They pleaded, “O Zul-Qarnain! Surely Gog and Magog are spreading corruption throughout the land. Should we pay you tribute, provided that you build a wall between us and them?” (Qur’an 18:94)
﷽
He said, “This is a mercy from my Lord. And when the Promise of my Lord comes, He will crumble it to dust. And the Promise of my Lord is true.” (Qur’an 18:98)
“And We shall leave them, on that Day, to surge against one another like waves. And the trumpet shall be blown, and We shall gather them together.” (Qur’an 18:99)
First we will share a clip in which the Mufti of Oman, the Islamic Scholar, the Sword on the Neck of the Munafiq, His Imminence, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) touches upon two topics:
The emergence of Gog and Magog and the so-called second coming of Jesus (as). For those of you conversant in Arabic, you may follow along. Otherwise, a translation in English is provided below: insh’Allah.
First question about Juj & Majuj
Grand Mufti was asked if there are some signs in the Qur’an about Juj & Majuj. Can you share with us your view on this issue? Have they already come or are they yet to come later?
Grand Mufti replies: “This depends upon the research of the scholars. As there are many scholars who have agreed that they have already come forth. And this is not far away from reality, because it is possible that between their coming and the day of judgement there is a lot of time in between these events. Time is different from how we measure time. It is like the time on the day of judgement would be like 50,00 years of our time.”
Dr. Saif AlHadi asked what is meant in the Qur’an:
“Until he reached ˹a pass˺ between two mountains. He found in front of them a people who could hardly understand ˹his˺ language.” (Qur’an 18:93) and than the following verse:
“They pleaded, “O Zul-Qarnain! Surely Gog and Magog are spreading corruption throughout the land. Should we pay you tribute, provided that you build a wall between us and them?” (Qur’an 18:94)
So Dr Saif AlHadi is asking how we join these verses? Because if you take the apparent text of the Qur’an without approach to interpretative measures, it may not make sense. At first, they find a people who scarcely understands any word, and then suddenly, in the next verse, are those people able to communicate their issue with him?
So, to this, the Grand Mufti replies: There are two possibilities. 1) “That the majority of them do not understand anything but this would not mean all of them do not understand. So it is possible they have learned among those who understand but not the masses of them. “
2) “The other possibility is the use of another language common between the two.”
Now the question comes to the: The Coming of Jesus.
Grand Mufti replies: “There is a difference of opinion among scholars. This revolves around the (Qur’an 3:55) “I will give you death and I will raise you up to me.” and how one understands it. As well as: Rather, “Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise” (Qur’an 4:158) as well as the various narrations on the matter. Yet these hadith for us are not tawatur. We also have to take into account that the Prophet is the last prophet and no prophet is coming after him. The Messenger of Allah and seal of the prophets. And ever is Allah, of all things, The Knowing. (Qur’an 33:40) So as we understand this Jesus (as) will not come. The narrations are not mutawatir and thus we cannot take on this matter.
Prima-Qur’an comments:
Thus, dear readers, when one reads the Qur’an, you can see that Juj (Gog) & Majuj (Magog) were real people, real nations or tribes that would accost and harass some people. Zul-Qarnain was asked to erect a barrier to keep those people out. They were not supranatural peoples.
wanufikha fi l-suri (AND) will be blown the Trumpet. As Shaykh explained, he is of the mind that this event (The coming of Gog and Magog) has already happened. Now in English it is easy to get caught up in the flow of the language. Yet, the WA (And) is not something that indicates immediately after. We saw this in our article here:
In the above article, the respected Shaykh understood the WA(And) in Qur’an 3:55 as a vast period of time. Allowing him to believe that a lapse of time of more than 2000 years has passed.
The Shaykh also mentioned that it is possible we are in those end times now. However, we should understand that how Allah (swt) views and measures time is quite different from our vantage point.
“And they ask you to hasten on the punishment, and Allah will by no means fail in His promise, and surely a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you count.” (Qur’an 22:47)
Next, another verse not brought up in the discussion above, but the other place we am aware of in the Qur’an speaking of Gog and Magog is the following:
“Until ˹after˺ Gog and Magog have broken loose ˹from the barrier˺, swarming down from every hill, ushering in the True Promise. Then—behold!—the disbelievers will stare ˹in horror, crying,˺ “Oh, woe to us! We have truly been heedless of this. In fact, we have been wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 21:96-97)
The above verse simply reinforces the point made here:
“And We shall leave them, on that Day, to surge against one another like waves. And the trumpet shall be blown, and We shall gather them together.” (Qur’an 18:99)
Which, again, is not on the day of judgement but at a time before it.
Conclusion: In the Ibadi school. Juj(Gog) and Majuj (Magog) have already come. Jesus (as) has died, and he will not come back.
In the end, we defer our matter to the masters of the Arabic language. May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
If you would like, perhaps you would be interested in reading the following:
“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)
﷽
“They will kill the Muslims but will not disturb the idolaters. If I should live up to their time’ I will kill them as the people of ‘Ad were killed (i.e. I will kill all of them)”
As mentioned before in a previous article. Having a stable government and a country or nation that you live in where your basic needs and necessities are being met is a huge provision and blessing of Allah (swt). Political stability is a huge blessing and provision from Allah (swt).
Yet, political stability cannot come as an enjoyment to one group of people and one class of people and a hardship for others.
Allah (swt) has commanded that we stand firm for justice and that this justice cannot be selective justice or a justice that is subservient to our whims and desires.
“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both.” (Qur’an 4:135)
From Palestine to Yemen from Libya to Sudan. We have Muslim brothers who do not speak out against the leaders not because they are afraid of Abdel Fattah El-Sisi or Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. They do not speak up because they fear that if they do they are going against Allah (swt) and his Blessed Messenger (saw). This has been implanted in their minds so that powerful rulers can stay in place and justify what ever decision or policy they wish and the masses have nothing to do but to keep quite on the matter.
Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman reported: I asked, “O Messenger of Allah, we were living in an evil time and Allah brought us good in which we live now. Will there be evil after this good?” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Yes.” I said, “And any good after this evil?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “And any evil after this good?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “How will it be?” The Prophet said, “Leaders after me will come who do not follow my guidance and my Sunnah. Some of their men will have the hearts of devils in a human body.” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, what should I do if I live to see that time?” The Prophet said, “You should listen and obey the ruler, even if he strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey.”
This is the hadith that is used by the Madhkali Salafiyyah as a proof text to justify their position.
We say that this hadith if taken the way the Madhkali want you to take it will cause confusion and clashes with other equally authentic reports that report contrary statements from the Blessed Messenger (saw).
The first point is to acknowledge that the in this hadith the Blessed Messenger (saw) is clearly stating they these leaders are not upon the guidance that the Prophet (saw) is upon. It is also clearly stating that they do not follow his way.
The second point where it is attributed to the Prophet (saw) the following:
“The Prophet said, “You should listen and obey the ruler, even if he strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey.”
This means with right. That taw’il or interpretation of this is if the leader strikes your back or takes your wealth (with right).
Examples could be: The punishment for flogging. For fornication for drinking etc. There are examples of sahabah being whipped for drinking etc.
Taking your money could mean zakaat that is not paid. Abu Bakr (ra) fought what was known as the rida wars for those who did not pay the zakaat.
However….
It cannot mean that obey the leader even if he takes your wealth or strikes your back (without right).
So now let us look at what is the truth on this matter and openings are only with Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) guide is to the truth of these matters.
Three inconvenient points that Madhkali Salafi leave out when talking about obeying the ruler.
1. That ruler is singular.
2. That when the Blessed messenger (saw) says rulers (plural) it is always in succession and never concurrent. Meaning Muslims are not divided in their leadership.
3. The audience that is being addressed is a united Muslim body under united leadership.
Notice a very relatable argument that Prophet Joseph (as) uses:
Prophet Joseph (as) uses a relatable argument to his fellow prisoners. Something to think about.
“Oh my fellow companions of this prison, are masters with separate agendas better or Allah, The One, The Subjugator?” (Qur’an 12:39)
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 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.
These two verses together (Qur’an 4:59 & Qur’an 49:9) 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 among one of the two warring factions himself! Thus, he would be opposed.
The leader would either be in group A or in group B.
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).
Let it be known that the Qur’an is qati (it is decisive in proof and evidences).
Looking at hadith from the sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
“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.”
“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.
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.
Look carefully at the two hadith. The Blessed Messenger (saw) is acknowledging that we as Muslims may outright have hypocrites as leaders. “Will have the hearts of devils in a human body.” This is the batin (the hidden). In Islam we do not judge by the batin (hidden). The man could be rotten to the core. This could be true of any of us for that matter. Allah (swt) sees and knows all.
If we were to put the two hadith together we have the following hadith of the Blessed Messenger (saw):
“A Muslim has to listen to and obey the ruler, even if he strikes your back and takes your wealth, even still listen and obey. As long as his orders do not involve one in disobedience, but if an act of disobedience is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it.“
Now it makes total sense. Now the apparent contradiction is resolved.
Now we know what was meant by the righteous Amir of the Muslims. Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra).
Abdullah ibn ‘Utbah reported: Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) said,
“Verily, people were judged by revelation in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and the revelation has ceased. We only judge now what is manifested outwardly of your deeds. Whoever shows us good, we will trust him and bring him close. It is not for us to judge anything of his inner secrets. Allah will hold him accountable for his inner secrets. Whoever shows us evil, we will never trust him or believe him even if it is said his intentions are good.
‘”A man asked the Prophet, when he had put his leg in the stirrup: “Which kind of Jihad is best?'” He said: ” A word of truth spoken before an unjust rulers.”
Now some people may also want to interpret this hadith to mean something pacifist. It is the right of every Muslim to receive good counsel, even the corrupt rulers. Yet, why is this the highest form of Jihad? Because more often than not it leads to martyrdom.
“[Pharaoh] said, “You believed him before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic. So I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will impale you on/in the trunks of palm trees, and you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring.” (Qur’an 20:71)
Did these magicians incite rebellion? Well, that depends. They are not recorded to have incited rebellion against Pharaoh. They did not take up weapons against him. However, some times simply by speaking the truth and uncovering that which is false can undermine a ruler, a false idea or a false ideology. Hence censorship and telling the people to keep quite.
Thus,
“Which kind of Jihad is best?” The Blessed Messenger (saw) replies:
“A word of truth spoken before an unjust rulers.”
Shaykh Abdur Rahman Sudays is basically saying that the killings are “fitna”. That we should not get involved and that we refer the matter back to the ruler and the scholars.
Meanwhile the military police stand close watch. Some how does not seem very convincing.
We should not be so quick as to condemn Shaykh Abdur Rahman Sudays or any of the other scholars. However, when geopolitical allegiances and alliances are involved we should be careful of who is saying what and what is the affiliation of their government.
On the authority of Abu Sa`eed al-Khudree (ra) 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.”
So be very careful dear brothers and sisters on racing to condemn each other. The Blessed Messenger (saw) has left some scope based upon the abilities of each individual.
He (saw) started by saying we should change the munkar (evil) with our hands.
However, if you cannot do so with your hands than through your speech.
If you are unable to do so via speech than at the very least hate it in your heart.
Not everyone is ready or prepared for martyrdom and even those of us who are may not be prepared to have our families threatened, or killed or horrific ways.
So condemning these nation state “rulers” you will end up with labels, “Khawarij” you may end u imprisoned and/or face horrific torture.
Make du’a for every single scholar of Islam from all the various Islamic schools of thought that Allah (swt) protect them guide them and give them strength.
“One does not deviate from obedience to the ruler, even if he commits adultery and drinks alcohol on live television!” ?
The improper understanding of the Qur’an and the Sunnah is what leads people like Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Rays to say the following:
This actually depends.
“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.”
So in the case of adultery on live television he would have enough witnesses to bring the punishment of adultery upon him and thus would be the leader no more as he would be executed.
In the case of drinking alcohol he would be whipped.
If he submits to the book of Allah (swt) one has scope to argue that he is to be obeyed. If he does not submit to the book of Allah (swt) than he is a hypocrite and what has Allah (swt) told us about the hypocrites?
“O Prophet! Fear Allah and do not obey the unbelievers and the hypocrites: certainly Allah is aware and wise.” (Qur’an 33:1)
There are a few scenarios when it comes to the rulers.
Example 1 Outwardly pious but inwardly evil. This was already discussed.
Example 2 Outwardly impious and ask us to go against the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Than he is definitely not to be obeyed.
Example 3 Outwardly impious does not ask us to go against the Qur’an and the Sunnah. However, he himself goes against the Qur’an and the Sunnah. This will depend upon the nature of his rebellion against the the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Be very careful with point number 3. That is where things can get slippery. For example look at the following hadith:
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.”
Ali said, “The Messenger of Allah(saw) sent an army and appointed a man as a commander for them and he commanded them to listen to him and obey. He kindled fire and ordered them to jump into it. A group refused to enter into it and said “We escaped from the fire; a group intended to enter into it. When the Prophet (saw) was informed about it, he said “Had they entered into it, they would have remained into it. There is no obedience in matters involving disobedience to Allah. Obedience is in matters which are good and universally recognized.
So all of those three hadith are not saying that you do not obey the leader if he slips up or makes mistakes or sins. Those hadith are saying that we, the people do not have to obey the leaders if they order us to do something against the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
This is a very important point to keep in mind.
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“It is obligatory for you to listen to the ruler and obey him in adversity and prosperity, in pleasure and displeasure, and even when another person is given (rather undue) preference over you.”
“It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler’s orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it.”
Now when the two hadith are combined the apparent contradiction is removed. We are to obey the ruler as long as the ruler does not ask one to disobey Allah (swt) or his Messenger (saw).
The hadith on not over throwing the ruler as long as he does his prayer among you.
More contradictory hadith?
It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Auf b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke Allah’s blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn’t we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them. You should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.”
In other words if they do not establish prayer among us and if they stop ruling according to the book of Allah than obedience is forfeit.
How do we know that our understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah is the correct one?
Because this is how the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) understood it.
“O people, whoever among you sees any crookedness in me in my character, my deals, my action, then let him straighten out that crookedness.” A man from the audience called out, “By Allah, were we to see any crookedness in you, we would have straightened it out with our swords.’ Umar then said, “All praise is for Allah, who has placed in this nation someone who will straighten the crookedness of Umar with his sword.’”
Source: (Akhbar Umar (pg. 231,232) and Ar-Riyadh an Nadirah)
Subhan’Allah is there a Muslim leader alive today who claims to be greater than Umar (ra)?
Secondly after Caliph Uthman was admonished again and again by the Muslims he was overthrown. By the Khawarij they will tell you. Well….about that.
So now you are in a pickle. If Amr b. al-Hamiq al-Khuza’i is to be damned (there goes the doctrine of the companions being all adala). Amr b. al-Hamiq al-Khuza’i is a khariji who dies the death of jahiliyah (according to them) or sacrifice this concept that there comes a point in which the believers may find it necessary to forcibly remove the Amir.
What has happened is that some of them so bewildered by these undeniable facts of history than go on to say that the sahabah did not know the books of aqidah (written with a sectarian milieu in mind long after the fact. Or even better yet, that these sahabah did familiar with the Qur’an and hadith on these matters!
All that has been written has shown this is not the case at all.
“If only Muslims were upon the proper manhaj, had proper aqidah and proper knowledge of tawheed none of this would be happening!“
Where have we heard this before?
“Everything will be alright once we get to Tir Asleen.”
Likewise some Muslims will say well, we just need to focus on obedience to Allah (swt) and Tawheed and the proper aqidah.
Look! The very essence of Islam is submission to the will of Allah (swt). Yet, the very fact that the companions who had proper aqidah and proper tawheed and yet had massive fitna is a prove that one can have can be hyper fixated on these things and still not save one from strife. Just like the idea of the Muslims having a Caliph did not stop the expulsion of Muslims from Andalusia.
This does not mean we do not strive to establish rule by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. It does not mean that we do not strive to worship Allah (swt) properly and be upon the proper aqidah. It simply means that human ego and the frailty of men will last until the day of judgement.
The hypocrisy of the Madhkali Salafiyah.
This whole mantra of obey the leader seems very specific to a particular group of leaders they feel approximate their idea of the correct aqidah and or manhaj. It doesn’t seem to apply to Ergodan or Mubarak, or the Muslim brotherhood, or Qatar, or Assad (who certainly deserved rebellion) and a litany of others.
One big elephant in the room. What is actually meant by ‘The Leader’ or ‘The Ruler’
Last I checked the agreed upon leaders of the Muslim Ummah (according to the Sunni and the Ibadi) were Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. Than after Ali, the Ibadi and Sunni have different narratives. The Shi’a have a totally different narrative altogether, The Blessed Messenger (saw) and his family.
I mean I don’t remember the Muslim ummah holding shura for pretty much any of these guys. Who said they get the wealth of the land? Who said they get to buy football teams and sports cars with the money from the land? Is this from the Qur’an and the Sunnah?
Realistic expectations of Muslim rulers and governments and signs of the hypocrites.
Now I want to say I have seen allot of disdain for Arabs online over the issue of Palestine. First of all, I think love of the Arabs is a good thing because the Blessed Messenger (saw) was from among them. Secondly, you cannot blame Arabs as a whole. Blame their leaders! Lastly, many of you simply know better. Many of you know Arabs as your brothers and sisters who are generous and kind. They have shown you some of the best hospitality and certainly Saudi Arabia is to be commended for the logistics feat of hosting 3 million people for Hajj annually.
However, when it comes to the majority Muslim countries, it has to be said. If it quacks like a duck and moves like a duck it’s a duck! The geopolitical rivalries and alliances do not necessarily benefit the Ummah of Muhammed (saw).
“And Allah will surely make evident those who believe, and He will surely make evident the hypocrites.” (Qur’an 29:11)
“O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.” (Qur’an 66:9)
“They will kill the Muslims but will not disturb the idolaters. If I should live up to their time’ I will kill them as the people of ‘Ad were killed (i.e. I will kill all of them)”
Let me list countries with a Muslim majority (if I have missed any or you feel there are those who should be included and are left out please do let me know).
When we look at this list we need to ask ourselves some questions: What are their capabilities (militarily speaking) (economically speaking) and/or other. What are the current challenges that they are facing?
Malaysia Brunei Indonesia Bangladesh Comoros Islands Maldives Islands Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Tajikistan Azerbaijan- currently in conflict with Armenia/ backed by Iran Afghanistan-Taliban trying to rebuild the country after nearly 4 decades of war with foreign powers. Pakistan-currently in political turmoil Iran-currently backing Armenia against Turkey/Azerbaijan/Israel Iraq-still reeling from the U.S Invasions. Turkey-currently a part of NATO, backing Azerbaijan against Armenia/Iran. Albania Bosnia Herzegovina Syria-still reeling after a civil war. Lebanon-dealing with 1. 5 million refugees from Syria. Jordan Kuwait U.A.E Saudi Arabia Oman Yemen -still reeling after civil war. Egypt Somalia-civil war. Djibouti Sudan-currently in a civil war. Libya-currently in a civil war. Tunisia Chad -dealing with close to 500,000 refugees that came in from Sudan. Niger-forming new government after kicking out French colonialist. Mali -civil unrest. Burkina Faso-forming new government after kicking out French colonialist. Algeria-tensions with Morocco over Western Sahara. Morocco-tensions with Algeria over Western Sahara. Senegal Mauritania Guinea Sierra Leone Nigeria
Dagestan, Ingushetia/Chechnya (as part of the Russian Federation) are bogged down in conflict in Ukraine
So we need to be realistic about who can help and how they can help. This is why these protest, and boycotts are very very effective and something that I hope leads to greater things among the wider Muslim community namely economic cooperation and buying Muslim owned products. Insh’Allah. In my next article I will cover this.
I will leave the readers with this. I feel that this doctrine that Madhkali Salafiyyah is problematic and it is a manipulation of the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah and a re-reading into the history of the early Muslims. It makes a great ideology for despots and tyrants. If anyone has an issue with it. We have our scholars who can debate your scholars on this matter. Insh’Allah it will be of benefit and we will certainly be waiting.
Think about how you as a Muslim. As a Sunni/Shi’i/Ibadi as Salafi/Sufi would feel if you woke up one day and saw the Kab’a absolutely destroyed? Mecca was in ruins? How would you feel knowing it was not from a flood or natural disaster but the enemies of the Muslims destroyed it. Now hold that feeling and read the following:
It was narrated that ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr said:
“I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) circumambulating the Ka’bah and saying: ‘How good you are and how good your fragrance; how great you are and how great your sanctity. By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammed, the sanctity of the believer is greater before Allah than your sanctity, his blood and his wealth, and to think anything but good of him.’”
It is said that this hadith is Sahih li ghayrihi (authentic due to external evidence) according to Al-Albani
May Allah (swt) grant victory to our brothers and sisters in Palestine! May Allah (swt) grant this ummah good leaders, bridge builders, those who fear Allah (swt), and love his Messenger (saw) and love the ummah of Islam. Those who are wise and have bold vision. Those who stand firm upon the truth. Amin!
If you would like to learn more about the Madhkali I would suggest the following articles:
“The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; there is nothing like unto Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
﷽
Our noble teacher Shaykh Hafidh Al Sawafi replies to the respected Dr. Hamza Bakr on the reasoning he posits for distance and seeing Allah in the afterlife.
May Allah (swt) bless Shaykh Hafidh @Alsawafiy for responding to this.
What follows is the English translation of the response:
His argument: “If God sees us without distance, then we too see Him without distance.” This argument is invalid and baseless because it relies on a false analogy with a critical difference: The creation is not like the Creator. The vision of the Creator is not like the vision of the creation. Those who affirm Allah’s transcendence (by denying that a creation can see Him) also do so because human vision is unbefitting of His majesty.
What is established by both textual and rational evidence is that: The Creator is the First, the Self-Sufficient—He existed before all things, and no change affects Him. Based on this, the correct stance is to affirm His transcendence above resembling His creation. A human cannot conceptualize the Creator or ascribe to Him physical, sensory estimations.
For this reason, the Mu’tazila firmly held that Allah’s attributes are His essence itself (i.e., not distinct entities).
Furthermore, those who claim that a creation can see its Lord without distance must:
Reject all the narrations they rely on to prove this, as those texts describe seeing Allah with barriers and direction (which implies spatiality).
Consistently affirm Allah’s transcendence above the very “distance” they deny—since denying spatiality for Allah necessitates denying physical vision of Him.
“If it is permissible for a creation to share with Allah in one of His exclusive attributes (like vision), then it would likewise be permissible for it to share in all His exclusive attributes. This would logically necessitate that the creation could also become divine—for if it can ‘see as Allah sees,’ it could also ‘know as Allah knows,’ ‘create as Allah creates,’ ‘give life as Allah gives life,’ and so on for all divine attributes.”
May Allah (swt) suffice us!
May Allah (swt) safe guard our tongues from being mean and our hearts from having ill opinions of fellow Muslims. It is just disappointing what passes for “sound” creed in this ummah.
“This is the book of Shayk of Hanabila of his time, Al-Qadi Abi Ya’la, who was very opposed to Jahmiyya and Ashar’i. This book is intended as a rebuttal of the wrong interpretation and distorings about the names and attributes of Allah. However, the author has several weak or invented hadith, making it a controversial book from the people of knowledge.”
“But, Alhamdulillah we present this heritage of one of the Imams of the Salaf in a checked version, authenticated, and annotated. This allows the reader to distinguish the authenticate & the weak in the hadiths cited. And also to have the authentic position (words of imams of the Sunnah in support) on the weak chapters contained in this book.”
This narration attempts to answer the following question:
“Where is Allah is before creating sky and earth? It is answered by stating that He (Allah Most High) was riding on a whale that was made out of light... and the hadith continues and he says about it: “Even this is a strange hadith it finds support with other hadith!”
Christians must feel some form of poetic justice or vindication. All those years where Shaykh Ahmed Deedat was turned loose upon Christendom and jeering at anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible and now the chickens have come home to roost.
May Allah (swt) forgive us. May Allah (swt) guide us.
“The faculties of seeing (tudriku) cannot grasp Him, and He grasp all–seeing (yudriku), He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103)
May Allah (swt) bless our teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed Rashid Al-Mazrui.
These are notes I have taken from our Aqidah class on the subject: On the visibility of Allah (swt).
In the class we look at the proofs that other schools give to prove the visibility of Allah (swt). We go through each ayat of the Qur’an that is used. We go through the ahadith that are used. We than go through our proofs and evidences to show that Allah (swt) will not be seen in the life to come.
The hadith in question:
Narrated Jarir:
We were sitting with the Prophet (saw) and he looked at the moon on the night of the full-moon and said, “You people will see your Lord as you see this full moon, and you will have no trouble in seeing Him, so if you can avoid missing (through sleep or business, etc.) a prayer before sunrise (Fajr) and a prayer before sunset (`Asr) you must do so.” (See Hadith No. 529, Vol. 1)
Shaykh Juma was going to show the weakness in the chain of the transmitters in the sanad as well as problems with the matn. However, in this class there was a change of pace.
Of course we reject the hadith “That we shall see our Lord in the like manner as we see the full moon.”
So Shaykh Juma mentioned that next time (which has already passed and that lesson was recent) that there are many contradictions in the matn and the hadith is not logical and it is not acceptable.
HOWEVER…
For the sake of argument let us agree with those who say it is authentic. What is our interpretation of this hadith?
In the science and fundamentals -we have a principle -reconciliation between the text are apparently in conflict or contradictory to one another.
A verse that apparently contradicts another verse for example.
What is really intended by this verse. An example:
“Wherever you may be, death will overcome you—even if you were in fortified towers.” When something good befalls them, they say, “This is from Allah,” but when something evil befalls them, they say, “This is from you.” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Both have been destined by Allah.” So what is the matter with these people? They can hardly comprehend anything!” (Qur’an 4:78)
Then immediately verse 79:
“Whatever good befalls you is from Allah and whatever evil befalls you is from yourself. We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ as a messenger to ˹all˺ people. And Allah is sufficient as a Witness.” (Qu’ran 4:79)
“Good is from Allah and what ever misfortunes is from yourself.” or the “Good and the misfortunate are both from Allah”
So, apparently this looks like a conflict.
So what is the interpretaton here? Here we apply the principle of reconcilation.
When Allah says everything is from Allah, he determines everything from his limitless, eternal knowledge. The second verse that says only good is from Allah and the bad from ourselves, that we are the real cause of those bad things.
The best thing to use to understand the Qur’an is the Qur’an itself.
“And if not that a disaster should strike them for what their hands put forth [of sins] and they would say, “Our Lord, why did You not send us a messenger so we could have followed Your verses and been among the believers?” (Qur’an 28:47)
“If We give people a taste of mercy, they become prideful ˹because˺ of it. But if they are afflicted with an evil for what their hands have done, they instantly fall into despair.” (Qur’an 30:36)
Something inflicts them because of their own actions and their own sins
Now when we read the same chapter:
“Corruption has spread on land and sea as a result of what people’s hands have done, so that Allah may cause them to taste ˹the consequences of˺ some of their deeds and perhaps they might return ˹to the Right Path˺.” (Qur’an 30:41)
So we have seen how this principle works.
Now to the subject: Is Allah visible? Will Allah be seen in the hereafter or not?
We reject it based upon the matn, but we say for the sake of the argument for those who say it is authentic, what is interpretation. Rueya is the word used.
You see or you will see, rueya , it also means to know or knowledge.
In other words you will have certainty of Allah (swt). That we will know Allah (swt).
Where do we get this interpretation of seeing to mean knowing?
“Have you not seen ˹O Prophet˺ how your Lord dealt with the Army of the Elephant?” (Qur’an 105:1)
So it is logical to ask someone this question if he did not see those people. That is if you interpret and understand optical seeing. This means that Allah (swt) would ask the Prophet (saw) about something that is not logical.
“Have not those who are ungrateful disbelievers seen how Heaven and Earth were once one solid mass which We ripped apart? ” (Qur’an 21:30)
Have not they seen?
“Have you not seen what your Lord did deal with ‘Aad?” (Qur’an 89:6)
So we use this method to understand and reconcile text.
“Did they not see how many generations we destroyed before them.” (Qur’an 36:31)
Did they not see: This means to know. They are aware about something to some degree or another.
“The heart did not lie about what it saw.” (Qur’an 53:11)
(The Prophet’s) heart did not deny what he (Muhammed) saw. His heart did not lie about what he saw. His (the prophet’s) heart/mind did not deny what he saw. His heart didn’t deny what he saw.
The poet says, “I have seen Allah is greater than anything in power and he has most soldiers.”
The Poet saw Allah (swt) ?
Another poet says: “I have seen Allah destroyed the people of aad, thamud and Noah as well.”
So we need to use methodological principles that are also acceptable to the other schools so that they can see the point.
So the hadith about seeing Allah like the moon.
We have to interpret it since the Qur’an is clear.
“The faculties of seeing (tudriku) cannot grasp Him, and He grasp all–seeing (yudriku), He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103)
That no eyes will see Allah (swt), no optical vision.
Next week we will look at the sanads (chains of transmission)
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
For further articles on this subject kindly read the following:
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
Above credit is to Kennst du schon die Umkreisel photo taken from: pexels.com
﷽
This entry is to educate and enlighten those Muslims who hold the view that Allah (swt) is everywhere.
They may rely upon the following proof text:
“It is He who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He knows what penetrates into the earth and what emerges from it and what descends from the heaven and what ascends therein, and He is with you wherever you are. And Allah, of what you do, is Seeing.” (Qur’an 57:4)
“Have you not considered that Allah knows what is in the heavens and what is on the earth? There is in no private conversation three but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them – and no less than that and no more except that He is with them wherever they are. Then He will inform them of what they did, on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 58:7)
“And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 2:115)
In the Ibadi school, we understand that Allah (swt) has full power and knowledge of all things. We do not believe that Allah (swt) is omnipresent.
A text that seemingly conflicts with the belief that Allah (swt) is everywhere is the following:
“Nay, when the earth has been pounded with a great pounding and your Lord and the angels come row upon row.” (Qur’an 89:21-22)
If Allah (swt) is everywhere it would make little sense to believe that our Allah (swt) would ‘come‘ to a place he already ‘is‘.
“It is He who created for you all that the earth contains: then He turned to the heavens and made them seven skies-and He is the Knower of All Things.” (Qur’an 2:29)
If Allah (swt) is everywhere it would make little sense to believe that Allah (swt) would ‘turn‘ anywhere, for he is already ‘there‘.
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
The verses above demolishes any concept of Allah (swt) resembling the creations. This shows that Allah (swt) exists without a place because whatever exists in a place is by nature composed of particles, body, occupying space. Allah (swt) is clear of occupying space.
This means Allah (swt) does not occupy one place (the throne) or (every place). After all space is a creation and one would need to ask who created spatiality? If it has always co-existed with Allah (swt) it cannot said to be created by our Lord.
The very idea of ‘where‘ is Allah (swt) is inappropriate. Just as the very idea of ‘when‘ is Allah (swt) is inappropriate.
All the above verses that quote Allah (swt) being ‘with you wherever you are’, or Allah (swt) ‘turning’ or Allah (swt) ‘coming’ are all interpreted using the sound principles embedded in the Arabic language in a way that conforms to Qur’an 42:11.
We also have two very important pieces of information. One from Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib and the other from the Blessed Messenger (saw).
The saying “Allah existed eternally without a place, and He is now as He ever was” is related – without chain – from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
Sources: (Ibn ‘Ata’ Allah al-Sakandari (d. 709) cites it as one of his Hikam (#34). As cited by ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429) in his al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq page. 256)
We also have from the Blessed Messenger (saw) who is reported to have said:
“Allah was when there was nothing else than Him, and His Throne was upon the water, and He wrote in the Reminder (al-dhikr) all things, and he created the heavens and the earth.”
Source: (Narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn by al-Bukhari, in the Book of the Beginning of Creation: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/59/2 )
Some people especially perennialist may like to argue that Allah (swt) is everywhere because it will end up supporting concepts like pantheism or pan-deism. Everywhere is basically pantheism or pan-deism. Allah (swt) exist as he was before all Creation (time/space).
Some questions for those who believe in the omnipresence of Allah (swt) is to ask them:
Is Allah (swt) fully present or partially present? What proof text would be offered to show ‘fully‘ or ‘partially‘?
Why not fully present? If fully present than why is it wrong to worship idols, Jesus, Iblis, Demons, or anything for that matter? Authubillah min dhalik!
If Allah (swt) is only partially present where is the other part that isn’t there?
The belief of Muslims is that Allah (swt) is not present in all of his Creation nor that Allah (swt) is his creation or that Allah (swt) became the universe.
“All will perish except His face.” (Qur’an 28:88)
If This verse is taken by its apparent meaning, it would indicate that that the Creator would increase or decrease. If the universe or reality ‘expands‘ or ‘retreats‘ it entails that the Creator ‘expands‘ or ‘retreats‘.
The only challenge to Allah as a “being” that I am aware of is Process Theology (or Process Theism) in Christianity where they state: “God is becoming” not being.
The irony is that the one opening for process theology in Islam is the following hadith Qudsi:
“Abu Huraira(ra) reported:
The Messenger of Allah, (saw), said, “Allah Almighty said: The son of Adam abuses me. He curses time and I am time. In my hand are the night and day.”
Sources: (Al Bukhari 4549, and Muslim 2246)
The irony here is that this one opening also defeats process theology of becoming a reality among Muslims. It defeats the whole idea of ‘becoming‘ if you are omnipresent or time itself. Glory be to Allah!!
“And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Yourself), so that I may look upon You. He said: You will not see Me but look at the mountain if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Musa fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to You, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers.” (Qur’an 7:143)
Know that the creation cannot contain the Creator nor is the Creator present in the Creation.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
For those who are interested you may wish to read the following:
“And he is with you wherever you are.” (Qur’an 57:4)
﷽
*There is no place for him* Just as there is *No when for him*
Be careful of the tricky questions the slicksters use. These people are the real Ahl Kalam, though they deny it for themselves. When the text clear text no longer support them they run to their kalam arguments.
The choice between two false proposition. They may ask you:
“Is Allah inside the creation or outside the creation?”
In reality the one who is asking this question believes that Allah (swt) is inside his creation. Because he believes that Allah (swt) occupies place.
This is a graphical representation of the thought process behind this trap.
And we know that there is nothing like unto Allah (swt).
They want you to say “Outside of the Creation” so that you posit for Allah (swt) a place.
Inside/Outside/Up/Down/Left/Right all relate to spatial location.
The response to that question is: Allah exist without a place.
Realizing you didn’t take the bait they will try and follow up with a second tricky question they will ask you is as follows:
When Allah (swt) created the creation did he create the creation inside himself or outside of himself?
Answer them by saying: “Mash’Allah! What an excellent question! When Allah (swt) created space and location where/when was Allah (swt)?”
That will give them their answer.
At this point your objective is to bring the Salafi/Athari away from their kalam and back to the revelation.
“Allah is Creator of all things, and He is Guardian over all things.” (Qur’an 39:62)
Like if you ask me can I comprehend the idea of my Creator w/o spatiality?
I can
Do I have a visual or a model?
I do not.
What I DO KNOW is that to say Allah co exist with something that he did not create is problematic.
Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Reflect deeply upon the creation, but do not reflect upon the essence of the Creator. Verily, His essence cannot be known other than to believe in it.”
Source: (Musnad al-Rabī’ 742 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَلْقِ وَلا تَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَالِقِ فَإِنَّهُ لا يُدْرَكُ إِلا بِتَصْدِيقِهِ 742 مسند الربيع بن حبيب 2976 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن في صحيح الجامع)
* *وجود الله لا افتتاح له* *كما أن بقاءه لا انتهاء له* *كما أن وجوده لا مكان له* *فكما أنه سبحانه كان ولا إبتداء له وهو باقٍ ولا إنتهاء له كذلك هو موجود ولا مكان له* *فمن جادلك وحاجك في المكان، وقال لك : كيف لي أن أتصور موجودا لا مكان له، وكيف لي أصدق بموجود لا مكان له* *قل له : كما صدقت بموجود لا ابتداء له* *كيف تعقلت وتصورت وصدقت بموجود لا افتتاح لوجوده، بأي عقل صدقت، موجود ليس لوجوده نقطة بداية* *صدقت بذلك لأنه المقام اللائق بهذا الرب الذي ليس كمثله شيء* *فقط، هذا الذي دعاك للتسليم بأنه موجود بلا إبتداء ، لا عادتك التي اعتدتها ، أنت لم تعتد لوجود لا إفتتاح له* *لكن لما كان الكلام متعلقا برب ليس كمثله شيء، صدقت وأذعنت وسلمت وأمنت أن هذا الرب لا افتتاح لوجوده، ولا نهاية لبقائه* *فكذلك قل في مكانه لا مكان له؛ لأنه الرب الذي تعالى عن ظروف الازمنة وكذلك يتعالى عن ظروف الامكنة* *المتعالي عن ظروف الازمنة متعالي عن ظروف الأمكنة*
Some may also believe that Allah (swt) is omni present. Meaning that Allah (swt) is located every where (omni) all present. This is also an error.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) protect this Ummah from those who believe that Allah (swt) is inside of his creation and than provide the caveat: “In a way that befits him.”
“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)
﷽
Allah-willing I will be going through my articles and replacing the standard translation into English with what you see above.
Before I get into this let me first say that there seems to be three ways of understanding the above text among Muslims today.
1)The majority view is to affirm the Christian ecclesiastical view of the patibulum –(The crossbar of a cross used for crucifixion). However, at the same time deny that instead of Jesus being on the cross, Allah (swt) made someone look like Jesus and to put this person on the cross. The ecclesiastical Christian view is not challenged. Some how they imagine Romans involved in the text.
2) The second view is to affirm the Christian ecclesiastical view of the patibulum. However, this view first espoused by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyah movement has that Jesus was on the cross but swooned and was taken down alive where he migrated to Qadian India and died. Some how they imagine the Romans involved in the text.
This view is later adopted by Muslim apologist Shaykh Ahmed Deedat -raheemullah, and Toronto based apologist Shabir Ally. However, it should be noted that neither Deedat or Ally believes that Jesus migrated to India and died.
3) The third view is also to affirm the Christian ecclesiastical view of the patibulum. However, this view also accepts the entire position of the Christian ecclesiastical view; even stating Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected! The only difference with the Christians is on the theological implications. This view is espoused by Zaytuna College alumni Dr. Ali Ataie-whom is an assistant professor with interfaith activities. * note * I am of the understanding that Dr. Ali Ataie has changed his views on this and I will update accordingly inshAllah.
Most likely Dr. Ali Ataie is attempting to reconcile clear passages of the Qur’an that Jesus died all the while trying to reconcile the Christian ecclesiastical tradition along with the various hadith that mention the second coming of Christ Jesus.
Dr. Ali Ataie position has the influence of Todd Lawson written all over it. Speaking of Todd Lawson
Todd Lawson is the author of the book: The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought.
Now without getting too much into this particular book, I think it suffices to bring to the readers’ attention two glaring problems with Todd Lawson’s book.
Todd Lawson himself does not even attempt to define the word ‘Crucifixion’. It certainly seems rather odd having the very word in the title of one’s book and not attempt to challenge the ecclesiastical handed-down version of the Christian tradition and yet in the same vain challenge the “ecclesiastical” handed-down version of the Islamic tradition.
Secondly, Todd Lawson dissects many words in Qur’an 4:157 yet, curiously he is quite dismissive of the treatment of the word صلب
There is scant discussion on the various verb/noun forms ‘sulb‘. Todd Lawson came with a mission. Super impose the word Cross and Crucifixion upon صلب
On page 31 of his book he states:
“It occurs in the Qur’an eight times (4:157; 12:41; 7:124; 20:71; 26:49; 5:33; 86:7;4:23). Six of these are as a verb with the accepted meaning of ‘to crucify’. The others are as a noun meaning ‘back’ or ‘loins’ (86:7; 4:23). Aside from its use in 4:157, the five remaining positive uses refer to (respectively): the fate of one of Joseph’s fellow prisoners (12:41); Pharaoh’s threat to his magicians (7:124; 20:71; 26:49); and a prescription of punishment for those who fight against God and his messenger (5:33). There is no reason to doubt that the verb indicates the punishment of crucifixion, as it is USUALLY UNDERSTOOD.”
Now there is a great reason to doubt why anyone would superimpose the ecclesiastical Christian Cross as Todd Lawson tries to do. The very paragraph itself gives you reason enough.
Alas, Todd Lawson also some how imagines Romans involved in the text of Qur’an 4:157
Another interesting take away from Dr. Ali Ataie’s position is that Zaytuna champions the idea of following strictly a legal school and considers that we must champion traditional scholarship without question.
Yet, Dr. Ali Ataie’s position if honoured by Zaytuna is certainly a sign that a whole string of titans in the Sunni Islamic tradition on exegesis made a gargantuan error. Something interesting to ponder.
Every translation I have encountered in English has Qur’an 4:157 as “they didn’t crucify him.”
I also have no good reason to believe that Romans are involved in the text of Qur’an 4:157
There are a few reasons why I can no longer accept the standard understanding and translation of this text as such.
BEFORE GOING FURTHER: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRUCIFIXION AND IMPAILMENT?
Two be clear: Both punishments are suspension punishments. That is to say something being hoisted or lifted up. The differences between Impailment and Crucifixion are as follows:
A) Impailment is a punishment where a pike/spike or other sharpened object is shoved through the loins/lubmus region of the body. The spine is used to hoist the individual. Depending upon the technique used it is designed to be a quick death struggle after. After the hapless victim cannot use their feet or hands to keep the impale device from reaching vital organs due to exhaustion. The impale device pierces vital organs and the victim dies an excruciating death.
B) Crucifixion is a punishment where an individual is put on a patibulum which is than affixed to a crux (a pole or beam). There is no nothing driven through the spine and the spinal column is relatively left intact. This suspension punishment focuses on putting nails through the hands and feet and meant to be a prolonged death struggle. Death is usually from asphyxiations. No vital organs are pierced. In fact people could survive being crucified for days. Hence, Christians make a huge ordeal about Jesus being scourged before Crucifixion.
Anything that tries to obfuscate the two is not helpful.
Usually those who want to assert the cross are the same ones who superimpose it on Qur’an 4:157. Because if both mean impailment than just translate Qur’an 4:157 as impale then (wink, wink, nudge,nudge).
I am not convinced that ṣād-lām-bā’: used twice as salabu, four times as yusallabu and twice as sul’b means “cross” or “double cross”-like structure.
A “double-cross” or “cross”-like structure would include any of the following in the link below.
There is simply not a shred of evidence from the Qur’an to support this.
What is the best approach to interpreting the Qur’an?
If we are going to have a consistent method of interpretation the best place to start would be Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an). That is to say to do a tight analysis of all text of a given word and it’s various forms and usage.
Ṣād-lām-bā’: ṣalb and ṣallab refer to a bone from the upper body to the waist [i.e., the backbone]
Let us look at all the instances of this noun form in the Qur’an.
The artist impression.
Often in many countries where a person is robbed the police will ask the victim to give a description of the assailant. The police will than have an artist give the best description or approximation of what that individual may look like.
Now we are going to do a little exercise. Imagine you are going to do an artist impression of the passages you read in the text. What would that artist impression look like?
“And also prohibited are the wives of your sons who are from your loins (aslabikum)(وَحَلَائِلُ أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ), And that you take in marriage two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:23)
The use of the noun form sulb is very interesting here. It indicates the loins. Which also gives a very strong proof that these people were indeed not ‘crucified‘ and that the text translated in 4:157 ‘they didn’t crucify him‘ is sorely mistaken.
Let’s use logic and deduction. Given that the noun form of صلب in the text above indicates the loins. Would it make more sense that:
A) ṣalabūhu used in Qur’an 4:157 is a punishment that relates to this region of the body?
or
B) a punishment that relates to the hands and feet being nailed on a patibulum?
The following link gives an excellent description and picture show casing the lumbar region.
Again the noun form sulb being used to talk about the lubmus system and nothing to do with hands and or feet!
Perhaps Todd Lawson or those who advocate that Jesus died on an ecclesiastical cross could tell us which makes more sense the word صلب is used in connection to impailment or in connection to putting nails through a person’s hands and feet and suspending them on a patibulum?
In Oman the Arabic speaking people have various interesting phrases none of which has to do with hands or feet being pierced.
The previous two verses do not support the صلب being translated as cross or crucify.
“Correct your spine.” Is a a common phrase in Oman.
Let us look at all the instances of this verb form in the Qur’an.
HOW DOES ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE UNDERSTAND صلب IN THE FOLLOWING VERSE?
“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 be killed or impaled(yuṣallabū) (أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ) …cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter.” (Qur’an 5:33)
Now this verse has not been said to be allegorical but clear. It relates to the punishment known as al-Hiraba (or armed robbery, highway robbery). The punishment is also used for “causing corruption in the land.” Now if you asked your average Muslim (even learned) when it says, “killed” what tool or instrument is used to kill?
Likewise when Muslim jurist saw the word “(yuṣallabū)” do you think they said, “Golly gee whiskers I wonder what this means?”
Are we really to believe that Muslim jurist that had ordered this Hadd punishment to be carried made crosses and double cross like structures when dealing with these criminals? Are we to believe that Muslims jurist ordered that the criminal carry a patibulum, suspended said person and put nails in their hands and feet?
In fact, name for us any school of jurisprudence: Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Zahiri, Hanafi, Zaydi, 12er Shi’i or Ibadi that does this?
Why was Todd Lawson so incredibly lazy in his research in this regards?
The fact that Islamic schools of jurisprudence across the Sunni, Ibadi and Shi’i tradition do not do this a deathblow to any notion that صلب means cross or crucify.
Contemporary example: May 30, 2009 (just 14 years ago)
“Even though the word “crucifixion” is used to describe the pubic display, the act has no connection to Christianity and the crucifixion of Jesus.The bodies are not displayed on crosses.
“Chirouf said those crucified are beheaded first and then their heads are sewn back on their bodies. Then, the corpse is mounted on a pole or a tree.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: The above is important because it shows clearly that there is obfuscation over the word “crucifixion”.
Keep in mind what you see here is the Shafi’i or the Hanbali school’s interpretation of Qur’an 5:33.
In fact a little inconvenient nugget in Todd Lawsons Book states:
“A cursory look at the history of crucifixion shows that the procedure was adopted for two distinct, if sometimes combined reasons: (1) as a means of execution; (2) to provide a forceful deterrent to future crime. In the second case, the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.These grisly details are in line with the Shafi’i ruling for one convicted for highway robbery and murder, in which this second procedure was to be followed. The sequence of events, execution then crucifixion, may be reflected in the unchanging order of the two distinct ideals of killing and crucifixion in every tafsir consulted for this study. It is also possible that this reflects nothing more than the Qur’anic word order, in which case hyperbaton (taqdim) could be expected to have been invoked by Muslim rhetoricians; but which fact alone might lead the student of the history of religion to investigate seventh-century Arab methods of punishment.”
Source: (Todd Lawson The Crucifixion and the Qur’an page 31)
A few points to note here:
a) Todd admits the people were killed and then displayed on a pike or a “cross”. So this is certainly not a crucifixion-at least not as Christians would envision for Jesus.
b)Todd does not give us any proof that in Shafi’ jurisprudence people are displayed on the patibulum or on a cross.
c) Todd is content to allow the student to “investigate seventh-century Arab methods of punishment“
One final point:
Often criminals lead a life of crime. Meaning they do lesser crimes that eventually lead to bigger crimes. So let us say there is a case in which a thief had been caught and according to the jurist their hand is cut off. The thief is caught again and a foot is cut off. Then said individual commits the crime of al-Hiraba. So than how do they (yuṣallabū) the individual?
PHAROAH EGYPT & صلب (SULB)
Now we will examine three text of the verb form that relate to the same incident.
“I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides; then I will surely impale(la-uṣallibannakum) (لَأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ ثُمَّ لَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ) you all.”(Qur’an 7:124)
It is obvious and plain as day that a person who has their hand cut off is not going to be “crucified” -especially not in the way the ecclesiastical sense that Christians imagine. If the hands were cut off then definitely it was not a T or ✞ shaped cross, it had to be impalement.
“[Pharaoh] said, “You believed Moses before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic, but you are going to know. I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will surely impale (wala-uṣallibannakum) (لَأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ) you all.” (Qur’an 26:49)
Again as above a person who has their hand cut off on opposite is certainly not ‘crucified‘ -especially not in the ecclesiastical sense that Christians would image. If the hands were cut off then definitely it was not a T or ✞ shaped cross, it had to be impalement.
“[Pharaoh] said, “You believed him before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic. So I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will impale you (wala-uṣallibannakum) (وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ فِي جُذُوعِ النَّخْلِ) IN/ON THE TRUNKS OF PALM TREES, and you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring.” (Qur’an 20:71)
Again, a person is who has their hand cut off is not going to be “crucified” -especially not in the ecclesiastical sense that Christians have imagined.
Very interesting in the above text that these people will be impaled IN the trunks of Palm Trees. If you look at the various translations of the Qur’an they translate the word fi’ as ‘on‘ which is a bit curious.
The translators: Muhammad Ahmed & Samira translate 20:71 as:
“He said: “You believed to him before that I permit for you, that he truly (is) your biggest/greatest (E) who taught/instructed you the magic/sorcery, so I will cut off/sever (E) your hands and your feet from opposites (sides), and I will crucify you (E) in the palm trees’ trunks/stems, and you will know (E) which of us (is) stronger (in) torture and more lasting .”
So let us do back to our artist impression. We draw a picture or someone with their hands and feet cut off on opposite ends and impaled in the trunk of palm trees. How on earth anyone gets a patibulum with nails in the hands and feet from the above text is just pure desperation.
By the way (Qur’an 20:71) & (Qur’an 26:49) & (Qur’an 7:124) is a reference to the same incident. So what Qur’an 20:71 states is applicable to the other two text.
So when Pharaoh says: “And you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring,” you know that he had something truly diabolical in mind.
Look what the world History Encyclopedia says:
“Ancient Egypt utilized a process known as impaling. The body was literally impaled upon a pointed stake and death occurred quite rapidly as the major organs were pierced. The hieroglyph character for denoting this was a picture of it, with the phrase, “to give on the wood.” The practice is mentioned during the reigns of Sobekhotep II, Akenaten, Seti, and Ramesses IX. Merneptah (1213-1203 BCE) “caused people to be set upon a stake” south of Memphis.” Source:https://www.worldhistory.org/crucifixion/
The American schools of oriental research state:
“The death penalty was carried out by impalement. The body was put on the pointed top of a wooden stake and the victim’s weight drew the body down the pole. We have no representations of this procedure, but there is a hieroglyph depicting a body atop a stake after the phrase “to give on the wood.” The execution seems to have been in public; one text even says besides a temple.” Source: The American schools of oriental research https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2016/01/crime-and-punishment-in-pharaonic-egypt/
So when we see this expression of Pharaoh in the Qur’an:
“I will impale you (wala-uṣallibannakum) (وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ فِي جُذُوعِ النَّخْلِ) IN/ON THE TRUNKS OF PALM TREES.”
And we see the expressions: “To give on the wood“
By the way (Qur’an 20:71) & (Qur’an 26:49) & (Qur’an 7:124) above cannot refer to a crucifixion or to a cross.
Why? Look at the picture below and you do the physics.
Every once in awhile a Christian gets the idea that he wants to experience the suffering that Jesus is alleged to have endured on the so called double-cross. So this person will lay down half naked on a beam of wood and gets someone to nail the palms of his hands (or the wrist) and his feet to the beam. When the beam of wood is stood up on its end, the persons’ body weight immediately tears his hands and the feet loose and they slide off the beam in degradation and humiliation.
This happened all to often, and people began to really wonder if the ecclesiastical images of Jesus inspired by painters, having him on the double cross were really true.
Thus, in all effort to make sense of the ecclesiastical images, made popular by paintings, the all too familiar “nailed to the double cross” method, along came the idea that the hands were not only nailed to the cross, but ropes were used to bind the forearms to the horizontal beam. This satisfied the world that such a method would prevent a body from falling off the cross and everyone breathed a sigh of relief.
This brings us to the next text: “Oh two companions of prison, as for one of you, he will give drink to his master of wine; but as for the other, he will be impaled (fayuṣ’labu) (وَأَمَّا الْآخَرُ فَيُصْلَبُ فَتَأْكُلُ الطَّيْرُ مِنْ رَأْسِهِ), and the birds will eat from his head. The matter has been decreed about which you both inquire.” (Qur’an 12:41) This is what the Torah says about the incident:
“When the chief baker saw that Joseph had given a favorable interpretation, he said to Joseph, “I too had a dream: On my head were three baskets of bread. In the top basket were all kinds of baked goods for Pharaoh, but the birds were eating them out of the basket on my head.” “This is what it means,” Joseph said. “The three baskets are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and impale your body on a pole. And the birds will eat away your flesh.”
(Genesis 40:16-19) New International Version
Compare/Contrast this with:
When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was good, he said unto Joseph, I also was in my dream, and, behold, I had three white baskets on my head: And in the uppermost basket there was of all manner of bake meats for Pharaoh; and the birds did eat them out of the basket upon my head. And Joseph answered and said, This is the interpretation thereof: The three baskets are three days: Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.”
(Genesis 40:16-19) King James Version
Since this text is dealing with prophet Joseph (as) and he was under the Pharaoh of Egypt of his time and this is even prior to the time of Moses (as).
So based upon what we have seen concerning صلب as impailment in the above text (Qur’an 20:71) & (Qur’an 26:49) & (Qur’an 7:124) there is no good reason to believe that (Qur’an 12:41) is a reference to the patibulum, a cross or crucifixion.
So having gone through all the verses in the Qur’an that only leaves us with Qur’an 4:157.
What about Qur’an 4:157?
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)
Notice that the context Qur’an 4:157 is speaking about Jews. There is no mention of Romans in the text. You may start at Qur’an 4:154 for context.
There is a double denial. They did not kill him nor did they (ṣalabūhu) him.
Why the seemingly redundant text? Is it not sufficient to say “And they did not kill him?” Surely that covers everything?
Why would Allah (swt) deny that Jews “Crucified” Jesus? Especially if Allah (swt) is aware of Jewish laws?
Jews do not crucify anyone nor do they put people on crosses.
Jews do however impale people. So translating (ṣalabūhu) as impale makes complete sense.
The phrase “but it was made to appear to them” does not indicate that this was something Allah (swt) did.
Now what happens is for some reason Muslims look at Qur’an 4:157 and they see Romans! The whole context of the text is that Allah (swt) is talking about Jews.
If Allah (swt) wanted to say Romans he certainly he could have. Yet, Qur’an 4:157 mentions nothing about the Romans.
“The Romans have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:20)
So where than do Muslims gets Romans or Crucifixion or Cross in Qur’an 4:157 ?? ?
Now if you want to wade knee deep in shoddy scholarship and try to reconcile Islam with received Christian ecclesiastical history and ignore the context of the Qur’an and interpret passages in a vacuum go for it. Like Todd Lawson, you can superimpose the Romans on the text. You can even imagine that Qur’an 4:157 is speaking about some historical event in relation to Christian Good Friday if you want. (Crucifixion) ?
Objection: But This means the Qur’an denies the Crucifixion and that is historical fact!
Response: The Qur’an is absolutely unaware of an event called “The Crucifixion” either in support of it or in negation.
However, such a discussion is absolutely irrelevant to the text of the Qur’an.
Objection: But doesn’t’ the Arabic word salib mean cross? Don’t we see that in the Arabic language today?
Answer: First one would do well to bare in mind that ‘The Cross’ was not a de facto symbol of Christianity, really only becoming venerated in the 4th century C.E. Secondly, words acquire meaning or encapsulate new expressions that they did not originally intend or convey.
For example: I see hot molten rock spewing forth from the Earth in Hawaii. I turn to my friend and say, “Wow cool!” Now the word cool does not necessarily connoate the temperature of something.
The word fantastic etymologically has the same root as fantasy. Fantastic initially meant something conceivable by the imagination. Now the word fantastic basically means wonderful.
Conclusion:
There is simply not a shred of evidence that the Qur’an mentions a cross or anything at all about crucifixion. There is no mention about a patibulum or nails, nothing, nada, zilch, zip.
Henceforth from today, I will be translating the Qur’an 4:157 as saying, “They didn’t impale him” -keeping consistent with his various usages and forms throughout the Qur’an.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
“That was a nation which has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 2:133-134)
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Quran 59:10)
﷽
So some of those who claim they are upon the way of the Salafiyyah go rampaging through the books and works of our scholars. They will find among them those who disavow Uthman or those who disavow Muaviya or those who disavow Ali. We will bring evidence from the books of the scholars from our brothers from among the Ahl Sunnah to show you the double standards of their claims.
“Look you see these Ibadites! They disavow certain ones from among the companions! They were all loved by each other and we love them all too! We would never say such things about the companions!”
About that…
It is from the Sunnah to disavow any Muslim (including a companion) when they commit a sin.
First and foremost to disavow any Muslim when they commit a sin is from the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw). This includes the companions.
Narrated Salim’s father:
The Prophet (saw) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (saw) raised both his hands and said twice, O Allah, I disavow before You what Khalid has done.” اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَيْكَ مِمَّا صَنَعَ خَالِدٌ
Remember you cannot unsee what you are about to see and you will be held accountable.
Narrated Jarir:
The Prophet (saw) said to me during Hajjat-al-Wida`: Let the people keep quiet and listen. Then he said (addressing the people), “Do not (become infidels) revert to disbelief after me by striking the necks (cutting the throats) of one another (killing each other).
Salih Al-Sheikh, in his explanation of the Tahawi creed, said that the fighting companions fell into minor disbelief, and they entered into the characteristics of disbelief!
Al-Albani says that the fighting companions after the Messenger of Allah have no refuge from calling them infidels!
In the statement of Al-Tahawi: (And their hatred is disbelief and hypocrisy and slander): Firstly: It includes the disbelief of the Companions:
A) If the hatred is due to religion or anger, as we have detailed, then the disbelief here is major disbelief.
B) If the hatred is for worldly reasons—as may occur due to fierce rivalry or hatred for worldly matters—then this is minor disbelief and does not reach the level of major disbelief. For this reason, the Prophet said:
“Do not revert to disbelief after me by hating one another?!”
(1) Narrated by Al-Bukhari (17), Muslim (74), Al-Nasa’i (5019), and others (30/134), from Anas bin Malik, may Allah be pleased with him. (2) Narrated by Al-Bukhari (1116), Muslim (66), Abu Dawood (4186), Al-Nasa’i (4216), and Ibn Majah.
Sheikh Saleh Al-Sheikh
The fighting among the Companions after the Prophet (peace be upon him) is minor disbelief, not major disbelief. And now, whoever declares the Companions to be disbelievers, even if it is minor disbelief.
Explanation of the Theological Punishment
The fact that some Companions fought one another involves characteristics of disbelievers, which is why he said: “Do not revert to disbelief after me.” There is no doubt that the motive behind this may be hatred.
In Al-Sharh al-Wafī ‘alā ‘Aqīdat al-Tahāwiyyah” (الشرح الوافي على عقيدة الطحاوية), a well-known commentary on “Al-‘Aqīdah al-Tahāwiyyah”—a foundational text on Sunni creed attributed to Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH)
It states that the Companions fight each other. It may be lesser kufr, or it may be greater kufr (i.e. polytheism) and that depends on the level of hatred!
Shaykh ‘Ubayd bin ‘Abdullah al-Jabri (عُبَيْد بن عبد الله الجابري), a contemporary Salafi scholar from Saudi Arabia, and his book “Imdād al-Qārī bi Sharḥ al-Bukhārī” (إمداد القاري بشرح البخاري), which is a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari states that the fighting companions fell into blasphemy!
Then it is said, “and we consider it good,” because it indicates that love for them (the Companions) is sound in religion and is a means of drawing closer to Allah through adherence to sincerity and truthfulness in faith. Naturally, “and we declare them free from blame,” and “we consider it good”—all these are not the same. The methodology in loving the Companions is refined, and their status is measured by their sound companionship, righteousness, and understanding of their elevated rank.
Similarly, it is stated, “and we declare them disbelievers”—an additional clarification: “and we affirm.” Hatred toward the Companions is firmly established—whether the hatred is due to religion or personal malice, in which case it constitutes major disbelief. If the hatred is for worldly reasons, as may arise from fierce rivalry or worldly motives, then it is minor disbelief and does not reach the level of major disbelief. Hence, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking one another’s necks!”
The fact that some Companions fought one another involves falling into the traits of disbelievers, which is why he said: “Do not revert to disbelief after me.” It is most accurate to say that the motive behind this was hatred and disbelief, because fighting is accompanied by elements of hatred. However, given the mutual relations among the Companions (where some may not have loved others until death, and hatred may exist without clear justification), this disbelief may be minor or may vary based on the nature of the hatred (with further elaboration).
Because the intent is to derive from this the preservation of the religion, the safeguarding of Islam among the people, and striving in the Sunnah with true jihad—as the Companions did under the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Yet, some later turned into opponents of the Companions and aligned with the disbelievers. Allah described them: “The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another…” (Surah At-Tawbah: 67).
The intent may be major ideological hatred, depending on the condition of the heart, or practical hatred, based on the type of love or its absence, or the type of hatred and its cause. “And we affirm,” and regarding their transgression—this is specific to the one who harbors it and the gravity of the matter. For Allah (Exalted and Majestic) commanded some of them (or the lesser among them) to “be patient,” meaning He commanded some to endure and restrain themselves from those who wronged them, even if they had the power to retaliate. This indicates that whoever swore allegiance (to the truth) had knowledge and insight in this matter.
Shaykh Ibn al-Qayyim Yusri al-Sayyid Muhammad and his work “Jāmi’ al-Fiqh” (جامع الفقه) by Lisr al-Sayyid: States that the fighting companions had fallen intodisbelief by their actions.
The Disbelief of Denial and Stubbornness
The disbelief of denial (كفر الجحود)-kufr al juhud occurs when someone knowingly rejects what the Messenger (peace be upon him) brought from Allah—whether it pertains to Allah’s Lordship, His attributes, His actions, or His rulings—out of sheer arrogance and obstinacy. This type of disbelief completely contradicts faith in every aspect.
As for practical disbeliefby actions (كفر العمل), kufr al amal it is divided into two categories:
That which contradicts faith entirely—such as prostrating to idols, disrespecting the Quran, or killing a prophet.
That which does not entirely negate faith—such as ruling by other than what Allah has revealed or abandoning prayer.
However, ruling by other than what Allah has revealed and abandoning prayer are undoubtedly forms of practical disbelief. It cannot be denied that these carry the label of “disbelief” (كفر) after Allah and His Messenger have explicitly applied it. Thus:
“Whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a disbeliever.”
“Whoever abandons prayer is a disbeliever,” as stated in the explicit texts of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
The Disbelief of Denial and Belief, and His Saying:
“Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking one another’s necks…” This refers to practical disbelief (كفر عمل). Similarly, his saying: “Whoever does so intentionally has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad.” And his saying: “If one of them has indeed earned it…”
This detailed classification is the position of the Companions regarding the relationship between Islam and disbelief. Do not think that they did not understand the implications—rather, they divided into two groups:
A group that considered such people to be eternally in Hellfire.
A group that regarded them as sinful believers (not complete disbelievers).
Allah has guided Ahl al-Sunnah to the moderate path, where:
There is disbelief (كفر) that does not reach polytheism (شرك).
There is sin (فسق) that does not amount to disbelief.
There is oppression (ظلم) that does not constitute apostasy.
(Page: 5)
“Whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a disbeliever.” It is on this basis that many of the salaf had broke ranks with Ali’s decision for arbitration. As the text is explicit fight until. In that sense Ali would have committed (كفر العمل), kufr al amal.
Shaykh Muṣṭafā bin al-ʿAdawī (مصطفى العدوي ) mentioned that the fighting companions are falling into kufr al-Amal!
“Fatḥ al-Bārī bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī” (فتح الباري بشرح صحيح البخاري), the legendary commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī by Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852 AH) that the companions are considered to be upon blasphemy And that the misfortune of disobedience may lead to greater sins, and it is feared that he will not be sealed with the seal of Islam!
One will note that the warning of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was do not revert to disbelief.
Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen says that the Companions fighting each other is considered kufr, but it does not expel one out of the religion!
Ibn Taymiyyah says that the companions who fought each other are called infidels, and it is a restricted designation!
It was stated in the book, The Masa’il of Imam Ahmad (مسائل الإمام أحمد) that the Sunni hadith scholar: Ali bin Al-Jaad says that Muawiyah died upon other than Islam!!!
The Salafiyah will end up declaring all the Companions to be unbelievers altogether, according to their claim that whoever rejects the Hadith of Ahad is an infidel! Shaykh Al-Ghazali says that none of the companions accept this!
Salafiyah have declared one of the companions who rebelled against Caliph Uthman to be an infidel!
Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab describes a group of the Companions as ignorant, evil and rebellious!
Ibn Taymiyya in his book Kitaab Al-‘Arsh (كتاب العرش), says that the Companions did takfir upon one another and this is well known!
Ibn Taymiyya, in his book Iqtidaa al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem Mukhaalafat Ashaab al-Jaheem (اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم مخالفة أصحاب الجحيم) criticizes the honorable companion Abdullah bin Umar (ra), who is one of the strongest people in following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah! That Abdullah bin Umar (ra) committed bid’ah!
Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab had strong criticism for a number of the companions!
“Sharh Al-‘Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah” (شرح العقيدة الواسطية), the explanation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s famous creedal work, authored by Shaykh Muhammed ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen.
Uthaymeen states:
“Undoubtedly, some of them committed theft, drank alcohol, engaged in slander, or even committed adultery (whether punishable by hadd or not). Yet, all these misdeeds are overshadowed by their overwhelming virtues and merits. Some of these sins were met with legal punishments (hudud), serving as expiation (kaffarah).”
The misdeeds committed by a few among them are exceedingly few and negligible, which is why the author states: “They are drowned out by the virtues and merits of these people.”
However, if they committed adultery, or theft then they committed acts of kufr ni’mah or what others say is: kufr al amal
If Uthaymeen says the companions committed acts of kufr no one bats an eye. A scholar from the Ibadi schools it and suddenly the emotions overcome the senses.
What about this? It was mentioned in the book Akhbār al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah (أخبار المدينة المنورة) that the blood of Uthman is divided into three. A third on the mother of the believers Aisha (ra), and a third on Talha, and a third on Ali bin Abi Talib! That darkness was over each of them!
Ibn Baz responds to Ibn Hajar and claims that the act of the companion Abdullah bin Umar in seeking blessing from the relics of the saints (tabarruk) leads to polytheism. And here Ibn Baz declared himself more knowledgeable than the great companion Abdullah bin Umar!
Shaykh Ibn Al-Uthaymeen once again says that the Companions are not all just, so whoever is known for an insult is not just! Some of them committed theft, drank wine, committed fornication while married and some outside of marriage!
An explicit accusation and takfir without hinting that Ali did not kill Uthman except that he considered him an infidel!
Narration 1:
Narrated by Al-Humaidi: Abdullah ibn Wahb reported from Sa’id ibn Abi Ayyub, from Abi Sakhr, from Abi Mu’awiyah al-Bahili, from Abi al-Sahba’ al-Mukabbar (1), who said: “We discussed the killing of Uthman, and some of us said: ‘I believe Ali killed him only because he considered Uthman a disbeliever.’ I said: ‘Should we ask Ali about this?’ So they asked him, and he replied: ‘By Allah, Uthman was not the worst among us. But he ruled, became arrogant, and we acted poorly in our impatience. Matters escalated until judgment was passed between us.'”
Narration 2:
Narrated by Ali ibn Muhammad, from Abi Mukhtalif, from Abdulmalik ibn Nawfal ibn Musahiq, from his father, who said: “Ali entered upon Uthman after the people of Egypt found a letter with his servant. Uthman denied writing it, so Ali asked: ‘Whom do you accuse?’ Uthman replied: ‘I accuse you and my scribe.’ Ali became angry, left, and said: ‘By Allah, if he did not write it—or if it was falsely attributed to him—then he bears no blame for the Ummah’s turmoil. But if he did write it, he has brought this upon himself. Yet, I will not abandon him despite his accusation.’ Many people then withdrew their support .”
Narration 3:
Narrated by Amr ibn Mansur, from ibn Sulayman al-Dab’i, from Awf, who said: “Among the Companions, Talhah ibn Ubaydullah was the most severe against Uthman, but he later regretted his stance due to delays in justice.”
Ibn Taymiyya in Majmū’ al-Fatāwā (مجموع الفتاوى) mentioned that the Companions fought and cursed each other and declared each other infidels, and their statements concerning this is well known!
“Moreover, the early predecessors (Salaf) erred in some of these matters—major figures among them—yet they were not excessively criticized for it.” For example:
Some Companions denied that the Blessed Prophet (saw) could hear the call of the dead (e.g., at Badr).
Others denied that a woman could have a ghayrah (rightful jealousy) over her husband.
Some disputed whether the Blessed Prophet (saw) saw his Lord (during the Mi’raj).
There were disagreements among them about the caliphate and the superiority of certain individuals—well-known debates.
Some engaged in fighting one another, while others cursed certain figures—explicit statements are documented.
Similarly, the judge once mentioned a recitation of the Quranic verse ‘Bal ‘Īdu’ (بل عيد) [instead of ‘Bal ‘Īdu’ (بل عيد)] and claimed, ‘Allah does not cause hardship.’ When this reached Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, he said: ‘He has innovated! ‘Abdullah [ibn Mas’ud] was more knowledgeable than him and recited it correctly.’ Here, a confirmed recitation was denied, and an attribute affirmed by the Quran and Sunnah was rejected—yet the Ummah still regards him as one of its imams.
Some criticized Ibn Taymiyya for affirming that certain Companions cursed others—explicitly referring to Mu’awiyah, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, and those like them who cursed Ali from the pulpits.
This is documented in Tarikh al-Tabari and Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abi ‘Asim.
Accusing The Mother of the Believers Aisha (ra) of killing Caliph Uthman; and that she was responsible for inciting people to kill him! Saying, “Kill Nathla, for he has disbelieved!” (Nathla was a Jew). Accused of likening Uthman to a Jew named Nathla.
In a commentary explaining the aqidah of Tahawi. Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan is blamed for approving the insult of Imam Ali, and by approving it he insulted Ali in Iraq and the Levant!
“The first king in Islam was Mu‘awiyah, and he was the best and most virtuous of their kings because he was righteous, the son of a righteous man, and because his lineage was noble. However, he is criticized because he allowed… due to his stance toward ‘Ali. As a result of his policy, the cursing of ‘Ali became widespread during his rule in Iraq and Syria, leading to this abominable practice, which gave rise to lies about the cursing of the Companions and exaggeration in the praise of ‘Ali.”
“Because of this, the Rafidah (a sect of extremists) harbor intense hatred toward Mu‘awiyah and all of Banu Umayyah, except for ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him). This is because the cursing of ‘Ali continued in Iraq and Syria—though not in all places, only in some mosques—throughout the reign of Banu Marwan, until ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz came to power and abolished this practice, putting an end to it.”
Do you know who encouraged ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz to stop the cursing of ‘Ali from the pulpits?
Muawiyah used to curse Ali and ordered him to be cursed on the pulpits and continued to curse him even after the death of Ali!
We have seen and reliably transmitted that Mu’awiyah’s cursing of Ali is recorded in authentic sources—specifically on page 45 of Volume 2 of Al-Fikr al-Sa’bi. Historians like Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and others have unanimously confirmed this.
They would not give anything except after disavowing Imam Ali and testifying against him with hypocrisy!
Al-Awza’i (a renowned scholar) said: “They did not grant us stipends until we testified that Ali was a hypocrite—and I am innocent of such a claim! They forced us into this by threatening to withhold salaries, divorce our wives, and take our children. When I realized the gravity of the matter, I consulted Mak’hul, Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah, and Abdullah ibn ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr. They all said: ‘You are under duress; there is no sin upon you.’ Yet my conscience remained unsettled until I divorced my wives, freed my slaves, relinquished my wealth, and repented for what I had done under coercion.”
Al-Hakim recorded this narration through Ali al-Hafiz, who cited Mak’hul of Beirut, from Abu Farwah.
It is proven that Mu’awiyah was ordering Sa’d to insult Imam Ali and he explained that in detail and you will find among the Salafiyah those who defend Mu’awiyah and those trying to abuse the text!
Mu’awiyah’s Demand for Cursing ‘Ali
Context:
Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan pressured Sa’d to curse ‘Ali.
Sa’d had remained neutral during the Fitna (civil strife) but was known to defend ‘Ali.
The Dialogue:
Mu’awiyah: “What prevents you from cursing him?”
Sa’d: “What prevents me? [I refuse.]”
It was stated in the book Sunan Ibn Majah that Muawiyah used to insult and curse Imam Ali, and the reason was due to worldly matters between them!
It was stated in the book on the explanation of Sahih Muslim that Muawiyah ordered Saad to insult Imam Ali! And with all this, you find the Salafiyyah defending and fighting for Muawiya, and it was safer for them to desist from that period in its entirety. But no, not them! One standard for them and one standard for others. They use double standards in sedition and make the common people think that they are the lovers of the Companions!
Banu Umayyah used to insult and curse Imam Ali on their platforms! And the Salafiyyah defend the injustice of the Umayyads and cursing of Imam Ali!
According to Imam Al-Qurtubi’s testimony Muawiyah insults Imam Ali and commands people to insult him! And guess who is defending those who curse and insult the Companions?
The great Companions used to curse the other great Companions, and many are the Salafi who conceal this and pretend to love the Companions, while in reality Companions are innocent of them.
Read below:
“The people of Sham (Syria) departed to Mu’awiyah and pledged their allegiance to him, forsaking and exposing him (a reference to a disputed event). Ibn ‘Abbas and Sharhabeel ibn Hanī’ returned to Ali with the news. Thereafter, whenever Ali would pray the morning prayer (Fajr), he would invoke curses (Qunoot) and say: ‘O Allah, curse Mu’awiyah, ‘Amr (ibn al-‘As), Abū al-A’war, Habīb ibn Maslamah, ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd, al-Fasaḷ ibn Qays, and al-Walīd ibn ‘Uqbah.’
This reached Mu’awiyah, so he, in turn, began to curse Ali, al-Ashtar, Qays ibn Sa’d, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, Ibn ‘Abbas, and ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja’far, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with them all.
In the text Imam Ali is cursed, yet the one who curses him he is considered trustworthy and honest! Yet look how they assault the Ibadi school. Where is the balance? Where do we insult any of the companions and worse yet where do we call any of them dogs of hellfire?!
Raja’ bin Haywah , considered a man of trust with those who attack us. (Those who attack the Ibadi). He (Raja’ bin Haywah) denounced the just caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz for leaving cursing and cursing of Imam Ali on the pulpits!
Which by the way this was at the urging of the Ibadi delegation. (Thank you Muslim majority for conveniently leaving that tid bit out)
Harir bin ‘Uthman, he is one of the men of Bukhari. This man was cursing and cursing Imam Ali, and despite all this, he is proven trustworthy and has the trust of Ibn Mu’in and Ahmad bin Hanbal!
In Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, Volume 2, page 409-410, Entry No. 852
وَرَوَى الْعَقِيلِيُّ عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ مَعِينٍ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَسُبُّ عَلِيًّا رضي الله عنه كُلَّ يَوْمٍ مِائَةً وَأَرْبَعِينَ مَرَّةً.
“And al-‘Uqaylī narrated from Yaḥyā bin Ma‘īn that he [Ḥarīr] would curse Ali one hundred and forty times every day.”
Ahmad bin ‘Abdullah al-‘Ijli said: “Harir bin ‘Uthman was a Syrian, reliable (thiqah), and he used to bear hostility (yahmil) against ‘Ali.”
Yahya bin Ma’in said: “It was mentioned that Harir used to revile (yashnum) ‘Ali from the pulpit (al-minbar).”
It was narrated from Yazid bin Harun that he said: “I saw the Lord of Might (Rabb al-‘Izzah) in a dream, and He said to me: ‘O Yazid! Do not write from him’—meaning from Harir bin ‘Uthman. I said: ‘O Lord, I have not known anything from him except good.’ He said to me: ‘O Yazid! Do not write from him, for he reviles (‘sabb‘) ‘Ali.'”
‘Ali bin ‘Ayyash narrated, saying: “I heard Harir bin ‘Uthman say to a man: ‘Woe to you! Do you not fear God? You have reported from me that I revile (‘asubbu‘) ‘Ali. By Allah, I do not revile him, and I have never reviled him.'”
Shababah said: “I heard Harir bin ‘Uthman, and a man said to him: ‘O Abu ‘Amr, it has reached me that you do not show mercy upon ‘Ali?’ He said to him: ‘Be quiet! What business is this of yours?’ Then he turned to me and said: ‘May Allah have mercy on him (‘Ali)’ a hundred times.”
Ahmad bin Hanbal and Yahya bin Ma’in considered his narrations to be stopped (waqafuhu – a term in hadith criticism, possibly meaning they did not use his narrations as evidence due to this issue).
Al-Hajjaj beats people who do not curse Imam Ali and punishes them with flogging!
Ibn Abi Layla, and Ibn al-Zubayr, and Al-Mukhtar:
Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah narrated from Abu Mu’awiyah from Al-A’mash, who said: “I saw ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Layla. Al-Hajjaj had him beaten and made him stand at the door of the mosque. They began saying to him: ‘Who are the liars?'” He said: “So who are the liars of Allah?” Then he said: “‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and Al-Mukhtar bin Abi ‘Ubayd.” – [he said it] quietly. So I knew when he fell silent, then he started again and raised his voice, that he did not mean them.
Harir bin ‘Uthman, it was known about him that he insulted Imam Ali, and he was famous for that. However, when Ahmed bin Hanbal was asked about him, he said about him: trustworthy, trustworthy, trustworthy!
A question to the Salafiyyah, On what consistent basis do you attack the Ibadi when some of our past scholars put Ali inBarā’ah, and some practice Wuqoof, while others hold him in Walāyah and yet you keep defending the Umayyads whose Sunnah was to curse Imam Ali in the streets and on the pulpits?!
Now imagine dear readers that we take a time machine back to the Umayyad period. We have those among the companions, the early salaaf who disavow Ali for arbitration and killing the believers at Nahrawan. Meanwhile what will be going on in the Umayyad territories? Cursing Imam Ali on the pulpits as a necessary Sunnah.
Who is reviling who?
Who is disavowing who?
Ibn al-Qayyim criticizes the Companions for masturbating during their battles, and criticizes their women! Certainly these are the ethics of the downward road!
Marwan bin Al-Hakam used to insult and curse Ali as well as his two sons Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein on the pulpits! Marwan would claim that Hassan smelled of donkey urine!
…Narrated by Ishaq bin Rahawayh (1) and Abu ‘Ubayd (2).
[Narration 7566] And from ‘Umayr bin Ishaq who said: “Marwan was our governor for a year, and he would curse [‘Ali] – – for us from the pulpit.” He would address the people, then Marwan was deposed, and Sa’id bin al-‘As was appointed for a year, and he did not curse. Then Sa’id was deposed, and Marwan was reinstated, and he resumed cursing. So it was said to Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali: “Do you not hear what Marwan is saying?” But he would not respond at all. He would prepare on Friday, then enter the pulpit of the Prophet (saw)and it would be there. When the pulpit was brought forward, he would enter the mosque and not prepare, then return to his family. Marwan was not satisfied with that until he sent a message to him in his house, so that when he sat with him, he would address the people. So he sent for him, and he entered. He said: “Your proximity is part of the sultan’s might, and your proximity is a resolution.” He [Al-Hasan] said: “[Say] what you want.” He said: “Marwan has sent me to you with so-and-so and so-and-so, and I have not found anyone like you except the urine of a female mule.
Caliph Uthman begged Ali bin Abi Talib and Talha to defend him when his house was besieged. However, he was not as supported as it should have been. And Marwan was cursing the people and antagonizing them more! Why didn’t the companions support Uthman?!
The Salafiyyah spread lies among the people that Muawiyah loves Ali and takes care of him, to the extent that if the two groups fight, it is because of the excessive longing between the brothers, so if the night comes, they congregate until the morning, then they shed crocodile tears to deceive the common people! Here, their lies are exposed!
The Salaafiyah are deceiving the common people by saying that Muawiyah did not order Sa`d to insult Mu`awiyah, and that his purpose was not to insult, but rather he wanted to test Sa‘d, Yet the deception is clear!
Muawiya used to send his agents to interrogate people and disavow Ali and curse him, and if they did not respond to his request, they would be sentenced to death!
Muawiyah orders Hajr and his companions to disavow Ali and curse him, but they refuse to do so and are killed! This is Muawiyah the one we are supposed to say (May Allah be pleased with his deeds) after his name!
A torrent of insults and cursing of Imam Ali, and this insult remained the Sunna of the Umayyads, and Muawiyah swore that their young ones would grow old and their old ones would grow older (they would be granted prolonged life) because of cursing Imam Ali!
And the Salafiyyah want it to be remained concealing from the common people and defend the Umayyads of the Nawasib! The truth has appeared and revealed the hidden!
Here is is mentioned the killing of Hujr bin Adi al-Kindi and his companions by Muawiyah Al-Baghy and his army of miscreants!
Al-Hajjaj orders the muezzin of Ali to disavow Ali, but he refuses and thus is killed!
Abdullah Al-Jabreen admits that the Umayyads insulted and cursed Ali on the pulpits until the era of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. Then he said that people began to mention the virtues of Ali, but even than he was upset that they alienated the people from the Umayyads!!!
Hence the split that last until today between the Abbasid Sunnis (those who incorporated Ali as the fourth “rightly guided”) and their antagonist, the Umayyad Sunnis (those who have real hate towards Ali).
Shaykh `Abdullah ibn `Abdur-Rahman al-Jibreen was a prominent Saudi Islamic scholar who served on the Council of Senior Scholars and the Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas. Here is what he had to say.
“During the era of the Umayyads, and specifically after the caliphate of Mu’awiyah until the end of the [first] century—from the year sixty-one until the year ninety-nine—some of the Umayyad caliphs would curse Ali from the pulpits and in his absence, and they would accuse him of participating in the killing of Uthman. This continued until the time of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, who put an end to this heinous practice.”
“And there were in Kufa individuals who extreme in their devotion to Ali (yaghulūn fī ‘Alī), from among his ministers and students in Kufa. They were harmed and enraged by what they saw of the public cursing from the pulpits, and it became excessive. So they began to gather in private places for themselves and they would console each other. Then there joined them whoever wished to secede (from the community), so then people began to join them and they became numerous. They would exaggerate in his virtue, inventing many fabricated hadiths about his merits, and they claimed by doing this that they were endearing the people to him and turning the people away from the Umayyads.”
Muawiya’s first act after the death of Al-Hassan bin Ali was to perform Hajj and ascend to the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah in Medina to curse Imam Ali! Imagine the minbar of light and barakah being used to pour out vomit and hate!
The following is from: Al-‘Iqd al-Farid by Ahmad ibn Muhammed ibn Abd Rabbih. A book about adab! Imagine!
“And when Al-Hasan bin Ali died, Mu’awiyah performed Hajj and entered Medina. He wanted to curse Ali from the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (saw). It was said to him: “Among us is Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, and we do not think he will be pleased with this at all. So send for him and seek his opinion.” So he sent for him and mentioned that to him. Sa’d said: “If you do that, I will leave the mosque and never return to it!”
So Mu’awiyah refrained from cursing him until Sa’d died. After he (Sa’d) died, he (Mu’awiyah) cursed him (Ali) from the pulpit.
And he wrote to his governors to curse him on the pulpits, and they did so.
The Banu Umayyah, they had the vile practice that if they heard that someone had named his son Ali, they killed him!
Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Aqri said:
“The Banu Umayyah, whenever they heard of a newborn named ‘Ali, they would kill him. This reached Rabah, so he changed his son’s name.”
By the way dear reader many of you may not be aware but a revival of the Umayyad spirit is happening among the Sunni Muslims, in particular Salafist types. They wear the title nawasib as a badge of honour. As an indication of one’s loyalty to Sunnism they will name their kids as Yazid or Mu’awiyah. The fighting in Syria accelerated this movement. Insh’Allah have an article on this coming.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani states about Ali that many of the companions and followers hated him, insulted him and fought him!
Ahl al-Sunnah excused some of those who killed Ali. And them themselves openly insulted and cursed him!
Ibn Al-Qayyim recounts the story of Al-Hajjaj in cursing Imam Ali and ordering people to curse him in the markets in front of the shops!
Ibn Taymiyyah proves the infighting and killing among the companions, and each group despising the other!
“As for what he mentioned regarding mutual cursing, the cursing was done by both groups, just as the fighting took place. One group would curse the leaders of the other in their supplications, and the other would curse the leaders of the first in their supplications. It is said that each faction would invoke curses upon the other in their prayer (qunut).”
“Fighting with the hand is greater [in sin] than cursing with the tongue. All of this—whether it was a sin, an effort of independent legal judgment (ijtihad), an error, or a correct opinion—is encompassed by the forgiveness and mercy of God through repentance, the erasing of sins by good deeds, great calamities that expiate sin, and other means.”
Source: (“Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah” (منهاج السنة النبوية)
The Salafiyah tell us that the mother of the believers Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) swears by Allah that Abu Huraira lied! Is this the amount of respect for the Companions have for each other according to the Salafiyah?
In the books of Ahl Sunnah a sahabah is accused of adultery!
A Companion eats the head of another Companion!
Salafiyah claim that what Ahmed bin Hanbal did for Islam was not done by anyone other than him not even Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq! (May Allah be pleased with him!) Are these words said in truth about the best companion of the Blessed Messenger (saw)?!
The sahaba used to drink wine! (After becoming Muslims)
A Companion Drinks Alcohol!(After embracing Islam)
A companion leads the people in the morning prayer, four units while in a state of sloppy drunkenness, and says to the crowd of worshipers, “Shall I add more for you?”
Umar bin Al-Khattab appoints a companion who drinks alcohol in Bahrain and asks the companions to testify to his drunkenness’. This is how the Salafiyah convey to us about the companions challenging and calling each other out like this!
They say the companions were cheaters and that Abu Hurarira was the chief of them in cheating! Imagine! And there are among the Ahl Sunnah who have the audacity to call the People of Truth and Straightness as Non Muslims?!
What does it mean by calling a noble companion a thief?
See what is said about the companions here:
Who were those who persisted in their ignorance and evil, then Muawiyah banished them from the Levant? ! Muhammed bin Abdul Wahhab answers you!
Shaykh Ibn Baz accuses the companions of polytheism!
Shaykh Ibn Baz’s ruling on cursing some of the companions! Surprise Surprise!
Ahl Sunnah say that Abu Hurairah was known for taking bribes! Who attacks the companions?
Shaykh Ibn Al-Uthaymeen, states that not all the Companions are not all just! In them there is rank debauchery!
Ibn Al-Atheer describes the companion Abu Musa as a fool! Who respects the companions?
Yahya Ibn Mu’een insults the companion Ammar bin Yasir and follows up his insults with curses! Who respects the companions?
Umar ibn al-Khattab, May Allah be pleased with him, called the People of the Book al-Faruq. Is this true, ya Salafiyah?
Ahl Sunnah defaming Umar Ibn Al-Khattab! (May Allah be pleased with him), by saying that he was distracted by clapping in the markets!! Who respects the companions? Only the people who have no haya insult Umar (ra)
They imagine that the companions of the Messenger of Allah are flirting with a beautiful woman while they are praying! Is this the state of the companions of the Messenger of Allah with you?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah accuses Imam Ali that his war was not for Allah and His Messenger, and if it was for Allah and His Messenger, victory would have been for him! One of the positions of the Ibadi is that Ali came short for going against the hukm of Allah (swt) and later slaughtered the Muslims of Nahrawan. Allah knows best his ending. The other is that Ali had realized his wrong, was overwhelmed with grief and turned in repentance to Allah (swt) and met with a good ending. husnal khatimah
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that Ali deems the blood of Muslims lawful, and thus he is out and out a Kafir.
Al-Waleed bin Juma’ is from the narrators of Sahih Muslim and Ibn Hazm says his hadeeth is defective and Al-Waleed is a doomed man!
Here they are defaming the Prophet of Allah (saw), his honorable companions, and his pure wives!
Another wretched statement!
If Ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave girl, where would he place his hand?! Who honors the companions?
Defaming the great companion Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him).
They claim the Companion Abdullah bin Umar called Abu Hurairah a flat liar!
Among the terms of the reconciliation between Muawiyah and Al-Hassan, after he was betrayed and almost killed, is that Muawiya stop cursing Imam Ali in Al-Hassan’s presence!
Shi’a tend to think Al Hassan’s reconciliation with Muawiya was wrong but that Ali’s arbitration with Muawiya was fine and dandy!
One of Ahl Sunnah says that the faith of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (ra) and the faith of Iblees are one! No one says this except for someone who has left the fold of Islam. And the Sunnis excused those who killed Imam Ali and openly insulted and cursed him!
The claim that Fatima Al-Zahraa was a lying woman and lied to Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, and his narration was received, then she deserted him until she died!
None other than Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah criticizes the “Rightly Guided Caliphs”!
According to the testimony of Ibn Katheer!
More from Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that Ali fought and killed many Muslims who perform the prayers and pay the zakat, and the matter of blood is more severe! Why is if it an Ibadi scholar says it it is an offense but if Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says it is fine?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that in Ali’s caliphate there was no mercy, rather people were killed and they curse each other, and they did not have a sword against the infidels, but rather the infidels coveted them and took a country from them and their money.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that the time of Ali is a time of sedition, and there was no general imam!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that the Companions who fought Ali, vilified him and cursed him were more knowledgeable than those who supported Ali and cursed Uthman. Who is disavowing who here?
The predecessors of the Salafiyah are those who did not consider Imam Ali to be the caliph of the Muslims until the time of Ahmed bin Hanbal! Think about that! Do not get it twisted. The Imami Shi’i never accepted the first three Caliphs. The Ahl Sunnah the fourth until Imam Ahmed rehabilitated the image of Ali among them. Where as the Ibadi are the one’s who recognized all four from the beginning! Learn the truth!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah defines the Sunnis as the ones who established the succession of the three caliphs! Where is Ali?
The jurists of the Hejaz and Iraq from the two groups of theologians and the people of opinion, including Malik, Al-Shafi’i, Al-Awzai, and the majority of Muslims and theologians, agreed that Ali was right in his war in Siffin and in the Battle of the Camel, and that those who fought him were unjust oppressors ! (i.e. Muawiyah and his army, Our Mother Aisha (ra), Talha and Al-Zubayr)
Muawiyah tempts the child killer Ibn Arta’ah to kill Ali bin Abi Talib and promises him the best of this world and the Hereafter! But remember Ahl Sunnah will tell you they loved each other as brothers! Of course they did!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that Umar is less mistaken than Ali, and they found the weakness in Ali’s sayings more, and they found contradiction in Ali’s sayings more than the contradictory sayings of Umar!
Ibn Asakir The Syrian Sunni Islamic scholar says that Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam used to curse Imam Ali on the pulpit every Friday for six years, then he was dismissed and reinstated again, and he did not stop insulting him!
Muawiyah mobilizes the people of Basra to fight Imam Ali.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that many of the Companions were known to have slandered Ali!
Ibn Hajar Al Asqalni openly quotes the things Ibn Taymiyyah has said about the companions that Ibn Taymiyyah and his supporters want to hide from people.
Look what the Hanbali Imam Ibn Qudama said about Ibn Muljim killing Imam Ali!
Al-Dhahabi: The Messenger of Muawiyah offers Hajr and his companions the innocence of a man! And the man is Imam Ali However, why amputate and hide the texts?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is skeptical whether Imam Ali memorized the Qur’an or not?
Al-Tabari: The Messenger of Muawiyah asks Hujr and his companions to disavow Ali and curse him, and tells them that we have been commanded to do so!
Imam Ali stayed in the caliphate for five years or more, so people ate and drank the blood of the innocent, lived off the sweat of the weak, and the tears of the bereaved, as well as the suffering of the orphans and the miserable!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion laid bare regarding the leadership of Imam Ali and those who fought Imam Ali and those who did not fight with him!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, the three caliphs agreed upon by the Muslims, and the sword was unsheathed against the infidels and kept from the people of Islam. Ali, the Muslims did not agree to pledge allegiance to him, but rather sedition occurred during his reign, and the sword was kept from the infidels and unleashed on the people of Islam! In fact I (Prima-Qur’an) being non-partisan am inclined to agree with Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah here. It is a point against the Shi’i as the reign of Ali was not one of barakah, but of blood shed of believers and deep divisions that have lasted until this very day. If I say it as an Ibadi I will be called Kharijite where as Ibn Taymiyyah makes a good observation and gets a free pass.
Al-Abbas describes Ali as a treacherous sinner and a traitor; and ask Umar to judge between them? ! Hey Ahl Sunnah what is the ruling on the treacherous, the sinner, the traitor? Where is the love of the Companions?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: Hating Ali does not harm faith one bit!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: The preachers of Morocco mention Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and they mention Muawiyah, but they do not mention Ali. It is clear that they hated him and cursed him!
The whole of Banu Umayyah, are a clan of Ali haters, all except for Umar bin Abdul Aziz, the just!
Al-Awza’i: We did not accept the giving until we witnessed Ali’s hypocrisy and disavowed him! Is this the love of the Companions?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: Imam Ali did not show the religion of Islam during his caliphate, and their enemies among the infidels and Christians coveted them! If the religion of Islam did not appear during Ali’s caliphate, then what religion did appear during his caliphate?
The Salafi Shaykh Abdel Moneim Al-Shahat states: “The reason for Ali’s defeat was caused by his greed for the caliphate and his love for leadership!”
How does he know what is in Ali ibn Abu Talib’s heart? Rather the reason for Ali’s defeat was going against the Amr of Allah (swt) in the Qur’an and in all my encounters with the Shi’i they Shi’i flee from this point!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah expresses what is in his heart towards Imam Ali here:
Ibn Hajar in Al-Durar Al-Kamina transmits from Ibn Taymiyyah his visciousness towards Imam Ali!
Here they are – slandering the Mothers of the Believers, the Messenger of Allah, and Umar ibn al-Khattab!!!
The book of Musnad Imam Ahmad: Caliph Uthman directs his words to his companions while he is besieged and says to them: “Why are you killing me?!” A question for the Sunnis, why do you spread rumors among the people that the one who killed Uthman were rabble and bandits who came from Egypt?!
And why are you basically exposing the sedition of the Companions?! These books expose your lies!
They have admitted to fabricating false hadiths about Uthman!
Marwan killed Talha, one of the so called ten promised paradise, and because of him, events unfolded to lead to what what happened to Uthman, and he was severely cursing and abusing Imam Ali. Despite all that the Ahl Sunnah praise him.
Amr Ibn Al-Aas once stabbed the caliph Uthman and once demanded the blood of Uthman. The books of Ahl Sunnah expose their lies!
In The Book of The Comprehensive Explanations on the Tahawi Creed: They Criticize Uthman and Deplore His Killers!
Imam Al-Shafi’i says Imam Ali that he did not take revenge on blood or money! That is, those who participated in the killing of the caliph Uthman, Imam Ali did not take revenge on them because they were not in the wrong! Is this correct?
Ibn Qutayba criticizes Caliph Uthman so is he a kharijite?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah at it again! This time he slanders both Uthman and Ali!!
The companions in Kufa slander Uthman, some of whom witnessed Badr! Obviously they did not believe the Qur’an teaches that all companions go to paradise.
The companion Abd al-Rahman bin Udays was among those who pledged allegiance under the tree. He was the commander of those coming from Egypt to besiege Uthman! And many are those among the Sunni who enjoy sedition and lie to the people that those coming from Egypt are nothing but rabble and deviants!
Remember the Salafi preacher who went on air and cursed the companion Amr b. al-Hamiq al-Khuzāʿī for stabbing Uthman in the chest 9 times! Even after he found out the man really was a companion he did a 180 but still maintained all the companions are just. Then the conclusion can only be that Uthman was killed with justice. Or the companion killed Uthman without justice with is a major major sin. It is a difficulty no doubt about it.
The Ahl Sunnah scholar says about the companion Al-Walid bin Uqba, Uthman’s brother to his mother, that his beard drips with wine!
Al-Kamil fi at-Tarikh edited to hide the truth from people!!
A complete chapter titled: “Why people denounced Uthman!” Imagine if Ibadi’s wrote a book like that with a title like this!
In the Sunni books the mother of the believers, Aisha (r.a) is stated to have said: “Kill Nathla, for he has committed blasphemy,” Nathla meaning Uthman!
Uthman spoiled the innermost secret of the divorced (freed-slaves)!
With in the book of Ibn Qutayba we find more censures against Caliph Uthman by a number of companions!
Aisha (r.a) the mother of the believers orders the killing of the companion Uthman bin Hanif!
Accusations of the murder of Caliph Uthman distributed among three: Aisha, Talha and Imam Ali!
The honorable companion Abd al-Rahman bin Udays al-Balawi who was among those who witnessed the conquest and was among those who pledged allegiance under the tree, and we see clearly his role in relation to Caliph Uthman!
The Sahabah themselves participated in the revolt against Caliph Uthman, as well as the sons of the Companions! Enough of your one sided views of history and delving into sedition and saying that that the Muslims were so stupid, so unaware, so aloof that Caliph Uthman was taken by surprise by unknown revolutionaries and unknown people!! All the while laughing at the common people and praising Muawiya and the Umayyads and telling the events to fit your lies to serve your agenda!
Al-Dhahabi, himself one of the predecessors of Al-Wahalia, mentions how Muslims resented Uthman! Where is the respect for the Companions and the shedding of crocodile tears to serve your malicious agenda?
A companion of the people of the allegiance of Al-Radwan and the leader of the revolutionaries was against Uthman!
In the Kitab al-Futuh: Aisha calls for the death of Uthman!
Umm Habiba appeals to Ali bin Abi Talib to protect Uthman and respond to her, unless he is dishonorable and miserable, meaning Uthman! And what is the greatest and most grievous attack against the Companions, other than that?
It was asked of the mother of the believers Aisha, “Do you not like a man from among the divorced men who disputes with Muhammed’s companions regarding the caliphate?” So what did Aisha say? !
Musannaf bin Abi Shaybah: Their are kings from the evil of kings, and the first of these kings is Muawiyah!
“Jaafar died in the midst of the caliphate of Muawiyah, may Allah curse him!”
“Yazid bin Muawiyah, may Allah curse them both!” More cursing and curses! Why all this cursing? Wasn’t Mu’awiyah one of the Companions?!
These books expose your hypocrisy!
The books of Ahl Sunnah are filled with it. May Allah (swt) curse so and so.
The Sunnis praise Muawiya and that he is the best of kings, then they add to this by saying that he approves of insulting Imam Ali! Have you gone mad?! Imam Ali is cursed and the one who curses him is said to be the best of kings!? WoW!
Let Imam Al-Suyuti quotes the words of Aisha (r.a) telling us what she really thinks about Muawiyah!
Imam Al-Shafi’i: list four sahabah whose testimony is not accepted! Testimony is taken from the truthful so what is the state of those four sahabah? These books expose their lies.
Marwan bin Al-Hakam, the first man with the caliph Uthman, hits the companion Talha bin Obaidullah with an arrow, and he kills him!
Shocker! Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan and wine! Your books expose your hypocrisy.
Two companions insulted Muawiyah, and Imam Ali declared Muawiyah is upon misguidance!
The cause of the death of Imam al-Nisa’i, May Allah have mercy on him, at the hands of the fanatical Banu Umayyah!
How did Imam Al-Nisa’i die!? The word of truth may cost you your life, but Allah’s promise is true! The curse of hatred, hypocrisy and criminality!
The position of Sunni scholars towards Muawiya!!
The books of the Salafiyah declare Muawiya to be an infidel.
The Insulting and cursing of Muawiya and Uthman in Sunni books.,The Muhajireen and the Ansar did not support Uthman.
Ali bin Al-Jaad swears that Muawiyah died in a state other than Islam! Ali bin Al Ja’ad is a narrator in Bukhari and Imam Bukhari has taken some 13 narrations from him in his Sahih.
A fatal statement that afflicts Muawiya and which breaks those who glorify him!
The ignorant who fabricate hadiths in favour of Muawiya!!
The Companion Hajr bin Uday who witnessed such battles such as the pivotal conflict of Al-Qadisiyah, Al-Jamal, and Siffin, and he was a Shiite of Ali, who was killed by Muawiyah’s order in Damascus!
If Ali Ibn Abu Talib had his hands drenched with the blood of the Muslims there is no doubt that Muawiyah bathed in it!
Muhammed bin Abi Bakr Al-Siddiq was killed on the orders of Muawiya. He was inserted into the stomach of a donkey and then burned! Shall we say “May Allah be pleased with such a man” and expect people to enter into Islam?!
Muawiyah was kind to some of the servants of Al-Hassan, and thus, Al-Hassan died of poisoned! Your books expose your hypocrisy!
The killing of the companion Hajar bin Uday and his companions was mentioned with glee by Muawiya and his army!
Muawiya was the uncle of the believers!? With family like that who needs family!
Question for your Sunni friends: Lil game of trivia. Was Muawiya truthful in accusing Imam Ali?! If so Ali is a brigand that usurps rule without right. If not Muawiya is a bold face liar.
Al-Hassan Al-Basri states: Four qualities were in Muawiyah, if he had only one of them, he would have been disastrous!
Muawiyah drank what? “Then my father handed it to him and he said, “I have not drunk it since the Messenger of Allah (saw) prohibited it!” Drink what? Do not deceive people and say that he used to drink milk, because milk was not prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (saw), so what is the forbidden drink that Muawiyah indulged in according to your books?
Ibn Abbas (r.a) replies to Muawiya after an exchange that your cousin, i.e. Uthman bin Affan, was rebuked by the Muslims, so they killed him! Notice that Ibn Abbas (r.a) doesn’t say rebels or some unknowns killed Uthman but that he was killed by the Muslims!
Who killed Ammar bin Yassir? What did the Blessed Messenger (saw) say about those who would kill Ammar (r.a)?
Muawiyah and the novels of wine! In Sunni books.
Muawiyah was a scribe between the Prophet and the Arabs, not as Sunni’s claim that he was a scribe of the revelation!!
And it came in the book Musnad of Imam Ahmad that he was ordering them to consume money between them unjustly and to kill themselves, confirming the verses “do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly”
When Al-Hassan died, Muawiya said the Takbir and everyone in his council said Takbir! These are your books, so see how you are? Look what your books say!
Muawiya was busy waiting for Al-Hassan’s death, so when the news reached him, he said “Allahu Akbar” and “Allah is the Greatest” for the people of Sham!
Abd al-Razzaq, who has nearly 300 hadiths in al-Sahihayn, says that mentioning Muawiya in gatherings is filthy! Why all this great hatred?
When Al-Hassan bin Ali died, Muawiya went on pilgrimage and wanted to insult Imam Ali on the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and wrote to his workers to curse Ali on the pulpits! Imagine! On the Blessed minbar of the Blessed Messenger (saw) cursing the companions!
Ahmed bin Hanbal narrates that Shaykh Al-Bukhari swears that Muawiyah died in a state other than Islam, and he did not narrate from him, and he forbade his son Abdullah to mention him or write about him!
None other than the mountain of knowledge Ishaq bin Rahawayh states: “Nothing narrated from the Prophet (saw) regarding the merits of Muawiyah is authentic!”
Muawiyah removes Saeed bin Al-Aas from the mandate of Medina and appoints Marwan bin Al-Hakam in his place, so what is the reason?
According to the testimony of al-Dhahabi, Muawiyah curses Ali; and al-Hasan stipulated that he should not curse him while he was listening.
The hadith that states Muawiyah is one of the people of Hell, and al-Tabarani hides the name of Muawiyah and puts the word man! These books show your hypocrisy and deceit!
Muawiyah commands batil (falsehood and consumes it). Sunni books.
Muawiya and the novels of wine!
Abdullah bin Umar deeply regretted not fighting the oppressive faction Muawiya and his companions!
Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr’s neck was cut off by order of Mu’awiya, and he was the first head to be cut off in Islam!
The mother of the believers, Aisha (r.a) threatens Muawiya with death for killing her brother. The companions were one big happy family? So we are told.
Amr bin Al-Aas, a well-known companion, was one of the instigators against Uthman!
Insulting the great Companions and defaming an honorable person in the books of the Sunnis.
Defaming the great companion Umar Ibn Al-Khattab! with words that are never befitting of a man like Umar (r.a). Is there no fear of Allah’s wrath in your hearts?!
The noble and honourable Khadija(r.a) made her father drink wine to marry her to the Messenger of Allah (saw), and when her father got drunk, he accepted her marriage!
May Allah suffice you! May Allah guide this ummah!
May Allah guide us! What disaster!
Mujaddid Al-Salafiyah Muhammed bin Abd Al-Wahhab lied and claimed that the Companions unanimously agreed that the Companion Qudama bin Madhu’un had been declared an unbeliever!
Accusing the companion Anas bin Malik of drinking paint, i.e. alcohol! The impression they give of the companions is of people who huff paint and absue whippets!
A companion accused of adultery!
We can lead the horse to the troph but you cannot make it drink.
So what will it be dear Muslim Ummah?
Will your Imam be hiding in occultation waiting to come out…. one day?
Will your Imam be a playboy who goes boating with scantly clad women and tells us the obligation of prayer and fasting has been lifted?
Will you be a Crypto-Sunni (An Abbasid) that holds disdain for Yazid, a little bit for Muaviya when your feeling edgy and none for Uthman because it’s a step too far?
Or do we go with the majority simply because it is convenient and we embrace the Islam of the Imperium and say (May Allah be pleased with the tyrants)? To rebel against the ruler is to be a kharijite?
Or do you just go your own way do it yourself Islam?
In conclusion what we do know is that no matter what happened between they did their job. Islam is here. There has been nothing left out of this deen. Some people want to keep going back and revisiting the past and digging up the graves and create fitna for the Ummah. The rest of us are content with moving on.
Even, I myself do not find benefit in delving into these matters other than it is necessary to get the record straight. What we as Muslims should truly focus on is our relationship with Allah (swt). To do our level best to obey His commands and avoid His prohibitions. To follow, the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Prima Quran 