“SaidJesus, the son of Mary, “O Allah ,our Lord! Send us from heaven a table spread, that there may be for us a festival(Eidan) for the first and the last of us and a sign from You; and provide for our sustenance, for You are the best Sustainer.” (Qur’an 5:114)
“And obey Allah and the Messenger that you may obtain mercy.” (Qur’an 3:132)
Allah’s Messenger (saw) used to offer the prayer of `Id-ul-Adha and `Id-ul-Fitr and then deliver the Khutba after the prayer.
Source: (al-Bukhari 957 Book 13, Hadith 9)
Dear brothers and sisters in Islam. Dear respected readers. I want to wish all of you a congratulations on fasting in the month of Ramadan. May Allah (swt) accept all from you.
None of us know how much time any of us have on this earth. I do not know how much longer I will continue to blog and write. While I am here I will assist with what I can, how I can, when I can, with what I have.
May Allah (swt) forgive me for any wrong doings or bad mannerisms or interaction with any of the Creation of Allah (swt).
I pray that his is a most joyous and beautiful occasion filled with barakah, love, laughter, forgiveness and light for you, and your families.
May what I have written about and blogged about be a testimony for me. May it be a means of guidance and by it may the people be brought closer to Allah (swt) and be among those who love to follow the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Allāhumma ṣalli ʿalā Muḥammadin, Allāhumma ṣalli ʿalayhi wa ṣallam.
“Allah guides those who seek His pleasure to the ways of peace, brings them out of darkness and into light by His Will, and guides them to the Straight Path.” (Qur’an 5:16)
Ahmed Al Kitab:
Short Biography:
Full name: ‘Abd al-Rasool ‘Abd al-Zahraa ‘Abd al-Ameer Hajj Habeeb.
Ahmed Al-Kitab is his pseudonym, although it is not clear if he has changed his names. Though, Ahmed Al-Kitab is the name he publishes and writes under.
He was born in Karbala, Iraq in 1953. He was brought up in a devout 12er Shi’a home. His father, Abdul-Zahra ibn Abdul-Amir al-Hajj Habib al-Asadi belonged to the Shiraziya. The Shiraziyya were a Shi’a movement associated with the Karbala based Ayatollah, “Sayyid Muhammaed Shirazi”
He received a traditional 12er Shi’a Islamic education at the Hawza in Najaf. He also lived with Sayed Hadi Al-Modarresi
In the 1980s, he live din Iran. He had a founded and directed an Arabic language radio station that challenged the rule fo Saddam Hussen. He continued his studies and research at the Hawza’s in Qom and Mashhad.
His doubts first surfaced regarding Muhammed ibn al-Hasan whom is alleged to be the so called “Hidden Imam”. Being convinced that there was no hard evidence this individual was even born. His conclusion was that followers of the 11th Imam invented the 12th Imam because the 11th Imam died without a heir. Thus, leaving them in a conundrum.
This further led him to look into the doctrine of (wilayat al-faqih) the rule of the jurisprudent. He began to question the concept of imama altogether, and the supra natural qualities that surrounded such individuals. He believed that in order for Muslim unity to be achieved that Muslims needed to return to the concept of shura.
The research laid out in his book: “The Development of Shi’a Political Thought: from shura to wilayat al faiqh” was said to have created quite a stir in Shi’a circles. His position became precarious in Iran so in 1990 he moved to London, England.
Many of his publications are available for the truth seekers in Arabic and Farsi (Persian).
It is said that he has sent his published works (articles and books) to Al Sistani, Kamal Al Haidari, Shaykh Baqur Al Irawani, Tijani Al Samawai, Murtada Al Askari, Alim Sebayt Al Nali. It is also said that no one from Qum or Najaf or any where else has given sound refutations of his claims. Allahu Alim.
He know doubt has influenced or has played a role (either actively or behind the scenes) in many 12er Shi’a reformist circles. Some 12er Shi’a see him as a convert to Zaydi Shi’a and others have rebuked this claim, as Ahmed Al-Kitab simply likes to be known as a “Muslim”. Al hamdulillah.
This has presented a real conundrum for 12er Shi’i. In fact Khomeini’s prescription is logical and in step with the 12er worldview. Essentially turning any government into a totalitarian dictatorship (even if it is a benevolent one).
Any attempt to elect the leaders by the masses undermines the 12er worldview. Essentially because it concedes too much to the Ibadi world view and to a lesser degree to the Sunni one. The idea that the leaders are elected by shura.
Lastly the most consistent position for 12er Shi’ism would be to be apolitical. To not be involved in politics because that would be the purview of the expectant Mahdi. This castrates 12er Shi’ism regulating it to a passive voice. In much the same way that Messianic Judaism claims (on the surface) not to be political.
It is possible that groups like jama’at al-taqrib also influenced modern Ibadism.
Thus we see the process of the Sunnification of the Ibadi school or, the madhabization, marginalization of the events of Narhawan and the rehabilitation of Ali in the eyes of the common people. One cannot have strong ties with Shi’a Iran and be overly critical of Ali. It also helps to take the heat off from overly critical Salafi critique of the Ibadi school, in regards to the companions.
“This avoidance of controversies and of historical issues meant that it could do no more than achieve a superficial rapprochement”
This is agreeable to me. As well intentioned as it is I think a superficial reproach does not benefit the Ibadi school. In many ways it only bolsters and emboldens the world view of other schools.
“He argues that it is time to question all the hadiths that proclaim that the love of ahl al-bayt is among the tenets of the faith and a yardstick for distinguishing believers from unbelievers. These hadiths, he says, contradict the Qurʾan, which provides clear conditions for belief.”
Source: Al-Katib, Tashayyuʿ, pp. 427–428.
“Next, al-Katib addresses one of the commonest and most damning accusations made against the Shiʿa, namely that Shiʿis claim that the Qurʾan was falsified in order to blur the evidence that ʿAli was the rightful successor of Muhammad. In Article 5, al-Katib stresses that “the Qurʾan is free of any distortion, falsification, addition or omission”. Unsurprisingly, he states that the claim regarding its falsification originated in traditions spread by extremists and that these claims were never accepted by all Shiʿis and that many ʿulamaʾ also rejected them. The position he takes implies that today’s Shiʿa no longer claims that the Qurʾan was falsified, and that those who allege that it does claim this are accusing it falsely because of their own agenda.”
This is also important because if what these extremist Shi’i claim is true than you cannot trust any of the reports concerning anything. Especially in regards to alleged views that they uphold for their claims in regards to the Imams or anything at all really.
I do want to push back against Giladi’s critique of Ahmed Al Kitab simply because he goes against ‘Western scholarship’.
Western scholarship is not the axis upon which the basis of truth is weighed. Truth is the basis for which truth is weighed. That is done through proofs and evidences. Not simply because a Western academic has said this or that.
Over all we need more Ahmed Al Kitab’s in this world. May Allah (swt) bless him. This is a real Jihad. It is not easy for one to break with their family, friends, associates, and their upbringing and to realize that which was told to us simply is not true.
“And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?” (Qur’an 2:17)
“We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” (Qur’an 16:89)
“And We send down of the Qur’an that which is healing and mercy for the believers, but it does not increase the wrongdoers except in loss.” (Qur’an 17:82)
” O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light.” (Qur’an 4: 174)
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
“And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or, what is faith, but We have made ita light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed you are guiding to a straight path.” (Qur’an 42:52)
The Qur’an is created. Says who?
Narrated:
‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud: Allah has not created in the heavens nor in the earth what is more magnificent than Ayat Al-Kursi.
Notice that Abdullah bin Mas’ud (r.a) is using the word khalaq for the Qur’an just as he did for the heavens and the earth.
Sufyan said: Because Ayat Al-Kursi is the Speech of Allah, and Allah’s Speech is greater than Allah’s creation of the heavens and the earth.
Notice that Sufyan Al Thawri (r.a) who is saying that the creation of the speech of Allah (swt) is greater than the creation of the heavens and the earth.
For us in the Ibadi school, we differ with those who say that any of the attributes of Allah (swt) is created. For us this is kufr.
So what we understand from Sufyan Al Thawri (r.a) is produced speech on the occasion of it. Also, that speech is not from the essential attributes.
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
My Thoughts no Public Debates
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
The Arabic word translated as argue is jadil’hum we can see a similar form of the word here:
“On the Day when every soul will come pleading (tujadilu) for itself, and every soul will be fully compensated for what it did, and they will not be wronged.” (Qur’an 16:11)
While the word does give the meaning to argue or to dispute it can have the meaning to plead. It can give the impression of a legal party in a dispute rather one is accused or the accuser.
Another word often over looked in Qur’an 16:125 is a very crucial word.
“And argue with them in a way that is best (aḥsanu).
This word can have the meaning of being very good at something, better, or the best.
Notice the Qur’an does not lay down or give a format for how these encounters should take place other than that they should and can be rigorous and that each party that disputes an issue should do so in a way that is best, excellent.
I personally have seen so many debates and It began to dawn on me that these debates do not really move the needle. Debates between Christians and Muslims. Intra-Christian debates. Debates between those who believe in God and Atheist.
I have NEVER seen a party in ANY debate switch sides to the other. I just haven’t. I have seen Christians, Muslims and Atheist lose debates. Yet, Christianity, and Islam are still here. Atheism continues to grow as well.
In the Muslim history it does seem as if there were pubic debates between Muslims of various groups. Often times this would not be feasible because parties lived in vastly different areas of a vast geographical region. Leaving one’s post where one teaches and earns a living just to travel to a distant land was not practical.
This came the practice of writing books. Often these books could be refutations of another idea or perspective. The great thing about writing is that very often a great deal of thought and consideration is given to the way one puts forward an argument with it’s various proofs and evidences.
This book would come into circulation and perhaps an representative from another school would read it and write a response (a refutation).
I personally like the approach that encourages people to read and reflect and to come to a decisive decision that will effect the rest of their life via preponderance and taffakur -purposeful reflection.
In fact in Science often before publishing a paper a scientist who feels that he/she has made a discovery will often get peers in their field and/or their seniors to review their findings. This process will allow the scientist to see how strong is the evidence of his/her hypothesis. Often it will allow them to tweak their findings or after showing flaws in the hypothesis the scientist may dismiss their own hypothesis altogether.
It is hoped that such an endeavor is free from ego and intent to embarrass the other and the scrutiny of a hypothesis is solely for the pursuit of knowledge and being circumspect in the various fields of knowledge.
This is very often not the case with face to face encounters and debates even those with formats. These debates very often quickly descend into innuendo, straw man arguments, character assassination’, ad hominin, and snide remarks to unnerve the other party. Very often it seems more about putting down the other person than presenting any type of case.
The problem with debate formats.
It is obvious that if two individuals decide to have a debate that the debate has to have a specific date and time mutually agreeable to the two parties. People often have very real lives that they lead in which they have families, work, prayers and sleep that they need to attend to.
It seems that in our day and age 2-3 hours seems to be the limit.
Ponder that. Voluminous works on various subjects such as theology and philosophy, law and jurisprudence and two individuals are going to move the needle in a two to three hour debate?
Hardly.
Some debate formats look something like this:
Opening speaker: 30 mins Second speaker: 40 mins Opening speaker: Closing 10 mins
Who has the advantage/disadvantage here?
While it looks like the opening speaker has the advantage because that person can set the tempo of the debate with their opening statement and has the last say consider something else. The second speaker can interact with what the opening speaker said as well as lay out their own case. The closing speaker now has the tremendous task of answering all the possible points and objections brought by the second speaker in just 10 minutes!
Debate format with cross examination:
Format: 20 minute presentation first speaker 20 minute presentation second speaker Rebuttal 9 minute remarks first speaker Rebuttal 9 minute remarks second speaker Cross Examination:
First speaker 5 minutes of questioning the second speaker.
Second speaker 5 minutes of questioning the first speaker.
Closing statements:
7 minutes second speaker 7 minutes first speaker
Now the very interesting part of a format with cross examination is that you the observer or the audience are probably thinking. “Wow this is great a real chance for some face to face interaction between the two.”
You couldn’t be more wrong. You see often what happens in these cross examinations is that the one who is a more seasoned debater and the one who knows how the clock works has the advantage.
How?
Milk the clock.
The season debater who knows how the clock works will spend his/her time pressing questions and pressing answers. However, when it is this person’s time to answer questions he/she will be very long winded. The more time they take to answer a question the less time the questioner has to get to his/her questions.
They will often even break the rules of the debate by asking qualifier questions to get the one who is asking the question to clarify. All this does is milk the clock. They know what they are doing. The moment you realize what is going on is the moment you realize this is not very honest at all.
What probably makes the most sense is for the two engaged in a previous debate on a particular topic to again debate the same topic this time keeping laser focused on the points both sides feel were not addressed.
This can be tricky and likely won’t happen.
Why?
If a particular individual feels they got their points across and did very well during a first encounter this person will not risk that win or that standing by debating the same person again on the same topic. Been there done that as they say. Likewise coming up with a team of objective panelist to decide what each side did not address during a debate can be unnecessarily convoluted as well.
Not everyone will debate anyone on anything.
Here is something else you will soon learn when you are engaged in the debate scene. Not every one who debates will actually debate anyone. In fact I have never come across anyone from the debate scene that will debate anyone else.
There are Christian apologist that are well known that will not debate biblical inerrancy.
There are other Christian apologist that simply will not debate other Christian apologist. They do not believe it is “edifying.”
There are Muslim debaters that will not debate certain Christian polemicist.
A famous Atheist once said concerning a challenge from a Christian apologist to debate him.
“It would look very good on his resume (the Christian apologist) but not mine.”
Than you have debaters that will only debate certain topics.
Than you have people who are debaters who can’t debate certain topics because they do not have the skill set or knowledge and/or language proficiency to do so. In fact those who do engage in such debates without having the proper skill set, knowledge or language proficiency really should be reprimanded for doing so.
Losing a debate before it even starts!
You can lose a debate before it even starts just from choosing the wrong title!
Some examples:
“Is the Bible the Word of God?”
“Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”
Why are these horrible titles?
The first one: “Is the Bible the Word of God?” this gives the impression that it is a yes or no question. The Muslim is at a loss here. Is it or is it not?
A better title would be: “Is the Bible the unadulterated Word of God?” This means that there are caveats, exceptions. It is not simply a yes or no question.
The second one: “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” This is also a very horrible title for a debate. Anyone who has even a tertiary knowledge of Islam understands there are violent text in the Qur’an, that Islam has a martial tradition and so forth.
In fact there was a debate between a well known Muslim speaker and a now deceased Atheist on that very topic and the Muslim in his opening mentioned the problematic title. he mentioned there is nuance there is a caveat here. Yet, he agreed to debate the topic!
Being selective with one’s opponent.
Some people are just very good orators. They speak very well and some have even went to special classes or courses for public speaking, toast masters for example.
In fact one thing I have observed is that Muslims have not really engaged with Christian academics. It has mostly been Christian preachers, evangelist and/or people who take up debate as a hobby horse. Some of these Christians even have mill degrees!
Likewise, with the exception of maybe 2 or 3 I can’t even recall any Muslim academics that Christians have debated. They are mostly street preachers, Youtubers and people who take up debate as a hobby horse. They are not formal academics.
Click Bait, Algorithms and Clout Chasing.
Maybe one wants to chalk it up to guerilla marketing but one of the more prominent features of debate culture these days has much more to do with raising one’s profile, generating traffic to one’s YouTube Channel, Website or other social media.
Some people are just very good at reading the Algorithm. So for example, I as a Prima-Qur’an am a nobody. Just an individual with a blog. I could do clout chasing by going on YouTube and Instagram and making videos calling out the most popular individuals.
Another form of Clout Chasing the Algorithm is one that even I use here. So let us say that I know there is a particular topic that the Muslim community is talking about. The Imam who has the cat jump on his shoulders. Simply by blogging or posting about it I can generate traffic.
So some people (debaters) are indeed Clout Chasers. Traffic to their various YouTube brings people to their Patreon and brings them a steady stream of revenue.
Cancel Culture and Debates Darkening the Soul.
This one is the most serious of them all. Does this mean that everyone who is involved in debate is damned? Of course not as the Qur’an itself is involved in debate.
I remember always being very anxious about public speaking. I didn’t like it. However, I was in a job role where I had to do it. Than it was invigorating. I used to make du’a , “Oh Allah please do not make me among those who like the sound of their own voice.” Even, in chat groups I am in I often wonder if I speak to much.
But there can be a real darkness in debates if not done with the utmost of sincerity. If not done for the sake of Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) alone. Do not let your ego share in your aim. Do not let your ego steal from your ibadah. The thunderous clapping from an audience as you make a strident point. The jeering from a crowd as you interlocutor cannot answer you. The constant “YOU” did well. “YOU” sure showed him/her. “YOU” silenced them.
It can do dangerous things to your ego and to your soul.
Final Thoughts.
In the end I believe that most stable people who make real life changing decisions, like what career path to follow, whom to marry, or rather or not to convert to a particular religion do not do so on impulse.
They are usually people who think carefully about decisions that they wish to make and spend time to reflect on it. This is the way.
There have been individuals who have wanted to comment on this blog and it added nothing at all to the discussion or topic. It was simply to generate traffic to their own sites. Not interested.
For my part I have done my level best to give the arguments from the other side from their own sources and to quote sources. Sources are important. Anyone can make any claim. Rather or not the claim can be verified is something else altogether.
Also, to be quite frank quite a number of these people in the debate scene are indeed nothing more than snarky rogues or bullies, be they Christian or Muslim or other. There is absolutely no decorum. These individuals would just as well solve differences through a street fight than they would over careful consideration of a powerful thought provoking presentation. Can’t imagine these people being husband material and raising families. Why engage with them?
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
A good book, a good article and some hot chai! Now that is the stuff!
Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, With the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, The Most Merciful.
“The parable of those who spend of their substance in the way of Allah is that of a grain of corn: It grows seven ears, and each ear has a hundred grains. Allah gives manifold increase to whom He pleases; And Allah cares for all and He knows all things.” (Quran 2:261)
As salamu ‘alikum warahmutallahi wabarakuth (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings descend upon you in tranquility).
First and foremost there are allot more worthy causes, and people in need of your support. We all know about the recent earthquakes in Syria & Turkey. Not to mention there are places all throughout the world that do not even have wells, and/or access to clean drinking water. Throughout the world there are many orphanage’s. Likewise, zakaat and charity starts with your own family and community.
All of those causes are certainly more worthy.
There are four ways you can support Prima Qur’an.
#1) Financial support.
#2) By helping to purchase books for research.
#3) By sharing the articles in Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, blogs etc…
#4) By refuting the articles in this blog. Yes that is correct if something is in error it should be made known for the benefit of myself and others. You would also be in sin if this blog is transmitting inaccurate information about the faith and you did nothing to prevent it.
“Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it,- His heart is tainted with sin. And Allah Knoweth all that ye do.” (Qur’an 2: 283)
#5) Most of all by your sincere du’a, your heart felt prayers.
#1) Financial support.
Prima Qur’an humbly ask of the readers for any support. Many hours are invested in research of articles and compilation of material. Academics usually devote themselves fully for research. This web site is for truth seekers helping truth seekers.
If any of you are interested in assisting in this way please do let me know. You can e-mail me here jasonatreides11@gmail.com
If you have a desire to assist by sending money order/money gram/ bank transfer etc …
You can send me via paypal to thegrandverbalizer19@gmail.com
You can send to my account: Singapore OCBC 534-5-104169 Savings Account
534 Branch Code
OCBCSGSG (swift code)
Al hamdulillah that is also appreciated.
#2) By helping to purchase books for research.
I understand that many books are available in pdf format. However, I would like to have the books for two reasons.
A) Anyone who goes out of their way to write something deserves to be paid or supported for their efforts and this especially includes the many academics and scholars that I reference on this site.
B) It is easier for me to take notes from books and to quote their reference material.
I am currently looking for the following books…
The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam: The Authenticity of Muslim Literature from the Formative Period (Routledge Studies in the Qur’an) [Paperback] -Herbert Berg Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of Prophetic Traditions in Islam [Hardcover] -Aisha Y. Musa (Author)
Beings & Their Attributes: The Teaching of the Basrian School of the Mu’tazila in the Classical Period by Richard M. Frank (Sep 1978)
Shah, Mustafa (2011) ‘The Language of Hadith: Grammarians and the Traditions.’ In: Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics. E. J. Brill, pp. 10-32.
Authentication of Hadith: Redefining the Criteria -Israr Ahmad Khan
Misquoting Muhammed-Jonathan A.C Brown
Encyclopedia of Hadith Forgeries -Mulla ‘Ali Al-Qari translated by Gibril Fouad Haddad
Analyzing Muslim Traditions (Studies in Legal, Exegetical and Maghazi Hadith)-Harold Motzki
May Allah (swt) reward you all for your du’a, support and sincere efforts!
“Know than that the life of this world is but amusement, pomp, and mutual boasting among you and rivalry in respect of wealth and children; Here is a similitude: It is like the growth of vegetation after the rain, which delights the planter, but which then withers away, turns yellow and becomes worthless stubble. In the life to come there will be a terrible punishment, or God’s forgiveness and approval: the life of this world is nothing but means of deception.” (Qur’an 57:20)
“Oh Mankind! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know one another. Truly, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, All-Aware.” (Qur’an 49:13)
The Prophet (saw) said:
“Allah, Most High, has removed from you the pride of the pre-Islamic period and its boasting in ancestors. One is only a pious believer or a miserable sinner. You are sons of Adam, and Adam came from dust. Let people cease to boast about their ancestors. They are merely fuel in Jahannam; or they will certainly be of less account with Allah than the beetle which rolls dung with its nose.”
Source: ( Sunan Abi Dawud Book 43 Chapter 121 Hadith 1 )
Many in the Muslim ummah are aware of the weakening of the largest and most powerful Sunni Caliphate in Islamic history due to the Jewish infiltration of the Young Turks. However, one of the big lies circulating usually by those who are opponents of Salafiyyah and those whom they call the ‘Wahhabi’ is that Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab rebelled against the Ottoman Empire.
This is not true. He was never under the Ottoman Empire. Najd area of the Arabian peninsula was ruled by many different Arab tribes. It was not under Ottoman jurisdiction.
The real shocker is that the truth is as follows: The nail in the coffin of the Ottoman Empire, the final blow was dealt to it by a team up of the non believing British Empire and a descendant of the Prophet Muhammed (saw), that man being Hussein bin Ali.
Those who actually did khuruj against their leaders were Ashari’i/Shafi’i/ descendants of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who had the whispering of Shaytan planted in their ears and hearts so that they would rebel against the Maturidi /Hanafi Ottomans.
This super villain team up would consist of The Sharif Hussein Bin Ali and Mr. Lawrence of Arabia.
Just as Ali Ibn Abu Talib went against what Allah (swt) had laid down in the Qur’an at the battle of Siffin so did Hussein Bin Ali not follow what Allah (swt) instructed here:
“O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as guardians/protectors/allies—they are guardians/protectors/allies of each other. Whoever does so will be counted as one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 5:51)
Just as Ali fell for the ruse of Muaviyah at the battle of Siffin; which ended up being a catalyst for the Umayyad empire, so to did Hussein Bin Ali fall for the ruse of the British. Which ended up being a catalyst for the chaos we see in many Muslim nations.
Likely, the British made certain promises to Hussein Bin Ali about replacing a Turkish Caliphate with an Arab one. A promise the British had no intention of keeping.
They are guardians/protectors/allies of each other
Secret negotiations between the British and the French that culminated in the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, which effectively re-portioned between them the entirety of the Ottoman Empire, and later by the Balfour Declaration , which assured British support for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Basically, the creation of Occupied Palestine also known in some circles as ‘Israel’.
Hussein, however, apparently sufficiently convinced of British support, announced the launch of the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans in June 1916. With the British forces backing the Arab forces, they succeeded in dominating the Hejaz region of the Arabian Peninsula, Aqabah and Damascus.
In late 1918 Hussein’s son Faisal entered Damascus and began to set up an administration there in accordance, with what he believed, was his father’s understanding with the British. In March 1920 Greater Syria (Syria, Transjordan, Palestine and Lebanon) was proclaimed independent from rule by foreign powers and was declared a constitutional monarchy with Faisal as king, a move that directly challenged French interests there. At the Conference of San Remo April 1920, it was France’s claims to Syria that were formalized, and Syria was placed under French mandate. The decision (and Faisal’s capitulation to the terms of the agreement) sparked violent unrest that was met in July by French forces, which imposed an easy defeat and forced Faisal into exile.
For more information you can read about the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, the Conference of San Remo, and the Balfour Declaration. You get to read all about how the Muslims get dictated to by the Non Muslims on what land belongs to whom.
Three great great grandsons of the Blessed Prophet (saw). One of them became a proxy of the British.
British Proxy Abd Allāh al-Awwal bin al-HusaynALI BIN HUSSEIN Fayṣal al-Awwal bin al-Ḥusayn bin ‘Alī al-Hāshimī
Two of these descendants of Prophet Muhammed (saw), Faisal bin Al-Hussein bin Ali Al-Hashemi, and Ali bin Hussein had advised caution in cooperating with the British.
Another descendant of the Prophet Muhammed (saw), Abdullah al-Awwal bin al-Hussein. Instead of helping his brother Faisal – a fellow descendant of the Prophet (saw), against the French, he accepted an invitation from Winston Churchill for a “tea party”. He he convinced Abdullah not to help his brother against the kuffar.
He advised cooperation with the British at the expense of fellow Muslims. He was richly rewarded with the help of the British and assisted by Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Peake and John Bagot Glubb.
They of course created the ‘Arab Legion’. For his loyalty to the Non Muslims and staying his hand he was given what appeared to be “independence” in 1946 and proclaimed “King” Abdullah.
King Abdullah also supported the “Peel Commission” which proposed that Palestine be split up into smaller Jewish states. In 1947 when Palestine was split in half the British Proxy “King” Abdullah was the only one in favour of it.
King Talal ibn ‘Abd Allah who was treated for “mental disorders” courtesy of the British in a hospital in Geneva.
The British proxy “King” Abdullah was assassinated and his son, Ṭalāl ibn ʻAbd Allāh was now the new ruler of the British proxy state of Jordan. That is, he was ruler for 13 months until he was forced to resign due to schizophrenia.
The good ‘ol trusty British diplomats assisted in hustling him out of the country for psychiatric treatment and he was in a mental hospital in Geneva when he became king.
Allah (swt) knows best what they might have done to him in that hospital. Allah (swt) knows best what that poor soul went through growing up. The darkness that grips the enemies of Islam knows no boundaries.
Contrary to his wish to live in Saudi-ruled Hejaz after his abdication, Talal was sent to live the latter part of his life at a sanatorium in Istanbul and died there on 7 July 1972.
Al-Hussein ibn Talal “King” Hussein of the British Protectorate of Jordan.
Hussein was married four separate times and fathered eleven children, including King Abdullah II of Jordan and Princess Haya, WHO MARRIED THE RULER OF DUBAI.
1967 Six-Day War, which ended in Jordan’s loss of the West Bank. Some speculate that the war was staged so that Jordan could cede territory to occupied Palestine, known in some circles as “Israel.”
In 1970 Hussein expelled Palestinian fighters (fedayeen) from Jordan after they had threatened the country’s security in what became known as Black September.
The “King” renounced Jordan’s ties to the West Bank in 1988 after the Palestine Liberation Organization was recognized internationally as the sole representative of the Palestinians. Effectively leaving the Palestinians on their own.
“King” Hussein’s Marriage to Lisa Halaby.
It really is a surprise that those who believe that those who are descendants of the Blessed Messenger (saw) that some how their lineage is superior to all other lineages that out of all these Sharifeen women that Al Hussein ibn Talal could marry he set his sights on Toni Avril Gardiner. No one knows for sure how they met or who began the introductions. She went from London officer worker to “Queen” of Jordan.
You will find this anomaly time and time again. The anomaly of a “superior stock” of Sharifeen men setting their sights on non-Muslim women. In South East Asia it often frustrates the Sharifeen women who are not even given a choice to marry non Sharifeen Muslim women. Offering them instead to pursue a life of academics or live a life of spinsters.
Toni and Hussein together.
Toni and Hussein gave birth to ʿAbd Allāh aṯ-ṯānī ibn al-Ḥusayn also known as “King” Abdullah the second. They ended up getting a divorce in 1971.
Abd Allāh aṯ-ṯānī ibn al-Ḥusayn also known as “King” Abdullah the second.
Moving forward, “King” Abdullah the II had married a third time and that wife died in 1977. Very soon after her death he married American, Lisa Halaby in 1978. No one knows for sure how they met or who began the introductions. She went from regular American girl to “Queen” of Jordan.
One of the major achievements of this fourth “Queen” of “King” Abdullah was her eschewing of the Khimar. Or the garment of piety and righteousness that is common among observant Muslim women. Lisa Halby who know went under the name of “Queen Noor” was successful in showing young Muslim women all over the world that If a descendant of the Blessed Messenger (saw) doesn’t think I need to wear the garment of piety and righteousness you don’t either!
This is a tradition that has carried on with the new “King” of Jordan’s wife “Queen” Rania. The trend of looking sporty and fashionable in anything but the garment of piety and righteousness.
It was certainly the impact it had on many impressionable Muslim youth: “Wow! You mean Muslim women don’t have to wear the scarf!?”
So there you have it. The nail in the coffin of the Ottoman Empire given by the descendants of the Prophet Muhammed (saw). Those descendants in turn helped to parcel out the Muslim lands and territories, made peace with occupied Palestine, known in some corners as “Israel”.
We also know that Princess Haya, is married to the current ruler of Dubai (who has seems amicable towards occupied Palestine).
So let me in closing leave a very clear message to the Shi’i and the followers of Sufi Tariqah.
The descendants of the Blessed Prophet (saw) are normal people just like everyone else. They can attain to great heights of felicity and righteousness. Their acts of piety and goodness can be beyond awe-inspiring. They can also succumb to human frailties, their passions, lust, desires and ambitions like anyone else.
Some of them are saintly, worthy of allegiance and obedience and others are beastly
I will interact with and deal with the descendants of the Blessed Messenger (saw) based upon the apparent. I will not defer to them simply based on lineage. You can count me, and every thinking Muslim who takes the Qur’an as the primary source of guidance out!”
Say: “O Allah, Lord of all dominion! You give dominion to whom You will, and take away dominion from whom You will, and You exalt whom You will, and abase whom You will. In Your Hand is all good. Surely You are All-Powerful.” (Qur’an 3:26)
“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)
Why does Allah not call Himself al-Mutakallim (the Speaker)?
This was a question that was sent to a Salafi Q & A and the response was quite shocking. Not only do the Salafi use logic and reasoning to reject attributes of Allah (swt) they use flawed logic and reasoning to do so.
In order to make it clearer, we could word the question differently and say:
Is it permissible to derive from the attributes and actions of Allaah that He has confirmed for Himself names for Him by which He may be called and by which His slaves may call upon Him, and which may be added to the list of His names so as to attain the reward mentioned in the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) “Allaah has ninety-nine names. Whoever memorizes them will enter Paradise” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2736) and Muslim (2677), or are there guidelines concerning the derivation of His names from His attributes and actions?
It is essential first of all to ascribe wisdom to Allaah, may He be exalted, for He is absolutely perfect, and He is to be named and described in a manner that is befitting to Him. People should be guided by that which He has told them in His Book of His perfection, majesty and might; to Him all things return and He has great wisdom.
But we shall try to understand His names and attributes based on what is mentioned in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and ponder that so that we might derive some guidelines for defining His most beautiful names.
The scholars differed concerning that which the brother asked about, which let them to differ concerning the number of the beautiful names of Allaah and definition of guidelines concerning them. Some of them regarded it as the matter of worship only, in which there is no room for ijtihaad and qiyaas (analogy), as was the view of Ibn Hazm. Some of them were very lenient about this matter and allowed calling Allaah by names such as al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), al-Mureed (the Willer) and every other word by which Allaah is described in the Qur’aan and Sunnah. This was the view of Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maaliki and others.
Some scholars took a middle approach; they studied the reports of the divine names and found that if an attribute implied a sense of praise only and could not be taken as implying imperfection or fault in any way, such as hearing and sight, then in the texts names were derived from it, so Allaah called Himself al-Samee’ (the All-Hearing) and al-Baseer (the All-Seeing).
But if an attribute could be taken as implying imperfection in some way, such as speaking, for example, as speaking may include lying, wrongdoing and other bad meanings, in which case it is a shortcoming and silence is preferable to it, so we do not find a divine name that is derived from this attribute, so we do not find that one of the names of Allaah is al-Mutakallim (the Speaker).
This was the view of the great scholar Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim, and it is the view of most of our contemporary scholars.
Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Isfahaaniyyah (1/19-20):
As for calling Allaah, may He be exalted, Mureed (Willer) and Mutakallim (Speaker),
These two names are not mentioned in the Qur’aan, or among the well known divine names. Their meanings are true, but the well known divine names are those by which Allaah may be called upon, and are mentioned in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and which imply perfection and praise in and of themselves.
Knowledge, power, mercy and so on are in and of themselves praiseworthy attributes, and the names which point to them are praiseworthy names.
As for speech and will, they may be divided into praiseworthy types such as truthfulness and justice, and blameworthy types such as wrongdoing and lying. Allaah can only be described in praiseworthy terms, not blameworthy ones, hence His names do not include al-Mutakallim (the Speaker) or al-Mureed (the Willer). End quote.
He also (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Bayaan Talbees al-Jahamiyyah (2/10-11):
Allaah has the most beautiful names, by which He has called Himself, and has revealed them in His Book and taught to whomever He willed among His creation, such as al-Haqq (the Truth), al-‘Aleem (the All-Knowing), al-Raheem (the Most Merciful), al-Hakeem (the Most Wise), al-Awwaal (the First), al-Aakhir (the last), al-‘Aliy (the Most High), al-‘Azeem (the Almighty), al-Kabeer (the Most Great) and so on.
All of these names are names of praise which indicate praiseworthy meaning, and have no blameworthy meaning. To Allaah belong the most beautiful names, and He is perfect in all ways. Names which are more general in meaning and may be applied to both good and bad things are not found among the beautiful names of Allaah. End quote.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Mukhtasar al-Sawaa’iq (2/34):
The names of Allaah does not include al-Mureed (the Willer), al-Mutakallim (the speaker), al-Faa’il (the Doer) or al-Saani’ (the Manufacturer), because these names may apply to both good and bad. Rather He is described by praiseworthy names such as al-Haleem (the Forbearing), al-Hakeem (the Most Wise), al-‘Azeez (the Almighty), the One Who does what He wills. End quote.
He also (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Madaarij al-Saalikeen (3/415-416):
That which may carry meanings of both perfection and imperfection is not included among the divine names, such as al-shay’ (thing) and ma’loom (known). Hence He is not called al-Mureed (the Willer) or al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), because these names may carry good and bad meanings. This is based on subtle understanding of the divine names and attributes, so think about it. And Allaah is the Source of strength. End quote.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Sharh al-Waasitiyyah (1/86):
Hence Allaah did not call Himself al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), although He speaks, because speech may be good or bad, and it may be neither good nor bad. Evil cannot be attributed to Allaah, and idle speech cannot be attributed to Him either, because it is foolishness; only good can be attributed to Him. Hence He did not call Himself al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), because the names are as Allaah has ascribed to Himself. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allaah” [al-‘A’raaf 7:180]. They do not include anything that suggests imperfection. End quote.
See also the answer to question no. 39803 and 48964.
For more information please see the book Mu’taqad Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah fi Asma’ Allaah al-Husna by Dr Muhammad ibn Khaleefah al-Tameemi (50-59).
And Allaah knows best.
PRIMA QUR’AN COMMENTS:
Well, can you imagine the Athari/ Salafiyyah making a big fuss about the Qur’an being the speech of Allah (swt) and than claiming that speech is an attribute of Allah (swt) and than turning around and admitting that Allah (swt) never called Himself “Al-Mutakallim”.
Then, saying that this is not appropriate to call Allah (swt) as Al-Mutakallim because speech may be good or bad! Yet they claim evil cannot be attributed to Allah (swt).
Pardon me for being more Athari than the Athari, but if your basic principle is that Allah (swt) cannot lie and that Allah (swt) does no evil than attributing the name of Al Mutakallim to Allah (swt) based upon that alone is not problematic.
Likewise simple logic. If the basic principle is that Allah (swt) cannot lie and that Allah (swt) does no evil and wills no evil than there is no harm in attributing the name of Al-Mureed. How can it be imagined that Allah (swt) wills evil?
In fact by the logic and the reasoning that the Athari/Salafi use in the above article you could reject the names of All Seeing and All Hearing.
Why? Because it is possible to hear gossip, and vile things. It is possible to witness and see vile and evil things.
Certainly Allah (swt) hears (perceives) and sees (knows) that which we as believers are forbidden to listen to and see. Allah (swt) has full grasp of all knowledge.
So the reasoning and logic given by the Athari/Salafi for rejecting the names of Al-Mureed or Al Mutakallim are not sound nor consistent.
“That which may carry meanings of both perfection and imperfection is not included among the divine names, such as al-shay’ (thing) and ma’loom (known)“
Notice that they do not believe it is appropriate to call Allah (swt) al-shay (The Thing). Not a thing (one among many) but The Thing.
Things brings them directly in conformity with Mu’tazilite/Ashari/Māturīdī theology.
Why?
Qur’an 42:11 the verse quoted in the beginning of the article the Arabic text states:
“laysa kamith’lihi shayon” (There is not like Him anything).
So, there is even a textual evidence that someone could come along and say, “We say Allah (swt) is a thing unlike other things.” Yet, this is not a good descriptor of The Divine.
There are no two things alike. Even things we deem identical have different properties and/or attributes.
Look what they quote from Ibn Al Qayyim above:
“That which may carry meanings of both perfection and imperfection is not included among the divine names, such as al-shay’ (thing) and ma’loom (known). Hence He is not called al-Mureed (the Willer) or al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), because these names may carry good and bad meanings. This is based on subtle understanding of the divine names and attributes, so think about it.”
“This is based on subtle understanding of the divine names and attributes, so think about it“-Ibn Al Qayyim
Mash’Allah now only if our Athari/Salafi friends would think about it!
(After rebuking his people) Moses turned to Aaron and said: “Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following my way? Have you disobeyed my command? Aaron answered: “Son of my mother! Do not seize me with my beard, nor by (the hair of) my head. I feared that on returning you might say: ‘You sowed discord among the Children of Israel, and did not pay heed to my words.” (Qur’an 20:91-93)
This is in response to other hadith that the Shi’i often use to try to justify their claims of Ali being the correct or rightful Amir of the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
It is another example (of many) of them making a mountain out of a molehill.
The following hadith comes to mind:
Narrated Sa`d:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) set out for Tabuk. appointing `Ali as his deputy (in Medina). `Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet (saw) said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
This hadith shows clear as day light that Ali was not pleased being left to take charge of the affairs of the people of Medina.
Rather than seeing this as an honor bestowed upon him as one being most trustworthy to take care of the most vulnerable Ali saw it as a slight.
So not being content with trusting his station to in his Imam which is none other than the Blessed Messenger (saw), Ali quipped, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?”
Because the Shi’i cannot prove their case for the concept of rulership of Ahl Bayt from the Qur’an they must quickly pivot the conversation to hadith they feel justify their position.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) is said to have replied to the recalcitrant Ali,
“Will you not be pleased that you will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
Some how the Shi’i seem to close to their eyes over the fact that the Blessed Messenger (saw) as trying to console his otherwise, unhappy cousin.
Perhaps Ali sought glory or standing in the battlefield? Allah (swt) knows best. Yet, the Blessed Messenger (saw) gave Ali a more noble task than what Ali could have longed for.
The Shi’i run wild.
So, the Shi’i become laser focused on the part: “You will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
They start to surmise that this must be a strong indication that Ali without a doubt is the one who lead the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw) is gone.
So they start to imagine that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said things that he did not say. For example the hadith says, ‘no prophet after me’ but it does not say ‘no messenger after me’.
So perhaps Ali could be a Messenger after the Prophet Muhammed (saw) ?
The Shi’i who are known to be lovers of Qiyas (analogy) so well …maybe just this once.. 😉 🤫
So with the above hadith in tow we can quickly turn to the Qur’an and find:
“We made an appointment of thirty nights with Moses (On Mount Sinai) to which We added ten more; so the term set by the Lord was completed in forty nights. Moses said to Aaron, his brother: “Deputize for me ((ukh’luf’nī) among my people. Dispose rightly, and do not follow the way of the authors of evil.” (Qur’an 7:142)-Ahmed Ali
“And We treated with Musa thirty nights, and We completed them with ten; so the appointment of his Lord was completed by forty nights. And Musa said unto his brother Harun: act thou (ukh’luf’nī) in my place among my people, and rectify, and follow not the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)=Abdul Majid Daryabadi
As archaic and jumbled as Abdul Majid Daryabadi’s translation sounds to me it best represents both the Arabic and the context. Although, Ahmed Ali’s translation is good as well.
As always because I am not here to tell you how to think or what to think but for you to research and come to your own conclusions please proceed to:
Even some of the more modern translations do a very horrible job of translating the verse:
For example Sahih International has:
“And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights and perfected them by [the addition of] ten; so the term of his Lord was completed as forty nights. And Moses said to his brother Aaron, “Take my place among my people, do right [by them], and do not follow the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)
“Take my place.” No. Moses was not going any where permanently. Not even the Shi’i believe that Ali takes the place of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The following translators translate (ukh’luf’nī) in a Shi’i friendly manner.
Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar-Iranian Christian translator Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali -Al Ahzar Ali Quli Qara’i -Shi’i translator Ali Bakhtiari Nejad -Shi’ia translator The Monotheist Group [2013 Edition]-Quranist
The following translate the verse that I feel is best expresses the meaning of ukh’luf’nī given the context.
Abdul Majid Daryabadi Ahmed Ali Hamid S Aziz A.L Bilal Muhammad et al Mushraff Hussain Mohammed Shafi
So we know that it cannot mean to “take my place” permanently because Moses came back. We also know that it cannot mean to take my place in succession. How do we know this?
“Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses.” (Deuteronomy 34:9)
The following which quite literally is titled: Joshua to Succeed Moses
Then Moses went out and spoke these words to all Israel: “I am now a hundred and twenty years old and I am no longer able to lead you. The Lord has said to me, ‘You shall not cross the Jordan.’ The Lord your God himself will cross over ahead of you. He will destroy these nations before you, and you will take possession of their land. Joshua also will cross over ahead of you, as the Lord said. And the Lord will do to them what he did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, whom he destroyed along with their land. The Lord will deliver them to you, and you must do to them all that I have commanded you. Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”
Then Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the presence of all Israel, “Be strong and courageous, for you must go with this people into the land that the Lord swore to their ancestors to give them, and you must divide it among them as their inheritance. The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”
Next time your overly excited Shi’a friend starts to tell you about the above hadith and quotes the above verse of the Qur’an do inform them what it says just 8 verses latter.
“And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by [the hair of] his head, pulling him toward him. [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 7:150)
“And recall when We summoned Moses for a term of forty nights, and then you set up the calf as your god in his absence. You indeed committed a grave wrong.” (Qur’an 2:51)
Moses scolded ˹his brother˺, “O Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following after me? How could you disobey my orders? Aaron pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or ˹the hair of˺ my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” (Qur’an 20:92-94)
So if the Shi’i want to make Ali analogous to Harun (a.s) in a very literal way we have some real problems.
1) Are we to believe that it only takes the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to be gone for 40 days as Ali fearing for his life allows the people to fall into blatant shirk?
2) Are we to believe there is a scenario where the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is so furious with Ali that he snatches him up by his beard?!
3) Are we to believe there is a scenario where the Blessed Prophet (saw) scolded Ali for disobeying his orders? Even to the point where Ali felt that the Prophet Muhammed (saw) would say that he (Ali) caused division among the Muslims?
4) Keep in mind that Moses (a.s) like the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) would have been given knowledge by Allah (swt) that Aaron (a.s) was not in any way shape or form in dereliction of his duties. Yet Musa (a.s) snatched Aaron (a.s) up!
I do not believe these are things the Shi’i are willing to entertain regarding Ali.
Alas we also have the following:
Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin Abbas
“Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of Allah’s Apostle during his fatal illness. The people asked, “O Abu Hasan (i.e. Ali)! How is the health of Allah’s Apostle this morning?” ‘Ali replied, “He has recovered with the Grace of Allah.” ‘Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, “In three days you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else), And by Allah, I feel that Allah’s Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of ‘Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah’s Apostle and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us.” ‘Ali said, “By Allah, if we asked Allah’s Apostle for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah’s Apostle for it.”
It is quite clear that Ibn Abbas was not aware of any Shi’i interpretations that Ali should be the one to lead the Muslims after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Ali himself was not of the understanding that it was something that was his to take simply by being related to the Blessed Prophet (saw).
This is another reason why it is best to take make the Qur’an the pillar of our theology and faith as the hadith have reports that the Shi’i themselves wince at.
There there is this juicy piece straight from Nahjul balagha itself. Straight from a Shi’i website:
“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it. When the caliphate came to me, I kept the Book of Allah in my view and all that Allah had put therein for us, and all that according to which He has commanded us to take decisions; and I followed it, and also acted on whatever the Prophet – may Allah bless him and his descendants – had laid down as his sunnah. In this matter I did not need your advice or the advice of anyone else, nor has there been any order of which I was ignorant so that I ought to have consulted you or my Muslim brethren. If it were so I would not have turned away from you or from others.”
Source: (Nahjul Balagha Sermon 205)
This sermon is said to have happened long after the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) died. This sermon itself proves that Ali never considered that he was already the appointed Khilafa of the Muslims.
He said, “When the Caliphate came to me.”. This means he was not the Caliph at the time, he recognized it as such and nor did he want it. Someone who is divinely appointed by Allah (swt) to the Khilafa of the Muslims takes pride in it, claims it and upholds that as a great trust.
Someone who recognizes they are not divinely appointed but that people had chosen who will lead them and than gets thrusted into a position of leadership makes the kind of statements that Ali made above.
Dear brothers and sisters and truth seekers. We are not to be ruled by a particular tribe of people, be it the Qurash or the Children of Israel. It is not human destiny to be ruled by the Jews or the Arabs. We are not to be ruled over by a particular family. The Shi’i themselves are in disarray over that matter.
We are to be ruled by any righteous Muslim (regardless of family, tribe, ethnicity) that meets and fulfils the conditions to be the Imam.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
“Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally in that. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6)
Analyzing the Hadith: Khawarij are the dogs of hellfire!!
This is an analysis of the hadith that are attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw), in terms of their chains of narration and analysis of the transmitters and the text being transmitted.
Ibn Sirin said:
“Nobody used to ask about the isnad (chain of narration), but when the fitna occurred (infighting among the companions), they would question others by asking: “Tell us the names of your men?” After this they were cautious about every narrator, and they would take narrations from those who were known to be scrupulous in following the Sunnah, and leave (or reject) the narrations of those who were known as innovators in religion.”
Source: (Muslim Volume 1 P. 15)
Hadith: Khawarij are the dogs of hellfire.
This huge statement attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) comes to us by way of two companions.
The first is by way of Abdullah Ibn Abi Awfa.
‘Abdullah Ibn Abi Awfa
It was narrated that Ibn Awfa said:
“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.'”
Source: (Sunan Ibn Majah 173 The Book of Sunnah)
The chain for this hadith is: Abu Bakr bin Abi Shayba narrates from Ishaq bin Yusuf bin Mrdas narrating from Sulaiman bin Mahran al-Ahmash narrating from Abdullah Ibn Abi Awfa.
al-Ahmash is known as a Mudallas.
A Mudallas (“concealed”) in hadith is one which is weak due to the uncertainty caused by tadlis. Tadlis (concealing) refers to an isnad where a reporter has concealed the identity of his Shaykh.
Tadlis al-Isnad. A person reports from his Shaykh whom he met, what he did not hear from him, or from a contemporary of his whom he did not meet, in such a way as to create the impression that he heard the hadith in person. A mudallis (one who practices tadlis) here usually uses the mode (“on the authority of”) or (“he said”) to conceal the truth about the isnad.
Next we will look at this hadith as it comes to us by way of Abu Umamah Al Bahili
Abu Ghalib narrated that Abu Umamah said:
“(The Khawarij) are the worst of the slain who are killed under heaven, and the best of the slain are those who were killed by them. Those (Khawarij) are the dogs of Hell. Those people were Muslims but they became disbelievers.” I said: “O Abu Umamah, is that your opinion?” He said: “Rather I heard IT from the Messenger of Allah (saw).”
Source: (Sunan Ibn Majah 176. The Book of the Sunnah)
Comments:
Notice that to Abu Ghalib this is not some common knowledge or something well known.
Also, note that he asked Abu Umamah if that was his opinion or rather he heard IT from the Blessed Messenger (saw). Another point of consideration is that the ‘it‘ is not qualified. What part of his statement is he actually saying he heard from the Blessed Messenger (saw)? Notice the statement of takfir “They used to be Muslims but they became disbelievers.”
The very thing they accuse the so called ‘Khawarij’ of doing are that which they themselves are doing!
Narrated Abu Ghalib:
“Abu Umamah saw heads (of the Khawarij) hanging on the streets of Damascus. He said: ‘The dogs of the Fire and the worst dead people under the canopy of the heavens. The best dead men are those whom these have killed.’ He then recited: On the Day when some faces will become white and some faces will become black… (3:106) until the end of the Ayah. I said to Abu Umamah: ‘Did you hear IT from the Messenger of Allah (saw)?’ He said: ‘If I had not heard IT but one time, or two times, or three times, or four times – until he reached seven – I would not have narrated it to you.'”
Source: (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3000 Chapters on Tafsir)
Comments:
Notice that to Abu Ghalib this is not some common knowledge or something well known. Also note that he asked Abu Umamah if that was his opinion or rather he heard IT from the Blessed Messenger (saw). Another point of consideration is that the ‘IT’ is not qualified. Also notice how apparently this individual takes an ayat of the Qur’an that is used to describe unbelievers and arguably applies the text to believers (or former believers). Again, something they accuse the so called ‘Khawarij’ of doing! Lastly, this text differs remarkably from the first one. Unless someone wants to make the spacious argument that Abu Ghalib is relating two different instances. That makes the matter worse because it makes Abu Ghalib question Abu Umamah’s statement as being truthful on two different occasions!
These hadith that are coming via Abu Umamah al Bahili are by four ways and they are all da’if.
Insh’Allah we will update this article in the near future with a graph/chart to demonstrate this. Also, it is extremely telling to note that Abu Umamah al Bahili was in the battle of Siffin on the side of Ali, even after the events.
OVER ALL ASSEMENT OF THE THREE HADITH ABOVE.
The Blessed Messenger (saw) never call people dogs. The strongest condemnation of unbelievers and those who reject the message of truth comes from Allah (swt) in the Qur’an: “Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6). Allah (swt) never called anyone dogs, let alone the Blessed Messenger (saw)
Now dear reader imagine you are walking with a friend of yours. This friend suddenly says, “And the Litharians are the worst of people! They are absolute scum!”
Wouldn’t that be odd? Wouldn’t you want to have some context to this statement?
Considering this statement: “dogs of hellfire” coming from the lips of the Blessed Messenger (saw) it should have more context and more background to it and it simply doesn’t!
It just gives the impression that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was walking around during the brisk afternoon and stated: “The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.” Really? Just like that? No context?
The three hadith quoted above give you absolutely no context. Now what Ahl Sunnah does is that they take these hadith and juxtapose them besides other hadith to paint a picture. However, these hadith quoted above give no picture, no context and no clue to the situation that has given rise to the very strong words that are allegedly used by the Blessed Messenger (saw).
This is a huge statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw). Only two of the companions narrate this?
The other point is that the word ‘Khawarij’ was not in use in the time of 640 Hijra. This is a tell tale sign itself.
Now, if we want to talk about a hadith that talks about rebels or those who do khurooj. Why not talk about a hadith that has no ambiguity in the text or in its chain of transmission? Then we can know who these ‘khawarij’ are.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“That Ibn `Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
Source: (al-Bukhari 2812 Book 56, Hadith 28)
Now this presents a clear dilemma for Ahl Sunnah and the Pro Alid camp. They are in a pickle. However, it does not present a dilemma for truth seekers.
Are we to believe that Ikrima (r.a) whom is an impeccable narrator, and whom narrated the above hadith about Ammar that is used by the pro Alid camp to attack the Ummayad’s was among the dogs of the hellfire?
Or,
Is it more likely given the ambiguity of the ‘dogs of the hell fire’ text quoted above, no context for such a tremendous statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw), and the issues surrounding the chains of transmission that they are indeed fabrications with malevolent intent? May Allah (swt) open your hearts and your eyes dear readers.
I recommend the following articles for you dear reader. Remember the victors write history and know that Allah (swt) will allow the truth to prevail in the end.
Say, ‘Truth has come and falsehood has been banished; it is doomed to banishment.'” (Qur’an 17:81)
Prima Quran 