and internal senses, brain, lungs, throat, tongue, teeth, lips, and pushing out of sound. In this sense it is strictly speaking is inconceivable in the respect of Allah (swt).

It is not permissible to interpret His being ‘speaking‘ in this sense.


If the person believes that the Qur’an is literally the speech of Allah (swt) you can refer them to the challenge of Ibrahim (a.s). Does Allah (swt) make audible sounds?


“He said, “Rather, this – the largest of them – did it, so ask them if they should be able to speak.” (Qur’an 21:63)


If the person believes that the speech of Allah (swt) is not literal and one can apply ta’wil then perhaps they could reflect on what their actual quarrel with us is?

Whereas the Athari, Ash’ari and Maturidi schools of ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ affirm speaking as an essential attribute we do not.

Whereas Power, Will, and Knowledge are essential attributes of Allah (swt)
because of the impossibility of Allah’s being qualified by their opposites.

First, it is sufficient to attribute to Allah (swt) the attribute of Power without the attribution of speech. Speech is not the opposite of dumbness such that dumbness is negated by affirming it. The opposite of speech is silence. It does not mean that a non-speaking person is dumb; rather he is not non-silent.

The difference between us and our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ is that we do not apply ta’wil to the essential attributes of Allah (swt), Power, Will, Knowledge. 

Whereas all of them say Speech is an essential attribute some of them apply ta’wil to the essential attribute of Speech and others do not. 

The nervous system can give commands and prohibitions and we do not attribute speech to the nervous system.

When this sign is clear in Allah’s creatures what more do you think of the Creator, the All-Knowing, from whose grip nothing of the universe can flee, and from whose overwhelming control no minor or major thing can escape?

The Qur’an is not ‘Kalam al-nafsi‘,  the Qur’an is created.

What is not meant is Allah’s knowledge of the books. No one will doubt the eternity of Allah’s knowledge.

The eternity of knowledge does not imply the eternity of the known, otherwise, all things that have come into being would be eternal!

Revealed books are in reality indications of His Knowledge which is an attribute of His Essence. They are not the attribute of the Knowledge itself which is a quality of his eternal Essence.


Furthermore the same is applied to the Torah, and the Gospel as the “speech of Allah“. We know that the Torah is in Hebrew and the Gospel in Syriac.

Yet some who affirm that the Torah, Gospel, and Qur’an are in essence the same and that they only differ in their expressions and languages. Therefore they argue that if the Torah or Gospel is translated into Arabic it will make it the Qur’an.  A translation of the Qur’an into Hebrew will make it the Torah.  This of course would be quite problematic.

The objection by the faction of those who disagree with this position (albeit with good intention) is that they wanted to equate the Qur’an with ‘kalam al-nafsi‘ in which they intend to negate dumbness.  The intention is noble.

There also seems to be some confusion of the Qur’an in regards to Allah (swt) knowledge of it, Whereas the attributes of Speaking and Knowledge are both eternal.

There is no evidence in the Qur’an to call the It ‘Kalam al-nafsi’.

We affirm the attribute of “speech” for Allah (swt) as Imam Diya al-Din ‘Abd al-Aziza Thamini (raheemullah), says in his Mu’alim:

“Know that speech is sometimes referred to Allah in the meaning of negating dumbness of Him, and it then to be understood as an essential attribute in the way of such attributes. And sometimes it is referred to Him in the sense of its being one of His actions, and it is then to be understood as such. So the meaning of His being Speaking, according to the first interpretation, is that He is not dumb; and according to the second that He is a Creator of Speech.” Source: (Ma’alim al-din (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa l-Thaqafah, 1st edition 2:9.)


You may only refer to the Qur’an as other than Allah’s in a metaphorical way.

As the following:

Indeed, the Qur’an is the word(laqawlu) of a noble Messenger. (Qur’an 69:40)


So again is it the Speech of Allah?

When we say ‘takallama Muhammed’ (Muhammed Spoke), the statement does not convey anything except that he produced speech in the past.
When you say ‘yata-kallamu’ (he speaks/will speak) it does not mean other than his speaking the present or future-the the (Arabic) tense of the verb here is for both present and future.
When you say ‘takallam, ya fulan (Speak, Oh so and so), it does not mean otherwise than requiring the addressee to speak.

What you say in any of those three phrases cannot mean that the speech is a quality abiding with the person of the speaker or the one from whom the speech is sought.

Likewise, when we say someone ‘spoke on Friday‘ in the normal everyday usage of language it does not convey that this person spoke that speech before Friday.

That is what is intended when by Allah (swt)  we see:

Allah, Exalted is He, says: ‘For to anything that We have willed, We but say “Be’ and it is’ (Qur’an 16:40)

The verb form (in 16:40) is strictly future in meaning, it has ‘an’ (particle indicating an action to come after it, and the verb-form |naqulu| denotes present and future, and ‘kun’ is made up of two letters, one before the other-then what this verse means is exactly what is understood by clear minds and natures.
We would need to ask on what basis is this speech being conditioned with the night, with the day or with this world or the hereafter or other times, if this speech had been eternal?

As well as  “When He intends a thing, His command is “BE” and it is’ (Qur’an 36:82).

The meaning of Allah’s “speaking” is producing speech on the occasion of it.

Allah (swt) brought revelation with His power from non-existence into existence.

The eternity of knowledge does not imply eternity of the known.

The servant is not fully independent in producing his action, rather he earns it and Allah (swt) is the Creator of it. Reward and punishment are based on the earning of the servant not on the creation of the Creator.  This is for another topic and insh’Allah another entry.

It is an important point because the creature’s speech, like that of his actions, is created by Allah (swt). The creature owns nothing but his earning.
In the same way, the meaning of ‘help‘ when it is related to Allah differs from when it is related to the servants. The servants helping one another is giving support directly or through their wealth or other means. The help of Allah (swt) is His creation of the causes of the servant’s victory and providing it to them. For example, His saying:

“Indeed He helped you at Badr” (Qur’an 3:123)

Another example is:

“Assuredly Allah will help those help him.”  (Qur’an 22:40)

If this is related to the Creator its meaning will differ from when it was related to the creations.


Speaking as a metaphorical.


“And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.” (Qur’an 42:51)


This should be understood in the sense of creation of audible sound not emanating from any particular thing, that conveys the intention of Allah (swt), and that is picked up by the hearing of one chosen by Allah  (swt) for such address.

Or Allah (swt) “speaking” to the angels is used to signify that whereby they understand His Will.
The ‘speaking‘ is understood in the metaphor like in the following verses:

“Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, “Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion.” They said, “We have come willingly.” (Qur’an 41:11)

Allah (swt) addresses us in a language we know and in senses that we are familiar with. Like the verse that says ‘that the sun sets

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, “O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness.” (Qur’an 18:86)

Allah (swt) has also used metaphor when there is mention about speaking, for example:

“And they will say to their skins, “Why have you testified against us?” They will say, “We were made to speak by Allah, who has made everything speak; and He created you the first time, and to Him, you are returned.” (Qur’an 41:21)


As well as:

And We gave Solomon a right understanding of matters. To each of them, We gave judgment and knowledge; and it was by Our power that the hills and the birds celebrate Our praises with David. It was We who did it.” (Qur’an 21:79)

So here we can see that mountains ‘celebrate‘ the praises of Allah (swt) and that skins and indeed ‘everything‘ is made to ‘speak.


In the words of Fakhr al-Din Al-Razi:

“The impossibility of a word which is composed of letters and sounds being eternal is self-evident to the mind for two reasons:

The first that a word cannot be a word unless its letters are sequential. The letter |uttered|before the last |that is uttered|is originated, and if something’s being originated is affirmed, its eternity is then impossible. So for the letter following the end of the first, there is no doubt that is originated.

The second is that, if those letters from which the word is composed occurred in one go, the word cannot be. A word composed of three letters can occur in any one of six combinations. If the letters occurred altogether, the words occurring in some of those combinations will not be better than it’s occurring in any of the rest. \Alternatively| if the letters occurred in succession then the word is originated.”  Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 1:P20.)

Fakhr al-Din took Sunni Muslims of the Hanbali creed to tas when he says,

“These people are so low as to not deserve mention among the group of the learned. It happened one day that I said to one of them: “If Allah spoke these, then either He spoke them in one go, or in succession. The first is void because the speaking of all these letters in one go will not convey orderly composition which is a combination in sequence. It necessarily follows that this composition combined with these successive letters cannot by themselves be Allah’s speech. The second is void, because if Allah spoke them in succession then it will be originated.’ When the man heard this statement |of mine|, he said: ‘It is obligatory for us to affirm and pass on’, i.e., we affirm that the Qur’an is eternal and pass by this statement that we have heard. At that point, I wonder greatly at the safety of this speaker. Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 27, 187-88)


Those who say that the letters of the Qur’an are created are opponents of consensus. What is this consensus? The righteous early generations of the Companions or the Followers did not raise the issue of the creation of the  Qur’an.


The Creation and the Command. The next argument put forward by our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ is the following verse.


