The Qur’an: Created or Uncreated: Shaykh Ahmed bin Hamad al-Khalili to debate Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz

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)

Shaykh Bin Baz invited Shaykh Ahmed Khalili to his office and Shaykh Khalili accepted the invitation. Shaykh Ahmed Khalili and a small delegation went into what was described as a small room. There was no courtesy and no decorum showed on behalf of Shaykh Bin Baz. As soon Shaykh Bin Baz got everyone in the room he started shouting, “You Ibadi are Kafirs! You don’t believe in seeing Allah in the afterlife”. “You believe in the creation of the Qur’an and you must make tawba!” “You must testify that you are mistaken!”

Shaykh Ahmed Khalili remained very calm. He replied, “These issues are very old issues and many of the ulemah have been talking about it.” “Our expectation was to come and discuss on how to unite the Ummah, and keep the differences aside, and we should agree on certain terms.”


However,  Shaykh Bin Baz insisted, “No you must confess and you must repent.”


To which Shaykh Ahmed Khalili said, “You have your justification and we have our justification. So let us call for a general symposium In Mecca and allow all the media rather it is newspapers, or radio or television to broadcast this debate.”

If you think you are right and you want to tell the whole ummah of your righteous opinion this will show who is wrong and who is right.” “Even if we are wrong we agree to debate publicly so that everyone will know that we are wrong and you are right.”

Allow the Ummah to judge according to the debate and the justifications everybody brings forward.” However, Shaykh Bin Baz did not want to discuss nor debate.

So this prompted Shaykh Ahmed Khalili in the video you are about to see. In the beginning, Shaykh Ahmed Khalili mentioned that these are old disputes that split the Ummah. He asked whose interest is it to bring up these issues that split the Ummah? However, since Bin Baz started I have to clarify these points. The people of Bin Baz are doing their best to spread their beliefs and in the process to make us look like kafirs. Thus, Shaykh Ahmed Khalili (May Allah continue to benefit us by him) found it necessary to clarify the issues.  Ultimately Shaykh Bin Baz (may Allah have mercy on him) backed down. 


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Are all the companions just?


Are all the companions just?

Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, “What will you worship after me?” They said, “We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac – one God. And we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.”

That was a nation which has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do. (Qur’an 2:133-134)


Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants were Jews or Christians? Say, “Are you more knowing or is Allah ?” And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allah? And Allah is not unaware of what you do That is a nation that has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do. Those are people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do. (Qur’an 2:140-141)

It is very obvious that these two texts of the Qur’an were revealed in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) therefore they couldn’t be speaking about the current people.


Do notice that it says, ‘you will not be asked about what they used to do.’ In other words, we are not beholden to them. That is a very important point that everyone misses. We are not beholden to them.


It is not a litmus test for us to testify that everyone who went before us was righteous. In fact, the whole narrative of the Qur’an is one that is replete with examples of previous people’s going astray and dividing after the truth had come to them.

I used to think the passages above said, “It will have the good that it earned.” However, it simply says, “It will have what it earned.” So this could mean paradise or hellfire.

Then notice it turns to the present audience in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

and you will have what you have earned.”


This means there is a possibility that the present generation (companions) will earn either heaven/hellfire.


So Allah (swt) warns the generation at the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) thus,


Many similar ways have passed away before you, so travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who disbelieved. This is a clear speech to mankind, guidance, and instruction to those who fear Allah. So do not lose heart, nor fall into despair for you will overcome if you are believers(Qur’an 3:137-139)


O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not personal inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort your testimony or refuse to give it, then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” (Qur’an 4:135)


Notice that these words are not directed towards the Blessed Messenger (saw). That is because the Blessed Messenger (saw) is inherently just.

These words of the Qur’an are directed at people (the companions) who have the ability/possibility to swerve from justice. There is not a single companion that is inherently just. 

In connection with this, we have the following interesting hadith.


Jabir ibn Abdullah reported: A man came to the Messenger of Allah (saw), at Al-Ji’ranah from Hunayn and there was some silver in the pocket of Bilal. The Messenger of Allah took a handful from it and distributed it among the people. The man said to him, “O Muhammed, be just!” The Prophet said, “Woe to you! Who will be just if I am not just? You would fail and lose if I were not just.” Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “O Messenger of Allah, let me kill this hypocrite!” The Prophet said, “I seek refuge in Allah that the people would say I am killing my companions. Verily, this man and his companions will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats. They will leave Islam just as an arrow passes through its target.”

In another narration, the Prophet said, “Leave him alone, lest people say Muhammed is killing his companions.”

Source: (Sahih Muslim 1063)


This very hadith itself has the Blessed Messenger (saw) that a companion said to the Blessed Messenger (saw) to ‘be just‘. Which itself is an unjust statement. The Prophet (saw) also acknowledged that this man was:

a) a companion

b) someone who will eventually leave Islam.


And if two groups among the believers should fight, then make a settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinances 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) 


If the believers are people who by default just, it is not possible for one of them to oppress the other. Allah (swt) commands us to fight against the group that does oppression.




O you who have believed, if you obey a party of those who were given the Scripture, they would turn you back, after your belief, to be unbelievers. And how could you disbelieve while to you are being recited the verses of Allah and among you is His Messenger? And whoever holds firmly to Allah has indeed been guided to a straight path. O you who have believed, fear Allah as He should be feared and do not die except as Muslims. And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided. And let there be arising from you a nation inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be successful. And do not be like the ones who became divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them. And those will have a great punishment. On that Day some faces will turn white and some faces will turn black. As for those whose faces turn black, “Did you disbelieve after your belief? Then taste the punishment for what you used to reject.” But as for those whose faces will turn white, within the mercy of Allah. They will abide therein eternally. These are the verses of Allah. We recite them to you,, in truth; and Allah wants no injustice to the worlds. To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And to Allah will all matters be returned. You are the best nation produced for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (Qur’an 3:100-110)


It is very clear from the context of the above verses that the ‘best nation‘ produced for mankind is contingent upon them enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong and believing in Allah (swt).

That those who became divided after clear proofs came to them they will have a great punishment. That these people will be asked, “did you disbelieve after belief?

Notwithstanding the fact that “you are the best nation” can be translated as “you are good community”….

Meaning you are a good community because you enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.

If they were ‘the best’ it would not be conceivable to replace them.


Also, the following are very strong admonition from Allah (swt).

O you who believe, if anyone from you turns back from his Faith, then Allah will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him, humble toward the believers, hard on the disbelievers, who fight in the way of Allah and are not afraid of the reproach of any critic. That is the grace of Allah. He confers it on whom He wills. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 5:54)


Here you are – those invited to spend in the cause of Allah – but among you are those who withhold out of greed, And whoever withholds only withholds benefit from himself; and Allah is the Free of need, while you are the needy. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; then they will not be the likes of you (Qur’an 47:38)


And the vanguard among (min’al) the emigrants and the helpers, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them forever; that is the mighty achievement.” And among (min’al) those around you of the Bedouins are hypocrites, and also from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You do not know them, We know them. We will punish them twice, once in this world; then they will be returned to a great punishment.” (Qur’an 9:100-101)


So when we look at this verse in Arabic and in context we realize a few important points.

This verse starts off with words of praise and reward for the vanguard among the emigrants and the helpers as well as anyone ‘those‘ who followed them in goodness. They are the subject of Allah’s grace and promise.


So the first part of the verse is not all the companions who emigrated to Madinah. However, the following verse also makes the first verse clear. ‘And among the Bedouins and people of Madinah.’


So is the second verse saying that all the Bedouins are hypocrites?

Is the second verse saying that all the people of Madinah are hypocrites?


So when we consider that the Bedouins are people who could have migrated with the Blessed Messenger (saw) they could be among the Muhajirun.


When we consider that the Ansar are from Madinah they could be from among those in Madinah.  However, even after these clear points are presented.

Let us say for the sake of argument that we agreed with our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ on their traditional understanding of this text. Even then this would only vindicate the companions from the Ansar and the Muhajirin. It would not vindicate the companions in total. 




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 punishment 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 who slandered 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 lie in which you were involved by a great punishment. When you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah, tremendous. And why, when you heard it, did you not say, “It is not for us to speak of this. Exalted are You, O Allah; this is a great slander”? Allah warns you against returning to the likes of this conduct, ever, if you should be believers. (Qur’an 24:11-17)


Now we know that this incident was in regard to vile slander against the mother of the believers, Aisha (r.a). If this would have been from among people who were not believers Allah (swt) would not have said ‘do not return to this conduct if you are believers‘.


That they are ‘a group from among you‘ -meaning the companions. When we read the occasion of the revelation we can see from the hadith literature that this whole incident had vexed the Blessed Messenger (saw).

Ibn Kathir in (al Bidayah al Nihaya, Volume 4 page 160)writes the following:

“Then he (prophet) went to the people and addressed and then recited what Allah revealed in the Qur’an, then he ordered that Mastah bin Uthatha, Hasan bin Thabit, Hamna bint Jahsh to be punished because they were among those who spread the allegation of adultery.”

Hasan bin Thabit and Hamna bint Jahsh are both companions, and both were the cause for serious grief for the Blessed Messenger (saw) and his wife (r.a) and yet, they both are still used in the transmission of hadith!


Does anyone think that what they did was just? Is causing grief to the Blessed Messenger (saw) or to his noble wife (r.a) among the acts of just people?


Is anyone going to say that Ibn Kathir (raheemullah) is a sinner for exposing the sins of these companions?


The bedouins say, “We have believed.” Say, “You have not yet believed; but say instead, (aslamna) ‘We have submitted,’ for faith has not yet entered your hearts. And if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not deprive you from your deeds of anything. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 49:14)


The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of)… them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, “O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:628)

Does the above hadith indicate that the blessed Messenger (saw) thinks that what Khalid bin Al-Walid did was just?



Usamah bin Zaid reported:

Messenger of Allah (saw) sent us to Huraqat, a tribe of Juhainah. We attacked that tribe early in the morning and defeated them, (then) a man from the Ansar and I caught hold of a man (of the defeated tribe). When we overcame him, he said: ‘La ilaha illallah (There is no true god except Allah).’ At that moment, the Ansari spared him, but I attacked him with my spear and killed him. By the time we went back to Al-Madinah, news had already reached Messenger of Allah (saw). He said to me, “O Usamah, did you kill him after he professed La ilaha illallah (There is no true god except Allah)?” I said, “O Messenger of Allah! He professed it only to save his life.” Messenger of Allah (saw) repeated, “Did you kill him after he had professed La ilaha illallah?” He went on repeating this to me until I wished I had not embraced Islam before that day (so that I would have not committed this sin). Source: (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Another narration is: Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Did you kill him in spite of his professing La ilaha illallah?” I said, “O Messenger of Allah! He said out of fear of our arms.” He (saw) said, “Why did you not cut his heart open to find out whether he had done so sincerely or not?” He continued repeating it until I wished that I had embraced Islam only that day.

Arabic English book reference Book 1, Hadith 393


Does the above hadith indicate that the blessed Messenger (saw) thinks that what Usamah bin Zaid did was just?


The Prophet (saw) said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from among (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘what is wrong with them’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.’ I asked, “Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left. So I did not see anyone of them.


Source: (Sahih al-Bukhari 6587 Book 81, Hadith 175 Vol. 8, Book 76, Hadith 587)


The companion al-Walid b ‘Uqbah b Abi Mu’ayt the companion and governor of Kufah who was whipped for leading the prayer while intoxicated. 


Hudain b. al-Mundhir Abu Sasan reported:  

I saw that Walid was brought to Uthmin b. ‘Affan as he had prayed two rak’ahs of the dawn prayer, and then he said: I make an increase for you. And two men bore witness against him. One of them was Humran who said that he had drunk wine. The second one gave witness that he had seen him vomiting. Uthman said: He would not have vomited (wine) unless he had drunk it. He said: ‘Ali, stand up and lash him. ‘Ali said: Hasan, stand up and lash him. Thereupon Hasan said: Let him suffer the heat (of Caliphate) who has enjoyed its coolness. (‘Ali felt annoyed at this remark) and he said: ‘Abdullah b. Ja’far, stand up and flog him, and he began to flog him, and ‘Ali counted the stripes until these were forty. He (Hadrat ‘Ali) said: Stop now and then said: Allah’s Apostle (saw) gave forty stripes, and Abu Bakr also gave forty stripes, and Umar gave eighty stripes, and all these falls under the category of the Sunnab, but this one (forty stripes) is dearer to me.

Source: (



Ultimately one has to ask in all these battles and conflicts among the companions why didn’t they bring up all these verses about them all being just? None of them used such verses in any difference that they had.


Why didn’t they quote these ahadith of the 10 promised paradise?


Conclusion: There is absolutely not a single verse in the Qur’an anywhere that vindicates the companions as people who were all just and righteous. We do not have a single shred of evidence of that from the Sunnah for this position either. 

Dr. Jonathan Brown (May Allah have mercy on him) said it best when he says,

That the collective impunity of the Companions was a later construct of the Sunni worldview is evident when one finds occasional minor Companions listed in early books of weak hadith transmitters.” 

Source: ( Hadith: Muhammed’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World’ by Dr. Jonathan Brown page 88)

In fact, I do not know why our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah‘ cling to this doctrine especially in light of their debates with our brothers from the Shi’a.


It would be better for them to say they no longer hold this belief and instead they will examine each allegation against a companion based upon the chain of narrators and the text.

As regards our respected learned people in the Ibadi tradition they have advised us to hold our tongues concerning the companions. Yet at the same time, we have been advised to tell the history and the facts as it is. This as per Allah (swt) commands:

“And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know it.” (Qur’an 2:42)



That was a nation which has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do. (Qur’an 2:133-134)


Which means we are not beholden to them period. If they earned good we earn good insh’Allah we will see each other in paradise. If they earned evil and we earn evil then no one can save us from our impending doom.  

And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Quran 59:10)

The best and most neutral du’a that one can make in regards to them is to ask Allah (swt) to send his peace and blessings upon the Prophet (saw), his family, and all the believers up until the present times. 

In fact, there is only one that Allah (swt) called the ‘praised one‘ or ‘the praiseworthy‘  There is only one whom Allah (swt) said, is an example for us. He didn’t say it about any of the companions.


There is only one who is a mercy unto all beings.  That is our beloved, our master, our example, our beacon, and our guide, the Blessed Messenger and Noble Prophet Muhammed (saw).


We have not sent thee, save as a mercy unto all beings.” (Qur’an 21:107)


Filed under Uncategorized

Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama Resource Page


So remain on the right course as you have been commanded, you and those who have turned back with you to Allah, and do not transgress. Indeed, He is Seeing of what you do.” (Qur’an 11:112)

This will be a resource page that will be updated that will give either the Muslim wanting to make the switch to the Ibadi school or the Non-Muslim coming to Islam to choose the Ibadi school a wellspring of resources for your continued guidance and well being.

Bint Ibadh Blogspot: A great source with many articles in English.

A link to our brothers in the United Kingdom.

Al Istiqama TV-A Great YouTube channel with English/Arabic

Ibadhi website in Swahili for those in East Africa. This site features the noble and knowledgeable Hafidh Al-Sawafi (Allah preserve him)

A website in English about Islam

My dear friend and student of knowledge: Salim Al-Ismailyy Information in Dutch/English/Arabic

A great resource in Arabic.

A great website about Ibadi in Arabic.

Another great website about the Ibadi school in Arabic.

A Blog in Russian for the Ibadi community growing in Russia and Central Asia.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does the Christian Heaven have a place for women?



Does The Christian Heaven Have a Place For Women?


“Women shall derive benefit from what they acquired. Ask, therefore, God out of His bounty: behold, God has indeed full knowledge of everything.” (Qur’an chapter 4 verse 32)

I was recently thinking sincerely about this very issue. It seems that Christianity is a bit ambiguous over who ‘
the elect are‘. Many people will say that Jesus died for ‘all‘. However, Calvinist are usually quick to point out that this is not the case. Jesus only died for a few ‘elect‘ whom they believe God capriciously has chosen before the foundations of the world.

With that said, texts in the New Testament that tend to generalize salvation, or promises of heaven to all can no longer be taken at face value or for granted.

The very sad thing one quickly realizes about Christian concepts of God, as well as Christian concepts of salvation, is that they are all very male-oriented and male-dominated.


Now it is possible that one may say well what about the women in John’s vision found in the book of Revelation?

We have two “women” in John’s Vision. Neither of these can be taken to be real, actual women. One of them is a whore (false church) and the other is a whore (Israel) that found redemption.


A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” (Revelation 12:1)


What can be immediately seen from this text is that it is symbolism and nothing literal about it.


In fact, the word for ‘heaven‘ is ‘ouranoj‘.

The word can mean the sky, the air, the vaulted expanse of the sky. You will note that this woman is wearing various heavenly bodies like the sun, the moon under her feet and she is wearing a crown of 12 stars.


You will also note the symbolism in the following passage:

“The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.” (Revelation 12:6)


You have to wonder why this “woman” would need to flee into the wilderness to be taken care of if “she” was already in heaven.


Many commentators say that this symbolic “woman” is actually Israel herself. The same Israel that God likened to an adulterous prostitute spoken about in the Bible when God said the following about her:


If this symbolic woman is Israel, Israel too has been likened to a whore:

“But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute.” (Ezekiel 16:15)

“You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband!” (Ezekiel 16:32)

However, this prostitute and adulterous wife, Israel finally gets to wear a crown of glory in the following passage:


“Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign Lord.” (Ezekiel 16:63)


So there is no woman in heaven at all. What is relayed is a vision of glorified Israel that God has forgiven for its past adultery and prostitution.


The other “woman” mentioned is a whore who has not found redemption.


One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. With her, the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries.”

Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet and was glittering with gold, precious stones, and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.  The name written on her forehead was a mystery: Babylon the great the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth. I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.” (Revelation 17:1-6)


So neither of these provide us examples of actual women. It is symbolism.

For example, within the Trinity itself, God’s self-love is only expressed in an eternal relationship of Masculine self-love. God -The Father, who loves God The Son. God -the Holy Spirit is a conduit of this love.


It is an eternal bond of masculine self-love

Now it is interesting within the Trinity there is no concept of Feminine self-love expressed anywhere. There is no Mother and no Daughter in the Trinity.

How unfortunate that the concept of God dwelling in a community of eternal self-love includes only manifestations of the masculine.


In Islamic theology the very word that is used to describe the essence of Allah (swt) is the Arabic word ‘dhat‘ and surprise surprise, it is a feminine word.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”.(John 16:13)


The Holy Spirit is expressed here in terms of the masculine.

What about heaven is there a place for Christian women?


Do keep in mind that there are some very negative sentiments towards women in general in the Bible.


“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare….while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all(Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).


No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman…..Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die” (Ecclesiastes 25:19,24).


St. Tertullian is reported to have said,

“Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert, even the Son of God had to die.”

Source: (The Gospel According to Woman, London: Elm Tree Books, 1986, pp. 52-62. See also Nancy van Vuuren, The Subversion of Women as Practiced by Churches, Witch-Hunters, and Other Sexists Philadelphia: Westminster Press pp.28-30)

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home;
for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)


Unfortunately, we have no record of Jesus ever once calling Mary, Mother.


And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? My hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.” (John 2:1-5)

How beautiful, loving, and intimate it would be to have said to Mary, “mother” instead of just the very disconnected “woman”.


And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age while with you, say not to them so much as, “uff,” and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word. (Qur’an 17:23)


For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as having been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freethere is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26-29)

(Now the above passage is simply talking about status in the mystical union Christians have in Christ).

There is still rank in the Earth. Notice the Holy Spirit informs us that women rank below men.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)


We (believers) shall be like Him (Jesus): All Christians transformed into Sons of God.

Beloved, now we are now the sons of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:2)

And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.” (1 John 3:3)

Comments: One thing you will learn very quickly is that this we quickly becomes a reference to men only. Notice it says that we shall be like him. When it says ‘everyone this again is a reference only to men. It says who purifies himself just as he is pure.

What is the proof that the children of God are not daughters but sons? The New Testament is replete with evidence that we will be sons of God.


Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.” (Ephesians 1:4-5)

He (God) chose ‘us‘ as adoption as sons…not daughters!

But as many, as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the sons of God, even to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.” (1 John 3:1)

For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba”, Father.” (Romans 8:15)

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)

“Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” (Hosea 1:10)


Comments: Now some may muse that ‘Israelites’ here would be a reference to both men and women. However, it is not women who were created to become the sons of God. Women were simply created for the good pleasure of men.

The New Testament affirms this when it says,
“Neither was man created for woman, 
but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:9)

“A man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7)

These texts do not really need any comment.


No women in heaven so God’s horny sons had to sleep with earth women.


And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:1-2)

If there were ‘daughters of God‘ the lusty sons wouldn’t have made a play for Earth women.


In fact, Jesus reinforces this point.


 For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30)

Some people may see a contraction between Matthew and Genesis but there isn’t any.

A There are no females in heaven and that is why the Sons of God went after the daughters of men. They had the courtesy to marry them.

B As humanity as we know it comes to an end the institution of marriage will no longer be around. You will as the angels aka SONS OF GOD.


Everyone in Christ gets transformed into a son of God. Rather you are male or female.


The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus was sent only to save men!

He came as a witness to testify concerning that light so that through him all men might believe.” (John 1:7)

Paul says quite clearly about who God wants to be saved, and who he sent his Son for, in 1 Tim. 2:4-6:

Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.” (1 Timothy 2:4-6)

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:10)

The children of God are never ‘daughters of God‘ they are always ‘sons of God‘.


At the very least in the Qur’an Allah (swt) has acknowledged that people attribute daughters to the divine. In the Bible, not even the faintest whisper of that being a possibility.


And they attribute to Allah daughters – exalted is He – and for them is what they desire.” (Qur’an 16:57)


“For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him, we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. For the creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.” (Romans 8:14-19)

Comments: All the men will be able to share in the glory of God and Christ. The glory of God and Christ both of whom are masculine presence. In the passage above ‘God’s children‘ and ‘sons of God‘ are used interchangeably. God’s children are his sons. They are never his daughters!

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26)

This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:10)


Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.” (Revelation 14:1)

No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins(parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-5)

Not one of the 144,000 is a woman! No women are ever mentioned to be in the kingdom of heaven! No women mentioned among those who could learn the song.


In Christianity, as explained above women are created for men, not for the glory of God.

Remember it says “who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins” -This also means sex in marriage. Men are created for heaven as they reflect ultimately the glory of God. Women however only reflect the glory of the men as the Bible tells us.

We are told these 144,000 virgin men are offered as ‘first fruits‘ to God and his Lamb. I don’t know about you but that sounds a little fruity to me.

“A man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7)

There you have it, folks! Jesus was sent to save the men. Those men who accept Jesus will be accepted as God’s sons. They will become the sons of God.

Some modern translations of the Bible have tried to say ‘children of God’ or they even have gender-sensitive Bibles now! They do this to cover up the facts and the truth.

Christianity does not have heaven for women! In Christianity, the ideal scenario is virgin men in mystical union with (The Son (masculine), The Father (masculine), and the Holy Spirit (masculine).


This is unlike heaven as Allah mentioned in the Qur’an. It is for everyone. Men and women!


Notice the ambiguous nature in the New Testament as to the salvation and status of women in the hereafter and contrast that with the very crystal clear teachings of the Qur’an!

Women shall derive benefit from what they acquired. Ask, therefore, God out of His bounty: behold, God has indeed full knowledge of everything.” (Qur’an 4:32)


And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer – those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, even as much as the speck on a date seed.” (Qur’an 4:124)


The Christians wish to God they had a verse like this.


Conclusion: The Christian heaven is not a place for women. There is no expression of eternal feminine love within the ‘godhead’. If anything a woman (who sheds the flesh) is changed into a ‘son of God‘ so that “she” now ‘he‘ as a ‘son of God‘ can enjoy fellowship as the bridegroom of Christ. “Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer We will surely cause him to live a good life, and We will surely give them their reward in the Hereafter according to the best of what they used to do.” (Qur’an 16:97)


And their Lord responded to them, “Never will I allow to be lost the work of [any] worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another. So those who emigrated or were evicted from their homes or were harmed in My cause or fought or were killed – I will surely remove from them their misdeeds, and I will surely admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow as reward from Allah, and Allah has with Him the best reward.” (Qur’an 3: 195)


Allahu Akbar! Allah is the greatest! To the women reading this. We invite you to Islam! You are all most welcome!


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Attacks upon Sahih hadith by Sufi Leaning Ashari Theologians


And Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed MY SON IS OF MY FAMILY (AHLI)and indeed, Your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges! He said, “O NOAH, INDEED HE IS NOT OF YOUR (AHLIKA) FAMILY; indeed, he is one whose work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant. Noah said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.”(Qur’an 11:45-47)


I am often told that my presuppositions as a ‘westerner’ would preclude me from being fair in accessing certain hadith traditions. That I would approach the text with my own suppositions. I don’t disagree with this statement. The real point is who doesn’t approach something with their own suppositions? 

However, I think the point is we all approach any situation with our own suppositions. The point is to be mindful of this, and know when it may impede our ability to look at something from a different perspective, or not.


What better example than the attacks upon ‘sahih’ -ahadith found in the collection of  Muslim, by those who hold to the Ashari theological school. 


In particular, things that the ‘Sufi‘ find troubling about the following sahih hadith. As well as those who have been affected by the Shia-fication of Sunnism as follows:

Narrated from Anas (r.a) that a man said: “O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?” He said: “In Hell.” When he turned away he called him back and said: “My father and your father are in Hell.”

Source: (Sahih Muslim 203)

Some may say why even talk about this subject? It is bad manners.  The very people who say that, are the very people themselves who have brought the topic up. 


There is actually no good reason to reject this hadith. The only reason to reject this hadith is based upon an emotional attachment to the ‘Ahl Bayt‘ and to the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw).


Say, [O Muhammad], “If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.” (Qur’an 9:29)

If this is the state of faith that Muslims are to have in regards to Allah (swt) It is certain that the Blessed Messenger (saw) had this state of faith, a state of faith that none of us would pale in comparison to.

There is also the reality that hellfire is real. That some people will go to hellfire. Those people will be other people’s fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters. All of us live with the reality that either ourselves or our most beloved family will not be in paradise. 

With the Blessed Messenger (saw) making that statement about his father, it makes the Blessed Prophet (saw) a very relatable human being. 


Now the “Sufis” will go on and on about knowledge of the unseen that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is said to have had.

However, when it comes to something like this they simply cannot accept that the Blessed Messenger (saw) may have had some insight into what happened to His (saw) parents;  albeit a very painful insight.

The same people will go absolutely ballistic when anyone challenges their Sahih hadith canons, but themselves will pull out all the stops when they come across something that goes against their presuppositions.

It is worth it to watch the entire video presentation of Dr. Jonathan Brown (May Allah have mercy on him).  However,  for the purpose of this entry, it would suffice to watch from 42:50, to see exactly what I am talking about.

At 43:50 Dr. Jonathan Brown takes liberties by saying ‘there is an important principle in Islam that in order to be accountable for anything you have to have knowledge‘.

First, it should be very clear what he is about to present to the audience is not necessarily the position of ‘Islam’.  It is a position of creed, one that a certain group of Muslims with their own presuppositions hold to.

Basically what Dr. Jonathan Brown is doing is expounding upon a position in the Ashari theological school. (Albeit in a very superficial manner)

They assume that just because people have not heard about Islam, these people would automatically enter into paradise.

In other words, if divine guidance has not come to you, you will automatically enter paradise.

Think of the implications of that for a moment.  Now if your going to talk about justice this creedal position of the Ashari turns the justice of Allah (swt) into a cosmic comedy.


Well, how is it fair for people who have been exposed to Islam entered into it and possibly still end up in hell?  

Assurance of salvation is not a doctrine in Islam.

Whereas it would have been more preferable (I mean we are talking about eternity here) for said people to have never heard about Islam, and enter into heaven automatically, simply by virtue of the fact of not receiving guidance.

So if you do not receive divine guidance you automatically enter into heaven?

However, if you do hear about divine guidance and reject it you will go to hell.

Then if you embrace the divine guidance but your scale is not heavy on the day of judgment you will spend eternity in hell. You have a 50/50 chance of going to heaven/hell. 

Something seems very inconsistent here.

I am extremely disheartened that someone, as educated and eloquent as Dr. Jonathan Brown, gives such a bad example about ‘the man living in a remote part of Nebraska‘.

So you mean to tell me this man who lives in a remote part of Nebraska and never heard about Islam, or even had an adequate presentation of Islam delivered to him, can steal from his mother, rape a child, rob a bank, never pay back any of his loans, constantly lie, beat his wife and lead an overall horrible life and he will enter heaven?

Whereas countless Muslims all of the world are trying their utmost to have a relationship with their Creator and to fulfill the commands as they understand them, in a sea of competing sects and schism,  and then there is a very likely chance that they could end up in hell?

Does that honestly make any sense to anyone at all?

Notice Dr. Jonathan Brown says at 45:13 “God will judge them on the day of judgement like God judges everybody

So why would God judge them? If they would automatically enter into heaven?  If God judges them than doesn’t that mean they stand a chance to be condemned?

If they do stand the chance to be condemned than the Ashari needs to explain based upon what.

Apologies to the readers, as I digress.  

However, this is fundamentally important to the discussion, because it is an ironclad proof!  It is an ironclad proof from within that if those from the Ashari school find something that goes against their presuppositions they will discard ahadith!

Gibril Fouad Haddad (May Allah have mercy on him) is a modern scholar who gave a lengthy apologetic response to the issue in pages 51-64 of his book “The Four Imams and Their Schools


Which by the way if you don’t have that book you absolutely should buy it. You should buy everything written by Gibril Fouad Haddad for that matter. He has absolute attention to detail. He is in my view one of the most, candid and truthful scholars in our time. May Allah (swt) grant him long life and health.


In the pages of the book of his book, there are some eye-opening admissions. His book also contains his own biases and leanings for example

 Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari (raheemullah) and his Minah Al-Rawd Al-Azhar, commentary on Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is simply thrown under the bus.

Shaykh Haddad states:

“Mulla Ali al-Qari claimed in Sharh al-Fiqh Al Akbar, Mu’taqad Abu Hanifa, and Shar al-Shifa that Imam Abu Hanifa said, “The parents of the Prophet (saw) died as disbelievers.” and that this was the Maturidi position. He was refuted harshly by his student the Faqih and Friend of Allah, Imam Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammed ibn Ahmad al Tabari, during the latter’s lessons in the Makkan Sanctuary, Al-Qari died in Makka shortly after those lectures from a bad fall-May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him. Shaykh Ibrahim al-Halabi, the Hanafi faqih, held the same view as Mulla Ali al-Qari as well as does al-Azim Abadi in AAwn al-Mabud.” (pg 51) There is no attempt at innuendo here.

The implication is Allah (swt) made the learned scholar die form a bad fall for saying such things. 

Is what is attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa (r) a forgery? 

Shaykh Haddad quotes Dr. Inayatullah Iblagh al-Afghani in the 1987 2nd edition of his published doctoral thesis titled ‘al-Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifa al-Mutakallim (“The Greatest Imam, Abu Hanifa, the Theologian”), said:

“Regarding the text [of al-Fiqh al-Akbar] we find in some of them: “and the two parents of the Prophet (saw) died according to pristine disposition” (mata ala al-fitra), In some others, it is: “did not die as disbelievers” (ma mata ala al-kufr) while in others yet, we find: “died as disbelievers” (mata ala-al kufr)”

Shaykh Haddad continues: The erudite scholar al-Kawthari noted that the word fitra can be easily altered to read kufr in Kufic Arabic calligraphy. It is highly probable, therefore, that the copy with “died according to pristine disposition” was changed to “died disbelievers.” The original reading implies that the Greatest Imam was arguing against those who adduce the hadith; “My father and your father are both in Hellfire.” (pg 57) 


So now let us think about this claim.

The text could read:

did not die as disbelievers/did not die in pristine disposition


could read died as disbelievers/died according to pristine disposition.


Now we can’t assume that the version that Shaykh Hadad prefers is the original version.  Especially if it simply a copyist error. However, something that was not pondered upon at all is the possibility of forgery.  The reason I believe this was not discussed is that to discuss forgery we need to discuss a motive.   We have a high motive for someone to change the text from disbeliever to pristine disposition. However, what possible motive would any Muslim have for changing the text from pristine disposition to disbeliever?     


Let us look at some other evidence that shows contrary to what some people desire that relatives of the Blessed Messenger (saw) were indeed people who do not make it to paradise. 

“The daughter of Abu Lahab, Subay’a came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said, “Messenger of Allah!”  The people are calling me the daughter of the Fuel of the Hellfire! The Messenger of Allah (saw) stood angry and said on the pulpit:  “What is the matter with the people that harm me in my relatives? Whoever harms my relatives harms me, and whoever harms me has harmed Allah!”  Source: (Narrated from Ibn ‘Umar, Abu Hurayra, and Ammar bin Yasir by Ibn Abi ‘Asim in al-Ahad wal-Mathani (5:470 & 3165).



“May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.” (Qur’an 111:1)

Did Allah (swt) find it insensitive to name someone’s father as a resident of hellfire? 

Ali himself said that Abu Bakr is the only Companion to have both parents, Abu Quhafa and Umm al-Khayr enter Islam. 

Source (Aisha by Malik in Muwatta, Ibn Sa’d (3:194-195) Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan al-Kubra (6:169-170 & 11728, 6:178 & 11784, 6:257 & 12267, Abd Al-Razzaq (9;101) , Al-Tahawi in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar (4:880, Istiab (4:1807), Nasb (2:630), al-Lalika’i in Karamat al-Awliya (p 117), al-Mizzi in Tadhib al-Kamal (35:380) and Muhhib al-Din al-Tabari in al-Riyad al-Nadira (2:122-123 & 576)


Narrated by Al Musaiyab                                                                                                                      

“When Abu Talib’s death approached, the Prophet went to him while Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya were present with him. The Prophet said, “O uncle, say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, so that I may argue for your case with it before Allah.” On that, Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah bin Abu Umaiya said, “O Abu Talib! Do you want to renounce ‘Abdul Muttalib’s religion?” Then the Prophet said, “I will keep on asking (Allah for) forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden to do so.” Then there was revealed: ‘It is not fitting for the Prophet and those who believe that they should invoke (Allah) for forgiveness for pagans even though they are of kin after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the Fire.’ (9.113)”   Source: (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 197)

The point being is that all of these groups and factions you are hard-pressed to find anyone to be consistent. People will attack Shaykh Nasir Ad-Deen Al Abani (r) because he said that Bukhari itself was bound to have mistakes. 

However, the same people in my humble opinion apply double standards. They use their own presuppositions to evaluate the truthfulness of a text even if it said hadith is within the category of something deemed ‘sahih’ -sound!

“O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do?”  (Qur’an 61:2)


It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Qur’an 9:113)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Pro Sufi & Anti Sufi Hadith Ascribed to Imam Malik on Tassawuf

Turn you back in repentance to Him, and fear Him: establish regular prayers, and be not among those who join gods with Allah,- Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects,- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!” (Qur’an 30:31-32)

“O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts,- and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy.” (Qur’an 10:57)


When looking at the issue of forgeries of hadith one does not have to look further than the pro-Sufi and anti-Sufi forces within the ‘Ahl Sunnah‘.

Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak said, “The isnad is from the religion; were it not for the isnad anyone could say anything they wanted.”

(source: Reported by Muslim in the introduction to his Sahih, vol. 1, pg. 9, Dar Taibah.)

The isnad -is the chain of narration.


Anyone who has been among people who claim to practice ‘Sufism‘ and/ or have inclinations towards a branch of study in Islam called ‘tassawuf‘ has most likely heard innumerable times the following statement attributed to Imam Malik. (May Allah has mercy on him.) …..

He who practices tassawuf without learning Sacred Law corrupts his faith (tazandaq) , while he who learns Sacred Law without practicing Tasawwuf corrupts himself (tafassaqa).”


Now when I studied at Zaytuna in 2001 I was told time and again the importance of being connected in an ‘unbroken‘ chain of sacred knowledge that goes all the way back to the Blessed Messenger (saw) himself.

Of course, what I’m about to say may seem cynical to you the reader, but it is the atmosphere that was created around Zaytuna when I was there.  The atmosphere seemed to say to me, “Don’t you dare question anything that is presented to you, because after all who are you to question? You don’t have the requisite tools; and you didn’t study under a Shaykh who toes the line that we tell you to tow.  Therefore, all of your sincere lines of inquiry are invalid.”


So let us say that someone has reservations about giving their complete allegiance (the custody of their soul) to a Shaykh.   However, this person agrees to or understands the necessity of following someone learned in jurisprudence.

Thus the concept of the following someone learned in jurisprudence is used as a jump-off point for handing over complete sovereignty of your soul to a Spiritual guide or Shaykh.   Many who call themselves ‘Sufi’ today use the following modus operandi:


Start by getting the spiritual aspirant the necessity of following someone learned in jurisprudence. Use the idea of following Imams in jurisprudence to advance their position. Thus, if Imams like Shaf’i and Malik are seen to be in favor of Sufism or ‘Tassawuf‘  than whom are we to question it!

So even until today, you have world-renown people like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf(May Allah have mercy on him) attributing such statements to Imam Malik (May Allah have mercy on him).


You can see the following video where he attributes the above-mentioned statement to Imam Malik. @ 1:14 in the video you can hear Shaykh Hamza attribute this statement to Imam Malik (May Allah have mercy on him.)

Interestingly the term Sufi was applied to those given the appellation “Mutazalites” long before it was applied to Junayd.  

This is according to the research of Christopher Melchert in his article: “The Piety of the Hadith Folk” which can be found here:

The term Sufi was applied to Mu’tazili ascetics before it was to Junayd and his circle. Early Mu’tazili ascetics and the later Karramiyya, who more or less absorbed Mu’tazili asceticism, sometimes exalted complete renunciation of normal gain, counting it best to live off alms.”


Origins of the term ‘Ahl al sunnah’

Christopher Melchert also gives some very keen insights into the term ‘Ahl al sunnah’ and the fact that a great many factions were called themselves by this appellation.

He says,

The 9th-century hadith folk’s own preferred term for themselves was “Ahl al-sunna. It is not convenient for us to call the hadith folk “Sunnis”  because that term now calls to mind the great tripartite division of Sunnis, Shi’is, and Kharijis. At least for the 9th century and earlier, a mere tripartite division is simplistic and practically impossible to document. To begin with, 9th-century definitions of Shi’ism were considerably different from those of later times; for example, traditionalist rijal critics regularly distinguished between ‘tashayyu’, special regard for ‘Ali and his house that the hadith folk was willing to overlook, and rafid, the rejection of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar that they thought put one outside the Muslim community. With equal emphasis, the 9th-century hadith folk distinguished themselves from Qadariyya, Murji’a, Mu’tazila, and other theological parties not accounted for by a simple, anachronistic dichotomy between Sunnis and Shi’is. The polarity of Sunni and Shi’i was not strong until the mid-10th century, and full Sunni mutual recognition and self-awareness appeared only in the mid 10th century. Finally, modern scholars should avoid endorsing the hadith folk’s own estimate that they were the overwhelming majority, as calling them “Sunnis” might do.”


” The significance of their calling themselves ‘Ahl al-sunna’ is not that their views were identical to those of the later, great Sunni community, which they were not, but that the later community deliberately identified them as its forebears. We need to understand their piety. Their adversaries preferred not to call them ‘Ahl al-sunna’ and proposed various other terms.’ Al-Jahiz disparaged the nabita, those who sprouted up like weeds to extol the enemies of ‘Ali and to promulgate such crass ideas as assigning God an imaginable body (tajsim, taswfr). Other writers attributed similar errors to the hash- wiyya (vulgar). The hadith folk complained that the Murji’a called them shukkak (doubters) for saying, “I am a believer, God willing,” while the Qadariyya called them mujbira or jabriyya for upholding divine predestination. To use any of these terms for the hadith folk would mean taking sides as much as it would mean calling them ‘Ahl al-sunna’, which is needless for modern scholars.”


“The hadith folk emerged as a distinct group at about the end of the 8th century. They lost importance in the 10th century. Chroniclers usually refer to their 10th-century successors in Baghdad as the Hanabila or simply al-‘amma (the general), periodically rioting against the Shias. Meanwhile, their own name for themselves, ‘Ahl al-sunna’, was claimed by virtually all parties except the Shi’is. Even Mu’tazila called themselves Ahl al-sunna wa-al-jama’a, on the plea that if they were not actually the great majority, they ought to have been. (I have not compared the piety of the hadith folk with that of 9th-century Shi’is, rewarding though such a comparison would be. At least a wing of the Shi’ movement probably had something very close, which ought to show up in Shi’i hadith.)”


So again we can see there was a lot of conflict and turmoil in the very early history of Islam.  Conflict and turmoil that is with us until this very day. So less I digress let me go back to the opening quotation attributed to Imam Malik (r):

He who practices tassawuf without learning Sacred Law corrupts his faith (tazandaq) , while he who learns Sacred Law without practicing Tasawwuf corrupts himself (tafassaqa).”


Gibril Fouad Haddad (May Allah have mercy on him) who is a follower of the Sufi group ‘The Naqshabandi Haqqani*  has provided some very insightful information to this claim above.

* note: This Sufi group is to be distinguished from their rivals the ‘Naqshabandi Mujaddidi‘ as well as other rival Sufi groups.


He has the following to say about the above quotation attributed to Imam Malik (r)

“Cited without the chain of transmission by Al-Qari in Sharh ‘Ayn al-Ilm  and Mirqat al-Mafatih, Ahmad Zarruq in the Forth of his Qawa’id al-Tassawuf in his commentary on Ibn Abi Zayd’s Risala (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Kutub al Arabiyyah, Ibn Ajiba in Iaqaz, Al Himan fi Sharh al-Hikam and Al-Tata’i in his commentary on Ibn Rushd’s  Muaqaddima.

Source: (The Four Imams and their Schools page 180)



Ponder that for a moment, respected readers.   A statement seemingly in support of ‘Tassawuf‘ redacted into the mouth of Imam Malik and then repeated by men like Al Qari, Ahmad Zarruq, Ibn Abi Zayd, Ibn Ajiba, and At Tata’i. Yet, no chain of narration! 

In my conversations with  Abdullah bin Hamid Ali and  AbdasSamad Clarke, both have confirmed to me that it is not authentically ascribed to Malik (r).



Anti-Sufi reports  attributed to Imam Malik 

Incident no. 1 )

“Al -Tinnisi said: We were sitting with Malik with his companions around him. A man from the people of Nasibin said, ‘We have some people who go by the name of Sufis. They eat a lot then they start (chanting) poems (qasa’id), after which they stand and start (chanting) dancing.” Malik asked, “Are they boys (sibyan)?” He said no. Malik asked, “Are they insane?” He said, No, they are old men (mashaykh) and other than that, and they are mature and sane (‘uqala.” Malik said, “I never heard that any of the people of Islam do this.” The man said to him, “Indeed, they do! They eat, then they stand up and start dancing intensively (dawa’ib), and some of them slap their heads, and some of their faces.” Malik started laughing then went into his  house. His companions said to the man. “You were, O man, ill luck (mash’um) for our friend [Malik]. We have been sitting with him thirty-odd years and never saws him laugh except today.” “Narrated without a chain by Al-Qadi ‘Iyad in Tartib Al-Madarak.”

Source: (The Four Imams and their Schools by Gibril Fouad Haddad page 180) 



Incident no.2 )

“Abd al-Malik ibn Ziyad al-Nasibi said: “We were with Malik when I mentioned to him Sufis in our city. I said to him that they wear fancy Yemenite clothes, and do such and such. He replied, ‘Woe to you! Are they Muslims?’He then laughed until he lay on his back. Some of his companions said to me, ‘What is this?’ We have not seen more trouble (fitna) caused to the Shaykh than you, for we never saw him laugh!” “Narrated by al-Khallal in al-Hathth ‘ala al-Tijara wal-Sina’a wal-Amal (Abu Ghudda) with a weak chain because of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Ziyad al-Nasibi who is “disclaimed in his narrations and untrustworthy” (munkar al hadith, gahyr thiqa) according to al-Aazdi as per Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Du’afa wal-Matrukin (1:149) while Ibn Hibban in his Thiaqat (8:390) said he reports oddities from Malik.”

Source: (The Four Imams and their Schools by Gibril Fouad Haddad page 181) 

So you can imagine the incongruity of all of this. Notice the similarities between the two seemingly Anti-Sufi reports attributed to Imam Malik.

1) His strong reaction: ‘I never heard that any of the people of Islam do this. & Woe to you! Are they Muslims?’


2) His hearty laugh after hearing of their doings. ‘Malik started laughing then went into his house. & He then laughed until he lay on his back’.


3) The shock of the people present at Maliks’ reaction. ‘You were O man, ill-luck (mash’um) for our friend [Malik]. We have been sitting with him thirty-odd years and never saws him laugh except today.  & What is this?’ We have not seen more trouble (fitna) caused to the Shaykh than you, for we never saw him laugh’!


Now let us look at how these statements are treated

You can scroll down to the section:  “Imam Malik and the Sufis”  Gibril Fouad Haddad has the following to say about the two incidents, reported above:

Concerning the first incident, he says, “This is narrated without chain by al-Qadi `Iyad. in Tartib al-Madarik (2:53-54).” That is all he has to say.  There is no chain of transmitters.  Case closed.

Concerning the second incident, he simply gives the reason one of the transmitters is dismissed. Then he concludes by saying:

“Content-wise, neither of the above reports shows unambiguous condemnation of group dhikr but only that some people who passed for Sufis in the Imam’s time reportedly committed certain childish excesses or irrational breaches of decorum. The reports only show that Imam Malik found the story amusing. The delator seems obsessed with the ‘eating and dancing’ which he mentions twice as if afraid Malik didn’t hear it the first time. There is also on the part of Malik’s circle clear disapproval of the delator who is apparently perceived as an interloper. And Allah knows best.”

Actually what the reports show assuming they are true at all is the following:

The reports show that Imam Malik (r) does not even seem to be even vaguely familiar with such groups.   The asking ‘if the people are Muslim‘, and making statements such as ‘the people of Islam are not heard of doing this‘ would be very difficult for Muslims having a pro-Sufi bias to fathom.  Especially in the first report since, we don’t have Imam Malik (r) laughing until after hearing about people slapping their faces.


There are also statements attributed to Imam Shaf’i they seem that they can be either pro ‘Sufism‘ or anti ‘Sufism‘.




Filed under Uncategorized

Ismaili Shi’a and Circular Reasoning

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


Recently an Ismaili Shi’a sent me an e-mail in regards to my entry on the Hadith of Ghadir Khum. Though he has sent me a pdf with many contentions he asked me to address, I feel that I have some to respond to the heart of the matter.


The heart of the matter is to understand what the Qur’an says about this issue.  He had sent me a link that I am sure he felt would help to establish the case. Unfortunately, if you click on the link it shows that the page is not there!  Thankfully, I have the habit of saving material. 

So here is the pdf file with the arguments in it. This was written by Mohib Ebrahim. Originally to appear here:

 If the link fails I have uploaded the PDF file here:



So for now let me deal with the heart of the issue. What if we left all the contentious issues aside we would still be stuck with the question on what evidence do we have in the Qur’an to substantiate this position?

So in the e-mail, he wrote:

Likewise, there are numerous verses in the Qur’an that highlight the doctrines of the Imamate, infallibility of the Shi’a Imams (as) and the nobility of the Ahl ul Bayt (peace be upon them). It is not true that such concepts are absent from the Qura’n in a way that we, the Shi’i of Ali (as), are forced to consult supplementary ahadith to support our viewpoints. For more information on the Qura’nic and philosophical/rational proofs of Imamate you can visit:

So let us address what Mohib Ebrahim has written 


What immediately stood out to me was the very diplomatic way that the reader was being prepped for the clear admission that there is no ‘smoking gun verse’ in the Quran in regards to the Imamate at all.


Instead, the reader is teased with information like:


The dilemma is not improved, but rather compounded, when evidence from the Qur’an is relied upon simply because the Qur’an itself admits, in verse 3:7, to its own partial ambiguity thereby rendering those parts open to individual interpretation “


“Given the disagreement about a historical event despite overwhelming agreement on its record by both sides, one can only imagine the disagreement over arguments relying on the Qur’an, given its admitted ambiguity”


Interestingly the issue is compared to the ‘Gordian Knot


He continues thus,

So does this Gordian Knot have a solution or are we of modern and later times hamstrung with the vexing task of trying to tease out the truth from an incomplete historical record 1,400 years after the fact?”


Leaving aside those ambiguous verses that require the Imamat to explain they refer to the Imamat, past attempts to validate the Imamat from the Qur’an were, in general, based on arguing a specific interpretation of what were, hopefully, “smoking gun” verses that one could then point to and proclaim, “Here, clear verses where Allah ordained the Imamat.” However, the fact is that such “smoking gun” verses are few and far between — if they are to be found at all, given the disagreements over interpretation, as explained above. Furthermore, even if they are very clear when read in a certain light, it is precisely because they need to be read in that certain light and then argued in isolation, that they do not, in my opinion, provide substantive, let alone conclusive, evidence.”



Now you people are intelligent. This is not a misrepresentation by myself. This is a clear cut admission.

So ultimately the intellectual endeavors of the Ismail’s, or to as the gentleman in the e-mail asked me to be circumspect in regards to Islams sects, let me just say this particular sect of Ismaili Shi’a, as they too have many subdivisions. 

Ultimately the intellectual endeavors of this particular sect of Ismaili Shi’a want us to believe in circular reasoning, putting the cart before the horse and finding passages simply because we want so desperately to find them.

In fact the author, Mohib Ebrahim states:


I find it hard to accept that Allah has left the truth of this matter hostage either to the irreconcilable differences of expert Arabic linguists or personal interpretations of the Qur’an’s ambiguous verses.”


Surely it is self-evident that answers must be found in the “plain verses,” and not the ambiguous ones, for otherwise we would have an unresolvable paradox where the instructions on how we are to acquire the correct meaning of the Qur’an’s ambiguous verses, were themselves cloaked in ambiguity.”

Therefore, rather than trying to find and interpret a single “smoking gun” verse, argued and relied on in isolation, to justify Imamat, I use what I call Qur’anic Threads.”


To preface one’s argument in such a way is the end of the discussion, period. In fact, there was no beating around the bush. We have no ‘smoking gun‘ verse. Such ambiguous verses require us to put the cart before the horse, believe in the infallible imam’s ability to interpret before finding such passages.


However, I will continue the article with the look into these various ‘threads‘ insh’Allah.

I don’t know if it would be appropriate to say that Ibrahim, Jacob, Issac were leaders of mankind. As in the whole of humanity. It is more appropriate to say a leader for the people, meaning his people. 

Also, to say that Allah (swt) appoints and a leader the question has to be asked. If people appoint a leader and Allah (swt) appoints a leader are the two things mutually exclusive? After all, that is the reason for this post. It is the reason for this discussion. There is no clear cut verse in the Qur’an for us to follow infallible Imams. There is no clear cut verse in the Qur’an that names Ali (r.a) as a leader for the community.  In fact, people point to extraneous sources to indicate that Ali (r.a) was to be preferred as a leader.

Look at verse 2:124 “His covenant is not with the evildoers. If a purified lineage also equates to purified offspring

then why did Allah (swt) put the clause ‘My covenant does not include the doers of evil‘?


Look at verses: 3:33-34 THEY were descendants of one another is true, but not all prophets are descendants of one another.  Unless one means that we all come from Adam (a.s). In that sense, the whole of humanity is the Ahl Bayt of Adam (a.s)


They were all descendants from one another.  We are all from Adam (a.s). So what is the point?

From Adam (a.s) we got two sons one of whom is the first murderer of another human being. Which brings us back to what Ibrahim (a.s) prayed for, ‘and of my offspring?’  to which Allah (swt) responds ‘My covenant does not include the doers of evil.’

You can imagine Adam (a.s) making such a du’a for his Ahl Bayt, his offspring, one of which became a murderer.


Look at verse 57:26 among their seed…

It is interesting that the verse above is half quoted. The full verse says,

And We have already sent Noah and Abraham and placed in their descendant’s prophethood and scripture; and among them is he who is guided, but many of them are (fasiqun) defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 57:26)

Among those descendants of Noah and Abraham are those who are guided but most of their descendants are defiantly disobedient. We have a clear example of one of the children of Noah (a.s) who disobeyed.

And Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed MY SON IS OF MY FAMILY (AHLI) and indeed, Your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges! He said, “O NOAH, INDEED HE IS NOT OF YOUR (AHLIKA) FAMILY; indeed, he is one whose work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant. Noah said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 11:45-47)



Also, look at verses 17:2-3 quoted above. “From the seeds carried along with Noah” came evil beyond evil. In fact, it is interesting that if we continue to read the passage it says:

And We conveyed to the seeds of Israel in the Scripture that, “You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a degree of] great haughtiness.” (Qur’an 17:4)


Those were the ones upon whom Allah bestowed favor from among the prophets of the seeds of Adam and of those We carried [in the ship] with Noah, and of the seeds of Abraham and Israel, and of those whom We guided and chose. When the verses of the Most Merciful were recited to them, they fell in prostration and weeping.” (Qur’an 19:58)

So why didn’t that guidance and choice descend to their progeny? If Allah (swt) saved Noah (a.s) and wiped out the evil, it is only reasonable that evil manifested from among the descendants of Noah (a.s)

Allah (swt) clearly said that the seeds of Israel would cause corruption and become haughty.

Just like one of the seeds of Adam was a murderer.

Just like Allah (swt) put a clause in Ibrahim’s du’a request.

It’s almost as if these people would own a chain of hotels across Europe one day that sells alcohol. Its as if these people one day would preoccupy themselves with the worldly life and marry supermodels.


And from their fathers and their seed and their brothers-and, We chose them and We guided them to a straight path.” (Qur’an 6:87)

Those are they unto whom We gave the Scripture and command and prophethood. But if these disbelieve therein, then indeed We shall entrust it to a people who will not be disbelievers therein.” (Qur’an 6:89)

Allah (swt) chose and guided them, But if they were to disbelieve therein, they would be replaced by those who would not disbelieve therein. So the possibility to disbelieve is there. This is also confirmed to me by my personal experience meeting people who are descendants of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who are atheists. 


Look at what he says above about “Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger” (Quran 4:59) 


Mohib Ebrahim says continues:


For, it is self-evident that if “those who are in authority” were also not pure, like Allah and the Messenger, they will make mistakes and, thus by definition, cannot be rightly guided. Consequently, to avoid being misled by such leaders, others with more knowledge would have to double-check them rendering such leaders redundant and undermining the legitimacy of their claim as rightly guided leadership.”


Wait a minute. When did tahara (purity) become equated with infallibility? No that is certainly not the case. I hope no one thought they could sneak that one passed us.


“And they ask you about menstruation. Say, “It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure (tatahharna). And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves.” (Qur’an 2:222)

 I hope no one is seriously suggesting that we do not approach our wives until they become infallible?  


Verily, it is a noble Quran in a protected Book. None touch it but the purified.” (Qur’an 56:79)


Ibn Abbas said concerning the verse, “None touch it except the purified,” that this refers to the Book in the heavens and “the purified” refers to the angels.

Source: (Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 56:79)

To say that people who are in ritual impurity touch the Qur’an is true. However, to turn around and apply an esoteric meaning to a plain word ‘touch‘ doesn’t help the ‘thread‘ case at all. Nowhere has that word in Arabic used for touch means to interpret.


Notice he says, “Consequently, to avoid being misled by such leaders, others with more knowledge would have to double-check them rendering such leaders redundant and undermining the legitimacy of their claim as rightly guided leadership.” 


The Qur’an itself subjects itself to falsifiability by even the most uncouth of people. How is that the Qur’an is subject to a falsifiability test and these supposed Imams are not? 

In fact, this whole argument used by Shi’a is critiqued here:

As we noted one would have to prove the odd assertion that purity equates to infallibility.  If that is the case then we know that Ali (r.a) is not pure because he made a colossal error in the battle of Siffin.   

You can see Ali’s decision critiqued here:


Furthermore and notwithstanding the above, the Sunni position — that “those in authority” do not need to be pure and faultless — is just an interpretation since there aren’t, to my knowledge, any verses in the Qur’an stating that Allah left mankind free to choose their own leaders .” -Mohib Ebrahim


Are there any verses in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) categorically tells mankind that we are not free to choose our leaders?

So should Western Democracy’s be wary of being too cozy to Aga Khan and Ismail’i since their doctrine is that Democracy is at its core an aberration of what Allah (swt) wants?


Mohib Ebrahim wants us to believe in even more circular reasoning:


Since we are unable to judge — perfectly and without error — who are the pure, Thread III will address the apparently impossible command not to follow disbelievers or those who have sinned. Indeed, Allah has said He

will judge wherein we differ (42:10, 22:67-69, 5:48, 39:46, 6:164, etc.) thus precluding us from even making such assessments.”


Since we are unable to judge or assess..perfectly and without error.”

Ponder that for a moment.

Question: Are we supposed to believe in perfect error-free Imams?

Answer: Yes you are.

Question: Are we able to judge perfectly and without error who these Imams are?

Answer: No you are not.

So basically in essence these infallible Imams are objectively useless.

Which ahurf or qir’aat are the masses of Muslims to follow?   

These ‘infallible pure imams‘ could simply throw it up in the air and pick one. 

Who was the divine guide for 700 years between Jesus (a.s) and Muhammed (saw)? 


It doesn’t matter because these ‘infallible pure imams’ have an answer and you are in no position to judge. 


The Qur’an itself subjects itself to falsifiability test, these imams are not.


I tell you what is really convenient. It’s really convenient that we only have one infallible pure imam at a time. Apparently, in the time of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), we had him, Ali (r.a), and his two sons (r). 

Wouldn’t it have been quite cool to have put Ali (r.a) and his two sons (r) in isolated rooms and give them a couple of questions and see if they come up with the same answers? 

Question: What are the people to do when there become violent fractious splits between these infallible Imams?

 Answer: Pick up your sword and hope to Allah that you start stabbing the wrong one.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ark of Noah and Descendants of Prophets.

“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).” (Qur’an 49:13) 

In the Qur’an, it is shown that to be truly ‘sharif‘ or noble, is based on how righteous we are and not based upon the blood that flows in our veins.

In this entry, we will explore the question of rather or not simply being a Syed or a descendant of a Prophet makes a person righteous, noble, or infallible.

We will explore questions like: If all the people on the Ark were noble and pious where did evil come from after they embarked?

How Islam (Judaism) and Islam (Christianity) were betrayed by the very guardians asked to protect it.

Hence the meaning of the word Kafir-is UNGRATEFUL.

All too often those who have been given the light are the very ones who betray it.


What is truly noble in the sight of Allah (swt) has nothing to do with lineage, pigmentation of one’s skin, nationality, wealth, or intellectual acumen.


The following verses in the Qur’an are more than enough proof for us.


“And it sailed with them through waves like mountains, and NOAH CALLED TO HIS SON who was apart, “O MY SON, come aboard with us and be not with the ungrateful. But he said, “I will take refuge on a mountain to protect me from the water.” Noah said, “There is no protector today from the decree of Allah, except for whom He gives mercy.” And the waves came between them, and he was among the drowned.” (Qur’an 11:42-43)


Then Allah (swt) informed Noah…

“And Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed MY SON IS OF MY FAMILY (AHLI) and indeed, Your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges! He said, “O NOAH, INDEED HE IS NOT OF YOUR (AHLIKA) FAMILY; indeed, he is one whose work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant. Noah said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 11:45-47)


Tabataba’i says that this flood was universal. Everyone on the Earth except those on the Ark was drowned.

Source: (Ṭabāṭabāʾī, al-Mīzān, vol. 10, p. 102 and 260.)


So let us ponder this for a minute. As some of our brothers want to use this ‘hadith of the Ark‘ to suggest that only those are the Ark on the people who are pure and rightly guided.


So it stands to reason that all the vile, evil, and sinful people were wiped out by Allah (swt) during the flood. It also stands to reason that the inhabitants on the Ark had to embark. That is how I am able to write to you today. We are all descendants of those people. Which leads to two points.


We are all descendants of the Ahl Bayt of Noah (a.s).


Where did the sin, villainy, and evil come from that we know today? It is obvious that it came from the descendants of the people of the Ark. This means within the Ark itself was the inclination towards righteousness and the inclination towards evil.


So certainly the people on the Ark and their descendants were not infallible. That is just a common-sense deduction.


“And remember that Ibrahim was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: “I will make thee an Imam to the Nations.” He pleaded: “And also (Imams) from my offspring!” He answered: “But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers.” (Qur’an 2:124) 


If you notice Allah (swt) didn’t write a blank check for the descendants of Abraham. If you were made virtuous by being a descendant of a prophet than Allah(swt) would have simply granted Ibrahims du’a; however, he did not. He made a caveat, “My promise is not within reach of the evildoers.”

In other words, I will grant your du’a to those who hold on to my commands and strive their utmost to be righteous servants.


Here is something to think about.

What happened to the descendants of the earlier prophets?

How could Judaism be corrupted if we had infallible Imams who were guiding the people all the time?

The answer, because the descendants of the Prophets and the guardians themselves apostatized from the faith!

Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses thereto.” (Qur’an 5:44)


Their descendants who inherited the Book gained (by bribery only) worthless things from the worldly life saying, “We shall be forgiven (for what we have done). They would have even doubled such gains if they could have received more. Did they not make a covenant (with God) in the Book not to speak anything other than the Truth about God and to study its contents well? The life hereafter is much better for the pious ones. Will you not then think? (Qur’an 7:169)


Though this is an uncomfortable answer for many it is a truthful one.

We do not have unbroken chains of the lineage of people who ‘kept the faith’ all the way until the coming of the Blessed Messenger.

All we have in reality is the narrative of the Qur’an that puts focus on Abraham, Issac, Ishmael, Jacob, and their descendants -who were Messengers and Prophets.


However, it becomes obvious to all who reflect that those who were entrusted to be the guardians of the faith were the very ones who betrayed it.


The first murderer in human history was a descendant from a Prophet.

Cain killed his brother Abel.  Both of them were descendants of the Prophet Adam (upon whom be peace).   Yet, one was righteous and the other became the ‘first’ murderer.  Such that Allah (swt) made an example of this particular incident throughout time.


“And his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:30)


In reality, if you want to be technical.  From the perspective that we all came from Adam or are ‘Bani Adam‘ -the children of Adam, we are in reality all descendants of Prophets.

These are clear verses in the Qur’an that give us clear examples.


Yes, we should love and respect those people who are descendants of Prophets. Yet, we are not beholden to anyone who does not hold fast to the Book of Allah (swt) or the Sunnah of the Beloved Messenger (saw).


I have met some descendants of the Blessed Prophet (saw)myself, some of whom were amazingly pious people, (based upon what I was able to observe) and some who were not really observing the very basic practices of Islam, like the prayer.


Descendants of the Ali Ibn Abu Talib (r.a) and Ibn Abbas (r.a) slaughter and assassinate one another. 


Later on we see the members of the Ahl Bayt in an all-out war against one another.

Or does anyone want to think that the Abbasid Caliphate  Al-Mansur or Abu Ja’far Abdallah ibn Muhammad al-Mansur was righteous and just?

Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Mansur was a great-grandson of the Prophet Muhammed (saw) cousin, Ibn Abbas (r.a).


Here are some of the things he did:

He had one of his governors send spies to spy on Imam Malik (r)where Imam Malik (r) was tortured, had his arm pulled out of his socket, and publicly humiliated.

He had the grandsons of Hassan ibn Ali the sons of Abdullah ibn Hasan ibn Al  Hasan ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib killed, namely Muhammad and Ibrahim.

Jalāl al-Dīn al-Khuḍayrī al-Suyūṭī mentions that he was the one that made that already tenuous relationship between the house ‘Abbas and the house of ‘Ali completely fractured.  Source:  (Tarikh al-Khulafa p.279-280)

He jailed Sufyan al-Thawri and Abbad ibn Kathir and, Abu Hanifa an-Nu’man.

He had Abu Muslim Abd al-Rahman ibn Muslim al-Khorasani murdered.

The list goes on and on.

Once again these types of things will only disturb people who place a lot of stock in a person’s lineage.

“Say: “O Allah! Lord of Sovereignty! You give power to whom You please, and You strip off power from whom You please: You endow with honour whom You please, and You bring low whom You please: In Your hand is all good. Verily, over all things You have power.” (Qur’an 3:26)


Filed under Uncategorized

Is the Holy Spirit God?



They will ask you about the Spirit. Say: “The Spirit is one of the commands of my Lord. You have only been given a little knowledge.” (Qur’an chapter 17:85)


So what I would like to try and do today insh’Allah (Allah-willing) is to try and look at those passages that Trinitarians (Tri-theist) will use to advance the claim that the Holy Spirit is God the third person.

I hope in doing so that maybe even the idea that the Sabellian (Pentecostal Jesus Only) that the Holy Spirit is not a person but a role played by God as well maybe addressed in the process.


Let us start by looking at arguably the strongest proof-text the Trinitarians (Tri-theist) will bring in showing that the Holy Spirit is God.


A representative of God =Holy Spirit =God?

“Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land…You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4)

It is curious why many Trinitarians (Tri-theist) tend to look beyond this statement of Peter. The fact that the husband and wife had lied to Peter (a man). Peter was a flesh-and-blood human being. So was he than elevating himself to the status of God?


“And the Lord said unto Samuel. Hear the voice of the people in all that they say unto you: for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:7)

In both examples: Peter and Samuel were representatives of God or people whom God had used as instruments. But this would not identify them with God. A person looking at the context of the passage in Acts would not identify the Holy Spirit with God any more than Peter or Samuel were identified as God.

An example from the Qur’an can also shed light on this point.

“And he who obeys Allah and His Messenger, and has reverential awe of Allah, and keeps his duty (to Him): then these it is that are successful.”(Qur’an chapter 24:52)

So Muslims understand the above text that if we disobey Muhammed (saw) we are indeed disobeying Allah. However, we never understand this to mean that the messenger is Allah.



Holy Spirit is Eternal Forward =God? 


Another text brought forth by Trinitarians (Tri-theist) as a proof text that the Holy Spirit is God is the following

“How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!” (Hebrews 9:14)

It seems that the passage itself is filled with statements that if taken literally would be problematic. For example, there are no Christians alive from the time of Jesus. Obviously, some have died and thus ‘acts that lead to death‘ should be understood to be spiritual death. We also understand that ‘living God‘ a biological entity is not to be understood.

Perhaps some other text in the Bible can shed some light on the use of the word eternal.

The Greek word Eternal.

Strong’s concordance

“eternal age-long”

Source: (

Age-long basically means to have been in existence for a long period of time.

“describes duration, either undefined but not endless.”

Source: (

“They will be punished with 
eternal destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.” (2 Thessalonians 1:9)

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 24:46)

If we take the word ‘eternal‘ to mean without beginning or end in a literal context it would be problematic, one may also understand eternal to mean that once something was created or brought into being than it became forward eternal.

It would be hard to imagine a person having a punishment or salvation that was before the beginning of time. This Gnostic-esoteric understanding of Christianity does not seem to fit overall with Christian theology.

Also, the Holy Spirit no place is considered to exist before time eternal. Whereas God is described as being before time eternal.

“In the hope of life eternal (aioniou), one promised who cannot lie, God, who is before time eternal (aionion).(1 Titus 1:2)

pro chronon aionion -before time eternal

Another interesting thing to do some research on is the filioque. One word that split the Christian church right down the middle!

This whole discussion on the Filioque has some relevance to the issue of rather or not the Holy Spirit is or was ever eternal.


Proceeds from the Father?


When Christians say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son), what do they mean, and why do they use such an odd word?

The word comes from the Greek text of John 15.26, which speaks of the one “who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father“.

The Greek word has the sense of movement out of, and early theologians used it to show that the Spirit’s origin was within the person of the Father.


If the Holy Spirit is moving out of the father, then this shows that it had a point of origin, however, if the Holy Spirit always existed in the father and there was a time that the Holy Spirit was not distinct from the father this too is problematic. If indeed there is no distinction in the ‘Godhead‘ as Christians claim.

The equivalent Latin word is procedure, but unlike the Greek word it doesn’t include the notion of a starting point within something; it’s a more general word for movement. This different meaning may have contributed in a small way to the dispute.

If it does not include the notion of a starting point or point of origin than why would the ‘inspired‘ writers use the word? Also, Christians need to understand that everything in this universe has its point of origin with God.

I can be a father, a son, and a brother, however the moment I have a child that child is no longer me. We are not one in essence and we are not one in identity. To say that everything that proceeds from God is of the same nature with God would be to capitulate to pantheism.

To demand that everything that comes from God must share the same nature as God is blatant pantheism.


I also want to know would it be appropriate to say that the Father proceeds from the Son and the Holy Spirit?

Could we say that the Son proceeds from the Holy Spirit and the Father? If not why not? This issue raises more questions than it answers. It’s also of interest that Tertullian believed there was a point when the ‘Son‘ was not existent. This was also the view of Christian Evangelist Calvinist John McArthur in his Anti Lordship view until recently.

Please see the following where John McArthur had questions on this issue:


The Holy Spirit is Omnipresent =Therefore God?

Many Christians also want to assert that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent. So by this, it is to be understood that only God is omnipresent and thus the Holy Spirit is God.


Christians need to understand something very clearly Muslims do not believe that Allah is ‘everywhere‘. We do not believe that God is contained inside of space/time. It is a heretical view according to Muslims to believe that God occupies a location be it one place or every place. Because any place is a creation of the Creator.


Let us examine the proof text Christians use to say that the Holy Spirit is omnipresent.


Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.” (Psalm 139:7-10)


Suffice it to say that when a person looks at the context of this passage it should in no way be taken literally. How can a person make their ‘bed in the depths‘? What is meant by the ‘wings of the dawn‘? Where is the ‘far side of the sea‘? And do you really feel God ‘holding you fast‘?


We would first have to establish from the text that David is talking about the Holy Spirit (the third of three in a Trinity) in the sense that Christians tell us.


Second, there has to be internal evidence to suggest that this is even referring to the Holy Spirit rather than an angel. Even the Spirit of God can be understood to be the power of God.


The spirit referenced above could simply be talking about one’s inner spirit or consciousness. The very spirit God breathed into man. This makes sense because everywhere you go you take yourself with you; which would include the spirit of life within you.


Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the spirit of life, and man became a living being (Genesis 2:7 Amplified Bible)


“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)


The immediate understanding of this text is explained within the text itself. The spirits and prophets are used interchangeably.

Holy Spirit is not omnipresent

There are many texts in the Bible that show that the Holy Spirit is not omnipresent.

“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. (Luke 1:15)


The emphasis on ‘even from birth‘ shows this is not a normal occurrence. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not omnipresent.

“And with that, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

(John 20:23)

You can’t receive what you already have.


“And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.” (Luke 3:22 Moffat’s Translation)


So the Holy Spirit is going from point A to point B. And is not omnipresent. The above text also reinforces the view that Trinitarianism is actually Tri-theism. In the above text, the people clearly witnessed Jesus in a form (a body) and the Holy Spirit in a form (a body) so this is two incarnations. God becomes a man and God becomes a dove.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” (Galatians 5:22)

Based upon the above passage I would argue that Adolf Hitler did not have the Holy Spirit. I did not see the things described above in Adolf Hitler or in his actions towards other human beings. Adolf Hitler did not have the Holy Spirit and therefore the Holy Spirit is not omnipresent.

We can also use logic to show that the Holy Spirit is not omnipresent.

The Holy Spirit is not inside of the heart or mind of Satan.

The Holy Spirit does not dwell inside of unregenerate non-believers. It makes no sense that the Holy Spirit would rest inside of me and not give me faith to be a Christian.


This is one of the reasons why many Calvinist Christians have had some trouble with the following text:

“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit(Acts 7:51)


How is it possible to resist the Holy Spirit when it is omnipresent? What does this say about the sovereignty of God? I thought Calvinist believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates people? But apparently, if they can resist the Holy Spirit they can also accept the Holy Spirit. This to me is a strong proof text for the Arminian view in the ongoing Intra-Christian theological disputes.


Christians also claim that because the Holy Spirit is called ‘Lord‘ and Jesus is called ‘Lord‘ this means the Holy Spirit is God.


But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted because the veil is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but when a person turns to the Lord the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

(2 Corinthians 3:17)


This is problematic to Trinitarian (Tri theist) theology because if Jesus is the Lord and the Spirit is the Lord than the Spirit is Jesus and Jesus is the Spirit. However, in Trinitarian (Tri theist) theology clearly states that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not Jesus. So while the Sabellian (Oneness Pentecostals are laughing at Trinitarians about this) I have the following text for them.

Lords, what must I do to be saved? (Acts 16:31).

Here in this text, the Philippian Jailer calls Paul and Silas as Lords. We know that Paul and Silas are not God.


Holy Spirit is All-Knowing=Therefore Holy Spirit is God


Christians want to use the following text to say that the Holy Spirit is all-knowing and since only God is all-knowing the Holy Spirit must too be God. But is this really what the text says?

“…but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except for the man’s spirit within him? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11)


Again I think people come to this text in Corinthians without really stopping to think about it in its context. Notice that people don’t focus where it says “In the same way”. A very good question to ask is this. The spirit within a human being is it part of your essence? Is it one in identity with you? It is a separate entity from you? Is it independent of you in any way?


Notice when it talks about a man’s spirit within him this is possessive. The spirit is possessed and not independent of the man. We can also translate ‘no one knows the thoughts of God except the spirit of God‘ without making the word spirit with a capital ‘S’. I would submit that this passage is Gnostic-esoteric in nature. As mentioned above in Genesis 2:7 God has already put his Spirit into mankind. Also if the Spirit is searching what is it looking for? We are already told it’s omnipresent and if it is indeed all-knowing that begs the question.


However, let’s take the literal approach and see how well it fits.

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


Here we can see that only the Father knows about the last day. If the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father as Trinitarians (Tri Theist) claim than the Holy Spirit does not know about the hour either.

Is the Holy Spirit a someone? If the answer is yes then the above text applies to it as well.

If the Holy Spirit is a ‘no one‘ then let that stand on the record.


The text is very clear, ‘only the Father‘.


Another problem with taking the text in Corinthians literally is the following.


“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me [Jesus Christ] by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.” (John 16:13-15)

If the Holy Spirit knows the innermost things of God he would simply be able to instruct the followers of Christ directly. However, he has to get commands from the Father. This ultimately shows that it’s the Father who guides into all truth and not the Holy Spirit of its own accord. Though Trinitarians (Tri theist) will argue the passage shows distinction which is not in dispute, it does show that the Holy Spirit is unable to guide and give the truth in and of itself. This is clear proof that if it was equal with the Father in every respect it would be able to guide and give the truth of its own accord.


Another note is that the Gospel writer ‘John‘ personified the Holy Spirit using personal pronouns “he” or “him” However, that is because the rules of Greek grammar demanded this. The Greek word ‘parakletos‘ Is a masculine pronoun.


“Likewise, the Spirit also keeps our infirmities: For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: But the Spirit (autos) ITSELF makes intercession for us with groaning which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8:26)

The writer of Romans was consistent with the rules of Greek grammar when calling the Holy Spirit using the neuter noun ‘pneuma‘ the gender-less pronoun, “It” was used. 

So the writings are simply a reflection of the use of Greek grammar than it is revealing anything about the nature of God.

When was the Father or the Son ever called ‘It‘? 


Let’s continue with is the Holy Spirit All-Knowing.


Thie following verse if not carefully taken into consideration will lead many Christians into embarrassing situations.

“But you have an injunction from the Holy One, and you know all things.” (1 John 2:20)


If we are to understand that the Holy Spirit is all-knowing and that according to the passage above in John it guides Christians into ‘all truth‘ and because of this Christians know ‘all things‘. Then there are few outcomes of this.

1) The Bible is a flat lie because Christians do not know the truth of all things. Many Christians can be asked questions on algorithms, geometry, astrophysics, how to translate certain languages, auto-mechanics, and microbiology and they wouldn’t know what it is.

2) All things can mean in relation to spiritual truths and matters.

As I am not ready to be so mean spirited I would submit that no. 2 seems to be a reasonable understanding of the passages in 1 Corinthians 2: 10-11, John 16:13-15, and 1 John 2:20.


The mind of Christ/mind of Spirit 

“The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.” (Romans 8:6) 

“Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:16)

Some Christians will use these two texts as interchangeable. Saying that the mind of Christ is the same as the mind of the Spirit. 

This can’t be for many reasons.  The mind of Christ was a mind that didn’t know the hour (Mark 13:32) Not only this but if the ‘mind of Christ‘ was a mind that contained ‘all truth‘ there would be no need to send the Holy Spirit (John 16:13-15)


If the Holy Spirit empowers you to have the ‘mind of Christ‘ which is a mind that doesn’t know all, and that mind, in turn, directed you to the Holy Spirit this becomes a circular type of reasoning. A loop.  Jesus never once said he was ‘all the truth‘. 



God is said to be Spirit. Holy Spirit =Spirit =Therefore Holy Spirit=God


 Finally, in a last-ditch effort, many Christians will also cite John 4:24 “God is Spirit


Now many Christians will use their imaginations and make the passage say something that it clearly does not: namely, God is the Holy Spirit.

First I am quite thankful the translation has been corrected from the King James version which states that “God is ‘a’ Spirit”. This would mean one of many and could support Trinity or any number of deities existing together.

So let us look at the full context of John 4:24 which says ‘God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” If the Trinitarians (Tri-theist) are to be consistent then the passage should look something like this, “God is Holy Spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Holy Spirit and in truth.”

This now raises its own problems. If the worshipers must worship in spirit (meaning this is now the Holy Spirit) then why add AND IN TRUTH? The Holy Spirit guides into all truth so that would be sufficient.


When all this passage is simply talking about is that God is invisible immaterial and those who worship him should do so in their spirit and mind sincerely.

Other thoughts and points of consideration.

I would like to share a few other passages that do not have much to say in the way of the topic but are interesting nonetheless.

“Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?” (Acts 5:9)

My response to this would be why not test the Spirit of the Lord when 1 John 4:1 tells us to do this? Was Peter not aware of this instruction? I’m not making a big deal about this text. I am not trying to say this is a Bible problem nope. I’m just curious about that.

But its’ interesting, if Peter himself was filled with the Holy Spirit, was he not guided in asking the question?


The Holy Spirit doesn’t have a name.

Food for thought. In the ongoing debate between Oneness Christians and Tri-Theist the Oneness Christians could bring the following argument:  “The Trinitarian tells us that the economy of the Trinity consist of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They tell us that they are all persons. So tell us what is the name of the Father, what is the name of the Son, what is the name of the Holy Spirit?” 


John the Baptist is God? 

For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.(Luke 1:15) 


This apparently is unlike Jesus himself who had to receive the Holy Spirit at his baptism. Every human being a soul/spirit within them. What John the Baptist has here according to this text is ‘the third of three‘ in the form of the Holy Spirit.


Not only that but you can imagine someone sanctified by the Holy Spirit being a sinner?


John the Baptist (a.s) was sinless. So God can just send his Holy Spirit and sanctify everyone he wants to save at birth. No need to send his Son, Christ Jesus who has to run around for 30+ years before the plan of salvation comes into fruition.

In fact, the Holy Spirit is demonstrably more effective than Christ Jesus.


“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.” (1 John 3:9) 

We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.” (1 John 5:18)



They will ask you about the Spirit. Say: “The Spirit is one of the commands of my Lord. You have only been given a little knowledge.” (Qur’an chapter 17 verse 85)

In the end, I do not believe there is any concrete text or evidence from the Bible that show that the Holy Spirit is the third of three in a Trinity. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is God.

I pray that Allah guides those who are looking into these matters. May Allah (swt) open the hearts of the misguided to the truth of Islam.  All praise be to Allah.

And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)


Filed under Uncategorized

The Shi’a and the Origin of Black People: Blatant Racism

“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” (Qur’an 49:13)

“And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colors. Indeed in that are signs for those of knowledge.” (Qur’an 30:22)

There is nothing in the Qur’an that even remotely suggest that human diversity is in any way shape or form connected to some type of punishment, sin or curse.

However, Shi’a brothers have come along with some very bizarre assertions.


The source for this before they remove it is:

There is for all to see in broad day light. This is related from their 10th Imam Ali Ibn Mohammed Al-Hadi (Al Naqi)

By authentic traditions, it is related from ‘Abd al-‘Azim that Imam ‘Ali al-Naqi said that Nuh lived for two thousand five hundred years. One day while he was sleeping on the Ark, a strong wind blew and uncovered him. Ham and Yafith saw this and started laughing. Sam scolded them and covered Nuh. Nuh woke up and saw the two of them laughing and inquired the reason for that. Sam narrated what had happened. Nuh raised his hands towards the heavens and said, “O God, change the seed of Ham and al-Yasa‘ so that they beget dark-skinned children.” Nuh told them: “God has made your children the slaves of the children of Sam because he did good to me. You both are disinherited and your disinheritance will manifest itself in your children and the signs of notoriety will remain distinguishable in the progeny of Sam until the time the world will last. Therefore, all dark-skinned people are children of Ham and all the Turks, Saqaleyeh, Gog and Magog are the descendants of Yafith.”

Apart from this, those who are reddish and fair, are the children of Sam.”

So you can imagine with the Shi’a making a fuss about the Hadith of the Ark and supposedly all the vile people were wiped out in a flood and only the pure and the righteous were taken on the Ark of Noah (a.s), that eventually some people began to inquire about the variations in phenotypes, colours and complexions of human beings.

Of course there are obvious theological questions that come from this. All of the Ahl Bayt of Noah (a.s) on the ark would have to be righteous and pure. This makes logical sense. I mean if Allah (swt) is going to go to the lengths of wiping out the whole of humanity for their evil and sins you certainly wouldn’t want any evil people hitching a ride on the Ark.

For example:

“And it sailed with them through waves like mountains, and NOAH CALLED TO HIS SON who was apart , “O MY SON, come aboard with us and be not with the disbelievers. But he said, “I will take refuge on a mountain to protect me from the water.” Noah said, “There is no protector today from the decree of Allah , except for whom He gives mercy.” And the waves came between them, and he was among the drowned.” (Qur’an 11:42-43)

So it is not going to make any sense to say that those who went on Ahl Bayt of Noah (a.s) on the ark are those who are not pure, those with treachery in their hearts.

However, are Shi’a brothers go and make a big mess of things concerning this Hadith of the Ark.


So naturally there might be curious people who would inquire about the variations of phenotypes, pigmentation, and colours of human beings.

So this ‘infallible‘ Imam Imam Ali Ibn Mohammed Al-Hadi (Al Naqi) went into the kitchen and started to cook up something for the curious. He added carrots, and cumin and ginger, and he added the black, and the brown, and he threw everything in there except for the “reddish, the fair skinned“. Of course because he was from among them.

So let’s look at this. Noah (a.s) apparently has a part of his body uncovered by the wind. Who is responsible for the wind blowing? Is it not Allah (swt)?

” Nuh raised his hands towards the heavens and said, “O God, change the seed of Ham and al-Yasa‘ so that they beget dark-skinned children.”

So what are dark skinned people suppose to think of their complexion? That it is the result of the majesty and glory of Allah (swt) or that it is the result of sin?

What makes this even more riveting is that when you take into account that Noah (a.s) is considered the third prophet after Adam (a.s). This means that the original humans were ‘the fair skinned‘.


This beautiful little girl is the creation of Allah (swt). She is beautiful. Black is beautiful and it is only the hearts that are corrupt.

“God has made your children the slaves of the children of Sam because he did good to me.”

You have to ask yourself what did the children do? Is this the concept of justice the Shi’a uphold? Is this what we can expect from Imam Mahdi?

We know where the Shi’a imams got this nonsense from.

They got it from:

“And Ham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his brothers outside. But Shem and Japeth took a garment, and laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.” (Genesis 9:22-23).

The Shi’a imams give their own twist to this.

The problem, of course, is that the Shi’a tell us that Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Babawayh al-Qummi or Shaykh As Saduq quote this as evidence to explain why blacks are black.

Al-Majlisi authenticated it!

Some real gems among the Shi’a narrators.

Narration 1) Ali bin Ibrahim, from Haroon bin Muslim, from Mas’adah bin Ziyad, from Abu Abdullah from Amirul-Mu’mineen Ali who said:

“Beware of marrying the Negroes (Zunj) for they are an ugly creation.”

Source: [Al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 1. ]


Here is an open challenge to any 12er Shi’a reading this, 12er. Bring for us one piece of evidence of any of the hadith maters who critiqued this narration based upon the Matn alone.

Nevermind the chain of narrators. Why wouldn’t the text alone be enough to call into account its veracity?

Narration 2) Ali bin Ibrahim, from Ismael bin Muhammad al-Makki, from Ali bin al-Husain, from ‘Amr bin Othman, from al-Husain bin Khalid, from whom he mentioned from Abu Ar-Rabi’ al-Shami from Imam Abu Abdullah who said:

“Do not [even] buy anyone who is a Negro…never marry anyone of the Kurdish (people) for they are part of the Jinn (demons)…”

Source: (Al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 2)

Narration 3) (Narrated) Several of our fellows from Sahl bin Ziyad, from Musa bin Ja’far, from ‘Amr bin Sa’eed, from Muhammad bin Abdillah al-Hashimi, from Ahmad bin Yousuf, from Ali bin Dawood al-Haddaad said: Imam Abu Abdullah [as] said:

“Marry not from the Negroes (Zanj) nor the Khazar, for they have near relatives whom are unfaithful.”

Source: (Al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 3)


“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” (Qur’an 49:13)

We are regarded in the sight of Allah (swt) based upon our righteousness and nothing else. If Allah (swt) bestows favours upon any of us more than others, it is simply a mercy and a blessing from Allah (swt). It is also a trial if we are not grateful.

Allah (swt) loves all of His creation. In fact when describing the process of creatin humanity Allah (swt) chose to tell us that it from altered ‘black mud‘.

We also know that it is the characteristic of the most vile of creation, Iblis, that insist that he would not regard a creation made from altered black mud.

He said, “Never would I prostrate to a human whom You created out of clay from an altered black mud.” (Qur’an 15:33)

May Allah (swt) increase us all in love for one another. May Allah (swt) cause us to appreciate the beauty in the diversity of His creation. May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized