“So, set your face toward the religion in uprightness. That is the “Fitrah” of Allah, upon which He has created mankind. Let there be no changing of Allah’s creation.” (Quran 30:30)
“If they do not want beards, then let them be castrated, because the eunuch does not grow a beard, so they cut off/undergo castration and he does not grow a beard and they are freed from it[growing a beard], because they are no longer men, but rather resemble women.”
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. ” (Qur’an 39:67)
﷽
So Shaykh Uthaymeen was asked about Allah’s blanket.
The questioner says, can we say it is a metaphor?
Uthaymeen is agitated. “Will you say to Allah on judgement day that he doesn’t have a blanket?!”
If you want to perfect your aqidah (your creed) in accordance with this bizarre sect then if it is affirmed that Allah (swt) has a blanket are you going to deny this?!
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“Hikmetle ve güzel öğütle Rabbinin yoluna çağır ve onlarla en güzel biçimde mücadele et. Kuşkusuz Rabbin, işte yolundan sapanları en iyi bilen O’dur ve O, yola gelenleri de en iyi bilendir.” (Qur’an 16:125)
﷽
Son dönemde, Diyanet İşleri Başkanı Ali Erbaş’a yönelik sosyal medyada ciddi bir algı operasyonu yürütülmektedir. Erbaş, yaptığı açıklamalarda, Kur’an’a dayalı olarak Hz. İsa’nın (a.s.) öldüğünü ve Mehdi’nin beklenmemesi gerektiğini ifade etmiştir. Bu görüşler, özellikle Mehdi inancını İslam’ın temel inançları olarak gören sufi tarikatlar tarafından tepkiyle karşılanmıştır. Erbaş’a yönelik eleştiriler, İslam’ın temel ilkeleri çerçevesinde yapılan değerlendirmeler, Arapça bilmemesi eleştirileri ve Diyanet kurumuna karşı duyulan muhalefet üzerinden şekillenmektedir.
Bazı sosyal medya kullanıcıları, Ali Erbaş’ı eleştirirken, özellikle İslam’ın temel ilkesi olan Kelime-i Şehadet üzerinden tartışmalar yürütmektedir. Erbaş’ın Arapça bilmemesi de gündeme getirilmekte ve bazı eleştirmenler, bunun onun dini otorite olarak yeterliliğini sorgulayan yorumlar yapmaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra, Diyanet kurumuna karşı olanlar ve Diyanet’in kapanmasını destekleyen kitleler de Erbaş’ı eleştirmektedir. Ayrıca, Erbaş’ın “abduhu” kelimesini kullanmadığı gerekçesiyle sert eleştiriler yapılmakta, bazıları ise onu mürtedlikle suçlamaktadır. Ancak, bu eleştiriler genellikle dini terimler ve İslam’ın temel öğretileri hakkında eksik bilgiye dayanmaktadır. Örneğin, Türkiye’deki beş vakit ezanda da “abduhu” kelimesinin yer almadığı göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, eleştirilerin çoğu bilinçsizlikten kaynaklanmaktadır.
Sufi tarikatçılar ve Diyanet karşıtı kesimler, Erbaş’ı eleştirenler arasında yer almaktadır. Bu durum, sosyal medyada yayılan yanlış bilgilendirmelerin, özellikle dini konularda bilgi eksikliğinden kaynaklandığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu noktada, dini tartışmaların daha derinlemesine ve bilgi temelli bir şekilde ele alınması gerektiği açıktır.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.” (Qur’an 5:75)
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
“There is no comparison to His absoluteness.” (Qur’an 112:4)
﷽
I used to think that the Salafi/Athari were people who had subtlety in their doctrine. And people who at least claimed to take the apparent meaning of a text. They would claim that Allah (swt) is not like his creation and that they do not liken Allah (swt) to the creation.
I couldn’t have been more wrong!
I am now of the view that the God of the Salafis is one that has a form or a shape. This is from THEIR understanding of certain text.
It was narrated that Abu Umamah Al-Bahili said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) addressed us, and most of his speech had to do with telling us about Dajjal. He warned about him, and among the things he said was: ‘There will not be any tribulation on earth, since the time Allah created the offspring of Adam, that will be greater than the tribulation of Dajjal. Allah has not sent any Prophet but he warned his nation about Dajjal. I am the last of the Prophets, and you are the last of the nations. He will undoubtedly appear among you. If he appears while I am among you, I will contend with him on behalf of every Muslim, and if he appears while I am not among you, then each man must fend for himself and Allah will take care of every Muslim on my behalf. He will emerge from Al-Khallah, between Sham and Iraq, and will wreak havoc right and left. O slaves of Allah, remain steadfast. I will describe him to you in a manner in which none of the Prophets has described him before me. He will start by saying “I am a Prophet,” and there is no Prophet after me. Then a second time he will say: “I am your Lord.” But you will not see your Lord until you die. He is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed, and written between his eyes is Kafir. Every believer will read it, whether he is literate or illiterate.”
Notice that the text that is attributed to the Blessed Prophet (saw) does not even remotely begin to refute the idea that Allah could be in the form of a human being.
The text only gives the following assurances.
Your Lord is not One-Eyed.
You will not see your Lord until you die.
In other words it is not at the core of one’s innate fitra or it is not innate to the mind that Allah (swt) is not something that takes on forms and shapes!
To have such an assurance tied to this particular hadith, of which the multitude have not even heard of!?
The proof is irrefutable.
The Prophet (saw) said, “Allah did not send any prophet but that he warned his nation of the one-eyed liar (Ad-Dajjal). He is one-eyed while your Lord is not one-eyed, The word ‘Kafir’ (unbeliever) is written between his two eyes.”
Now those who follow the Neo-Salafi Athari school will use the above text to claim that Allah (swt) has two eyes. Although that is pure speculation. Saying that the Dajjal has eye one does not necessitate that Allah (swt) has two eyes. Or saying that Allah (swt) isn’t defective in one eye does not entail Allah (swt) has more than one eye. You could say that a spider has 8 eyes and that it does not have a defective eye and both statements could be true.
However, when Allah (swt) opened my eyes to something deeper and more sinister. That the Neo-Salafi believe that the above text is trying to teach a theological point!
So what they are saying and think about this…what they are saying is that the way to DISTINGUISH Allah (swt) from the dajjal, is that the dajjal has ONE EYE and ALLAH DOES NOT HAVE ONE EYE.
What about the fact that the very hadith says, “THE WORD KAFIR IS WRITTEN BETWEEN HIS TWO EYES.”? Wouldn’t that be a big tale tell sign that THIS IS NOT Allah (swt)?
But even more bone chilling and down right frightening is that this flawed analogy leads one to think what seems to be THE ONLY thing that distinguishes Allah (swt) from the dajjal? Wouldn’t it be OBVIOUS that if a PERSON, ANY PERSON were to claim to Allah (swt) that we as Muslims would KNOW that this person is a charlatan, simply on the basis of:
Allah (swt) cannot be and is not a man/human being.
Allah (swt) cannot and does not assume form/shape.
Allah (swt) cannot be and is not a person.
However, if one is to take the Neo-Salafi perspective apparently not! Think about this good people.
What if you were to find a person that does amazing feats of magic, or breaks the laws of physics or does the unexplained. Would YOUR criteria as a Muslim be, well the person has two eyes, 20/20 vision, so maybe, possibly it COULD be Allah?
REALLY?
If the Neo-Salafi do not understand this hadith as the Blessed Messenger (saw) simply informing that Allah (swt) is not unaware and has full grasp, and has no defects than brothers and sisters, dear readers…
WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM!
We have a big problem because nothing else is obvious; like the fact that the dajjal is:
human
has eyes.
has hands.
has feet.
has curly hair.
has a mouth.
most likely eats food (Qur’an 5:75) thus answers the call of nature.
has mass.
occupies space.
needs to have an army to effect change. Where as Allah (swt) gives the command ‘Kun faya kun’ (be and it is) ?wouldn’t ALL THESE BE A DEAD GIVE AWAY THAT THIS IS NOT ALLAH? According to the Neo-Salafi, NOPE!
But one way to POSSIBLY TELL THAT IT IS NOT ALLAH IS THIS: Is the person blind in one eye?
Imagine being brought up with this belief and you are out on police patrol one night in Saudi Arabia and you spot someone with one eye. “Hello, headquarters this is dispatch. Suspect has one defective eye. Possibly Dajjal, Definitely not Allah.”
So according to the Neo-Salafi the above hadith has come to teach us a theological point concerning Allah (swt). That being don’t be fooled because dajjal has one eye (one eye is defective) and your Lord does not have a defective eye.
This is what lead me to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people believe that Allah (swt) has a form, and can even come in the form of a human being!
Saying that the Lord is not one eyed is not an affirmation that he has two eyes!
“The Originator of the heavens and earth. How could He have children when He has no mate? He created all things and has knowledge of everything.” (Qur’an 6:101)
This is a negation that Allah (swt) could not have children as he has no companion. So does this entail the opposite? If Allah (swt) had a companion he could have children? How bizarre is this type of thinking! That Allah (swt) would need anything in order to accomplish what he wants is not the belief of the Muslims.
Subhan’Allah!
May Allah (swt) rescue the Muslims and save the Muslims from perversion in their faith!
“And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your languages and colors. Surely in this are signs for those of ˹sound˺ knowledge.”(Qur’an 30:22)
﷽
This will be a page dedicated to information about the Ibadi school in other languages.
اباضی کون ہیں؟ مکتبہ اباضیہ کے بارے میں مزید معلومات کے لیے
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
Al hamdulillah. All praise be to Allah (swt) for the right guidance. Whomever Allah guides no no one can misguide them. Whomever Allah allows to stray no one can guide them.
Now, there are Muslim sects as well as Pseudo-Islamic sects that are willing to assert that our creator Allah (swt) is ignorant of the Jewish penal system. May Allah (swt) guide them and us!
Among such groups are basically, the entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani movement as well as the Ismaili Nizari.
Their views are unnecessarily convoluted and have caused unnecessary confusion on this matter.
These same groups without even a shred of evidence will look at the following text of the Qur’an and some how imagine and insert Romans and Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross)!
The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority. (Qur’an 4:153)
And We cursed them for their breaking of the covenant and their ingratitude towards the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets* without right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their ingratitude, so they believe not, except for a few. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (Qur’an 4:155-156)
The above text certainly is not talking about Christians at all!
There are no records of Christians killing their prophets. The only Prophets of the Christians are Yahya (John) & Esau (Jesus).
Also, Christians would never utter against Mary a false charge. In the sense of saying saying demeaning of her (Allah has honoured her in this life and in the life to come!)
Read the Qur’an dear brothers and sisters.
Read it from Qur’an 4:153-157.
Now just on reading that text alone where are the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani/ The Ismail-Nizari, and the entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah conjuring up Romans from?
The fact, is all of these groups, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani, the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, and the Ismaili Nizari have to depend upon extraneous material and information outside of the Qur’an and the Sunnah to assert their rather baseless claims that some how when we read this text we must imagine it speaking about Romans!
The Arabic word for Romans is not something unfamiliar to the Qur’an.
“The Romans have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:2) غُلِبَتِ ٱلرُّومُ ghulibati l-rūm
This is akin to Muslims reading Surah Ikhlas, the 112th chapter of the Qur’an and looking at the Arabic text and imaging it speaking about Greeks and the Trojan War.
This would come across to any sane Muslims as something very wacky! It is very left field.
Jews and Judaism unnecessarily get left out in the cold.
Imagine Christians and Jews debating about an issue concerning Muslims and Muslims were not even invited to the table?! It would be quite rude. However, this happens with the Jews and Judaism by us Muslims virtually all…..the…..time!
So I reached out to chabad.org and I thought I would ask practicing Jews what Jews believe. Who would have thought? Such a novel concept right? I will share the short but very polite and insightful e-mail exchange with Rabbi Dov Stein
Here is a comparison/contrast of four views that one may come across today.
Traditionally Sunni view.
Modern Sunni view that adopted the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani view.
The Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani view.
The Ismail Nizari/Todd Lawson view.
All four of the above views have the following in common.
All four posit (without any evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah) that Qur’an 4:153-157 is some how speaking about Romans.
All four posit (without any evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah) that Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross).
All four get the basis for their views from Isrā’īliyyāt material.
All four use this Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose a view upon the Qur’anic text.
All four posit a a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum (Cross) as historical reality with them differing on rather or not Jesus was placed on a Patibulum (Cross) or not. Rather he was killed on a Patibulum (Cross) or not.
Imami Shi’a tradition.
Want to know who does not speak about Qur’an 4:157?
The following:
Muhammed al Baqir. al-Hasan al-‘Askari. Furat ibn Ibrahim al-Kufi. ali ibn Ibrahim-al-Qummi & Muhammed ibn Mas’ud al-Ayyashi.
“Of some interest is also the fact that there is not even any mention of the verse (Qur’an 4:157) in the voluminous collection of Shi’i traditions, Usul al-Kafi, complied by the Twelver scholar al-Kulayni. Indeed, it is not until the first major tafsir work of Twelver Shi’ism by Abu Ja’far al-Tusi that the problem is broached at all.”
Source: (The Crucifixion and the Qur’an pg. 75 Todd Lawson)
The one thing all four views have in common is that they indirectly by their own ignorance of the Jewish penal system attribute to Allah (swt) ignorance of the Jewish penal system!
Insh’Allah will explain how and why that is the case.
So, I had sent an e-mail to Chabad.org and I received a very cordial and swift reply.
“Capital punishment in Judaism does not involve crucifixion.“
This is very important admission by the respected Rabbi because lays to bed the idea that Jews crucify people. It is simply not part of their penal system.
Our, the Ibadi view is a very simple plain reading of the text. We let the text stand on it’s own without it being interpreted in light of the Isrā’īliyyāt material.
What is that simple conclusion? The very simple basic conclusion for anyone who has even a modicum of Arabic reading comprehension skills is that Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of the Jews from the Children of Israel.
The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority. (Qur’an 4:153)
“But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them. This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
And We cursed them for their breaking of the covenant and their ingratitude towards the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophetswithout right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their ingratitude, so they believe not, except for a few. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (Qur’an 4:155-156)
and their killing of the prophets without right As this is a continuation of the theme it neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
So let us explore the key passage of this text:
“Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him.”
It cannot refer to Christians. Christians would not kill Jesus. Nor would they make a claim that ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary.’
It cannot refer to Romans simply because the passage does not say so. There is no Arabic word for Romans any where in the text.
The whole theme of Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of Jews from the Children of Israel.
So it should be beyond evident that Qur’an 4:153-157 is not addressing Romans nor Christians.
So now let us look at another key text:
“And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)”
So virtually everyone translates the text as
“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him.”
Even the Hafs Qur’an Only religion* disappointed me. Here I was hoping they might show a little initiative but no. They had to go and follow the others.
* Refers to (those who platform a Qur’an only approach)
So let’s go with that for a moment. “nor did they crucify him.”
We have already established that the context of Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of Jews from the children of Israel.
So now Qur’an 4:153-157 is reupdating the claims of this group of Jews with:
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they crucify him.”
However, the good Rabbi has informed us:
“Capital punishment in Judaism does not involve crucifixion.“
In fact, in a follow up e-mail with the respected Rabbi, Dov Stein we are informed:
“as they are hung after being executed.”
“where the body was positioned after stoning.”
You have to be a very gullible person to imagine Jews boasting: “Yeah we killed Christ Jesus the Son of Mary by a method of execution not sanctioned by the Torah ha ha ha!”
Now if you notice in the first e-mail exchange the respected Rabbi gave me two links.
“I.e. after they have been executed, they are hung publicly. The person is hung up just before sunset and taken down immediately thereafter. See Hilchos Sanhedrin 15:6-7.”
It is a positive commandment to hang a blasphemer and an idolater after they have been executed, as implied by Deuteronomy 21:23: “A person who is hung is cursing God.” This refers to the blasphemer. With regard to an idolater, Numbers 15:30 states: “He blasphemes God.”
A man is hung, but a woman is not hung, as implied by Deuteronomy 21:22: “When a man has sinned and is condemned to die, after he is executed, you shall hang him….”ו
How is the mitzvah of hanging carried out? After the convicted is stoned, a beam is implanted in the ground with a rafter protruding from it. The two hands of the corpse are intercrossed and he is hung close to sunset.
He is released immediately. If not, a negative commandment is transgressed, as Ibid.:23 states: “Do not let his corpse tarry overnight on the beam.”
Now the commentary that you have seen above is by the legendary Rabbi, Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). That commentary was on the following text of the Torah:
“If any party is guilty of a capital offense and is put to death, and you impale the body on a stake, you must not let the corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury it the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God: you shall not defile the land that your God יהוה is giving you to possess.”
“If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall [then] hang him on a pole. But you shall not leave his body on the pole overnight. Rather, you shall bury him on that [same] day, for a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God, and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance.”
Now is there anything with in the sacred sources of the Jews that the Qur’an may be refuting or interacting with?
“At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.” (John 8:59)
“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” (John 10:31-32)
“But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!” (Qur’an 61:6)
Recall that the Qur’an mentions a double denial or a double negation.
Simply stating: They didn’t kill him would be sufficient. It covers every mode or method of death known to mankind.
Yet the Qur’an deliberately gives us a double denial/double negation.
Recall that the Jews do not crucify people but they do hang/impale them after stoning them to death. In other words a post mortem suspension humiliation.
Recall the words of the Torah:
“For an impaled body is an affront to God.”
“And they did not kill himnor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ )”
The double negation certainly rules out the Ismaili Nizari /Todd Lawson position.
That is because they understand the part of the text: “they did not kill him” (as a reference to Jesus soul). However, they do assert (without a shred of evidence) the things the other 3 groups hold to as asserted in my points: 1-5 above.
This is indeed a glaring problem for the Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson position. The Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson assert that a crucifixion happened.
Remember, that neither the Nizari/Todd Lawson do not assert the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani interpretation of Crucifixion as ‘crucified to death’.
You see dear respected readers. All of these groups: The entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani movement as well as the Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson have made Qur’an 4:153-157 so unnecessarily convoluted. They are astray because they do not use the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the foundation. Rather, they rely upon the Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose meaning upon the Qur’an.
The Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah faltered because they relied upon the Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose meaning upon the Qur’an. They have never been able to substantiate their view from the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The Imami Shi’i , the Ismaili-Nizar faltered because they did not check the base presuppositions of the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah. They relied upon those presuppositions but came to different exegetical conclusions. However, they assumed the base points that the Sunni assumed.
The Ahmadiyyah (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) faltered because he too did not check the base presuppositions of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah. He relied upon those presuppositions but came to different exegetical conclusions.
The latter Sunnis who adopted the Ahmadiyyah position as it was useful for debates: (Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, Yusuf Ismail, Yusuf Buccas). However, there has to be more credit given to them because at the very least they found issue with the prevailing dominant Sunni position on the issue. Where they faltered was because they did questioned some of the assumptions of the Isrā’īliyyāt material that informed that tradition, but did not think to question it in total.
Certainly with all these groups as with any who do good their reward is with Allah (swt). There is no doubt about that. Those views may have been helpful in the past. We have a better way.
There is a very simple solution to all of this. Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)
When we do this. We can see that: Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking to a group of Jews from the Children of Israel. No Romans or No Christians any where in the text.
We can also see that if we do a textual analysis of Ṣād-lām-bā’: ṣalb and ṣallab refer to a bone from the upper body to the waist [i.e., the backbone]
We will clearly see the above text: Qur’an 4:153-157 (especially given that it relates to Jewish claims) does not refer to a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross)!
Think about it!
The Qur’an when dealing with the Christians speaks about the alleged deity of Jesus and his allegedly being the Son of Allah.
So what is the implication of the double negation (not killing or impailing) being directed towards a group of Jews from the Children of Israel?
You did not kill him.
You did not impale him. This is especially important because: For an impaled body is an affront to God
Look at this different translations of 1 Corinthians 1:23
This whole text Qur’an 4:153-157 has noting at all to do with Romans.
We don’t have to get all fancy schmancy and start talking about Jesus dying physically on a Roman Patibulum (Cross) but not his soul!
We don’t have to get fancy schmancy and start talking about Allah creating Christianity because he made someone else look like Jesus and that someone else was killed on a Roman Patibulum (Cross).
We don’t have to get all fancy schmancy and start talking about Jesus was indeed put on a Roman Patibulum (Cross) but was taken down alive, presumably after he swooned, fainted or passed out.
“He is is going forth to be stoned.” وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ they did not kill him
He was hanged (impaled) on the even of the Passover. وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ they did not impale him.
Very simple very easy to understand. Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. No need to use the Isrā’īliyyāt to impose meaning upon the Qur’an.
Well, for those of you who want to believe in the crucifixion of Jesus or not believe he was crucified Knock yourself out! The idea of Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross) is alien to the Qur’an. It neither affirms it nor negates it.
Final Thoughts.
What are the implications?
This deals a final nail in the coffin of the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani movement. The information contained in this article is a death blow to their movement. Mirza Ghulam is evidently a false Prophet. He was not aware that Qur’an 4:153-157 is not speaking about the Romans.
We don’t have to deal with missionary claims that the Qur’an denies a supposed ‘historical fact’. It is simply irrelevant to the Qur’an.
That a purist approach to interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an makes the most sense.
We don’t have to follow the Salafi Manhaj, the Dawatus Salafiyyah, the Ahmadiyyah, the Nizari Ismail and whoever else believe in Isrā’īliyyāt material with no sanad, no connected chains going back to the claimed source material.
We don’t have to imagine the creator, Allah (swt) being unaware of the Jewish penal code. Astaghfirullah.
The Jews can no longer be called Christ Killers, because the Qur’an exonerates them of the charge.
“And he is with you wherever you are.” (Qur’an 57:4)
﷽
First and foremost let us be clear.
There is no such hadith of the Slave Girl.
As if it is an ahad narration with only one type of matn (textual tradition).
What is true however, is that there is the incident of the slave girl and then we have many narrations of that incident with many textual variations.
We can see that those who call themselves the Sunni Muslims will dispute over the question: Where is Allah?
They get into conflict among themselves in regard to the following ahadith:
Narrated Mu’awiyah b. al-Hakam al-Sulami:
I said: Messenger of Allah, I have a slave girl whom I slapped. This grieved the Messenger of Allah (saw). I said to him: Should I not emancipate her? He said: Bring her to me. He said: Then I brought her. He asked: Where is Allah ? She replied: In the heaven. He said: Who am I ? She replied: You are the Messenger of Allah. He said: Emancipate her, she is a believer.
A man brought the Prophet (saw) a black slave girl. He said: Messenger of Allah, emancipation of believing slave is due to me. He asked her: Where is Allah ? She pointed to the heaven with her finger. He then asked her: Who am I ? She pointed to the Prophet (saw) and to the heaven, that is to say: You are the Messenger of Allah. He then said: Set her free, she is a believer.
So what happens is that the Sunni Muslims that are Ash’ari or Maturidi will usually quote the hadith about the woman using an action by “pointing to heaven“.
This gives opportunity for a quick counter rebuttal (to those who believe Allah is in a defalt location) because we know that Earth is spinning on its axis. Thus, if the Blessed Prophet (saw) were to ask the woman the same question a few hours from that point or eleven hours later the same response would hold true.
The Sunni Muslims that are Athari/Salafi/Wahabbi they tend to prefer the first hadith where the woman is reported to have verbally replied: “In the heaven”.
Not withstanding that some of their scholars have graded the hadith on pointing with the finger as being weak.
I have always found their appeal to this particular narration about the woman replying: “In the heaven” to be quite fascinating and perplexing. Why I find it as such is because I was always of the impression that Athari/Salafi/Wahhabi have always found the concept of Hulul (divine indwelling) in the creation to be blasphemous.
Yet, not so fast….Prima Qur’an!
Do the Athari/Salafi/Wahabbi REALLY BELIEVE ALLAH IS IN THE HEAVEN as the woman affirmed?
No, no they don’t.
“The text which describe Allah as being in heaven mean that He is high above his creation: they do not mean that the heavens surrounds and encompasses Him. That is because heaven [sama’] here means high, and it is not referring to the created heaven. Or it may be said that the proportion in [fi] in this case means above [‘ala], i.e, above the heaven.”
In other words these people practice Ta’wil figurative interpretation of text that state that Allah (swt) is IN and replace it with ABOVE. Even thought the text have an explicit meaning.
Narrated `Abdullah:
A (Jewish) Rabbi came to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and he said, “O Muhammed! We learn that Allah will put all the heavens on one finger, and the earths on one finger, and the trees on one finger, and the water and the dust on one finger, and all the other created beings on one finger. Then He will say, ‘I am the King.’ Thereupon the Prophet (saw) smiled so that his pre-molar teeth became visible, and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi. Then Allah’s Messenger (saw) recited: ‘They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand.Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him.‘ (39.67)
“They did not recognise the true worth of Allah.(Such is Allah’s power that) on the Day of Resurrection the whole earth will be in His grasp, and the heavens (wal-samāwātu) shall be folded up in His Right Hand. Glory be to Him! Exalted be He from all that they associate with Him.” (Qur’an 39:67)
“Have you taken security from Him Who is in the heaven(fi samwati) that He will not cause the earth to swallow you when lo! it is convulsed?” (Qur’an 67:16)
So this is how we know that there is majaz figurative language in the Qur’an and the Sunnah. There is a section of Muslims who endanger the creed of themselves and the Ummah because they take the apparent meaning of text (well they do when they can’t except for when they are trapped like we demonstrated above).
The above verse of the (Qur’an 39:67) states that the heavens will be rolled up.
Narrated Imran bin Husain:
I went to the Prophet (saw) and tied my she-camel at the gate. The people of Bani Tamim came to the Prophet (saw) who said “O Bani Tamim! Accept the good tidings.” They said twice, ‘You have given us the good tidings, now give us something” Then some Yemenites came to him and he said, “Accept the good tidings, O people of Yemem, for Bani Tamim refused them.” They said, “We accept it, O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! We have come to ask you about this matter (i.e. the start of creations).” He said, “First of all, there was nothing but Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the Heavens and the Earth.” Then a man shouted, “O Ibn Husain! Your she-camel has gone away!” So, I went away and could not see the she-camel because of the mirage. By Allah, I wished I had left that she-camel (but not that gathering).
Is is quite obvious from even the apparent reading of the above text that Allah (swt) is not above the heavens and the earth at the point of which they are not even have been created.
Waki’ bin Hudus narrated that his paternal uncle Abu Razin said:
“I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw), where was our Lord before He created His creation?’ He said: He was above the clouds, below which was air, and above which was air and water. Then He created His Throne above the water.'”
This hadith has a grading of Hassan (it is fair) and before the establishment of various categories of hadith it would have received the grading of sahih (sound). Yet, the problem with it is very clear from the matn (text) itself.
Clouds, air, water are all creations. The wording of the text indicates that these things existed along with Allah (swt) and that his relation with them is simply in being above them but not being the creator of them. This can be solved by harmonizing it with other text that Allah (swt) clearly mention Allah (swt) is the creator of all things and by that it would mean the clouds, air and water.
There are other obvious problems with just taking the hadith of the slave girl at face value: Even if she replied that Allah is in the heaven how would that be taken to mean that she is a believer?
The belief that “Allah is in the heaven” neither establishes monotheism nor negates polytheism — because some polytheists acknowledged the existence of Allah, as do Christians, yet they associate others with Him in divinity.
The Christians believe that as well:
“He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Hebrews 1:3)
“But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56)
The very fact of something being in heaven does not indicate that it is God.
The very concept or idea of God being in heaven does not indicate that someone believes that this God is one being that is not comprised of persons.
Recall what the Ahl Khilaf (people of the opposition) of the truth: Salafi/Athari/Wahhabis have said above:
“The texts which describe Allah as being in heaven mean that He is high above His creation: they do not mean that the heaven surrounds and encompasses Him. That is because heaven [sama’] here means high, and it is not referring to the created heaven. Or it may be said that the proposition in [fi] in this case means above [‘ala], i.e., above the heaven.”
DOES THE IBADI HADITH COLLECTION HAVE ANYTHING INTERESTING TO SAY ON THIS MATTER?
We find in the Al Jami al Sahih, musnad al rabi’
47) – “Freeing of a Slave”
681- ‘Abū Ubayda narrated from Jābir ‘Ibn Zayd that a man went to the Prophet (saw), and said to him: “O Prophet, I have a slave girl who tends my flock of sheeps. But, I just found out that I lost a sheep. When I questioned her about this, she replied that the wolf had devoured her. I became irritated so much that I slapped her. Now, I have to free a slave. Should I free her?” The Prophet (saw) said: “If she can come, bring her to me!”. The man went to get her and brought her with him. The Prophet, (saw) said to her: “Who is your lord?“. She said: “Allah is my lord”. The Prophet, (saw) said: “Who then is your Prophet?”. She replied: “You are Muḥammad, the Prophet of Allah”. So, the Prophet, (saw) said at that time: “free her because she is a believer”.
Source:al-Imām al-Rabī‘ — His Status and His Musnad, by Shaykh Sa‘īd al-Qanūbī.
(“Who is your lord”) Source: https://sunnah.com/nasai:3653 this matches with the hadith in the ibadi hadith collection.
There are many other issues with the particular version of the hadith
First: It contradicts what has been mutawātir (mass-transmitted) from the Prophet (saw) — that when someone came to him wanting to accept Islam, he would command them to utter the two testimonies (shahādah), without asking them this question or anything similar.
Second: It contradicts what has been authentically established from the Prophet (saw)— that when he sent some of his Companions to call people to Islam, he instructed them to order the people to testify “that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”, without commanding them to explain or ask about this alleged belief.
Third: The Prophet (saw) explained the pillars of Islam and faith in the Hadith of Jibrīl (Gabriel) — peace be upon him — and did not mention the belief that “Allah is in the heaven”, which is the belief of the anthropomorphist (mujassimah). Exalted is Allah far above that.
Fourth: It contradicts the Hadith: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah. If they do so, they have protected from me their blood and their wealth, except by the right of Islam, and their reckoning is with Allah.” Many have stated that this Hadith is mutawātir.
Fifth: It contradicts the consensus of the ummah — that whoever utters the two testimonies and believes in what the Messenger (saw) brought has entered Islam.
Sixth: As mentioned from the beginning there is no such thing as ‘the hadith of the slave girl’. Rather we have many narrations of that incident with many textual variations
Among them: it has also been reported as: “Do you testify that there is no god but Allah?” She replied: “Yes…” etc. Reported by Mālik, Ahmad (vol. 3 p. 452), ‘Abd al-Razzāq in al-Muṣannaf (vol. 9 p. 175), ‘Abd ibn Ḥumayd, al-Bazzār, al-Dārimī (vol. 2 p. 187), al-Ṭabarānī (vol. 12 p. 27), Ibn Abī Shaybah, Ibn al-Jārūd (no. 931), and al-Bayhaqī (vol. 10 p. 57). Al-Haythamī said in Majma‘ al-Zawā’id (vol. 4 p. 244): “The men of Ahmad’s chain are those of the authentic collections”, and similarly in vol. 1 p. 23. Ibn Kathīr said in his Tafsīr (1/547): “Its chain is authentic, and the anonymity of the Companion does not harm it.” It was also authenticated by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhīd (vol. 9 p. 114)
The second wording is correct, as it conforms to the mutawātir practice of the Prophet (saw), as explained above.
If it is said: The first wording is correct because Imām Muslim narrated it — we reply: Preferring the narration of the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhārī and Muslim) or one of them over others merely for that reason is very weak, rather baseless, for there is no evidence for it. In fact, the evidences — by Allah’s grace — are abundant against it. This is the view of the majority of the ummah.
Among those who adopted this view from later scholars are: the great scholar Qāsim, al-Kamāl ibn al-Humām in Fatḥ al-Qadīr and al-Taḥrīr, his commentators Ibn Amīr al-Ḥajj Muḥammad al-Amīn (known as Amīr Bād Shāh), Ibn Kathīr, al-Qasṭallānī, ‘Alī al-Qārī, al-Ṣan‘ānī, Akram al-Sindī, Aḥmad Shākir, al-Kawtharī, and others — and it is the truth
Seventh: Even if we hypothetically accepted that Muslim’s wording is equal to the other two, it would still not be permissible to use it as proof, because in that case the Hadith would be open to multiple interpretations. And when there is such uncertainty, the proof is invalidated, as is established among the people of knowledge and virtue.
Eighth: Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr — one of the narrators of this Hadith — was a mudallis (one who conceals the source of his narration). Although he did explicitly state hearing in some reports, some scholars still do not accept the narration of a mudallis even if he states hearing. There is no doubt that what is agreed upon takes precedence over what is disputed.
Ninth: This Hadith contradicts definitive rational and textual proofs indicating that the Exalted Lord is not confined to the direction above. A solitary (āḥād) Hadith is not used as proof in matters of creed — as we have clarified in the treatise Akhbār al-Āḥād — especially when it contradicts definitive proofs.
Be careful of those who are not sound in their theology.
“He said, “O my son, do not relate your vision to your brothers or they will contrive against you a plan. Indeed Satan, to man, is a manifest enemy.” (Qur’an 12:5)
﷽
This fatwa is in response to those who have adopted the Ibadi school from other schools (be they Hanafi, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Maliki, Imami Shi’i, etc.)
This particular fatwa is limited in scope to serving the purpose of protecting the sanctity of the lives of those brothers and sisters who adopt the school and if they were to outwardly display this via praying the way the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed, they could get beaten or attacked.
So let me try and answer some objections that have been put forward by laypeople from our school (not from the scholars).
Objection 1) The people will do bid’ah if they do not pray the way the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed.
Response: The Shaykhs have taken this into consideration when issuing the fatwa.
Objection 2) Why would you go to a Masjid in which people would potentially beat you up?!
Response: Your intelligence and wisdom are sound. However, there is something perhaps you did not consider.
Objector: What is that?
Response: In our very own school, is it not wajib for the most part for us to perform the fard in the Masjid?
Objector: Normally yes.
So, likewise, in other schools and strains of Islam, in particular, the Deobandi and Hanafi schools performing the prayer in the Masjid is fard. So we informed him. Imagine someone who follows our school, and they go to the Masjid on a regular basis, and suddenly they stopped going. Will the people not inquire?
Thus, this is the case with these people. If they stop going, their people, neighbors, and family will inquire, then what is to be done?
Objector. I see your point.
Objection 3) The people may abuse kitman.
Response: This is a possibility and yet is not our concern. None of us can instill in a person Wara’ nor Taqwa. This is obtained via the efforts of the individual to strive to be close to Allah (swt) and not to take light of the duties and responsibilities as a Muslim who will be accountable to Allah (swt) on the day of reckoning.
Some brothers may be shocked as they reason how it is that some Muslims would attack other Muslims over juristic differences. Al hamdulillah! The brothers in Oman live in a place of peace and stability and may it continue to be so. May Allah (swt) grant the Sultan wisdom.
Let us not forget that the Wahhabis and Madhkahlis always stir up sedition against us. Let us not forget our dear brothers in Libya to whom Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) stated:
“We thank the Supreme Council of Libyan Elders and Notables for condemning the statement that stirred up sedition in the country, by attacking the Ibadi sect and attempting to confiscate its freedom in its endowments. What we hope from the Libyan government and the notables of society there is to be keen on uniting the ranks and unifying the world; for when the fire of sedition flares up, it leaves nothing behind!
We should not forget there is a good number of ignorant people in our Ummah who believe that we are the Khawarij and they have hadith like the following:
(48)
Chapter: Exhortation to kill the Khawarij باب التَّحْرِيضِ عَلَى قَتْلِ الْخَوَارِجِ
‘Ali said:
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. When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for 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.
So it matters little to some of these people what our position is nor do they care. Not everyone is up for a discussion and many don’t have the mental acumen to have one to begin with. To them, the only thing they know is violence and that they will be rewarded by Allah (swt) for it!
This is not the time for us to be naïve. This is the time for us to be sober-minded, practical and pragmatic. Indeed, these are the trademarks of our school!
The following comes from the noble and learned Shaykh: Abu Al-Arab (Ismail Al-Awfi) — Hafidullah. May Allah (swt) continue to bless him and bless others via his knowledge.
Shaykh Abu Al-Arab (Ismail Al-Awfi)
If they are afraid for themselves, no blame for them for raising their hands and putting their hands on the chest in this situation (only). When you pray alone or by yourself, then you do the prayer of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Saving yourself is one of the major rules in Islam. Self-preservation is a very basic rule in Islam.
In Islam, we have what is known as : Ad-Darooriyyaat Al-Khams—The Five Necessities that are protected and recognized by the Islamic law (shari’ah).
Protection and sanctity of ones:
Life
Religion
Wealth
Lineage
Mind (intellect)
We will also include in this a brief question to Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al Miqbali (h) May Allah (swt) continue to bless him and bless others via his knowledge. As well as his swift and brief reply. We include this because he is known to have more hardline views in our school.
As salam alaikum wr wb Shaykh Massoud,
Shaykh Massoud, how are you?!
May Allah keep you safe and benefit us with what you have taught us.
Shaykh, there are people from outside Oman who have recently followed the madhab and are asking if there is validation for the actual kitman, which is praying as the people of their region follow for fear of sedition.
Do they have validity for this matter?
Reply: walakum assalam waarahmatu allahi wabaraktu, Yes they have.
So dear brothers and sisters, and truth seekers. This fatwa is limited in scope to those of you who may live in places where, if you were to pray the way the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed, you would get physically attacked or even physically killed.
As mentioned before, many in our Ummah are not educated on some of the differences of views in jurisprudence and other matters. Many of them are not interested in engaging in a discussion with you. We know that the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed with his arms to the side. In other areas of the world, you can and possibly will be labeled as a Shi’a for praying this way.
As cited above, Muslims of the Ibadi school have been targeted in Libya. Likewise, in Indonesia, the Shi’a have actually had their houses burned down! See below:
“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided.” (Qur’an 3:103)
﷽
Al hamdulillah! Just three years ago (2022) no one was talking about the Ibadi school. Through the efforts of Primaquran we have put the school on the map.
I even sparked an individual to start up his own YouTube channel of which he is a co-host with a former ex 12er lady. They do their own thing. Never underestimate the impact you will have on others.
Recently Shaykh Yasir Qadhi was on a podcast with brothers Dr Salman Butt and Umer Suleman. They have an excellent podcast which is one of my favourites on YouTube as well.
During this podcast Shaykh Yasir Qadhi made some comments about the Ibadi school.
@20:50
“The Ibadis’ of Oman are Mu’tazilah in creed. Their worship of Allah is no less. Frankly it is better than most Sunni lands. Frankly. If you’ve ever visited Oman. Their akhlaq, their tahhajud, their Qur’an, their strong Emaan. I know the critics are going to go absolutely crazy with this. I’m not saying Mutazalism is correct but I’m saying; the way you guys made it out to be the brother of Shaitan. No it’s not.
“So let me finish this one point so the accusation that if you say X this will imply Y; that syllogism is a figment of the imagination of the critic. If you deny Allah’s istiwa then it’s going to happen. Well, this then is from you. Not from the people themselves.”
“The people who actually hold it don’t go there. And this is what I’m saying when I say we have the hindsight of history. 13 centuries we look back The Zaydis of Yemen are Mu’tazilah. Their praying tahhajud and doing everything as well. You know what I’m saying?”
“They clearly the itiz’ah they believe, the Ibadi’s believe the Qur’an is makhluq. The Ibadis believe the Qur’an is makhluq. Their grand mufti is on YouTube literally defending and then saying but Sunnis, he literally said: ‘but Sunnis you guys made this a bigger issue than it needed to be.’ We still recite the Qur’an take the sha, that’ s his view. I am not saying I agree with it right? And look at their laws and look at the people.”
If anyone has the contact of Shaykh Yasir Qadhi do let him know to that the ministry of awqaf in Oman would (insh’Allah) be interested in inviting him as a guest to Oman. Perhaps he (Shaykh Yasir Qadhi) can give talks there. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi speaks, reads and writes Arabic so there should be no barriers.
I believe Shaykh Salman Al Ouda was a teacher of Shaykh Yasir Qadhi. He came to Oman. Insh’Allah let us invite Shaykh Yasir Qadhi to Oman. He has access to Arabic and thus it will be beneficial insh’Allah. He wants to build bridges across sectarian lines which is a blessing.
Oman has invited many people from across various schools. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi has only to reach out to Nouman Ali Khan about the time he spent at the Qur’an school there.
As Shaykh Yasir Qadhi believes in nuance it is important to note that we are not actually we are not Mu’tazilah.
The Ash’ari agree with us on the doctrine of kasb.
The Ash’ari agree with us morality comes from revelation not human aql.
However, it is possible that Shaykh Yasir Qadhi mentioned Mu’tazilah in the broader definition than in the prevailing sectarian definitions. With Shaykh Yasir Qadhi having what some may consider more liberal leaning inclinations perhaps when he meets with the learned people in Oman he will see that the school is very strong and a very good choice for the Muslim Ummah.
He will see and observe and experience that what he may perceive to be Mu’tazilah leanings there is no doubt that the people cling to the Sunnah!
In fact in our brush ups with certain heretical strains of Salafism they never once (that I can recall)try and fault us about observance of the Sunnah. How can they? They always bring up issues of creed and history.
In regard to the talk that the Mufti of Oman (Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalii-hafidhullah) gave: Shaykh Yasir Qadhi maybe referencing the following:
Shaykh Bin Baz invited Shaykh Ahmed Khalili to his office and Shaykh Khalili accepted the invitation. Shaykh Ahmed Khalili and a small delegation went into what was described as a small room. There was no courtesy and no decorum showed on behalf of Shaykh Bin Baz. As soon Shaykh Bin Baz got everyone in the room he started shouting, “You Ibadi are Kafirs! You don’t believe in seeing Allah in the afterlife”. “You believe in the creation of the Qur’an and you must make tawba!” “You must testify that you are mistaken!”
Shaykh Ahmed Khalili remained very calm. He replied, “These issues are very old issues and many of the ulemah have been talking about it.” “Our expectation was to come and discuss on how to unite the Ummah, and keep the differences aside, and we should agree on certain terms.”
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although they who rely upon other than or associate partners with Allah dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
Ali Erbaş Turkish Islamic scholar and President of Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) in Turkey says Jesus is dead and will not return. He also has stated that there is no Mahdi that will come. This is quite a huge deal because Ali Erbas is in essence the Mufti of Turkey.
These positions (especially concerning the Mahdi) are part of a de-shificiation process we see happening among Sunni Muslims.
It is interesting that more and more learned scholars around the round are coming to the Ibadi school’s position on these points. I wonder how many more actually hold such views but are not so bold as to proclaim them for fear of reprisal?
In the comment section you see threats, emotions and not proofs and evidences.
Here we look at the verse in the Qur’an 43:61 often quoted and used to affirm the second coming Jesus (as).
The following examines the word ‘tawaffa’ Yet, the Qur’an itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Q 5:117 and Q 3.55).
For twenty-three of those passages the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition of this term, that is that Allah (swt) separates the soul from the body or makes someone die.
Think about this Muslim brothers and sisters. For those passages that are not tied into ahadith about Jesus(as) coming back they are translated and understood as per usual.
What about all those hadith that speak about some second coming of Jesus? Aren’t they tawatur?
Al Ma’rij Imam Abu Muhammed Abdulllah Al- Salimi (r) Volume 1. It is actually is a fiqh book. Many times in our school when our scholars write a book about fiqh they will start with a short section on aqidah.
The coming of Isa Ibn Maryam 1) There is no Prophet after Muhammed (saw). 2) That which is narrated from the people (Ahl Sunnah) about Jesus (as) coming back it is not sound. 3) Even if it was sound, the time of Isa Ibn Maryam has already passed. 4) Same have said that Khidr and Elias (as) they are still alive then their status would be like angels. Their live would be veiled from the seen world. They would not eating drinking indulging. These things are not correct with our school. 5) If he comes he will come in the Shari’a of the Prophet (saw), which Ahl Sunnah has conceded. They have conceded he cannot come back as a prophet.
Source: (The Ascents of Hope in the Stages of Perfection, in the Introductions by Imam Abu Muhammed Abdullah Al-Salimi -may Allah have mercy on him)
Prima Quran 