“His are the creation and the command.” (Qur’an 7:54)

This is answered by the context itself:

Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He covers the night with the day, [another night] chasing it rapidly; and [He created] the sun, the moon, and the stars, subjected by His command. Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds. (Qur’an 7:54)

The most that this verse tells us is that, just as Allah (swt) is alone in bringing the universe out of non-being (into being), in the same way, He is alone in the management of it. He has no partner in its creation and in its management. None other than Him has anything of the creation and management. Rather, to HIM alone belong the creation and the command. The meaning here, clearly, is management. And there is nothing in that which even remotely points either to the eternity of the Qur’an or to its contingency.


“Maintain with care the [obligatory] prayers and [in particular] the middle prayer and stand before Allah, devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 2:238)

The middle prayer is not (separated) out of the genus of the prayers, the guarding of which has been commanded.


“Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael – then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. (Qur’an 2:98)
No one says that Gabriel and Michael are (separated) out of the genus of angels.
The difference between them is but relative.

“Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded.” (Qur’an 16:90)

No intelligent person will argue about justice being the doing of good, and the doing of good being justice.


The command (amr) of Allah (swt) has been mentioned jointly with what denotes its creation in many places.

“And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah,” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.” (Qur’an 33:37)


“[Remember] when you were on the near side of the valley, and they were on the farther side, and the caravan was lower [in position] than you. If you had made an appointment [to meet], you would have missed the appointment. But [it was] so that Allah might accomplish a matter already destined – that those who perished [through disbelief] would perish upon evidence and those who lived [in faith] would live upon evidence; and indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 8:42)

“There is not to be upon the Prophet any discomfort concerning that which Allah has imposed upon him. [This is] the established way of Allah with those [prophets] who have passed on before. And ever is the command of Allah a destiny decreed.” (Qur’an 33:38)

“He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count.” (Qur’an 32:5)


“Indeed, all things We created with predestination And Our command is but one, like a glance of the eye.” (Qur’an 54:49-50)

“Do the disbelievers await [anything] except that the angels should come to them or there comes the command of your Lord? Thus did those do before them. And Allah wronged them not, but they had been wronging themselves.” (Qur’an 16:33)


All of those examples should be more than sufficient to show our response! 

The following are the proof text for those of us who believe the Qur’an to be created. We do not believe the Qur’an to be the eternal speech of Allah (swt). 


“Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.” (Qur’an 4:82)


As we can see that the Qur’an has to be internally cohesive. So if we say the Qur’an is the speech of Allah (swt) and we understand this as an internally abiding attribute of Allah (swt) and yet the Qur’an clearly states it was created what is one to do? 


Proof  #1

Permitting multiplicity of the eternal is contradictory to the unicity of Allah (swt).

Proof  #2

“And if We willed, We could surely do away with that which We revealed to you. Then you would not find for yourself concerning it an advocate against Us.” (Qur’an 17:86)

Everything that is eternal its non-existence is impossible.

Proof # 3

Each letter needs the other in sequence, its words being composed from them. And each word needs other words to combine as a sentence. The letters are different, and none of them is not in need of the other. From what has been said of the distinctness of these letters, and their being absorbed in the composition, (it is clear) that someone has made this distinctness, and has made each of them different from the other, and composed them with this art of composition, and made of it this eloquent speech

Proof #4

Is the Qur’an a thing or nothing?
If the Qur’an is nothing than let that stand on the record.

If the Qur’an is a thing then please be reminded of what Allah (swt) says:

“That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things.” (Qur’an 6:102)

Say, “Who is Lord of the heavens and earth?” Say, ” Allah .” Say, “Have you then taken besides Him allies not possessing even for themselves any benefit or any harm?” Say, “Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Or is darkness equivalent to light? Or have they attributed to Allah partners who created like His creation so that the creation of each seemed similar to them?” Say, ” Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Prevailing.” (Qur’an 13:16)


“He too who belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and who has not taken a son and has not had a partner in dominion and has created each thing and determined it with [precise] determination.” (Qur’an 25:2)

Determined it with determination.
The chapter, verses, sentences, words, letters, vocalizations, recitation, meanings, wisdom and judgment, reports, and parables are in order.


“That is Allah, your Lord, Creator of all things; there is no deity except Him, so how are you deluded?” (Qur’an 40:62)


Proof #5

“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” (Qur’an 15:9)

The argument from this verse is that the preserved cannot but be created because the eternal does not need preserving by those that preserve.

Proof #6
“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (
Qur’an 2:106)

Abrogation is omission, removal and it is impossible for that which is eternal. The idea that some part of Allah’s essence of ‘speech‘ would be ‘better‘ than other parts merits pensive reflection.

Proof #7

“And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammed], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.” (Qur’an 5:48)

It has been preceded by other than it. The preceded cannot be but originated.

Proof #8

“And We had certainly brought them a Book which We detailed by knowledge – as guidance and mercy to a people who believe.” (Qur’an 7:52)

We detailed it knowingly. Detailing emanates from His Knowledge, The emanating from a thing must be preceded by it.

Proof #9

“No mention comes to them anew from their Lord except that they listen to it while they are at play.” (Qur’an 7:52)

Muhdath in Arabic means newly made. And since it’s newly made it cannot be eternal. i.e. It came after being nothing which means “Created

Proofs #10 & Proof #11

“And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, [O Muhammed], you guide to a straight path..” (Qur’an 42:52

Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.” (Qur’an 24:35)

Allah (swt) clearly says that he is the light of the heavens and the earth. Allah (swt) says that the Qur’an was made into a light.   The Qur’an was made.  A clear distinction needs to made between that which is Light and that which is made into light. A clear delineation between the Creator and created.

Proof #12

“But this is an honored Qur’an [Inscribed] in a Preserved Slate.” (Qur’an 85:2021)

Preserved tablet. The created cannot be a vessel for the non-created.

Proof #13

“And [it is] a Qur’an which We have separated [by intervals] that you might recite it to the people over a prolonged period. And We have sent it down progressively.” (Qur’an 17:106)

The argument that Allah (swt)  has said of it that it is divided. The divided is made. The made cannot but be originated.

Proof #14

“Indeed, We sent the Qur’an down during the Night of Decree.” (Qur’an 97:1)

Sending down. That which is sent cannot proceed that which sent it.

Proof #15

“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

Allah (swt) has clearly said that he has made the Qur’an.

Other places where Allah (swt) made things. You may feel free to look at the Arabic text for yourself. You get to investigate and see how the translators decided to use the words ‘made’ and ‘create’ in which places and why.

“[All] praise is [due] to Allah, who created the heavens and the earth and made the darkness and the light. Then those who disbelieve equate [others] with their Lord.” (Qur’an 6:1)

“It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate that he might dwell in security with her. And when he covers her, she carries a light burden and continues therein. And when it becomes heavy, they both invoke Allah, their Lord, “If You should give us a good [child], we will surely be among the grateful.” (Qur’an 7:189)

“It is He who made for you the night to rest therein and the day, giving sight. Indeed in that are signs for a people who listen.” (Qur’an 10:67)

“Is He [not best] who made the earth a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah? [No], but most of them do not know.” (Qur’an 27:61)

“And Allah has made for you, from that which He has created, shadows and has made for you from the mountains, shelters and has made for you garments which protect you from the heat and garments which protect you from your [enemy in] battle. Thus does He complete His favor upon you that you might submit [to Him].” (Qur’an 16:81)

“And made the moon therein a [reflected] light and made the sun a burning lamp?” (Qur’an 71:16)

“And We have made the night and day two signs, and We erased the sign of the night and made the sign of the day visible that you may seek bounty from your Lord and may know the number of years and the account [of time]. And everything We have set out in detail.” (Qur’an 17:12)

“Have We not made the earth a container.” (Qur’an 77:25)

“Have We not made the earth a resting place?” (Qur’an 78:6-11)

Yet in order to try and refute what these clear verses say those who are desperate will say that made, originate, and create do not always mean originate, create or make!

They use the following verse in a last desperate gambit.
has not appointed [such innovations as] bahirah or sa’ibah or wasilah or ham. But those who disbelieve invent falsehood about Allah, and most of them do not reason.” (Qur’an 5:103)

This should be understood as Allah (swt) did not create as you have described, rather Allah (swt)  created against that which you have described. The negation here is of the particular qualifier, not of the particular reaction.

In other words, Allah (swt) did not legalize the slitting of its ear.

Proof #16

“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:7)

This shows the division in the Qur’an

The Qur’an has division, this cannot be an abiding quality with Allah (swt) that has a division within it. If It has division as mukham and mutashabi it is divided and we cannot ascribe that to Allah (swt).


Proof #17 In relation to that above it would be that there are parts of Allah (swt) knowable to human beings and parts of Allah (swt) unknowable to human beings and indicate division within Allah (swt). 


Proof  #18
“Do not move your tongue with this (Qur’an) to make haste with it. Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it.” (
Qur’an 75:16-19)

This is clearly in reference to a revelation that is revealed in space/time.

Proof #19. 

There was certainly a time when there was no mention of the human being.” (Qur’an 76:1) 

If the Qur’an is eternal than this verse would make little sense. Allah (swt) would be speaking for all eternity and human beings would be mentioned.

Proof #20  This in relation to Proof #1 and Proof #4


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


If the Qur’an is an attribute of Allah (swt)  and no one is saying that the Qur’an =The essence of Allah (swt) means the Qur’an cannot be an eternal attribute of Allah (swt). It would be something eternal and not Allah. This is not theologically sound.

This is why at the core of the Ashari school is this very bizarre admission. 

They claimed that the logical consequence of the “Attributes of Forms” was “multiplicity of beginning-less entities” (ta’addud al-qudama’). This reasoning was refuted by the entirety of Ahl Al-Sunna scholars. see al-Buti, Kubra al-Yaqinat Al-Kawniyya (p. 119 n.).
The Attributes are neither the Essence Itself nor other than It (al-sifat laysat ‘aynu al-dhat wa la ghayraha), as in the school of
Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a.” Al-Qari, Daw’al-Ma’ali (p.5)

Source: (Pages 7 & 8 Correct Islamic Doctrine/Islamic Doctrine  Volume 2 By Ibn Khafif, translated by Gibril Fouad Haddad

This is no refutation at all! 

So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts.” (Qur’an 22:46)



Filed under Uncategorized

The Qur’an: Created or Uncreated: Theological Problems


Ha-Mim By the Book that makes things clear,-We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that you may be able to understand and learn wisdom. And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high in dignity, full of wisdom. Shall We then take away the Message from you and repel (you), for that you are a people transgressing beyond bounds? (Qur’an 43:15)


“Nay! it is a Glorious Qur’an, In a guarded tablet”  (Qur’an 85:21-22)

This is an entry that discusses the problematic theological position held by our brothers from the ‘Ahl Sunnah‘. That is the belief that the Qur’an is the eternal uncreated word of Allah.


Now at Prima-Qur’an: Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama we agree that the  Qur’an is 100% a revelation from  Allah.  This is not in question.


I want to say from the outset that any Muslim who believes the Qur’an is created in my view is still a Muslim. This is a matter of dispute between the scholars.


  Too often in history, a group will arise that will seek to disquiet and quell dissenting views or opinions.

It is very challenging for example to get an unbiased view of Gnostic Christianity because the overwhelming majority of the sources available to us today are being given through their opponents.

When the  Qur’an says that it is ‘Fee lawhin mahfooth‘ a guarded or a preserved tablet this means is in regard to it being preserved and protected.

It is our view that the Qur’an was created in time. In fact, the Qur’an was revealed in real-time to address the needs of the community of believers in and around the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw)


I will also be examining this doctrine in light of the  Qur’an itself, the various justifications and proof text and allow the leaders to judge for themselves.

It is truly unfortunate that some of the Muslim intelligentsia and academics would feel so threatened by any discussion on this subject that it would incur a death penalty.

For example in one of the great works that are praised by the Sufi Muslims, Qadi Iyad we find

He said about someone who said that the Qur’an is created, “He is an unbeliever, so kill him.” He said in the version of Ibn Nafi’, “He should be flogged and painfully beaten and imprisoned until he repents.” In the version of Bishr ibn Bakr at-Tinnisi we find, “He is killed and his repentance is not accepted.” (Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], p. 419)

This book which is loved by the Sufis  can be readily purchased at Wardah books in Singapore.

You can also purchase it from amazon.

In all fairness those who hold to the position that the Qur’an is created also persecuted those who held the position that it was uncreated and eternal.

In fact, Muhammad ibn Isma’il Al-Bukhari (of Sahih Bukhari oral collection fame) was persecuted by a group of those from the Hanbali school of jurisprudence for a remark he made.

Al-Dhuhli was fierce (shadîd) in his adhesion to the Sunna. He confronted Muhammad ibn Isma‘il [al-Bukhari] because the latter had alluded, in his Khalq Af‘al al-‘Ibad, to the fact that the reader’s utterance of the Qur’an was created. Bukhari made it understood without explicitly saying it, but he certainly made it clear. On the other hand, Ahmad ibn Hanbal flatly refused to explore the question, as well as Abu Zur‘a and al-Dhuhli, or indulge in the terminology of dialectic theologians (al-mutakallimûn), and they did well – may Allah reward them excellently. Ibn Isma‘il had to travel from Naysabur undercover, and he was pained by what Muhammad ibn Yahya [al-Dhuhli] had done to him.” (Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (10:207)



Al-Hakim [narrated with his chains]: Muhammad ibn Yahya [al-Dhuhli] said: “This Bukhari has openly subscribed to the doctrine of ‘pronunciationists’ (al-lafziyya), and for me those are worse than the Jahmiyya.” . . . Ahmad ibn Salama visited Bukhari and told him: “O Abu ‘Abd Allah, this is a respected man [i.e. al-Dhuhli] in Khurasan, especially in this town [Naysabur], and he has thundered with this speech until none of us can say anything to him about it, so what do you think we should do?” Bukhari grasped his beard then he said: (I confide my cause unto Allah. Lo! Allah is Seer of His slaves.) (40:44) He continued: “O Allah! You know that I did not want for one moment to settle in Naysabur out of arrogance, nor in quest of leadership, but only because my soul would not let me return to my own country [Bukhara] because of my opponents; and now this man intends harm for me out of jealousy, only because of what Allah gave me and for no other reason.” Then he said to me: “O Ahmad, tomorrow I shall leave and you will be rid of his talk which I caused.” . . . Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub the hadith master said: “When al-Bukhari settled in Naysabur Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj took to visiting him frequently. When the affair of the pronunciation of Qur’an took place between al-Bukhari and [al-Dhuhli] and the latter roused people against him and forbade them to visit him, most people stopped visiting him, but not Muslim. Then al-Dhuhli said: ‘Anyone that subscribes to the pronunciation [being created], it is not permitted for them to attend our gathering.’ Whereupon Muslim placed a cloak on top of his turban, stood up in front of everyone, and sent back to al-Dhuhli what he had written from him carried by a camel-driver, for Muslim openly subscribed to the pronunciation and made no attempt to conceal it.” . . . Ahmad ibn Mansur al-Shirazi also narrated it from Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub, adding: “And Ahmad ibn Salama stood up and followed him.” (See Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (10:314-315). Cf. Bayhaqi’s al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (al-Hashidi ed. 2:20-21 #591).


This is written for those people who are Muslim who may have come across the position that the Qur’an is uncreated and find it wanting.


So here are some theological problems with the position that the Qur’an is uncreated and eternal. This is in relation to Christian theology.

To support the position that the  Qur’an is the uncreated and eternal words of Allah would indirectly support the Christian doctrine of the logos (Word made flesh).

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”  (John 1:1-5)

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

“In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succinct[sic] statement of this doctrine: “The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah comes from Him, and nothing created comes from Allah Most High.” Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

Source: (G.F. Haddad,


Comment: This is a rather strange assertion from Imam Malik (May Allah have mercy on him). Nothing created comes from Allah? What about the universe where does that come from?


“O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and HIS WORD which He conveyed unto Mary, and A SPIRIT from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.” (Qur’an 4:171)

“(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you  glad tidings of A WORD from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).”  (Qur’an 3:45)


“And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah gives you glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who comes) to confirm A WORD from Allah lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous. (Qur’an 3:39)


Using the reasoning of Imam Malik (r) above:


  1. Jesus is the Speech/Word, of/from Allah.
  2. Allah’s Speech/Word, come directly from Allah.
  3. Nothing created comes from Allah.
  4. Therefore, Jesus must have always existed!


However, there is a very simple solution to this problem.  That solution is to allow the Qur’an to decide matters of our theology by looking at what Allah says in context.

“Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is.” (Qur’an 3:59)

Now, this could refer to the physical creation of Jesus (meaning in the flesh) and not to Jesus as a word or a ruh.  If the ruh and the word that is Jesus is not created then Muslims who hold to the doctrine of an uncreated and eternal Qur’an have a real theological conundrum to deal with.

On what consistent basis is Jesus Allah’s word and his spirit and yet be created when the  Qur’an is Allah’s word and is eternal and uncreated?  On what consistent basis is the claim made?

Here is another interesting text from the Qur’an to consider.

“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then has the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He creates what He pleases. For Allah hath power over all things.” (Qur’an 5:17)

We can see from this that Allah (swt) if he so willed could destroy Christ the son of Mary.  I would go further and say that this means utterly and absolutely.  So not just the flesh but Christ Jesus even as the word of Allah!


Notice the following by Shaykh Yasir Al Qadhi (May Allah continue to benefit us by him)

“Therefore the Speech of Allah, by the Will of Allah, is the cause of the creation, so it cannot be created, for if it were created, it would mean that a created characteristic has itself created another object, and this is not possible! In other words, a created object does not have the ability to create another object; only the Creator has this ability.”

Source: (An introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an page 34)

Created objects create other objects all the time. Certainly not ex-nihilo (
out of nothing).


Maybe Shaykh Yasir Al Qadhi did not give serious consideration to the following:

“And make him a messenger to the Children of Israel, who will say, ‘Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay that which is like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah. And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead – by permission of Allah. And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers. (Qur’an 3:49)

“The Day when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and remember when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay what was like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, “This is not but obvious magic.” (Qur’an 5:110)

Interestingly the English word used is ‘design‘ as opposed to create or make.



Imam Ahmed (r) an innovator according to Ibn Taymiyyah (r)?

Think about this dear respected Muslim sisters and brothers. The fact that our great scholars actually mused over this is really sad.

“Then, among them are those who say that the ink is apparent in the mushaf but not incarnating, and some say that it is incarnating. In the sayings of some of them is what implies that for the form-the form of the letter and figure – |but|not |for|its material substance which is its ink. This opinion is also invalid. Just as the saying, that anything from the voices of human beings is eternal, is an invalid opinion. It is an opinion put forward by a group from among the followers of Malik, Shafi’i, and Ahmad, the majority of whom reject it. The saying of Ahmad and the majority if of his followers rejecting his opinion is well-known. There is no doubt that whoever says that the voices of the servants are eternal, he is an innovator and inventor. In the same way as whoever says that this Qur’an is not the word of Allah, he is an innovator and an inventor”

Source: (Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah (Matabi al-Riyad, 1st edition, 12:83-873,83-85)


To support the position that the Qur’an is the uncreated and eternal words of Allah would annihilate a key tenet of Sunni creed.


What position is this you may ask?


Answer: The position that Allah (swt) created all things.

For example, look at this verse of the Qur’an and think of the theological implications.

“Nay! it is a Glorious Qur’an, In a guarded tablet” (‘Fee lawhin mahfooth)”  (Qur’an 85:21-22)

A key tenet of Sunni creed is that Allah created all things.

Since they believe the Qur’an is the eternal and uncreated speech of Allah (swt) it would imply that the material tablet also existed eternally.

Thus in turn it would also imply that matter and space are not created.  In order for there to exist an eternal tablet in heaven, it must have to occupy space/time and thus would also imply that Allah (swt) is not the only entity that exists eternally.

How could the ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ claim with any consistency that the  Qur’an is eternal and uncreated and yet claim that Allah (swt) alone is eternal and uncreated?


The problem with bila kaif

Where did the eternal and uncreated ‘lawhin mahfooth‘ come from? If the answer is ‘bila kiaif or ‘without asking how‘ then it has to be asked.


On what consistent basis are Trinitarian Christians asked ‘How can be one be three‘? Don’t they have the right to answer: ‘bila kaif‘ ?


Which for those from the Salafi view they can no longer say that the Trinity doctrine is irrational; because that is pure kalam! All they can do is say we base our objection on the text, “and say not “Three” – Cease! (it is) better for you!

However, the problem with ‘bila kaif‘ is that no one ultimately has to give justification for any theological position that they hold.


Next, we will be looking at objections from skeptics/atheists/agnostics.


This is a big problem for ‘Ahl Sunnah‘.

So Shaykh Yasir Qadhi says:

These Attributes are understood literally (in the case of the Attributes of kalam, that Allah, Speaks, whenever He wishes, with a sound, in different languages, and this Speech is composed of words and letters and is not created), but the actuality and ‘how-ness’ of these Attributes are not delved into, and any negative similarity be-tween these Attributes and the attributes of the creation are negated (in the case of this Attribute, that the speech of the creation is created, but the Speech of Allah is not.)  Understanding these Attributes ‘literally’ does not mean understanding them in the manner that they are found in the creation, or comparing them with the attributes of the creation; rather, it means affirming the linguistic meaning of that Attribute in a manner that befits the Creator, and will never completely be understood by mankind.”    Source: (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 52)

 We are told that the ‘how-ness‘ is not delved into and yet this whole paragraph does exactly that!  When you negate comparison you are comparing and contrasting ‘how‘ something is unlike something else.


When speaking of prophet Ibrahim (a.s) and the story of the idols Shaykh Yasir Qadhi says:

“In these verses, Ibrahim showed his people that their idols were not worthy of worship, primarily because they could not speak. After they themselves acknowledged this, Ibrahim rebuked them, and asked them, “Have you no sense?!” meaning, “How can an object that cannot even speak be worthy of worship?”  Notice that Ibrahim was referring to a speech that could be heard, for Ibrahim’s people did not answer Ibrahim with the belief of the Ash’arees, “Our god speaks, but a speech that is not heard-an internal speech of the mind!”  for they understood what Ibrahim meant!! This is why they turned to themselves, and realized the foolishness of their actions, and could only reply with the feeble response that everyone knew that their idols could not speak!”  Source: (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 46)

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi thinks that he has the goods on the  Ash’ari Sunnis latter making a quote that in effect turns the Ash’ari Sunnis into idol worshipers.


 Yet, look at the quotation above where he says:

‘literally’ does not mean understanding them in the manner that they are found in the creation.”

Rather than help Islam, Yasir Qadhi  his Salafist-Athari creed and those who think like him have handed over to skeptics of their position a devastating argument.

So like Ibrahim (a.s) demands above the atheist has the right to demand from him speech from his Creator.

They have the right to demand a speech that could be heard”

This point should always be brought up again and again and again when dealing with our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ who hold these types of views.


Yet Shaykh Yasir Qadhi is not done with the Ash’ari.

Sheikh Yasir Qadhi thinks he has the goods on the Ash’ari when he says,


“1) If the kalam of Allah is without sound, then what did Musa hear when Allah spoke to Him? If they respond that Allah created a sound, and caused Musa to hear that created sound, then this means that this created object stated,
“O Musa, verily, I am your Lord…Verily, I am Allah, there is no God save Me, so worship Me… [ Qur’an 20:12-14]

Therefore, if they state this, it implies that this created object claimed to be Allah, and asked Musa to worship it! However, if they stated that it was the actual kalam of Allah, then it must be asked, “How then did Musa hear it if you claim that Allah’s kalam is without sound? ” The scholars of the Ash’arees have not been able to provide a satisfactory response for this.”  Source: (An introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 44)



So Shaykh Yasir Qadhi thinks that it was the object cried out ‘I am Allah, there is no God save Me, so worship Me’.   Yet, obviously, we know that Moses (a.s) did not perform any act of worship towards the direction of the voice. Or at least no act of worship is recorded.

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi and those who agree with his position have to wonder the following:

What did Rasul Allah (saw) think when Angel Gabriel (a.s)
said. ” Indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.” (
Qur’an 21:92)

What? Did the Blessed Messenger (saw) fall down and worship Gabriel? Obviously not!

Gabriel(a.s) was used as a medium in the same way the burning bush was.

As regards if Musa (a.s) heard sounds from the burning bush you ask yourself, did the companions hear the Qur’an when it was being revealed to the Blessed Messenger (saw)?


“And [We sent] messengers about whom We have related [their stories] to you before and messengers about whom We have not related to you. And Allah spoke to Moses with [direct] speech.”  (Qur’an 4:164)

“When he saw a fire and said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire; perhaps I can bring you a torch or find at the fire some guidance.” And when he came to it, he was called, “O Moses, Indeed, I am your Lord, so remove your sandals. Indeed, you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa. And I have chosen you, so listen to what is revealed [to you] Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance.”  (Quran 20:10-14)

“And when Moses had completed the term and was traveling with his family, he perceived from the direction of the mount a fire. He said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I will bring you from there [some] information or burning wood from the fire that you may warm yourselves.” But when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley in a blessed spot – from the tree, “O Moses, indeed I am Allah, Lord of the worlds.” (Qur’an 28:29-30)

“Has there reached you the story of Moses? When his Lord called to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa” (Qur’an 79:15-16)

Likewise, since the Qur’an acts as a guardian of the previous scriptures let us see what is claimed to be the Torah has to say as well.

“There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight–why the bush does not burn up.”When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.””Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” (Exodus 3:2-5)

Allah (swt) created a sound and caused Moses (a.s) to hear that created sound. In fact, if you go on further the whole context shows how Allah (swt) is the creator of perception.  Moses (a.s) was made to perceive a burning fire, it did not indicate if anyone saw it or not.  He (a.s) was made to perceive his hand becoming white. He (a.s) was made to perceive a voice from a tree. He (a.s) was made to perceive his staff move like a snake.

“And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.” (Qur’an 42:51)

Unless our respected Shaykh Yasir Qadhi wants to say that the  Qur’an contains a flat contradiction he will need to understand ‘Allah spoke to Moses with direct speech‘ in light of the above verses.



Allah-willing in the third section of this three-part series we will be getting into the proof text.

I would have left this matter alone if it were not for the fact that there are Muslim groups out there whom will literally tell you that you are ‘astray‘ and you are ‘not on the right path‘ and that your ‘theology is corrupt’ because you do not hold to their tenets.  They may even claim you to be outside of Islam.


As we saw from one book revered by the Sufis above orders were given to torture, imprison, and execute people who dissented theologically.

I hope that we can have intellectual exchanges that enrich people who are seeking the truth on matters that weigh upon human consciousness.

There are theological problems in relation to believing the Qur’an is eternal with regards to our Christian brothers.

There are internal theological problems in relation to believing Allah (swt) created all things.

There are problems launched by skeptics and doubters. They have the right to ask as Ibrahim (a.s) did to his people, ‘a speech that could be heard‘. Or a person today could ask for ‘a speech that could be heard with the mind.’


“Behold, you received it on your tongues, and said out of your mouths things of which you had no knowledge; and you thought it to be a light matter, while it was most serious in the sight of Allah.” (Qur’an 24:15)


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized