The Age of Aisha and the Highly Detailed Qur’an?

Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you. For every person among them is what he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof – for him is a great punishment. Why, when you heard it, did not the believing men and believing women think good of one another and say, “This is an obvious falsehood”? Why did they not produce for it four witnesses? And when they do not produce the witnesses, then it is they, in the sight of Allah, who are the liars. And if it had not been for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy in this world and the Hereafter, you would have been touched for that in which you were involved by a great punishment. When one tongue received it from another and you uttered with your mouths something /that you knew nothing about. You deemed it to be a trifle while in the sight of Allah it was a serious matter. And why, no sooner than you had heard it, did you not say: “It becomes us not even to utter such a thing? Holy are You! This is a great slander.” Allah admonishes you: If you are true believers, never repeat the like of what you did. Allah makes clear to you his verses. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 1-18)


From the perspective of the Qur’an Only Religion all one can say is that something happened, to someone, somewhere. There are many many details that are left out of this passage alone, let other parts of the Qur’an.

Who are those  who came with falsehood? Qur’an answer: irrelevant.

What as the nature  of the falsehood/allegation? Qur’an answer: irrelevant.

We can only assume based upon the key phrase “Why did they not produce for it four witnesses?” That someone, somewhere, accused somebody of either adultery/fornication. That is the best we can surmise from the text. Interestingly this section ends with “Allah makes clear to you his verses.”


So recently a follower of the Qur’an Only Religion who goes by the moniker of “The British Muslim” decided that the Qur’an just doesn’t cut the mustard when it comes to clarifying the age of Aisha (r.a). So he decided to make this video: 


So instead of going to the text that he felt “left nothing out” and is “highly detailed” he went to extraneous sources to satisfy his curiosity. However, this is inconsistent to the methodology of the Qur’an Only Religion. the Qur’an Only Religion teaches us that all we need is the Qur’an, the whole Qur’an, and nothing but the Qur’an.  Even though for some odd reason Allah (swt) associated himself with a human being my name the name of Muhammed (saw) and used him as a vehicle to convey his message, even though Allah (swt) states clearly he could have done otherwise. 

Yet for some reason(in the warped thinking of the Qur’an Only community)  having the divine speech pass through the vehicle of a human being is not shirk (associating a partner with Allah). 


In reality the position of the Qur’an Religion in regards to Aisha (r.a) is this:  Aisha who? Who is she? Why does she even matter? She doesn’t. The Qur’an does not mention her at all. All we know is that some guy named Muhammed (saw) received the Qur’an. There is no mention of his last name or his father’s name. Nothing. It’s just Muhammed, nothing more and nothing less. 

The truth of the matter is that from a Qur’an Only perspective it does not give a specific appropriate age for getting married. This has been made abundantly clear is this article:   


In this article I was interacting with the material from a member of the Qur’an Only Religion that goes by the pseudonym ‘Joseph Islam’ and perhaps he was uncomfortable with the vary obvious fact that Allah (swt) decreed that WOMEN start ovulating at 11 and 12 and can conceive children.  You may be interested in seeing my conversation with a member of the Qur’an Only Religion. Even he acknowledged that the Qur’an doesn’t stipulate an age for marriage. However, he had tried in his own way to force the Qur’an to say what he felt was the appropriate age for marriage. 


You the discerning reader be the judge.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Qur’an Only sect Kala Kato burns four children alive and continues a campaign of terror.

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption done in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, even after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.” (Qur’an 5:32)


The problem with the Qur’an only religion is that it has the ability to be far far more violent than anything you would find in the religion of Islam. In Islam as we follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah we have very clear restrictions put upon us when it regards war and combat.


It has been related that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said:

You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to God. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves… Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the spoils, and do not be cowardly.” Source: (Mālik ibn Anas, and Abū Muṣ’ab Al-Zuhri. Muwaṭṭa’ Al-Imām Mālik. (Bayrūt: Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 1993) 1:357 #918.)


According to the Qur’an only religion based upon their faulty understanding of Islam’s sacred text they believe that there is nothing included in a book that is fully detailed and leaves nothing out that explicitly states: “Do not kill women or children.” This is frightening. We see this on full display with Kalo Kato


In fact due to the interpretative principles applied by any number of the federation of sects included in the Qur’an Only Religion they can manipulate such as the following:


Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption done in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, even after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.” (Qur’an 5:32)


The apparent and clear reading of this verse is that the killing of a soul unless for a soul or corruption in the land is that this is only a decree for the children of Israel, not necessarily for anyone else. The phrase “corruption done in the land” is also not clearly defined or detailed. These type of general and vague expressions allow for sects among the Qur’an Only Religion, like Kalo Kato to reign down death and terror upon any who get in their way.


A resident of the area said they sensed trouble when the preacher of the sect during today’s morning prayers started denouncing other Islamic sects as infidels and condemning the action against the Boko Haram sect members when according to him, ‘they were preaching the truth.’ ”
— “An eyewitness, Kamal said the sect members descended on a listener who challenged the preachers before they went wild attacking anyone in sight and burning houses.” Source:


You can read more about this violent Qur’an Only Religion sect here:

What is both revealing and frightening is that the only country on the Earth where a sizeable portion of the population has followed Qur’an only ideology that once they gained a foothold in an area takfiri ideology, and violent fanaticism manifested!

I really hope that is not a portend of things to come. 


It is hoped that all followers of the Qur’an Only Religion would condemn the acts of this Qur’an Only Sect and it is hoped that they would interpret the text in a very different way than what Kala Kato has done.




Filed under Uncategorized

Nothing left out of this book? The Manipulation of the Qur’an only Religion

And who is more unjust than one who invents about Allah a lie or denies His verses? Indeed, the wrongdoers will not succeed.” (Qur’an 6:21)


Now one thing you will immediately notice when dealing with the Qur’an only religion is that most of them do not even speak Arabic. Most of them try and appeal to converts (who have very poor or weak Arabic). They have a reason for doing this, because they prey upon the fact that you do not understand the Arabic and thus, are able to manipulate what the text says.


A prime example is their manipulation of this verse:


We did not leave anything out of this book.” (Qur’an 6:38) Now as my website is directed primarily to an English speaking audience let me ask you this.

Is there a difference between saying:

We did not leave anything out of this book.” and

We did not leave anything out of the book.”


If I were to say ‘the book’ then this is vague. What book am I actually referring to? If I say ‘this book’ than I am referring to a book that is actually with me.

The Arabic word used here is l-kitabi. L-kitabi need not necessarily be a reference to the Qur’an at all.

It is the same word that is used in the following verses:


And there followed them successors who inherited the book taking the commodities of this lower life and saying, “It will be forgiven for us.” And if an offer like it comes to them, they will take it. Was not the covenant of the book taken from them that they would not say about Allah except the truth, and they studied what was in it? And the home of the Hereafter is better for those who fear Allah, so will you not use reason?” (Qur’an 7:169)


It is very obvious that l-kitabi Is not a reference to the Qur’an in the above text.


And We conveyed to the Children of Israel in the book that, “You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach haughtiness.” (Qur’an 17:4)

It is very obvious that l-kitabi is a not a reference to the Qur’an as it was sent down to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).

“And do not argue with the People of the book  except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our Allah and your Allah is one; and we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 29:46)


It is very obvious that l-kitabi is not a reference to the Qur’an in the above verse.

Have you not considered those who practice hypocrisy, saying to their brothers who have disbelieved among the People of the Book, “If you are expelled, we will surely leave with you, and we will not obey, in regard to you, anyone – ever; and if you are fought, we will surely aid you.” But Allah testifies that they are liars.” (Qu’ran 59:11)


Can you imagine Allah (swt) calling (ahli Qur’an) people of the Qur’an liars? Obviously l-kitabi above is not a reference to the Qur’an.

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the book  and the polytheist will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6)

Can you imagine Allah (swt) saying those who disbelieved among the (ahli Qur’an) will be with the polytheist in hell forever? It is obvious that l-kitabi above is not a reference to the Qur’an.


The logical contradiction.


We did not leave anything out of this book.” (Qur’an 6:38)

In order for this verse to be true in the way that those who follow the Qur’an only religion would have us to believe this verse would have to be the last verse revealed in the Qur’an. If any other verses came after it, this entails a logical and absolutely devastating blow to their position.


The Qur’an was not sent down all at once.


And those who disbelieve say: Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? Thus, that We may strengthen your heart thereby. And We have revealed it to you gradually, in stages.” (Qur’an 25:32) 


Also if they don’t know the last verse of the Qur’an to be revealed that also is a logical and devastating blow to the way they understand the verse. Because it means that what was revealed first and last has been left out of the Qur’an! This is important for their argument.


Allah (swt) has clearly told us that he has not included everything in the Qur’an.


And messengers We have mentioned unto you before and messengers We have not mentioned unto you; and Allah spoke directly to Moses.” (Qur’an 4:164)


So how exactly do we understand the verse that is consistent with not only logic but with the Qur’an itself?



And the book will be placed open, and you will see the criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, “Oh, woe to us! What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has enumerated it?” And they will find what they did present before them. And your Lord does injustice to no one.” (Qur’an 18:49)


Are we really to understand this to mean ,”So as for he who is given the Qur’an in his right hand, he will say, “Here, read my Qur’an!” No. That is ridiculous. It is very obvious that l-kitabi (this book) above is not a referee to the Qur’an at all. Rather it is a reference to the book that contains each and every single act that we have done. The Qur’an for example obviously does not contain each and every evil small or great that humans have done.


So as for he who is given his book in his right hand, he will say, “Here, read my book! (Qur’an 69:19)


But as for he who is given his book behind his back.” (Qur’an 84:10)


Are we really to understand this as “But as for he who is given his Qur’an behind his back?”   It is best if we understand (Qur’an 6:38) in light of a verse that will help bring clarity to the confusion of those who follow the Qur’an Only Religion.

If only they were guided to reflect upon the following verse:

There is no creature on earth whose sustenance is not undertaken by Allah. He knows where it lives and where it rests. Everything is in a Book that is clear.” (Qur’an 11:6)


It should be more than obvious that both the verses above refer to some celestial register where the minutia of all things are kept, and not tot he Qur’an. 



The verse (Qur’an 6:38) itself does not indicate if it is talking about the Qur’an or not. 


It is only through secondary sources that we know that.

The only way out from this air tight argument from an intra-Qura’n perspective is to accept the verses mentioned above that make one realize that it is talking about the book of deeds that is with Allah (swt).

The followers of the Qur’an Only Religion don’t want to accept this because it completely nukes one of their central talking points.


Dear readers those people who follow the Qur’an only religion more often than not have very poor and weak knowledge of the Arabic language. Many of them can barely speak it, if at all. You do not see them offering to recite to you the Qur’an in Arabic, with proper recitation. The level of understanding of Arabic among them is quite atrocious. This is not to be mean; however, to be brutally honest. This is why they rely upon such very weak arguments to present their case.



Filed under Uncategorized

The Qur’an Only Religion and their confusion in regards to Allah’s judgement.


“And if you differ in any matter among yourselves, then refer it back to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (Qur’an 4:59)


Say: “O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel,and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.” It is the revelation that comes to you from your Lord,, that increases most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow you not over (these) people without Faith.” (Qur’an 5:68)


I am not going to leave Islam for the shallow and vacuous federation of sects that are collectively known as the “Qur’an only religion.” A federation of competing sects that say we ignore what Allah (swt) says.


They themselves cannot even agree what the prayer is. They supposedly believe that Allah (swt) is clear. They supposedly believe that Allah (swt) wanted us to pray…..something….somehow…. That simply is not clarity.



Allah (swt) clearly told us to accept “all the revelation” that has come to us.

“So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?” (Qur’an 2:85)

In reality these Qur’an rejectors (for that is what they are) do exactly this. They accept certain parts of the Qur’an and reject others. In fact I do not think it is right to even call them “Qur’an Only” because the truth is, they are Qur’an partially, which renders them disbelievers.



Whosoever judges not according to what Allah has sent down-they are the ungodly”. (Qur’an 5:47)

Whoso judges not according to what Allah has sent down-they are the un­believers”. (Qur’an 5:44)

Whoso judges not according to what Allah has sent down-they are the evil­doers”. (Qur’an 5:45)

Very powerful verses. Who ever does not judge according to what Allah has sent down are ungodly, unbelievers and evil-doers. An apt description for the Qur’an rejectors.


And what exactly is it that Allah has sent down?


Well, Allah (swt) has also sent down the following verses:

“And if you differ in any matter among yourselves, then refer it back to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (Qur’an 4:59)


Allah has also sent down the following:

It is not for any believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have the choice in the affair. Whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has gone astray into manifest error”. (Qur’an 33:36)


When they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them, lo, a party of them swerve aside; but if they are in the right, they will come to him submissively. What, is there sickness in their hearts, or are they in doubt, or do they fear that Allah and his Messenger maybe unjust towards them ? Nay, but those-they are the wrongdoers”. (Qur’an 24:48-50)


All that the believers say, when they are called to Allah and His Messenger, to judge between them, is that they say, `We hear, and we obey’; those-they are the successful”. (Qur’an 24:51)


Allah AND his Messenger have decreed a matter. Allah AND his Messenger. Why the redundant language? Why not simply say Allah alone?

So do those who follow the Qur’an only religion (Qur’an rejectors) accept these verses or not? In reality they do not. They believe that the sovereign Creator of the universe uses redundant language! May Allah (swt) guide them!

They clearly do not judge by what Allah (swt) has sent down because in what Allah (swt) has sent down is the Qur’an which says that we are to submit to the judgement of Allah and his Messenger.


So let us unpack this. When we take the Qur’an as a whole. We can see that there is:

  1. The judgement of Allah (swt).

So judge between them according to what Allah has sent down, and do not follow their caprices”. (Qur’an 5:48)

  1. The judgement of the Messenger of Allah (swt).  

    If they come to you, judge you between them, or turn away from them; if you turn away from them, they will hurt you nothing; and if you judge, judge justly between them; Allah loves the just”. (Qur’an 5:42)



Both are sources of judgement.

However, the judgement of Muhammed (saw) can be over-ruled by the judgement of Allah (swt). We made this abundantly clear in our article here:

The judgement of the Blessed Prophet (saw) cannot over rule the judgement of Allah (swt).


Out of all judgements the judgement of Allah (swt) is the best and Allah (swt) has made that clear here:

Is it the judgement of the times of ignorance they are seeking? Yet who is fairer in judgement than Allah, for a people having conviction?” ( Qur’an 5:50)

Who is fairer in judgement than Allah. Again it is not that others cannot judge it’s just that Allah’s judgement is the best judgement and no one argue against that.

Just like the Qur’an no where , and I repeat no where says that we are to reject all the hadith, it simply tell us that there is no better hadith than that of Allah’s, and no one can argue against that.


Allah (swt) has made that clear that when he has given his judgement on a matter that is what we are to go by. Allah (swt) has made that clear here:


Surely We have sent down to thee the Book with the truth, so that you may judge between the people by that Allah has shown you. So be not an advocate for the traitors”. (Qur’an 4:105)


Which is exactly the Prima-Qur’an position. Not to not take anything above the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the filter.


So what about what Allah (swt) has not shown therein?

Well unlike what the Qur’an only religion teaches, we believe that Allah (swt) is very clear about this. Allah (swt) says:

But no, by you Lord! they will not believe till they make you the judge regarding the disagreement between them and then find in themselves no impediment touching your verdict, but surrender in full submission”. (Qur’an 4:65)

The above verses clearly explain the sacred duty of litigants in a disagreement or dispute are to take recourse to the Messenger of Allah (swt) and no other person. It also places upon the litigants the solemn duty of complete submission to his judgement.


What is interesting is that the followers of the “Qur’an only religion” also known as: Qur’an rejectors, is that take their own interpretations of the scripture as guidance and yet reject the guidance of the Messenger of Allah!

“O two companions of the prison! Are many different deities better, or Allah, the One, the Irresistible? You do not worship besides Him, except names which you and your forefathers have forged,
for which Allah has sent down no authority. The Judgement is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none except Him. That is the standard religion. But most of mankind do not know.” (Qur’an 12:39-40)


So is Allah (swt) saying that no one can judge but Allah?


That would be very weird to give human beings laws about punishing adulterers and fornicators, protecting the rights of orphans, property, bringing forth witnesses and testimony and having no court system, no laws and no judges.

Consume not your goods between you in vanity; neither proffer it to the judges, that you may sinfully consume a portion of other men’s goods, and that wittingly”. (Qur’an 2:188)


And if there should be a group among you who has believed in that with which I have been sent and a group that has not believed, then be patient until Allah judges between us. And He is the best of judges.” (Qur’an 7:87)


Allah (swt) has clearly mentioned other judges than him. First and foremost are the verses that have already been mentioned about the Blessed Prophet (saw) also being a judge.


Allah (swt) has clearly mentioned the steps that believers are to take when having disagreements.


“And if you differ in any matter among yourselves, then refer it back to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (Qur’an 4:59)


And whatever you are at variance on, the judgement thereof belongs to Allah. That then is Allah, my Lord; in Him I have put my trust, and to Him I turn penitent.” (Qur’an 42:10)


Just like those who have misrepresented the position of the Ibadi school in the following verses:


And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah . And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9).


So it is not that we do not believe in arbitration but that we do not concede to arbitration on a matter in which Allah (swt) has already made arbitration. We seek the judgement and the guidance and the arbitration of the Blessed Messenger, the Prophet Muhammed (saw). We do this because it is the judgement of Allah (swt) that we do so on any matters in which Allah (swt) has not shown us.

It is not that no one on Earth has the ability to heal, but Allah is the best of healers.

It is not that no one on the Earth can assist, but that Allah is the best of healers.

It is not that no one on this earth can give love, but Allah is the best of those who give love.

It is not that no one on this earth can give mercy, but Allah is the best of those who give mercy.

It is not that we cannot take hadith, but that the hadith of Allah is the best.

It is not that we cannot take take from other sources that claim to be revelation , but Allah is regulator muhayminun over them.

It is not that we cannot take judgement from other than Allah, but that Allah’s is the best and final judgement.


Recently one of these followers of the Qur’an only religion has been commenting on on this site. I have approved its initial post and responded to it. However, it became quite caustic. They have shown again they have not thought deeply about matters such as:


Is the Qur’an created or uncreated. Is it the speech of Allah (swt) or not. The person responded, “The Qur’an is not God.” Such a simplistic attitude towards an issue that merits pensive reflection. It is hard to take followers of the Qur’an only religion seriously. Insh’Allah perhaps I will explore this and other issues where the Qur’an only religion sits on the sidelines and rails on and on about the hadith literature and contributes little else. Indeed they offer little else.



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Jesus will be a sign for the coming of the hour? Abuse of Qur’an 43:61


And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)


This text has to also be one of the most used and abused text of the whole of the Qur’an. It used to assert the so called 2nd of Christ Jesus. The fact that this is the ‘go to’ verse when anyone is trying to assert that the Qur’an affirms the 2nd coming of Christ Jesus shows you just how weak their argument is. Such people are better off using the ahadith to argue their position. 


Note how the text is being translated at Qur’an corpus.


Also, when you go to the following link.

Look how they translate it into English. 

This is how they translate it into English for the unsuspecting reader:


And indeed, Jesus will be [a sign for] knowledge of the Hour, so be not in doubt of it, and follow Me. This is a straight path.”


Yet when you click on the vocalization of the Arabic and how it is rendered something eye opening occurs.

Their own exact translation is “And indeed it” yet the English they wedge in there “Jesus”. 


Are you ready to see how far the rabbit hole goes?





So let’s take a look at some other disparate translations.


Muhammed Asad & Abdl Haleem  & Mohamed Shafi translations have the “it” as the passage referring to the Qur’an

Shabir Ahmed has it as the Qur’an but unlike Muhammed Asad and Abdul Haleem and Mohamed Shafi he has the Qur’an talking about an “oncoming Revolution” rather than “the hour”. 


Yusuf Ali Saudi version just goes all in look at it! “And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of). So not only is it Jesus but he is a Sign as well!

Safi Kasas has Jesus in brackets but unlike Yusuf Ali he puts the [a sign] in brackets as well.

Abdul Hye goes all with the second coming..”And he (Jesus) is a KNOWN SIGN.

Dr. Munir Munshey gets carried away with “In fact he, (and his fatherless birth) is a sign.

Then we have the Mustafa Khattab translation really over selling it with their translation,

“And his ˹second˺ coming is truly a sign for the Hour. So have no doubt about it, and follow me. This is the Straight Path.”


Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilah (another Saudi translation) have it as: “And he (Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) shall be a known sign.”


Dr. Mohammad Tahir ul Qadri takes a que from his Wahabbi opponents and follows their lead with “And surely (when) he, (Isa[Jesus], descends from heaven), he will be a sign…”


Ali Unai just goes on a tangent “Surely he (Jesus) (brought into the world without a father, and granted such miracles as reviving the dead) is a means to knowledge of the Last Hour.”

Hamid S. Aziz is more neutral, non-committal in translation”


And most surely it is (the above events or the Quran or he, Jesus) is a sign of the knowledge of coming of the Hour (of Resurrection and Judgment), therefore have no doubt about it and follow Me: this is the Straight Way.”


Muhammad Taqi Usmani has it as (‘Isa)

Syed Vickar Ahamed “And (Isa)

Farook Malik He (Jesus)

Maududi has it “Verily he [i.e, Jesus)


Rashad Khalifa has a bizarre translation: “He is to serve as a maker for knowing the end of the world, so you can no longer harbor any doubt about it.”


The Monotheist group -taking a que from their former mentor and master, Rashad Khalifa, has it as “He” and this he becomes “a lesson for the Hour”

Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar has an interesting translation: “And truly, he is with the knowledge of the Hour.”


Do people have justification to understand the verse as a reference to Jesus?

Well, if you look at the surrounding context of the verse the theme is about Jesus.


“Jesus was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel. And if We willed, We could have made [instead] of you angels succeeding [one another] on the earth.” (Qur’an 43:59-60)


As well as the text after..


“And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, “I have come to you with wisdom and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me.” (Qur’an 43:63)

So this could be a reason why some have considered 43:61 to be about Jesus.


A closer look at the Arabic text. “wa-innahu”, this is the 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun. We have this in English as well. We have object pronouns-me, you, him, her, it.

Secondly, the word “biha” is a 3rd person feminine singular personal pronoun. So this further clarifies how “wa-innahu” should be understood.


“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)

Even if we did go against the Arabic grammar we still have to contend with the fact that the Qur’an has clearly stated that Jesus died. The text of the Qur’an should be in harmony with one another.  ‘

I did find the following translation interesting: Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar has an interesting translation: “And truly, he is with the knowledge of the Hour.” You could understand this as “And truly, the knowledge of the Hour is with him.” 

One could understand this as a slap in the face to Christian Christology.  The Qur’an asserts what the Bible does not, namely that Jesus knows about the day of judgement where as in the New Testament Jesus is clueless.

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)

In the economy of the so called “Trinity” the Son is doesn’t know the hour, where as if Jesus died as a martyr (as the Qur’an proclaims) than Jesus is with Allah (swt) and he certainly does know the hour.


As regards the so called “2nd coming of Jesus” it is just not going to happen. Jesus was impailed by the Roman Imperium and he died a martyr.

I’m afraid contrary to what Christians believe and many Muslims Jesus will not be showing casing his “FINAL FORM” -ala-the following verse:

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'” (Luke 19:27)


So even if you were to execute someone in a dark alley, a person who rejected Jesus, that wouldn’t be good enough. Jesus wants you do it right in front of him. Not going to happen, not now, not tomorrow, not ever.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Flawed Reasoning & Faulty Logic & Cop Outs. Why Jews Don’t Accept Jesus as Messiah

And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel (Qu’ran 3:48)


We know that the Jesus of the New Testament is not the one mentioned by Allah in the Qur’an. We know this because the Jesus of the New Testament is not only extremely unwise, but he obviously cannot be God, deity or divine essence as he uses extremely poor reasoning.


Christians tell us that one of the biggest proofs that Jesus is legitimate is because of his miracles.  His greatest miracle they allege is that Jesus rose from the dead.


However, perhaps the biggest let down is the fact that none of us alive where there to witness this so-called miracle.  We have to rely upon narratives constructed about the events and handed down to us.  Where was the greatest miracle of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is the Qur’an.  You can examine the Qur’an. It is tangible. You can pour over its contents and reflect upon it and ultimately decide rather or not this came from the Creator of the universe. At the very least you have something tangible. Unfortunately the same can not be said of the so called “resurrection”.   


Now if Jesus was indeed doing miracles and this was becoming known his rivals who also believe in the supra-natural would have to construct some kind of argument to make Jesus look false. So one of those charges is the charge of sorcery, and magic. That Jesus was able to do these things because in reality he was an agent of Satan.   


In fact, interestingly the Qur’an speaks to this in a way that the New Testament does not.


“O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to you and your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the holy spirit, so that you did speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! You make out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and you breathed into it and it became a bird by My leave, and you healed those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! You bring forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) you when you did show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic.’ (Qur’an 5:110)


“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!” (Qur’an 61:6)

I think it is both interesting and telling that the Qur’an has two places in which the children of Israel accuse Jesus of magic or sorcery. 

The mishna teaches that a crier goes out before the condemned man. This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, butfrom the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf.And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve.“

Source: [ ]


What is curious is the faulty reasoning that the Jesus of the New Testament gives in response to these allegations.


If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons drive them out? So then, they will be your judges? But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Matthew 12:26-28) 

The reasoning given by Jesus here is logically faulty. It clearly has huge holes in it. 


1) It assumes that that kingdom of Satan is divided and that the whole act isn’t a charade to begin with.


How do we know that Satan isn’t the one actually driving out the demons in order for the people to falsely accept this Jesus?  It could be a ruse. The demons are working together and putting on an act.


2) It gives lie to the idea that the kingdom of Satan cannot be divided. Why can’t it be? The kingdom of God was divided once. 

And there was WAR IN HEAVEN. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.” (Revelation 12:7)


Think about it, if Satan wanted the throne of God, is it beyond reason to think that other Demons would challenge Satan for his kingdom?


3) Jesus admission that ” by whom do your sons drive them out” Which is a clear admission by Jesus that he was aware that the sons of the Chief Priest/Rabbi’s were casting out demons.   Which also ironically portrays this Jesus as ignorant of the test in Deuteronomy 13:1-5.  and that prophet, Or that dreamer of dreams, Shall be put to death;

Not only is the response of the Jesus of the New Testament logically fallacious it seems odd given that according to Christians (that he is God in essence) that he would have forgotten about  his little rendezvous with the prophets of Baal. 

1 Kings 18:25-40

New International Version

Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.”So they took the bull given them and prepared it.

Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.”With the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs of seed. He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”

Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.

Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.

At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.

Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!”

Then Elijah commanded them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!” They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.   



Notice that this Jesus is a far cry from Elijah the Prophet. The Jesus of the New Testament will be issuing no such challenges. Instead of using faulty logic and very poor reasoning skills (which you can imagine convinced no one) Jesus could have -ala-Clint Eastwood style challenged anyone around to an Ejijah style duel. He dared not do any such thing.

So Elijah calls upon God and he is answered. Where as Jesus cries out, “My God, My God why have you forsaken me.”  Can you imagine if God didn’t consume Elijah’s sacrifice and he was just left there looking dumbstruck in front of everyone? Notice also that Elijah didn’t get any reprimand for “testing God”. 



Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego & the Flaming Furnace. 

Furious with rage, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. So these men were brought before the king,  and Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the image of gold I have set up?  Now when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe and all kinds of music, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image I made, very good. But if you do not worship it, you will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace. Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?”

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to him, “King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter.  If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty’s hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace. So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace. The king’s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace.

Then King Nebuchadnezzar leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, “Weren’t there three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?”

They replied, “Certainly, Your Majesty.”

He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”

Nebuchadnezzar then approached the opening of the blazing furnace and shouted, “Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out! Come here!”

So Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them.

Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way.” 

Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the province of Babylon. (Daniel 3:13-40)


Comments:  Notice that God didn’t see these men as testing God. These men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were thrown in a blazing hot furnace in front of all and sundry. They were saved and apparently Nebuchadnezzar converts to Judaism (though we have no historical evidence of this). Interestingly, Nebuchadnezzar also says that anyone who speaks against the God of these men will be ‘cut into pieces’ and you don’t see Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego advising against this. So apparently God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit)  was quite o.k with it.


This is why the Jesus of the New Testament even backs down from a challenge from Satan himself! It honestly does not get anymore pathetic than that. In fact in response, the Jesus of the New Testament misquotes scripture to save face!


Jesus replied, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'” (Matthew 4:7)

But Jesus declared, “It also says, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'” (Luke 4:12)


When actually what the scripture says is:


You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, AS YOU TESTED him at Massah.” (Deuteronomy 6:16)


So it is not that you can’t Test God, but that you cannot test God as you did at Massah. 

“And he gave that place the name Massah and Meribah, because the children of Israel were angry, and because they put the Lord to the test, saying, Is the Lord with us or not?” (Exodus 17:7) 


The Bible is absolutely silent about the test here but the Qur’an informs us about the repeated request to see God plainly. The very heart of the request of Atheism itself.


As regards the Jews and the New Testament Jesus can anyone blame them? Flawed reasoning. Faulty Logic, Cop outs. In the end they report he wasn’t rescued from death. 


 Please read: 



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dastardly Bowl Licking Dogs and The Thought Process of Some Muslims

They ask you what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are all things good and pure: and what you have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is Swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)


Before reading this post you may wish to read this one first.


This brief article is for us to reflect upon the thought process that many of us as Muslims have in regard to our tradition.


The following is taken from

“Muslim (279) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The purification of the vessel of one of you if a dog licks it, is to wash it seven times, the first time with soil.” 


And Muslim (280) narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Mughaffal said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a dog licks the vessel of one of you, let him wash it seven times and rub it with soil the eighth time.


In these two ahadith the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) explained how purification from the najaasah of a dog is to be done, which is by washing the vessel seven times, one of which should be with soil. Both are required. “


Comments:  One will notice that the text contains contradictory information.

  1. Are we to wash a bowl a dog licks 7 times, the first being with soil and included in the 7 times.
  2.  Are we to wash the bowl a dog licks 7 times and the 8th time being with soil.

Now besides the very obvious and glaring example of someone (presumably a narrator in the chain) not being careful with the words of the Blessed Messenger (saw) we have something interesting here to reflect upon.

Note that in both hadith there is the presence of a dog.   The dog is doing what?

The dog is licking a bowl, presumably one that people will use to eat and drink from.

Now think dear Muslim brothers and sisters think !!!


Does this hadith say, ‘When any of you live in a maximum-security fortress and a dog breaks through the security and alludes detection and storms into the kitchen and licks the bowl…….’? ??


No, it does not!

If a dog is licking a bowl that you will use for drinking and/or eating it shows that dogs lived in close proximity to Muslims!

It is proof and evidence to show that dogs themselves are not problematic or unclean!

How could any sensible Muslim who viewed or thought that dogs were unclean allow a dog to be in such proximity to their kitchen utensils?



dog chewing 2xcats

This hadith which is not quoted verbatim from the Blessed Prophet (saw) is simply (nasiha) or advice on keeping bacteria and germs from animals.

As seen from the above both dogs and cats and many animals will lick their own genitalia. They lick the placenta off of their pups and kittens when born. They do not use water nor toilet paper when cleaning their anus, they will use their tongue, and then want to lick you on your mouth, and lick bowls that use for food and water.


Diseases transmitted from animals to humans are called “zoonotic”. Bartonella henselae, which is a bacterium that is transmitted to cats from fleas is also housed in cats’ mouths. It is the cause of severe skin and lymph node infection called cat-scratch-fever.  Que the Ted Nugget music.


The interesting thing is that the Blessed Prophet (saw) was simply giving people advice that could easily extend to any and all animals in this scenario.

The Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) was not there to give us an exhaustive list of all possible scenarios.


Ya RasulAllah what if a giraffe licks my bowl ?!

Ya RasulAllah what if a possum licks my bowl ?!

Ya RasulAllah what if an orangutan licks my bowl ?!


The example giving by the Blessed Messenger (saw) is not meant to be an exhaustive all-inclusive list of every scenario. That is why you get these unnecessary 10 volume fiqh books that discuss these matters in depth.  Non necessary because we as human beings are supposed to use the intelligence that Allah (swt) gave us and do (taffakur) reflection upon the guidance and examples that the Blessed Prophet (saw) left us with.


The thought process of many Muslims is both interesting and heartbreaking.  People will  make religion to be such a burden and they will either do one of the following:

  1. Make text say things that they did not say. Like saying that a dog, in general, is unclean. You cannot have proximity to dogs. You must go make wudhu if a dog licks you.
  2. Not understand the text to be a specific example that can apply to any animal in the situation.  (pigs, possums, cats, monkeys, etc…)

I would love to teach a fiqh class and one day have a dog come into the class and lick a bowl and wash it with what people in the class believe to be the required number of water washing and then with soil.

I would say, “This bowl is now tahir according to the Blessed Prophet (saw). Who would  like to eat or drink from this bowl?”

Now of course I am not saying that it is now wajib to eat or drink from the bowl.  However, I am willing to guess that no one would be willing to eat or drink from the bowl.

This is because of the stigma in their mind that a dog now licked the side of the bowl.  Even though by their own understanding and own admission that the bowl is clean (tahir); you would scarcely find anyone willing to eat or drink from that bowl!

That shows the stigma that certain ahadith can create!   Somehow this hadith has been used to say that keeping a dog, in general, is not allowed, to be near or around dogs or to have them in close proximity is makruh or haram.

The fact is the very hadith itself argues against this point!   The companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) and people, in general, do not keep their eating/drinking utensils out in the open.

Again we have scholars and layman alike who are making the religion into something difficult and making the permissible something impermissible.

May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).

I would encourage to take a look at my article here:


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dogs are pure in Islam, according to the Qur’an.

They ask you what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are all things good and pure: and what you have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)


This is written to show that the practice of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is that dogs are pure in Islam, and this was the way of the people of the city of Madinah in particular, as well as the way of many Muslims all over the world until today.


This blog entry will also show inconsistency of the other views, as well as common objections to this view; usually by citing oral traditions.


Some people who have been brought up and trained their whole lives to hear that dogs are not tahir (clean or pure) are going to have to rethink what they were taught in light of the evidence presented.


Imam Ash-Shawkaani (rahimahullah) states in his masterpiece: “Nayl Al-Awtaar Sharh Muntaqaa Al-Akhbaar” the following:


It has been attributed to the Prophet Muhammad,

From Abu Hurayrah who said that Rasulullah (alayhis salaam) said, “When a dog licks one of your vessels (e.g. bowl), apply dirt to it and then wash the vessel seven times.”1

[Says Shawkaani]: And this narration also proves that the dog is najaasah (impure)…and the Jumhoor (majority) hold this opinion. And ‘Ikrimah and Malik in a report from him state “Verily it is Taahir (pure)”. And their proof is the statement of Allah ta’alaa,

فَكُلُواْ مِمَّا أَمْسَكْنَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاذْكُرُواْ اسْمَ اللّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ

(Say: lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)

Also another proof is what is established in Abu Dawud from the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar with the words, “Dogs would come freely into the masjid and urinate in the time of the Rasulullah (‘alayhis salaam), and they would not pour water over it (i.e. the urine).” 

Source: (Al-Bukhari hadith number 174 in the Book of Wudhu’)


[Note that Ibn Hajr states this occurred before doors were put on the masjids and the command to keep them clean was established..This is the opinion of a Shafi’i and not that of the Maalikis] – End quote from Nayl Al-Awtaar.


The Shafi’i Judge and Jurist Qadhi As-Safadi states, “Malik says that dogs are pure and what they lick is not made impure, but that a vessel licked by a dog should be washed to avoid filth.”2


The following quotes are statements from Imam Malik as reported in the Mudawwanah of Imam Malik regarding the dog:

One may eat what it catches in a hunt, how then can we declare Makrooh (hated or disliked) what it drinks (or places its tongue in).” (page 116)


Malik said, “If one desires to make wudhu’ from a vessel wherein a dog has drank (or put its tongue in), it is ok for him to make wudhu’ from it and pray.” (pg 115)


Malik said, “If a dog puts his tongue in a vessel of milk (labn) there is no harm (la ba’as) if one takes (i.e. eats) from that milk.” (ibid)

Note that there are many other quotes from him within Volume 1 of the Mudawwana regarding the purity of the dog. I have chosen these only as a sample. Source: (Vol. 1 published by Daar Al Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah published in 2005 CE)


The Maliki Faqih (jurist consult) of Andalus, Ibn Rushd states in his “Bidayatul-Mujtahid”,

Malik held the view that the leftover of a dog is to be spilled and the utensil is to be washed, as it is a ritual act of non-rational worship, for the water that it has lapped up is not unclean (najas). He did not require, according to the widely known opinion from him, the spilling of things other than water, which a dog had licked. The reason, as we have said, is the conflict with analogy according to him. He also believed that if it is to be understood from the tradition that a dog is unclean, it opposes the apparent meaning of the Book, that is, the words of Allah ta’alaa, “So eat of what they catch for you…” meaning thereby that if the dog had been unclean the prey would become unclean by the touch of the dog’s (mouth). He supported this interpretation by the required number of washings as number is not a condition in the washing of unclean things. He held that this washing is merely an act of worship. He did not rely upon the remaining traditions as they were weak in his view.”

Source: (pg 27 published by Garnet; also see Al-Hidayah of Imam Al-Ghumaari Vol. 1 page 288 for a detailed discussion of the chains of narration)


May Allah swt bless and show His immense Mercy upon Imam Malik ibn Anas for striving in truth,defending Islam, and spreading the sciences of Islam

  1. This narration is reported by Imam Muslim in his Sahih 89/279 as well as by An-Nasaa’i hadith number 66
  2. Taken from “The Mercy in the difference of the Four Sunni Schools of Islamic Law” translated by ‘A’ishah Bewley printed by Dar-al-taqwa. Page 4


May we turn our attention to the hadith again that seems to bring allot of misunderstanding in relation to dogs in Islam.

When a dog licks one of your vessels (e.g. bowl), apply dirt to it and then wash the vessel seven times.”

I would encourage the reader to look at the following information and then I would like to comment about this as well.

The hadith above that requires us to wash the utensil licked by a dog seven times is pretty much explained away as follows:

First, if it is done with the intention in the heart to obey the Messenger (saw), then it counts as worship, Furthermore, as Ibn Rush stated, the fact that the washing is a set number of times is a proof that this constitutes a ritual act of worship.

Second, the command for us to perform this action is purely for hygienic reasons and has nothing do with ritual purity. It’s a leap of reasoning to connect the command to ritual purity.

Modern science is testament to the fact that there are certain strains of bacteria in dog saliva which are not part of the human normal flora. If a container licked by a dog is left unwashed (especially in the hot climate regions), it provides a fertile breeding ground in which those bacteria will multiply at geometric rates and render the container useless thereafter. Thus, the command to wash the container is purely a medical precaution.

And similar to what was alluded from Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rush this only applies to containers which contain water. Containers which contained others useful contents are not to be discarded of those contents and washed.


Overall, it appears as if Imam Malik had high respect and esteem for dogs. They had a special status with him unlike any other animal as the following excerpt from the Mudawanna shows us:


Regarding ablution with the leftovers of animals, chickens, and dogs: [Ibn Al Qasim] said: I asked Malik about the leftovers of donkeys and mules and Malik said: There is no problem with them. I [Sahnun] said: Did you see if he communicated regarding other than such? Ibn Al-Qasim said: it and others beside it are equal. Ibn Al-Qasim said: And Malik said: There is no problem with the sweat of the horse, mule, or donkey; Ibn Al Qasim further added, and Malik retorted: In the container that contains water licked by a dog with which a man makes wudu? Ibn Al Qasim said: Malik Said: If he makes wudu with it and subsequently performs salah, then this is permitted. Ibn Al Qasim said: And [Malik] does not see the dog like other animals. Ibn Al Qasim Said: Malik Said: If those repugnant species from birds and predatory animals drink from the water container, one is not to make wudu with that container. Ibn Al Qasim said: And Malik said: If a dog licks a container which contains milk, then there is no problem in consuming that milk. I [Sahnun] said: Did Malik used to say wash the container seven times when the dog licks inside the container? Ibn Al Qasim Said: Malik Said: This tradition has definitely come to us and I do not know of its truth/authenticity. Ibn Al Qasim said: And it is as if (Malik) viewed the dog as if the dog was a member of the household (Ahl Al-Bayt) and that it was not like other predatory beasts, and Malik used to say: the container is not washed of margarine or milk and what the dog licked from that IS to be eaten and I see it as an enormity to purposefully intend (waste) towards the bounty from the bounty of God and discard what the dog licked.


Here is something that I would like to ask people. Consider this a proof to show how people turn Islam into tomes and volumes of legalism and even than are inconsistent in their principles and application of the knowledge.

Let us say that indeed we did witness a dog lick from a dish that we left on a carpeted area and then this dish was washed 6 or 7 times and with earth as well. How many of you would actually drink from this dish afterwards?

Not many, which is exactly my point!


People are trying to make the halal (permissible) into the haram (forbidden). Now you want to make the whole of the contents and the dish unusable? This is fanatic legalism that turns this beautiful way life into rules and rituals devoid of conscious, and devoid of mercy. Worse than these two it is done without tacit approval or explicit proof from the Qur’an or the Sunnah.


Case in point: The Shaf’i School of jurisprudence. Now many people will wonder why I would critique Imam Shaf’i (may Allah have mercy on him) and this is not the case. I am simply repeating an answer to his polemic from other Sunni imams

People who are not aware that Shaf’i critiqued Imam Malik have not read or are unfamiliar with the Shaf’i corpus known as Al-Risala (The Message).


Thus, as history has it Imam Shaf’i’ and his critique of Imam Malik would not go unanswered.


The following information is taken from a small tract in which a Sunni Maliki scholar Ibn Al Labbad gave full response to Shaf’i. This is where I will take my information from since it critiques the Shaf’i view on the matter.

The following is titled:

Kitab fihi radd(u) Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ala Muhammad ibn Idris Al-Shaf’i fi munqadaati qawlihi wa fima qala bihi min al-tahdid fi mas’ail qalaha khalfa fiha al-Kitab wal-sunna (A treatise containing Abu Bakr Muhammad’s refutation of Muhammed Ibn Idris Al-Shaf’i for the latter’s self contradictions and his arbitrariness in setting legal limits in matters regarding which his doctrine violated the Book and the Sunnah).

Al’Shaf’i added, however, that both the vessels and their contents were rendered ritually impure.


This extrapolation drew heavy criticism from Ibn Al-Labbad, who argued that while the Prophet (saw) ruled that vessels from which dogs had drunk had to be washed seven times; he never stated that either the vessels or their contents were ritually impure. This was simply al-Shaf’is invention, according to Ibn al-Labbad, which he concocted on the basis of his own ra’y (reasoning) and then injected into the hadith. That al-Shaf’i’s position was deficient could be easily proved by reference to the Holy Qur’an, where there are verses permitting the eating of game seized by hunting dogs. (Qur’an chapter 5:4)


To make matters worse, Ibn al-Labbad cites Al-Shafi’is argument to the effect that neither the vessels nor their contents were rendered ritually impure if such contents exceeded two qullas in volume, since according to al-Shaf’i anything more than two qullas was not subject to ritual impurity.


On this view, he ends up, according to Ibn al-Labbad completely undermining the Prophet’s rule. On the one hand, he holds vessels from which dogs have drunk but which contain more than two qullas not to require ritual washing, while the Prophet (saw) stated explicitly that whenever a dog laps from a vessel it is to be washed seven times. On the other hand, he holds the contents of vessels containing less than two qullas to be ritually impure, while the Prophet himself never designated them as such.


At first blush, it might appear that ibn Al-Labbad is donning the Shaf’i inspired robe of Zahirism in order to slam the door to logical inference in Al-Shaf’is face. But this turns out not to be altogether true. Ibn al-Labbad is not saying al-Shaf’i is wrong for attempting to understand the underlying implications of the Prophet’s command but merely that the results of this attempt were flawed.


For while it may be reasonable to assume a connection between the command to wash vessels and the status of their contents, the Prophet made it clear according to Ibn al-Labbad that dogs drinking from vessels constitute a sui generis category. As proof, he cites instances as the Bedouin who urinated in the mosque and the infant who relieved himself on the Prophet’s lap. In neither case did the Prophet order a seven-fold washing. This, according to Ibn al-Labbad, clearly indicated that urine and other ritually impure substances constituted one category. Meanwhile vessels from which dogs have lapped constitute another. The two issues, in other words, were simply unrelated, and Al-Shaf’i was misguided in extending the logic of ritual impurity to vessels from which dogs had lapped and their contents.


Once again, however, Ibn al-Labbad case would not end there. Al Shaf’i had extended the ruling on dogs drinking from vessels to pigs, arguing that ‘if pigs were not worse than dogs, they were certainly no better than them.’ This, argued Ibn Al Labbad was pure ra’y, for the validity of which Al-Shaf’i had provided no textual proof. Similarly, regarding the use of earth for the first or last cleansing of vessels, Al Shafi’i held that if one was unable to find earth (turab), one could use something that functions like earth,

e.g., potash or the like. Yet, when it came to tayammun, al Shaf’i flatly disallowed these things, insisting instead on the use of pure earth (turab). All of this went to show, according to Ibn Al-Labbad, just how inconsistent and arbitrary Al-Shafi could be. In the end none of this was based upon information related on the authority of the Prophet (saw).


Ouch! This is an intra-Sunni critique.  A scholar of the Maliki School of jurisprudence lambasting the founding jurist of one of Sunni Islam’s most prominent school’s of jurisprudence.


Now let us take a look at the contradictory hadith reports concerning dogs in various situations and see if we can make sense of all of this.


Now what will follow is allot of ahadith reports that will leave the average Muslim scratching their heads. Now again I am not here to attack hadith or to tell Muslims to abandon the hadith. I am simply saying that the hadith should never supplant the Qur’an as it has today.


The Hadith should be understood in the light of the  Qur’an and the practice of the Sunnah that was orally transmitted and practiced by the masses of the Muslims across all cities and regions.

So first let us take a look at what the Qur’an itself says concerning dogs. There are three places where the Qur’an mentions about dogs.


This is of the signs of Allah. He whom Allah guides, he is on the right way; and whom He leaves in error, you will not find for him a friend to guide aright. And you might think them awake while they were asleep, and We turned them about to the right and to the left with their dog outstretching its paws at the entrance. If you did look at them, you would turn back from them in flight, and you would be filled with awe because of them. And thus did We rouse them that they might question each other. A speaker from among them said: How long have you tarried? They said: We have tarried for a day or a part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. Now send one of you with this silver (coin) of yours to the city, then let him see what food is purest, and bring you provision from it, and let him behave with gentleness, and not make your case known to anyone. For if they prevail against you, they would stone you to death or force you back to their religion, and then you would never succeed. And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them, that they might know that Allah’s promise is true and that the Hour — there is no doubt about it. When they disputed among themselves about their affair and said: Erect an edifice over them. Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed in their affair said: We shall certainly build a place of worship over them.(Some) say: (They were) three, the fourth of them their dog; and (others) say: Five, the sixth of them their dog, making conjectures about the unseen. And (others) say: Seven, and the eighth of them their dog. Say: My Lord best knows their number — none knows them but a few. So contend not in their matter but with an outward contention, and question not any of them concerning them. And say not of anything: I will do that tomorrow, Unless Allah please. And remember your Lord when you forget and say: Maybe my Lord will guide me to a nearer course to the right than this. And they remained in their cave three hundred years, and they add nine. Say: Allah knows best how long they remained. His is the unseen of the heavens and the earth. How clear His sight and His hearing! There is no guardian for them beside Him, and He associates none in His judgment.” (Qur’an 18:9-26)


The question from reading this is why would a dog be worthy of mention in the last revelation given to humanity if it is such an unclean and impure animal? These are the questions that need to be answered.


However, here is a passage from the Qur’an that compares the behavior of dogs to some people who reject faith.


Thus If it had been Our Will, We should have elevated him Our Signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our Signs, so relate the story, perchance they may reflect.” (Qur’an 7:176)


Can you see this verse giving explicit command to attack dogs? No! It simply says that ‘IF’ you were to attack him this dog is going to behave in the same way even if you let him be. This is the only thing that I could see the  Qur’an portraying the dog in a negative light. Yet the similitude is more directed at mankind than it is making any statement about dogs.



Allah forgave a prostitute of her sins because she gave water to a dying dog.

Allah’s Messenger (saw) is reported to have said, “A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that.” Source: (Bukhari: Volume 4 Book 54, Number 538)


Question: If dogs are so vile and evil why was a prostitute forgiven by Allah because of showing this act of mercy and kindness to the animal?


The Prophet is reported to have said, ‘A man felt very thirsty while he was on the way, there he came across a well, He went down the well, quenched his thirst and came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. He said to himself, “This dog is suffering from thirst as I did.” So, he went down the well again and filled his shoe with water and watered it. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him. The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals? He replied: Yes, there is a reward for serving any living being.” Source: (Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 43, Number 646)


Question: If dogs are so vile and evil why would Allah thank a man for the act of kindness that he showed this particular animal?

The Prophet (saw) is reported to have said, “A man saw a dog eating mud from the severity of thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise.” And narrated Hamza bin ‘Abdullah: My father said. “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, the dogs used to urinate, and pass through the mosque (come and go), nevertheless they used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog.)” Source: (Bukhari: Volume 1 Book 4 Number 174) 




The Prophet is reported to have said, “Angels do not enter a house which has either a dog or a picture in it.” Source: (Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 54 Number 539)


Narrated Sufyan bin Abi Zuhair Ash-Shani: “That he heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “If somebody keeps a dog that is neither used for farm work nor for guarding the livestock, he will lose one Qirat (reward) of his good deeds every day.”

Narrated Salim’s father: “Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, “We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.” Source: (Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 54, Number 450)


It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (saw) said “Whoever keeps a dog, except a dog for herding, hunting or farming, one qiraat will be deducted from his reward each day.” Source: (Muslim 1575)


It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allah ibn Umar said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Whoever keeps a dog, except a dog for herding livestock or a dog that is trained for hunting; two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day.” Source: (Bukhari 5163, Muslim: 1574,)




Al-Nawawi said: “There is a difference of opinion as to whether it is permissible to keep dogs for purposes other than three, such as guarding houses and roads. The most correct view is that it is permissible, by analogy with these three and based on the reason is that is to be understood from the hadeeth, which is based upon necessity. ”

Source: (Sharh Muslim, 10/236)

In a hadeeth narrated by Ibn ‘Umar: The Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever keeps a dog which is neither a watch dog nor a hunting dog, will get a daily deduction of two Qiraat from his good deeds.” Source: (Bukhari Book #67, Hadith #389)



If we look at all the hadith evidence above something becomes very obvious and that is nowhere is there an explicit prohibition to not keep a dog as a pet.


There are reports that talk about one or two good deeds being removed from a person who keeps a dog other than the purpose of (hunting, sheep dog, guard dog, guards live stock, guards family).

So for example a person may get a poodle and claim that it is for guarding the family and this maybe an unlikely scenario. However; dogs also make noise when there is intrusion, and they serve their purpose to guard human lives.

The United States of America has one of the highest percentages of gun ownership out of any populace on earth. Think of how many people have access to guns in the family. I myself support gun ownership; however many people may agree that it is more safe to have a dog in the house protecting and guarding the family than it is to own a gun.

Again there is no prohibition above against owning a dog in one’s home. Simply saying that rewards are moved for keeping a dog for intention other than serving some use is also not a prohibition.


Even if a person said and it was their intention to keep a dog simply for the purpose of entertainment the traditionalist may consider that person to be negligent but not a sinner.


Today in the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, West African, Oman and other places where the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is people keep dogs as pets.

Blind people also need dogs as a part of their life to help protect and guide them. The issue of angels not entering houses is because of a presence of a dog is not because the dog is impure. The dog is pure in the ‘law’ of Islam. If the angels did not enter because the dog was not pure than the angels would not enter houses and mosque (masjids) because of the presence of toilets!

You could also find the above hadith have been amended to include the phrase (except the angel of death) which should raise an eye brow. Most likely if angels never entered an abode where a dog was present this would mean the angel of death and thus a person could be guaranteed eternal life on the basis of keeping a dog as a pet!

So you will find the above hadith amended to include the exception (except the angel of death).

Those who are still opposed to dogs namely the Shaf’i and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence are really going to have to rethink their positions in today’s world that we live in. What works for the Shaf’i in Somalia and for the Hanafi in India and Pakistan is not going to work in New York City, London or Minneapolis where a man or woman may get into the cab with his or her dog.

Not only that but angels ‘not entering the house’ should be pondered over due to the fact that many people live in an apartment complexes so what would actually constitute a house? Could an angel be in your apartment while your neighbour has a loud barking dog? These questions have to be answered to keep people from doing extreme things or taking issue out of context.

The hadith about Angel Gabriel not entering into the house where Prophet Muhammed (saw) was because he had a female dog under his bed with puppies needs to be taken into context with all the other information that is given.



Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Whoever acquires a dog other than a sheepdog or hunting dog will have two qirats deducted from the reward of his good actions every day.”

Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered dogs to be killed. Source: (Al Muwatta Book 54, Number 54.5.13:)


Without going into the various hadeeth that talk about the killing of dogs the two statements above alone will suffice.


They suffice because Imam Malik the ‘founder’ of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, may Allah have mercy on him related both ahadith but he understood the practice. He did not take ahadith (lone narrator reports) in isolation as do many Muslims today.


He is taking the whole of the practice as it was orally mass transmitted and practiced by the people of his city in Madinah. Anyone who has been reading this blog entry from the beginning can see that the view with Imam Malik may Allah have mercy on him is that dogs are of a highly favourable status in Islam.

The reports about killing dogs seem to be in the context of a mass outbreak of some virus, rabies, scabies, ring worm and Allah knows best!

If you have actually seen a dog with a severe case of the mange or scabies it is a very sad sight to behold.

The point being is that the Muwatta of Imam Malik (quoted above) and the views he holds and transmits from the people of Madinah and those before him is that dogs are not to be killed.


I hope the Muslims will better understand Islam. This is why I ask Muslims that it is imperative for them to take the Qur’an and the mass transmitted practice over the Hadith.

 The overwhelming vast majority of Muslims are ignoramuses (myself included) when it comes to the hadith literature it was never meant to be understood in isolation as it is being done today.

One of Imam Malik’s major shaykhs, Rab’a Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman, nicked named Rabi’a al-Ra’y, stated: “I will take a thousand from a thousand before I will take one from one, because that one from one can strip the practice out of your hands.”

If the Muslims insist on taking hadith (one from one) in isolation over the practice (mass transmitted tradition) than we will continue to be a source of embarrassment and rage. I leave you with the following story in which an old blind man was denied entry on a bus because of the ignorance of us Muslims

May Allah (swt) continue to guide us to that which is beloved to Allah (swt)!


Filed under Uncategorized

The Trauma of being a Muslim convert.

And those who strive for Us – We will surely guide them to Our ways. And indeed, Allah is with the doers of good. (Qur’an 29:69)


Being a convert to Islam is a traumatic experience. It is not usually something you would hear from a convert to Islam. I myself am a convert to Islam. It is a powerful, liberating and beautiful experience to come to know the truth; and yet it is also a traumatic experience. I feel that the majority of those born and raised as Muslims do not appreciate this challenge that we as converts face.


Indonesians, Malays, Turks, Pakistanis, the Arabs in general, when they came to Islam, there were usually whole families, tribes, cities who came to Islam as a whole. At times perhaps a king, sultan or tribal leader would convert to Islam and than announce, ‘we are Muslims now’.


I often think in my particular context because of my ancestral lineage going back to the Vikings. What was that like to leave behind Thor, Odin, Freya and Loki for Christ Jesus? They embraced a new worldview. Perhaps this new world view was more cohesive and answered lingering questions in a way their previous faith did not. They had a new language for liturgy, Latin.


Yet, in all of this they still very much were Danes, or Swedes, or Welsh. They had their, culture, their language, their identity and a sense of who they were, and yet were very comfortable with the additional identity of Christian.


So for them the process was very natural and organic. We, the people who convert to Islam in South Korea, Australia, Canada, the U.K, Brazil and other places we do not get to experience any of that at all.


In fact if we were to challenge any of the traditional narratives of Islam some Muslims think of us as agents, trying to lead Muslims astray from the right path. Not only do some of our brothers and sisters look upon us with suspicion, often our very governments do as well. Who are our teachers? What are our circles/spheres of influence? Are we radicalized?


So you can imagine I was very disappointed with over simplification of Muslim identity with statements like the following from the otherwise very insightful Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad.


Those who come to Islam because they wish to draw closer to God have no problem with a multiform Islam radiating from a single revealed paradigmatic core. But those who come to Islam seeking an identity will find the multiplicity of traditional Muslim cultures intolerable. People with confused identities are attracted to totalitarian solutions. And today, many young Muslims feel so threatened by the diversity of calls on their allegiance, and by the sheer complexity of modernity, that the only form of Islam they can regard as legitimate is a totalitarian, monolithic one. That there should be four schools of Islamic law is to them unbearable. That Muslim cultures should legitimately differ is a species of blasphemy.”― Abdal Hakim Murad


What identity does he think Muslim converts are seeking? What identity does he imagine us to have in this admittedly sea of diverse views, opinions and communities?


At one point I looked to people like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, and Abdal Hakim Murad as sources of inspiration and than I realized, I should not expect them to go against the grain because these are people who are primarily supported by immigrant Muslims or 2nd generation Muslims. As they say you do not bite the hand that feeds you.


Also, in a world where we are increasingly (at least in the West) taking on more and more of a corporate culture, who could blame people for trying to find a sense of belonging /grouping. It is like the people who say, “I don’t believe in organized religion”.


Obviously they do not mean to favour disorganized religion; but they fail to grasp that people, that humans form groups. These groups or bonds are based upon many different factors. Language, tribal affiliation, social economic factors and so forth.


There was a group in the United Kingdom known as the Murabitun. They saw some of these problems and tried to give focus to the convert community but what ended up happening with them is they became in their own eyes an elitist group. The Maliki school=Islam, not just a school among schools. The working class which should have been a focus of theirs became a point of ire.


In fact it wasn’t long that I realized that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Abdul Hakim Murad also belonged to this mindset that does believe In hierarchy and status quo.

So they never were or never will be voices for the Muslim convert community. They are simply locked in the great power competition against another rival vision of Islam. That is a version of Islam that is better funded, and represented and does tend to go to those places (inner cities, working class communities, those not highly educated) that people like Hamza Yusuf and Abdul Hakim Murad simply cannot relate to (Muslim or not).


So the conversion to Islam will continue to be in many ways traumatic, fraught with personal upheavals, inorganic, and yes a search for identity and a search for one’s place in the greater scheme of things.


Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad is correct about one thing he said in the above statement. That is that ultimately the focus of being a Muslim is on a personal relationship with Allah. As Allah is the Truth, that also means a continued refinement of what this truth entails and what is means for one as a Muslim.


If one becomes a Muslim to form solidarity with the cause of Palestine or the Muslims this may not be the best of intentions. If one becomes a Muslim simply to marry this man or woman it may not be with the best of intentions. If one become a Muslim because they imagine themselves as Paul Mu’adib who will lead the Freedom in battle against the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, this to may not be with the best of intentions.


So what do you do if you came to Islam with such intentions? Change your intention. Read, reflect, refine. Know that Islam is ultimately the science of what it means to be a human being. It is about direct communication and awesome awareness to the sovereign of all existence.


Often this means sifting through different Islamic narratives and paradigms. Understanding that one particular view does not equate to the whole of Islam endorsing this particular understanding.


You should be comfortable with being you and who you are. Remember real personal growth comes not from always being in the familiar, or with the familiar, it often comes from being in the unfamiliar with the unfamiliar, in being completely in the unknown.


By the grace of Allah (swt) we humans got to where we are today through adaptation and mutation. This comes through adversity and not through complacency, through the familiar.


Being a Muslim is about stability and flux. Not one or the other.

If there is no change, no innovation, no adaptation, things become stagnant like dead water. A period of imitation is a period of stagnation. Yet, if we are like the tides of the ocean being tossed about here and there, there will be no continuity, to connection to past, and present. Balance is both the key and the struggle.


We trust in Allah and in Allah let the believers put their trust. You are born now in this age in this time. Allah is every wise.


Along the way in this journey as a Muslim you will find that there will be assistance, and at different junctures of your development, different situations, different people will present themselves in your life in different capacities, to trigger you, to fire you up and to remind you. Not to do it for you. I am only one of those triggers, a catalyst.



Filed under Uncategorized

Shaykh Salek bin Siddina al-Maliki Return of Jesus: The use of hysteron proteron.

“Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee AND raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.” (Qur’an 3:55 Yusuf Ali translation)

“Never said I to them aught except what You did command me to say,’worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them; when You did take me up You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things.” (Qur’an 5:117 Yusuf Ali translation)

Now if we only had Qur’an 5:117 and didn’t have Qur’an 3;55 and only IF we were feeling really charitable (despite the fact the word is translated as death every where else)- we could say o.k  maybe you have a point.

However, Q 5:117 has to also be in harmony with Q 3:55 doesn’t it?

This is where our opponents are in a most difficult situation.  Why are they in a most difficult situation?  Q 3:55 says, “mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka.”

Thus, their arguments make the Qur’an a redundant revelation. It would have been sufficient to just say that Allah (swt) ‘took him up’.

However, we have this slight problem. We have this very troublesome conjunction called ‘WA‘ -AND. 


Respected Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki (may Allah continue to benefit many by his knowledge)


In fact one of the Mauritanian Shaykhs -Shaykh Salek bin Siddina āl-Māliki who was called upon to correct brother  Naheim Ajmal who goes by the pseudonym of “Mufti Abu Layth” doesn’t buy into the argument of redundancy either.

This Shaykh knows full well what the text says and so he uses a different strategy -to save the hadith traditions-of course!

See for yourself! 


Here are some notes I took of the video.

I thought it was interesting the translator said:  @ 0:55 “Isa alayi salam has died a complete death” -what other kind of death is there?

@ 3:30 minutes the translator addresses what the Shaykh says.
mutawafikka a word that can be translated to ‘I will cause you to die‘ It is mentioned in a way that it is not indicating any particular order”
“Allah says I will cause you to die and I will raise you to me it doesn’t it is used…”

@5:11  minutes the translator addresses what the Shaykh says.

“So this ‘And’ the type of WA that is being used that are both things that are being done, not necessarily in a particular order.”
“In the statement that Zayd and Umar came it doesn’t mean that Zayd came first. Not in any way does it indicate an order of those things.”


My comments:

Firstly. May Allah (swt) have patience with the translator. The shaykh often would not allow the translator to finish which is a sign of really bad adab. If the idea is to convey in Arabic let it be conveyed in Arabic, but if there is an agreement that this knowledge is to be transmitted by translation into English, than give the translator time.

Second the respected Shaykh knows full well the obvious that ‘mutawafikka‘ means ‘I will cause you to die‘.

Third he definitely is not on board with the interpretation: “No he raises him up first and than will put him to sleep in the future!

Fourth the Shaykh being influenced by the traditions has to make the Qur’an confirm to his presuppositions.  As I said before if it were not for the traditions (which the Shaykh brought up quite often) you would wonder if he would have felt the need to use this literary device.   In English we call this hysteron proteron.

For example you could say I put on my shoes and socks. No one understands that you put the shoes on and than the socks.

So what is important that we take away from this is that.

  1. The Shaykh understands the word means death
  2. A cursory reading of the text would be ‘I will cause you to to die and than elevate you.’
  3.  The obvious understanding of the text is made to conform to a literary device. This is obviously based upon the presupposition the Shaykh holds to the ahadith.



Filed under Uncategorized