Al-Muatamad The Reliable Jurisprudence of Prayer By Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali

Recite, what has been revealed to you of the Book and establish prayer. Indeed, prayer prohibits immorality and wrongdoing, and the remembrance of Allah is greater. And Allah knows that which you do.” (Qur’an 29:45)

The Prophet (saw) then added, “Pray as you have seen me praying, and when it is the time for the prayer one of you should pronounce the Adhan and the oldest of you should lead the prayer.”

Source: (Al Bukhari 631 Book of Call to prayers Book 10 hadith 28 in English Vol 1 Book 11 Hadith 604)

 

Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali (May Allah continue to benefit us by him)

 

al-Muatamad English Part no.1, Version no.1

 

This is truly a monumental work and achievement by Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali (Religious Studies Supervisor at Sultan Qaboos University). This book, Al-Muatamad (The Reliable Jurisprudence on Prayer) was going for a fee. However, Shaykh Muatasim has given me permission to share the pdf file to this website. Many times people will come and take and not appreciate the efforts that others have done. So I am humbly asking you that if you follow this method in your prayers to ask Allah (swt) to reward Shaykh Muatasim for delivering to us in the English speaking world the method of prayer as instructed by the Blessed Messenger (saw).

You may also print out this simple and useful guide for the prayer as well: Salaat Simplified – z-card

 

I am also asking (if you are able) to make a financial contribution (in any amount) to the following Masjid: https://ahlulistiqamah.co.uk/index.php/en/

They are truly beautiful and noble people. 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Sufis and the Ana (I)

When his Lord said to him, ‘Surrender,’ he said, ‘I am now in submission to the Lord of all that exists.” (Qur’an 2:131)

 

The Sufis and the ‘Ana’ (I)

 

The problem is not with the self, the problem is what one does with the self. Allah (swt) is not everything. If Allah (swt) was everything we would be automatons. Without the I there would be no struggle and without the struggle, there would be no surrender, no submission.  

 

Say, “O people, I am only to you a clear warner.” (Qur’an 22:49)

 

It is not the I AM it is what the I is in relation to. It is what proceeds and follows the I.

He said: What hindered you so that you did not prostrate when I commanded you? He said: I am better than he: You hast created me of fire, while him You did create of dust.” (Qur’an 7:12)

 

I am dust but nonetheless, I am

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Unscripted #9 Dr. Yasir Qadhi unrepentantly reveals ALL!

“The servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say words of peace.” (Qur’an 25:63)

This is a very excellent interview. It was done very well by the host, they did a great interview. They focused on important issues all the while keeping the atmosphere relaxed.

 

Very impressed with Dr. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi. This is a must-watch!

It shows the evolution in the views of Shaykh Yasir Qadhi. It is very eye-opening. I will put down some statements that really caught my attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8WYUj19Ltk

 

Yasir Qadhi –

No longer identifies as Salafi
Doesn’t want to be trapped by one theological school.

“The more that a person studies and the more a person grows that inevitably they change their positions. To remain stagnant on the views you had in your 20s when you reach 40,50 or 60 shows you haven’t really been studying.”

@:15:23 “When you been going through this for years and years and years you start rethinking through allot of what you been taught and studied.”

@:15:50 “These creeds that we are wed to also have elements of human products in them.”

@16:31 “Frankly the Sunni theological schools are very much akin to these legal schools, each one of these strands is attempting with their best efforts to get at the truth with a capital “T”. And we need to understand that they are human attempts to get at the truth.”

@17:10 “I no longer view myself as being pigeonholed within a particular theological strand.”

@27:59 “Never substitute the school for the religion of Islam, this, unfortunately, is what sectarianism has done.”

May Allah (swt) continue to give us more people who will speak honestly about our history and about our current condition.

May Allah (swt) continue to bless Shaykh Yasir Qadhi and bless others through what he has been taught and what he continues to learn.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ibadi perspective: Rebellion and Oppression A Middle Way

And DO NOT OBEY the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend their ways” (Qur’an 26:151-152)

 

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). 

In this clear verse, we find that in matters of disagreement between those in authority and those under authority, we need to refer back to Allah and the Messenger. Had it been that those in authority were infallible or divinely appointed then, Allah wouldn’t have given any scope to disagree with them.

The fact that there is disagreement proves that “those in authority aka the Ulil Amr”, are neither an absolute nor an infallible authority.

Before we get into this article let it be said that in truth good governance and a stable society are indeed a blessing from Allah (swt). Many of us have the leisure time to read a post like this in relative comfort and safety. The worse thing anyone could want for their government or any other government is chaos and ruin.

 

We should also reflect that there are indeed a very few key components that make for a stable society, regardless of the social-political worldview of that government. Those components are being able to drink clean water and afford food. Being able to afford comfortable housing, and in many places being able to have access to electricity. Another component is the ability of the government (in whatever form it takes) to be able to implement law and order.

If you were to remove three of these five factors, let us say, water, electricity, and the ability to access food for as much as a few days, many countries would quickly descend into chaos.

Therefore indeed a stable government and stable governance is a blessing from Allah (swt).

According to Maslow’s pyramid of hierarchical needs the very basic needs of any human being or group of human beings are psychological and safety needs. To be honest many governments of the world fail to address these very basic needs. Some of them through no fault of their own, such as a devastating natural disaster, and some of them through social engineering and social-economic systems that benefit the few and leave the masses to want.

 

The second aspect of this pyramid is the feeling of belonging and the feeling of self-esteem. Now usually nation-states try and invoke feelings of belongings by nationalism. The feeling of self-esteem presents itself through merit through the education system, feats of valor in military service, and/or sports. However, even then most feelings of self-esteem and prestige come from the privileged group continuing to hold on to their privilege and in usually in today’s market economy where materialistic nihilism is the new spirituality by making oneself feel superior to the next guy.

 

You have a better this. You have more of that. You have greater access to….and so forth. These all give false feelings of accomplishment.

In the last part of Maslow’s pyramid, the feeling of self-actualization is never reached or even encouraged in any government that I am aware of. Often for some people reaching that state of self-actualization and a sense of true freedom and/or awakening means going against the status quo.

So indeed having a stable government is a blessing from Allah (swt). That being said having a government that oppresses itself people, does not allow legal representation, has kangaroo court systems, sends death squads, inquisitors, police, and other people to crush those who have different ideas and world views is not a blessing from Allah (swt).

 

“So stand firm in your devotion to the faith, inclining to truth, [according to] the innate nature Allah has instilled in [all] people. There is no changing Allah’s creation. This is the correct religion, but most people do not know it..” (Qur’an 30:30)

The innate nature (fit’rata)

When your Lord told the angels, “I will place a steward on earth,” they said, “Will you put someone there who will corrupt it and shed blood, while we glorify, praise, and sanctify You?” He said, “I know things you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:30)

 

The English definition of violence is as follows:

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.

So we speak of a violent storm or we say that the volcano had a violent eruption.

 

Tariq Ramadan (May Allah have mercy on him) held a debate with Christopher Hitchens on the topic: “Is Islam a Religion of Peace” Which to be honest was a horrible proposition for Tariq Ramadan to debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMraxhd9Z9Q

@19:50 marks you can see Tariq Ramadan express his reservations about the title for the debate. However, as Christopher Hitchens rightly pointed out he knew the proposition beforehand.

The better title would have been. “Is Islam a Religion of Violence.” Christopher Hitchens could have argued that it is evident whereas Tariq Ramadan could have made his point that Islam deals in war and peace and thus it deals with peace and violence.

@20:50 Tariq Ramadan made the point that Islam deals with humans and has such you deal with violence and you deal with peace.

 

ISLAM REGULATES THE REALITY OF VIOLENCE.

“So stand firm in your devotion to the faith, inclining to truth, [according to] the innate nature Allah has instilled in [all] people. There is no changing Allah’s creation. This is the correct religion, but most people do not know it..” (Qur’an 30:30)

Keep in mind the English definition of violence is as follows:

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

There is not a creature on this earth even among plants and corals that do not act violently in some way shape or form or have not been given the means to defend themselves from aggression.

Vegans and vegetarians do violence to plants. Insects, fish, and all manner of plants, flora, fauna, and creatures do violence to each other in this world.

Even if we were to witness a Jain in meditation one may not see the battlefield of violence inside the devotee’s body as different types of bacteria unleash violence on other types of bacteria.

I do not think there is a man reading this that if someone was to go into his home and try and rape his mother, daughter, sister, wife, or anyone else that he would put his life on the line to defend that person.

This is natural. Even among animals that try to flee a situation if given no other opportunity, they will stand their ground and fight.

“So stand firm in your devotion to the faith, inclining to truth, [according to] the innate nature Allah has instilled in [all] people. There is no changing Allah’s creation. This is the correct religion, but most people do not know it..” (Qur’an 30:30)

Now let us do some thinking for a moment. Let us look at some passages from the Qur’an.

“And if he [Muhammed] had made up about Us some [false] sayings
We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta valve.” (Qur’an 69:44-46)

“Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right – only because they say, “Our Lord is Allah.” And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.” (Qur’an 22:39-40)

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 2:190)

 

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they are impaled…” (Qur’an 5:33)


A prophet may not take captives until he has thoroughly decimated [the enemy] in the land. You desire the transitory gains of this world, while Allah desires [for you] [the reward of] the Hereafter and Allah is all-mighty, all-wise.” (Qur’an 8:67)

So if you come upon such people in war, make a harsh example of them to deter those coming after them so that hopefully they will pay heed.” (Qur’an 8:57)

 

 

TURN THE OTHER CHEEK?

The closest verse to pacifism or turning of the other cheek that one will find is the following:

And We ordained therein for them: Life for a life, eye for an eye, nose for a nose, ear for an ear, tooth for a tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him, an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the wrong-doers.” (Qur’an 5:45)

So in this verse, a person can forgive a wrong that is done to them; however, they are not required to do so.

These verses are only a handful of many many more than can be quoted. This is to ask us all to reflect. Islam a religion that regulates violence. We are commanded to sacrifice animals on certain occasions. Those of us who are magistrates (judges) are commanded to enact the penalties of the Islam penal code on those who transgress the limits. The Blessed Prophet (saw) is threatened with extreme violence if he even were to think of pretending to write something on authority from Allah (swt). Allah (swt) commands Muslims to fight those who fight them, and that some times Allah (swt) uses some people as a means of checks and balance upon the Earth.

HOWEVER…..

When it comes to the leader Islam demands complete and total obedience?

Something seems very off about this.

 

POSITIVE PROOFS THAT WE CAN REBEL AGAINST AN UNJUST LEADER.

First, it should be understood that if there is a dispute among parties that they refer the matter back to the book of Allah (swt). Second, the administration or government deserves admonishment first and foremost. No one group or individual has the right to take any matters into their own hands. 

 

“Do you not see those who have been given a portion of the Book being invited to let Allah’s Book be the judge between them? But then a group of them turn away.” (Qur’an 3:23)

So the first point of reference is to the Qur’an.

Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 2:190)

If two groups of believers should fight each other, then try to reconcile them. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight the oppressing group until it complies with Allah’s command. Once it has complied, make peace between them with justice and be equitable. Allah loves those who are equitable. “ (Qur’an 49:9)

Understanding the first proof:

These two verses together absolutely debunk the idea that Muslims cannot rebel against a leader. It is not reasonable to think that if two groups of believers were fighting each other (with intent to kill) that the leader would not be opposed (if not among one of the two warring factions). Notice that it uses the word ‘believers’ when discussing those who would be fighting (with intent to kill). Also says until it complies with Allah’s command (amri-l-lahi). Notice it does not say until it complies with the uli-l-amri (those that are given authority over you).

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

Understanding the second proof.

In this clear verse, we find that in matters of disagreement between those in authority and those under authority, we need to refer back to Allah and the Messenger. Had it been that, those in authority were infallible or divinely appointed, or to be given absolute obedience then, Allah (swt) wouldn’t have given any scope to disagree with them.

The fact that there is disagreement proves that “those in authority aka the Uli-l-amri”, are neither an absolute nor an infallible authority, nor are Muslims to submit to their seat of power in all things.

In fact, often those who argue that we should obey the ruler no matter what will use this verse to deceive the masses! They will quote, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.” However, they do not quote the full verse! Why is that? Because it is proof against them!

 

“People, be mindful of your Lord, who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them spread countless men and women far and wide; be mindful of Allah, in whose name you make requests of one another. Beware of severing the ties of kinship: Allah is always watching over you. (Qur’an 4:1)


“O you who believe,
do not take your fathers nor brothers as allies if they prefer rejection to belief. And whoever of you takes them as such, then these are wicked.” (Qur’an 9:23) 

 

Understanding the proof.

The proof here is from inference. There can be no greater bonds than that of family, kith and kin. Yet even these blood ties are to be forsaken when our family turns to evil. If this is the case of blood ties how much more to an unjust, impious, or evil ruler?

 

“For that cause, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it will be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoever saves the life of one, it will be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came to them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterward lo! many of them continued to commit excess on the Earth.” (Qur’an 5: 32)

Understanding the proof.

No commentary, no tafsir that I have ever come across said that the verse above applies to everyone except the Khalif/Sultan/Leader, etc. If there is bring forth the evidence.

If you saved the life of the Khalif/Sultan/Leader it will be as if you saved the life of the whole mankind.

If you took the life of the Khalif/Sultan/Leader unjustly it will be as if you saved the life of the whole of mankind.

Now there are two caveats here the verse tells us.

You can take a life if someone has taken a life unjustly. You can take a life if someone is spreading fasadin (corruption). Who better to spread corruption on the Earth than a corrupt Khalif/Sultan/Leader who is in a position of authority, influence, and power.

The killing of one person from a practical perspective outweighs the millions of lives that can be lost due to a leader who continues to kill and oppress.

 

And that was ‘Aad, who rejected the signs of their Lord and disobeyed His messengers and followed the order of every obstinate tyrant. and they were [therefore] followed in this world with a curse and [as well] on the Day of Resurrection. Unquestionably, ‘Aad denied their Lord; then away with ‘Aad, the people of Hud.” (Qur’an 11:59-60)

Understanding the proof.

Allah (swt) contrary to the hadiths that “Ahl Sunnah” will quote, did not find following the orders of every obstinate tyrant to be something meritorious and praiseworthy but rather something blameworthy and shameful, even to the point of being cursed in this life as well as the life to come! May Allah (swt) protect us from it!

 

And those who, when tyranny strikes them, they defend themselves, Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, whoever pardons and makes reconciliation – his reward is [due] from Allah. Indeed, He does not love the unjust. And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged – those have not upon them any cause [for blame].  The cause is only against the ones who wrong the people and tyrannize upon the earth without right. Those will have a painful punishment. And whoever is patient and forgives – indeed, that is of the matters requiring determination.” (Qur’an 42:39-43)

Understanding the proof.

While this verse has in two places that discuss forgiveness when retaliation is due, it also has two places that mention retribution for injustice and avenging oneself if wronged that this person is not to be blamed.

Now of course this verse is not encouraging vigilante justice or taking matters into one’s own hands. However, this verse is general and it equally applies to anyone in authority. No one understands that this verse excuses an officer, a judge, an imam, or in-person in a position above others, including the Khalif/Sultan/Leader.

Interestingly the word used for tyranny l-baghyu is also used for injustice, rebellion, discord. So it is not that masses who are the only one’s who rebel, but rulers, who do rebellion against Allah (swt) and against their sacred trust and duty towards people.

Now you will note that for us we rely heavily upon the revelation of Allah (swt) for our position and our proofs. Whereas those who differ with us rely heavily upon the oral traditions for their positions and their proofs.

 

PROOF FROM THE ORAL TRADITIONS, COMPANIONS, AND HISTORY OF EARLY MUSLIMS.

 

#1) It should be known clear as day that we follow the Manhaj of the Blessed Prophet (saw) who is reported to have said…

On the authority of Abu Sa`eed al-Khudree (r.a) who said:

I heard the Messenger of Allah (swt) say, “Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart — and that is the weakest of faith.”

Understanding the proof:

Note that the very first recourse was to change the situation with the hands ……not to abide it with patience, not to run and hide like a coward but to change it with your hands…..first….not last…

Lastly, notice that it says clear as day that hating it with your heart (is the weakest of faith).

 

#2) Also, keep in mind that those who say and claim it is a sin to go against the ruler the well-known exchange between Umar Ibn Al Khattab (r.a) and a companion.

One day Khaleefah Umar bin al-Khattab stood up and delivered a speech in which he said: “O people, whoever among you sees any crookedness in me, let him straighten it.” A man stood up and said: “By Allah if we see any crookedness in you we will straighten it with our swords.” Umar said: “Praise be to Allah Who has put in this ummah people who will straighten the crookedness of Umar with their swords.”

Source: (Dr Muhammad as-Sallabi, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, His Life and Times,’ vol. 1, p. 213)

This is well known.

Umar (r.a) was humble and pious and just. The people had the right to say such statements because people like him and Abu Bakr (r.a) were immense people and great leaders.

However, when the “Ahl Sunnah” started to be ruled by dynasties and oppressors and people who were less than these great men, they made such excuses for them.

Verily, tyrannical rulers will come after me and whoever affirms their lies and supports their oppression has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him, and he will not drink with me at the fountain in Paradise. Whoever does not affirm their lies and does not support their oppression is part of me and I am part of him, and he will drink with me at the fountain in Paradise.” Source: (Sunan An-Nasa’i 4207)

Understanding the proof.

One of the objectives of the Prophets is to establish justice in the land. It is contrary to the teachings of mercy and justice that people should support and affirm the lies of the oppressors.

Attempts to distort what the Blessed Messenger (saw) gave us concerning oppression and rulers.

#3) Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

Source: (Al Bukhari 7142 Book 93, Hadith 6 Vol 9 Book 89 Hadith 256)

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/93/6

“If an Ethiopian slave with a cut off nose and ear were appointed as your ruler, you would have to listen to and obey his orders as long as he rules in accordance with the Book of Allah.Source: (Sunan Ibn Majah 2861)

Understanding the proof.

This hadith puts to bed the idea that “Ahl Sunnah” have first that the ruler can only come from the Quresh. However, notice that this hadith comes to us with a very interesting addition. That we are to under no circumstances to rebel against a leader/ruler/khalif/sultan of any racial/ethnic background as long as that person rules in accordance with the Book of Allah (swt).

 

Narrated ‘Abdullah:

The Prophet said, “A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it. Source: (Al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 258 & Hadith No. 203, Vol. 4)

Understanding the proof.

The hadith before this one mentions that we are to obey the ruler as long as they rule in accordance with the Book of Allah (swt). The hadith quoted above states that we are to obey the ruler as long as they do not impose upon those they rule over disobedience to Allah (swt).

So we can see that allegiance to a ruler is conditional upon two points.

a) That this ruler actually rules in accordance with the book of Allah (swt).

b) That this ruler does not impose upon the Muslim disobedience to Allah (swt).

 

#4)

Narrated ‘Ali:

The Prophet sent an army unit (for some campaign) and appointed a man from the Ansar as its commander and ordered them (the soldiers) to obey him. (During the campaign) he became angry with them and said, “Didn’t the Prophet order you to obey me?” They said, “Yes.” He said, “I order you to collect wood and make a fire and then throw yourselves into it.” So they collected wood and made a fire, but when they were about to throw themselves into it, they started looking at each other, and some of them said, “We followed the Prophet to escape from the fire. How should we enter it now?” So while they were in that state, the fire extinguished and their commander’s anger abated. The event was mentioned to the Prophet and he said, “If they had entered it (the fire) they would never have come out of it, for obedience is required only in what is good.” Source: (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 259 & hadith No. 629. Vol. 5)

 

Understanding the proof.

This hadith has shown that thankfully the companions were not dimwitted. These people had the intelligence to understand that throwing themselves into fire even though the commander commanded them to do so, that this was something ridiculous. Also again the hadith states that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said, ‘obedience is required only in what is good.’

 

#5) “There is no obedience to the created in the disobedience of the Creator.”

Source: (Ahmad Al-Musnad Vol 1. p. 366, tradition no. 1065, p 372-373, tradition no, 1095, Al-Nasai Al Kubra Vol. 8 p 71 traditions 8667-8668, Mariful Qur’an pg 481 Volume 5)

 

Understanding the proof.

This can be used on many occasions. We are exhorted to obey our parents but they asked us to worship other than Allah (swt) we can refuse them. If a husband asked his wife to do something immoral she can refuse. If the wife asks the husband to do something immoral he can refuse. If a government or any authority asks us to do anything that is in disobedience to Allah (swt) we do not have to obey them.

 

Understanding the Ibadi Position

 

The Ibadis do not encourage revolts against their Imams to avoid bloodshed. It is justifiable only as a last resort and in extreme circumstances, The history of the Ibadhi Imamate in Oman speaks for itself as the following list shows: 

Source: (Shaykh Soud H. Al-Ma’awaly in his book: Ibadhism the Cinderella Story Of Islam)

So there you have it. Yet some so-called Islamic scholars and historians have the impudence to say that Ibadhis are Khawarij who are terrorists and shedders of blood.

Now compare/contrast this with the first four Caliphs and the Umayyads:

 

The Only one killed by a so-called Khawarij is Ali bin Abi Talib (r.a) and this was done in retaliation for Ali’s slaughter of 3000 innocent Muslims at Narhawan.

 

Now compare/contrast this with the Abbasids:

 

 

 

 

Now let me also mention to you (the reader) that the position of the Ibadi school (Ahl Istiqamah) is as follows:

  1. We are absolutely to obey the just and good rulers in our society.
  2. To go against the just and good rulers in our society is a major sin.
  3. To go against an unjust and corrupt ruler who is spreading fitna and fasad is meritorious, praiseworthy, and obligatory.

Now there is a caveat to point 3.

A) If going against the unjust and corrupt ruler will actually meet with little chance of success and cause more bloodshed and chaos than if one had not, it is a sin to go against the rulers. One must abide by their cruelty and oppression with great patience. 

B) If going against the unjust and corrupt ruler will actually meet with a great chance of success and it will cause less bloodshed, suffering, and chaos than as mentioned it is obligatory and meritorious to do so.

That is our position (the position of the Ibadi).

Now a few points to make about some of our brothers from “Ahl Sunnah” and those that take an opposite stance.

  1. The Majority sect does not have a consensus on the issue no matter what they claim. In fact, they even say that one can go against a ruler if they commit a clear act of disbelief. Shaykh Muhammed Al Yaqoubi (may Allah continue to benefit us by him) asked for the overthrowing of Assad in Syria. Or the Madhkali Salafi Muslims who are active in the overthrow of the government of Libya. 
  2. Their claim of ‘ijma’ of course excludes us (Ibadi), Zaidi, and 12er Shia. Because in their fanaticism they consider us as heretics.
  3. Name a single scholar in the history of “Ahl Sunnah” that was against the rebellion of an unjust ruler or tyrant that was A) Not on the government payroll or patronized by the government & B) Not admired and patronized by the elites.
  4. The fact that the “Ahl Sunnah” will claim that going against the ruler will result in more bloodshed and death and yet they will not even entertain the idea that replacing an obstinate tyrant by force would actually result in less bloodshed and death in the end.
  5. Their inconsistency in saying that those who rebel against the sultan/khalif have left Islam but their recognition that if such a rebellion is successful that the new leadership (taken by force) is now legitimate!
  6. Their inconsistency regarding the companions. Which we will discuss now.

 

 

We hold fast to the following:

“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). 

That’s it. If we are all Muslims than we can certainly turn to the book of Allah (swt) to settle our disputes.

In conclusion:

We should all do our best to be loyal, productive citizens of whatever state that we live in. We should abide by its rules and dictates. If we are not happy where we live there is nothing wrong with us immigrating to a place we feel may be more suitable for us.

However, if our lives and our property begin to be taken unjustly and we have no recourse to legal representation or no recourse for justice there are certain situations where it is in the best interest of the people to rise up against oppression and bring about better governance for themselves. Hopefully any government agencies or people in the employ of government agencies reading this post as inciting violence or sedition in any way shape or form. Government’s all over the world are intelligent enough to know that if they oppress people there will be repercussions to their actions. May Allah (swt) guide all governments in making just decisions. 

Allah (swt) knows best and the help of Allah (swt) is sought.

I dedicate this particular article to the struggle of the Palestinian people, the people of Syria, the people of Iraq, Kashmir, Yemen, the Muslims of Myanmar, the Muslims of Western China.

I dedicate this particular article to all people suffering from oppression and injustice all over the world. If Muslims are oppressing Non-Muslims than may Allah (swt) soften the heart of those Muslims and if not may Allah (swt) give victory to any Non-Muslim suffering from oppression from Muslims.

May this world be filled with peace and justice. Amin.

And DO NOT OBEY the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend their ways” (Qur’an 26:151-152)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ibadi view of Yazid and the Ummayd dynasty.

And DO NOT OBEY the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend their ways” (Qur’an 26:151-152)


Abu Hamza al-Mukhtar bin ‘Awf, One of the prominent Ibadhi’s of Basrah had this to say about the Umayyad rulers in general and Yazid in particular during a Friday sermon in Medina in the presence of Imam Malik ibn Anas:

“There came Yazid, a libertine in religion and unmanly in behavior, in whom was never perceived right guidance. He would eat forbidden food, and drink wine, and wear a robe worth a thousand dinars, through which you could see his flesh so that the veil of modesty was rent, an unpardonable disrobe. And Haraba the singing girl

on his right, and Salama the singing girl on his left, both singing if you had taken drink away from him, he would rent his garments!

And he would turn to one of them and say, Shall I fly? Aye, he flew. To God’s damnation, and the burning Fire, and a painful torment!

He then turns to the Umayyads:

“The sons of Umayyads are a party of error, and their strength is the strength of tyrants. They take conjecture for their guide, and judge as they please, and put men to death in anger, and govern by mediation and take the law out of context and distribute the public money to those not entitled to them. For God has revealed those who are entitled, and they are eight classes of men, for He says:

“The freewill offerings are for the poor and the needy, those who work to collect them, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and slaves and debtors, and those in the way of Allah and the travelers. they make themselves the ninth category and take it all! Such are those who rule by what Allah has not sent down.” (The World of Islam John A Williams p 218)

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clarity from Obfuscation: Where to place the hands in the prayer?

The Messenger of Allah is certainly a good example for those of you who have hope in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and who remember Allah very often.  (Qur’an 33:21)

 

And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow.”  (Qur’an 2:43)

 

And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Quran 64:12)

 

It has been attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) in the following hadith:

Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported: We came to the Prophet, (saw), while we were young men and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them. Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.” (Source: al-Bukhari 5662, Muslim 674)

 

The hadith above have been used by many people to advocate that Muslims should try and pray the way that the Blessed Messenger (saw) prayed.    Often what they really mean is to pray the way THEY THINK he prayed.  In reality, we don’t have any video footage recorded of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

What we have are two ways of obtaining evidence about the way the Blessed Messenger (saw) performed his prayer.

Before we get into that it is important to understand exactly what the prayer means to us as Muslims.

I would encourage you to read the following: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2019/05/19/the-value-of-the-prayer-in-islam/?wref=tp

 

Clarity from Obfuscation: Where to place the hands in the prayer?

We have a situation in the Muslim Ummah in which there are certain groups who go around and police other people’s prayers.   They are like the ‘prayer police’.  I honestly think that many of them are coming from a place of sincerity in that they only want you to follow what they believe the Blessed Messenger (saw) was doing.

 

However they give the false impression that the correct way of doing the prayer is to place the right hand over the left hand (SOMEWHERE.…..)  -we will come to this latter.  Thus, they will give the impression that anyone who does anything different than this is not doing the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) or worse yet they are doing innovation! Interestingly enough the ‘evidence for placing the hands on the chest’ is not contained in either al- Bukhari or ‘Muslim’

 

First things first.

It should be noted that according to the Majority group , ‘al-Bukhari’ and ‘Muslim’ are the two most authentic hadith collections.

However, you will be quite surprised to know that NEITHER of these collections to you the following information:

 

  1. It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left hand behind your back.
  2. It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left below your navel.
  3. It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left hand in the mid-section.
  4. It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left wrist and grip it.
  5. It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left forearm.
  6. It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand on your left shoulder.
  7. It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand under the chin at the top of the sternum.

Neither of these hadith collections to tell you or inform you to do any such thing at all!

That being said we do have a hadith in ‘al-Bukhari’ that should have many of you scratching your heads:

 

Narrated Sahl bin Sa’d:

“The PEOPLE WERE ORDERED to place the right hand on the left in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I only know that it is attributed tot he Prophet .” ( Source: Volume 1, Book 12, Number 707)

Like why the hell would people need to be ordered to do something that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did? Any Muslim would rush to imitate a sunnah of the prophet!

 

I would encourage you to reflect upon all the oral traditions you have heard attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw).  How often do you hear this terminology “THE PEOPLE WERE ORDERED” ??

 

The people were ordered to sleep on their right side?

The people were ordered to wash their right hands?

The people were ordered to do two rakats upon entering the Masjid?

The Hadith of Sahl closer look:

“Abdullah ibn Maslama related to us from Malik from Abu Hazim from Sahl ibn Sa’d He said: “The people were ordered that a person is to place their right hand over their left hand during Salat.” Abu Hazim said, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet.” Isma’il said,” (I only know that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika).” And he didn’t say: “He attributes” (yanmi).

This hadith -in spite of being in the Muwatta of Imam Malik and the Sahih of Imam Bukhari is not definite proof that the Prophet’s sunnah was to pray while holding his left with his right hand. What weakens such an assumption made from this hadith are the following:

 

#1) It is not an explicit report or statement or action of the Prophet (saw).

#2) The statement, “That the people were ordered that a person is to place their right hand over their left forearm during Salat” is the statement of the Companion, Sahl. And he doesn’t say that the Prophet (saw) gave this order. So there is a possibility that another could have given this order.

#3) The statement, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet” is not the statement of Sahl. Rather it is the statement of the Tab’i Abu Hazim. So there is no certainty that Sahl actually attributed this to the Prophet since Abu Hazim is merely conjecturing about what he remembers.

#4) The statement of Isma’il that (I only know that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika).” And he didn’t say, “He attributes (yanmi)”. further emphasizes the belief that Abu Hazim didn’t actually hear Sahl attribute the order to the Prophet.

#5) Notice that many Muslims pray with their arms below their navel or up midway above the navel or high up on the chest. So obviously that hadith above (which has been shown not to be firmly established from the Prophet) doesn’t help us to know where to place the hands. You could even do takbir and than put your hands behind your back taking the left forearm with the right as in the picture below!

 

(The above illustration is ‘taking the left hand with the right hand’)

 

VARIOUS MUSLIM POLITIES AND EMPIRES WOULD OFTEN FORCE THEIR VIEWPOINTS AND POSITIONS UPON THE MASSES.  THEY WOULD ALSO FORCE PEOPLE TO CHANGE THEIR ACTS OF WORSHIP! 

 

Example being: Ibn Tumart who forced theological positions at sword point!

It is nothing but bigotry and small-mindedness, if not political, Indeed, in Morocco, when Al-Mahdi b.Toumart returned from his travels seeking knowledge in the East, meeting many great Ash’ari scholars like Al-Kiya Al-Harrasi, he proceeded to disseminate the school throughout Morocco, When he claimed to disseminate the school throughout Morocco. When he claimed to be the Mahdi, and established the Almohad state, he obliged the population to adhere to the school, and fought against the school of the early Muslims, dismissing the previous Almoravid state as “anthropomorphists”,  when they actually were upon the way of the early Muslims in their beliefs. He called his own dynasty  Muwahhidun (“Monotheist”). He also opposed the Maliki school and the scholars of Morocco and Andalusia who adhered to it. In this way, enmity developed between the two groups; and the inherent cause was political.”   -The Hadith Scholar, Professor ‘Abdullah Guenon Al-Hasani, President of the Morrocan League of Scholars and Member of the Islamic World League, Mecca’  taken from page 326 (Notions that Must Be Corrected by Shaykh Muhammad b ‘Alawi Al-Maliki Al Hasani)

 

Example being: The Shirazi Shi’a dynasty that forced people to adopt their prayer as well as adopt their version of Shiasm in general!

 

“It was, however, nothing less than a reign of terror that inaugurated the new dispensation. On capturing Tabriz in 907/1501, a city two-thirds Sunnite in population, Shah Esmāʿil threatened with death all who might resist the adoption of Shiʿite prayer ritual in the main congregational mosque, and he had Qezelbāš soldiers patrol the congregation to ensure that none raise his voice against the cursing of the first three caliphs, viewed as enemies of the Prophet’s family. In Tabriz and elsewhere, gangs of professional executors known as the tabarrāʾiān would accost the townsfolk at random, forcing them to curse the objectionable personages on pain of death. Selective killings of prominent Sunnites occurred in a large number of places, notably Qazvin and Isfahan, and in Shiraz and Yazd, outright massacres took place. Sunnite mosques were desecrated, and the tombs of eminent Sunnite scholars destroyed (Aubin, 1970, pp. 237-38; idem, 1988, pp. 94-101).”  (Source: Hamid Algar http://www.cultureofiran.com/islam_safavid_era.html)

 

So yeah these people were not really impressed by the verse: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” (Qur’an 2:256)

 

Often when a Muslim politic conquered a rival Muslim politic they would have the muezzin add to the prayer: “So and so is now the commander of the faithful” -because this was their mass communication in those days.

 

In fact, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf had quoted something very interesting from the great Hanafi master of fiqh and hadith: Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari.

Quoting from Mulla ‘Ali Qari Shaykh Hamza Yusuf says,

“Mulla ‘Ali Qari says It could have been the Prophet, It could have been the Khulfa, or it could have been the rulers that were telling people to do that.”

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf continues:

“So even the Hanafi, one of the great Hanafi scholars of hadith it’s not clear who was telling who to do what.”

 

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf continues:  “My conclusion is I actually think its a political thing. Because the two people who were leaving their hands at their side were the people who were most resistant to the Ummayad rule. And that was the Kwarij and the Shi’a. So it’s very interesting that the thing that immediately distinguishes your political allegiance is in the prayer. ”  (Source is:  @ 07:20 seconds into the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6vobY94XkE&t=940s

 

In fact further proof of what Shaykh Hamza Yusuf says comes to us in the following report:

Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr in his book al-Tamheed narrates that (20:76):

Abd Allah ibn al-Izar said, ‘I used to make tawaf around the Kaba with Said ibn al-Jubayr. Once, he saw a man placing one hand over the other, so he went to him, separated his hands, and then returned to me.

 

Placing the hand over the other was considered to be munkar by Said ibn Al-Jubayr because you can only change an act that is known to be munkar. It is also interesting that he (Said ibn Al-Jubayr) observed a person doing this meaning that it ‘stood out to him’.  So the majority practice during the time of the companions and their successors was to place the arms at the side.

Keep in mind that Said ibn Al-Jubayr took part in the Battle of Dayr al-Jamājim against the Ummayds!

Also, keep in mind that not everyone who opposed the Ummayads prayed sadl (hands to the side).

An example of this is  Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib.   Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib refused to give allegiance to Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr who was opposed to the Ummayads.

Also narrated in al-Tamheed: ‘Abd Allah ibn Yazid said, “I never saw Said ibn al-Musayyib holding his left hand with his right hand in the prayer, he used to lay them straight.”

Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib was one of the biggest Tabi’een in Madina, and this was thus the practice of the people of Madina that Imam Malik witnessed. (Source: al-Tamheed Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr 20:76)

 

Another example of the prayer being an issue of politics is the history of the rivalry in West Africa between the two Sufi Tariqah: The Tijani and The Qadiri.

“Beginning with the 1949 demolition of the Tijani mosque in Sokoto Province at the order of the sultan of Sokoto, tensions between Tijaniyya and Qadiriyya periodically erupted into violence throughout the 1950s and 1960s. A 1956 riot in two districts of Sokoto resulted in four deaths, including that of a Qadiri imam. In 1965, again in Sokoto Province, clashes attributed to Tijaniyya-Qadiriyya disputes resulted in the deaths of eleven policemen. As in Mali , a potent symbol of and perhaps pretext for inter-brotherhood antagonism remains the posture of arms during prayer: Tijanis cross their arms over the chest (kabalu), whereas Qadaris keep their arms straight at their sides. The Qadiris regard kabalu as heretical.(Source: The History of Islam in Africa  page 219)

 

The exact ritual of prayer has long been an expression of difference-especially whether the arms are folded (kablu) or at one’s side(sadlu) when standing in the course of prayer. After Friday prayer, there is also the issue of what dhikr is said and for how long-and whether, as a novelty, bandiri drums are used. There were thus very visible and audible differences between Qadiri and Tijani Muslims, and these could become a source of much controversy. In some emirates, the Tijaniyya clearly represented opposition to the ruling establishment when that establishment was Qadiri. Given that ‘Uthman dan Fodio was a Shaikh of the Qadiriyya and his son was a successor Muhammad Bello refused to abandon his father’s tariqa in favour of the new, radical Tijaniyya (which a visitor to Sokoto, ‘Umar al-Futi, was then strongly promoting), then joining the Tijaniyya was in effect an act of dissidence or at least dissent.” (Source:  Sects & Social Disorder: Muslim Identities & Conflict in Northern Nigeria page 43)

 

The issue of the kabalu (folding the hands) or the sadlu (leaving them)  was ordered in the Tijani Tariqa an outward display of political dissonance and a means of separating them and making them distinct.

 

“For example, Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) strongly recommended us to recite the Basmalah loudly before the Fatihah. This is against the Maliki and Hanafi Madh-habs, but we have to follow it. Shaykh Ibrahim (RA) ordered his (mostly Maliki) followers to pray with folded hands, so Maliki Tijanis have to do it, even if it goes against the Maliki Madh-hab. Indeed, when he was ordered by Allah, Rasul (SAW), and Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) to order the people to pray with folded hands, many people in West Africa fought him. They said to him: “But your father (RA) prayed with open arms???” He replied: “Al-Humduli’Llah! Allah has not ordered us to follow anyone absolutely but the Prophet (SAW)”. Also, when someone said: “But Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) is related to have prayed with open arms too?” Baye (RA) replied: “We take the Tariqah from Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) and we don’t go an inch against him. But, we take the Shari’ah from Rasul-Allah (SAW).” As Shaykh Mahy Cisse told me, Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) also wished to pray Qabd but was not given the permission than as he had other affairs to see to, as well as the fact that his following in Fes and Morocco was not big enough to bring about such a major change. Everything has a time, and the Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) ordered Shaykh Ibrahim (RA) to revive this Sunnah among the Malikis.”

(Source: https://www.facebook.com/181790208517422/posts/the-salah-of-ibrahim-niass-may-allah-be-pleased-with-himwritten-and-published-by/640450455984726/)

 

We should be careful to not take our fiqh and our ijtihad from dreams as anyone can say anything.

 

With a Shaykh, especially a Sufi Shaykh does such a thing they put you in a difficult position. They are either lying or telling the truth

All that you have read was tell you the political history in regards to the Muslims and in particular the politics surrounding the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

 

Now we will be looking at the only three pieces of evidence to support the majority position (all three of them hotly disputed).

1) The Hadeeth of Wa’il Ibn Hujr in Ibn Khuzaimah
2) The Hadeeth of Halb At-Taa’ee in Tirmidhi
3) The Mursal report of Tawus in Sunan Abu Dawud

 

A very important note.   When I said the pieces of evidence about where the hands are placed as the ‘majority practice’  there is a caveat here.

This is the majority position (before the first ruku -bowing).

After the first ruku-bowing leaving the hands at the side (becomes the majority practice) and those putting the hands back on the chest or navel become the minority!!

Now, this is a ‘Salaah Guide’ a guide on doing the prayer according to one of the  Sunni Muslim views.

Now notice that in figure 3 the hands are folded above the navel.   In figure 4 the person is bowing.  However, in figure 4a after coming up from bowing the hands are placed at the sides!

Placing the hands at the side in the prayer after ruku (is the majority practice) among all Muslims worldwide!

HOWEVER…….

As you can observe in the following video there are those Muslims who when they come back up from the ruku they will fold their hands back. In doing this it becomes the (minority practice).

You can see that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYyPSjWAIi8

 

It is a point of dispute among those Muslims who claim to be following ‘The way of the Salaaf‘.   Among the big Salafi Shaykhs who practice this are:

Shaykh Badeeu deen As-Sanadi and Shaykh Bin Baaz whereas Shaykh al-Albaani declared that those who did that are innovators.

 

The proof text that Bin Baaz uses for his position is the very hadith under discussion above!  So this hadith does not tell us if the hand is placed one over the other (where are they to be placed) and if they are to be folded (before or after the ruku)!

 

https://abdurrahman.org/2014/10/08/placing-the-hands-back-on-the-chest-after-the-rukoo-shaykh-al-albaani/

So opposed to the diagram above those people who take the position such as Bin Baaz

they believe the hands go like this before and after the ruku!

 

Now we will be looking at the only three pieces of evidence to support the majority position (all three of them hotly disputed).

 

Before I begin this section I want to say that the proofs and evidence are largely taken from the Sunni Maliki scholar: Mukhtar ibn Muhaydimat ad-Daudi ash-Shinqiti.

 

He wrote a treatise called: “The Legality of Draping the Arms in Salah“.  His works are often used but rarely is the source credited.  May Allah (swt) bless all who have contributed towards learning and truth!

 

1) The Hadeeth of Wa’il Ibn Hujr in Ibn Khuzaimah
2) The Hadeeth of Halb At-Taa’ee in Tirmidhi
3) The Mursal report of Tawus in Sunan Abu Dawud

 

HADITH NO.1 USED THE HADITH OF WA’IL IBN HUJR <

Sayyiduna Wail bin Hujr says, ‘I prayed with the Prophet (saw) and he placed his right hand over his left on his chest’. ( Source: Ibn Khuzaimah, 479)

This hadith has been reported by Muammal bin Ismaeel from Sufyan al Thawri from Aasim bin Kulaib from Wail bin Hujr  -However, it is only Muammal who reports these additional words from Sufyan al Thawri.

 

Sufyan’ al Thawri’s other student, Abdullah bin al Waleed who also narrates this hadith from him does not include these words in his narration as recorded in Imam Ahmad’s Musnad. (Source: Ahmad 18392)

 

Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyyah also says in I’laam al Muwaqqieen, ‘No one has said upon the chest apart from Muammal bin Ismaeel.’ (Source: I’ilaam al Muwaqqieen 2/361)

 

It is an accepted principle of hadith that if a certain authentic and reliable narrator contradicts other equally authentic or more reliable ‘narrators in his wording of a hadeeth then his narration will be declared shaadh and will not be accepted.

 

Study the following observations of the scholars of Jarh and T’adeel about Muammal bin Ismaeel:

Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani has made it clear in his Fath al-Bari that there is daif (weakness) in Muammal bin Ismaeel’s narrations from Sufyan (Source: Fath al Bari, 9/297). The above hadith has this very chain of narration.

 

 

WHY IS SUCH A HADITH NOT INCLUDED IN BUKHARI OR MUSLIM?

Imam Bukhari mentions that Muammal ibn Ismaeel is among the munkarul Hadith (denounced in hadith). ( Source: Aathar Us-Sunan Pg. 65, Chapter: Placing the hand on the chest).

(People who view Imam Bukhari as the ultimate authority in matters of hadith should note his following statement: ‘It is not permissible to narrate from anyone whom I have labeled munkar al hadith‘  [Source: Mizan al I’itidal. 1/119]

 

Shaikh ibn al-Hammaam said in ‘at-Tahreer’, ‘when al-Bukhari says about someone, “there is a problem in him” then his hadith are not depended upon or used for support, or given any consideration.’

 

Observe the following list of narrators who have all reported the same hadith from Aasim bin Kulaib but none of then have included the additional words ‘upon the chest’ reported by Muammal bin Ismaeel

 

Sh’ubah, Abdul Wahid, and Zubair bin Muawiyah as in Imam Ahmad’s Musnad. (Source: Ahmad 18398, 18371 & 18397)

Zaidah as in Imam Ahmad’s Musnad, Darimi, Abu Dawood. Nasai and Baihaqi (Source: Ahmad 18391, Darimi 1357, Abu Dawood 726, Nasai 889 and Baihaqi 2325)

Bishr bin al Mufaddhal as in Ibn Majah, Abu Dawood, and Nasai (Source: Ibn Majah 810, Abu Dawood 726 & 957, and Nasai 1265)

Abdullah bin Idrees as in Ibn Majah (Source: Ibn Majah 810)

Salam bin Saleem as in Abu Dawood Tayalisi’s Musnad (Source: Abu Dawood Tayalisi 1020)

 

In Layman’s understanding, it is like this.

A -B-C-D-E-F than G says…
A -B-C-D-E-F
A -B-C-D-E-F
A -B-C-D-E-F

So what happens is we go and double-check what G says.  Which should be a huge eye-opener to anyone reading this.  If the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was folding the right hand over the left upon the chest it would be a mass transmitted practice. I mean c’mon! This is something as frequent as praying five times a day, every day until He (saw) died!  The very fact that they need to do and double-check these statements should open some eyes!   So after double-checking what G says, we go back and say transmissions from F through other chains and NONE OF THEM say what G is saying.

 

Questions:

So before I would be inclined to accept such a description of the prayer just our hearts and curiosity:

1) Is it possible to have the quote from Sufyan Al Thawri or Aasim bin Kulaib where he said the prophet prayed with his hands upon his chest? I just want to make sure that I am following the Salaaf and not someone’s simple mistake by making an added addition.

2) Why did Imam Bukhari denounce Muhammal ibn Ismaeel and why does he not use him in his narrations?

3) Why did Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani declare Muhammal’s narrations from Sufyan At Thawri as weak?

4) Why accept Wail Ibn Hujr’s narration above on placing hands but not the following narration. Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr: ‘I saw that the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) placed his knees (on the ground) before placing his hands when he prostrated himself. And when he stood up, he raised his hands before his knees.’?    (Source: Kitab Al-Salat): Details of Commencing Prayer’ of Sunan Abu-Dawud. 0837)

 

HADITH NO.2 USED  THE HADITH OF HALB  At-TAA’EE

The hadith of Halb at-Taa’ee/Hulb Al-Ta’i reported by Imaam Ahmad in his ‘Musnad’/Tirmidhi/Ibn Majah, and Daraqutni,

 

“That Yahya bin Sa’eed narrated to us from Sufyaan At Thawri , from Samaak bin Harb from Qabeesa bin Halb from his father that, ‘I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) turn from his left to right, and place these on his chest, and Yahya al-Yamanee depicted this by placing the right hand upon the left (on the chest) above the level of the elbows.’

The above hadeeth contains the words ‘upon his chest‘. This extra wording is not firmly established or confirmed, because of all the narrators who report this hadith from Simak, only one reports this extra wording.

Observe the following narrations of the same hadeeth without the extra wording of ‘upon his chest’.

 

Abu al Ahwas reports from Simak bin Harb from Qabeesah bin Hulb from his father that the Prophet (saw) would lead us in prayer and would clasp his left hand with his right.

Shareek reports from Simak from Qabeesah bin Hulb from his father who says (towards the end of a longer hadeeth), ‘I saw him place one of his hands on the other and I also saw him turn once towards his right and once towards his left.’

Wakee reports from Sufyan from Simak bin Harb from Qabeesah bin Hulb from his father who says, ‘I saw the Prophet (saw) place his right hand upon his left in prayer and I also saw him turn away from both his right and left.’

Daruqutni narrates from Abdul Rahman bin Mahdi and Wakee’, from Sufyan from Simak bin Harb from Qabeesah bin Hulb from his father who says, ‘I saw the Prophet (saw) place his right hand upon his left in prayer.’ ( Source: Daruqutni 1087)

 

The above narrations all clearly show that the wording ‘upon his chest is an unreliable addition on the part of one of the reporters and therefore this particular narration is shaadh.

 

 

The weakness of this Hadith.

Weakness #1: Qabisa ibn Hulb has been classified as weak and unknown.

Shawkani said in Nayl Al-Awtar [2/200]: “In the chain of this hadith is Qabisa ibn Hulb. Sammak is the only one to narrate from him. Al-‘Ijli considered him to be reliable. And Ibn Al-Madini and Nasa’i said: “(He is) Unknown.”

Weakness #2: Sammak ibn Harb has been classified as weak.

Dhahabi said about him in Al-Mizan [2/422 &423]: “Sufyan At Thawri, Shu’ba, and others declared him to be weak. And Imam Ahmad said: “He is) Unstable (mudtarib) in hadith.” And Nasa’i said: “He used to be dictated to. And he would learn (from those dictated notes.).”

So there is a weak transmitter who transmits from another who is unknown. So no attention is to be shown to it!

 

As for what Tirmidhi relates from Samaak ibn Harb from Qabeesah ibn Hulb from his father who said: “The Messenger of Allah used to lead us, and take his left with his right.” and declared it to be Hasan (of fair grading), then said, “Action is in accordance with this among the companions of the Prophet (saw) “; There is no doubt that he (Tirmidhi) depending upon the hadith of Hulb in attributing this action, since there is a distance (in time) between him, and between the Sahaabah and Taabioon. Also because he didn’t mention any support for that (placing hands on the chest) other than the Hadith of Hulb.

 

If it (the hadith) had been Sahih (sound), it would have passed as evidence. However, it is one of the narrations of Samaak and Qabeesah. And it has already preceded that Samaak is weak… and Qabeesah is unknown (majhool). And only Samaak narrates on his authority. And Tirmidhi’s choosing of this chain from (all) the different chains going back to the Prophet in this chapter is proof that all chains of transmission fall in the center of ignominy!!!

In Layman’s understanding, it is like this.
A -B-C-D-E-F than G says…
A -B-C-D-E-F
A -B-C-D-E-F
A -B-C-D-E-F

So what happens is we go and double-check what G says.   So after double-checking what G says, we go back and say transmissions from F through other chains and NONE OF THEM say what G is saying.  Not only that but it is known that G is unstable as a transmitter.  Not only this but G is relying upon F and no one seems to know who F is!

 

Questions:

1) Again why isn’t such a Hadith in Bukhari or Muslim?

2) Why did Tirmidhi choose this chain from all the different ones going back to the prophet?

3) Why did Imam Ahmad declare him (Sammak ibn Harb) to be unstable in hadith?

4) Why did Imam Nasa’i declare Qabisa ibn Hulb as unknown?

 

HADITH NO.3 USED THE HADITH OF TAWUS 

And from the hadith these people depend upon is the hadeeth of Tawus

Reported by Abu Dawood in ‘al-Maraaseel’ who said, ‘Abu Tawba narrated to us from al-Haytham (ibn Humaid) from Thawr bin Yazeed from Sulaiman bin Musa from Tawoos who said, ‘The Messenger of Allaah (saw) placed his right hand upon his left and then hold them tight on his chest while in prayer.’’ (Source: Abu Dawood 759)

Weakness #1:

This report is incompletely transmitted since there are undisclosed companion and/ or even-non-Companion intermediaries between these Tabi’in.

So the Hadith of Tawus is Musral, because Tawus is a Taabi’ee . So he could not have seen the Blessed Messenger (saw).

However, the mursal hadith is considered a proof with Imam Abu Hanifa, and the Hanafi’s have their response to this.

Status of Mursal Hadith.  Prima-Qur’an we reject the mursal hadith as evidence.  How did the Sunni Imams deal with mursal hadith?

It is a proof with Imam Malik when it confirms the Amal of Madinah. This does not confirm the Amal of Madinah from a Maliki point of view because the view with Imam Malik is that the hands are laid to the sides.

Unless the report describes the nawaafil or sunnah prayers.

It’s a proof with Imam Ahmad in general, and we all know the best position of Imam Ahmad (r) is the hands are below the navel.

And according to Imam Shaafi’ee the mursal hadith are not acceptable unless there is another chain with a complete isnaad that backs it up.

 

Weakness #2: The first narrator of this tradition is Abu Tawba, whose full name is Ahmed bin Salem. Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani; said of him, “he is famous for tailoring fake traditions.”

(Source: Meizan ul E’tidaal, volume 1, page 100) 

 

Ibn Hajar writes in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb that, he was unreliable and an extreme liar“. “He used to make changes in the traditions and steal traditions, he could never find a person more of a liar than him.” (Source: Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb, volume 2, page 69.)

 

Weakness #3: The second narrator is Haytham, whose full name is Haytham bin Hameed al-Damishqi; Abu Dawood himself has called Haytham a follower of Qadri religion, Abu Mus-har Ghasani has called him a Qadri and unreliable.

( Source: Al Mizan ul E’tidaal volume 4, page 319, series 9289)

 

Weakness #4:

This hadith is mursal and its isnad contains Sulaiman bin Musa who has been classified as weak by some scholars.

Bukhari claims that he has munkar narrations. (Source: Aathar Us-Sunan Pg. 65, Chapter: Placing the hand on the chest)

Dhahabi said about him in Al-Mizan volume 2, page 225, Nasa’i says that he is a weak narrator of hadith.

Weakness #5:

The third narrator is Thawr bin Yazeed; he too followed Qadri faith.  (Source: Mizan ul E’tidaal, volume 1, page 373)

In Layman’s understanding, it is like this.
A -B-C-D-E-F than G says…
A -B-C-D-E-F
A -B-C-D-E-F
A -B-C-D-E-F

So in this case we have a report from G who has been declared to be an outright liar and someone who is known for making up traditions.  Than G takes from F who apparently has issues with his creed. F takes from E who apparently is classified as weak by some scholars and Bukhari outright claims he has denounced traditions!  E takes from D who again has issues with his creed.  D claims to get information from C who relates information from an undisclosed source.

 

I would say that if a person has a creed (aqidah) whom the hadith scholars are being critical of for me that is not cause for rejection, that is simply sectarian bias.  However, as we know from history taking information from a Tabiee or even a Companion doesn’t make that person innocent of possible treachery.

Questions:

1) Why isn’t such a report in Bukhari, or Muslim?

2) Why is such a description of the prayer such as ‘pressing one hands to the chest tightlyonly a Musral Hadith?

3) Is it possible that since there is a break in this chain (in the sanaad) the Blessed Messenger (saw)  may not have even done it at all?

4)  Since Abu Dawud mentions many ahadith about the positions of the hands in prayer.

He transmitted the following:

with one’s hands below the navel
on the chest
and even hands to the sides

Just like Imam Malik related the hadith about Sahl ibn Sa’d,  in his Muwatta as mentioned above.   Malik related this hadith to show his awareness of this hadith being in circulation.

Similarly, Abdu Dawud has transmitted three hadith that he was aware of in regards to the placement of the hands.

Proof that Imam Malik related the same hadith above:

“Yahya related to me from Malik from  Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn S’ad said, “People used to be ordered to place their right hands on their left forearms in the prayer.” Abu Hazim added: “I know for sure that Sahl traces that back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” (Source: page 59 Al Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas translated by Aisha Abduurrahman Bewley)

Yet, Imam Malik who was the city of Madinah was of the view that the hands are to be placed at the sides during the prayer.

This is the opinion narrated by Ibn al-Qasim in  [al-Mudawanna (1:74) ]

Yet there are some untruths and some huge lies being circulated concerning why Imam Malik prayed with his hands to the side.  One of these lies is being circulated by  Salafi preacher Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips.

 

He was severely beaten in the year 764 CE by the order of the Ameer of Madeenah, because he made a legal ruling that forced divorce was invalid. This ruling opposed the ‘Abbaasid rulers’ practice of adding in the oath of allegiance given to them by the masses the clause that whoever broke the oath was automatically divorced. Malik was tied and beaten until his arms became severely damaged to such a degree that he became unable to clasp them on his chest in Salaah and thus he began the practice of praying with his hands at his sides according to some reports.” ( Source: pg 78. The Evolution of Fiqh Islamic Law & The Madh-habs) By Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips International Islamic Publishing House.)

Some reports” such as? Doesn’t Abu Ammenah Bilal Philips have to give his evidence or are we just suppose to accept what he said?

Can such a claim be verified by and in any of the traditionally relied upon books of Islamic history?  No!  One will be hard-pressed to find any evidence substantiating this argument.

Remember what Allah said:

Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidence, and the guidance, which We have sent down after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse.” (Qur’an: 2:159)

 

 

So where is the proof? Secondly, how could Imam Malik not have enough strength to clasp his hands on his chest but still be able to do the tabkir-, go into ruku, and go into sajdah and to push his hands up from sujuud since Imam Malik’s view is that the knees go up than the hands after sajdah? What about all the other Tabieen who prayed the way Imam Malik did? Did each and every one of them have their arms broken as well? Also don’t you think Imam Malik would have said as plain as day, “Hey everyone as you know I’m only praying this way because my arm was pulled out of my socket, don’t follow me follow the Blessed Messenger!”

Likewise, where did the Shi’a get the idea to pray with the arms to the side?

Where did the so-called Khawarij get the idea to pray with the arms to the side?

Where did the Ibadi get the idea to pray with the arms to the side?

Are they all following someone who got their arms pulled out of their shoulder joint?   Please!  We need to use some common sense!

 

THE POSITION OF IMAM ABU DAWUD ON WHERE THE HANDS GO DURING THE PRAYER: 

 

 

So what was  Abu Dawud’s position on the matter? Did he pray with hands below the navel, at the sides, just above the navel or pressed tight to the chest?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

So for example Abu Dawud also narrates the following:

 

Hadith no: 757

Narrated / Authority Of Abu Huraira
(The established way of folding hands is) to hold the hands by the hands in prayer
below the navel.

Hadith no: 755

Narrated / Authority Of Ali ibn Abu Talib
Abu Juhayfah said: Ali said that it is a sunnah to place one hand on the other in prayer
below the navel.

Source: (Chapter 3 Prayer Kitab Al-Salat)

 

So Imam Abu Dawud narrated ahadith about placing the hands below the navel. Does this mean he found this to be the strongest evidence or acted upon it? Why even narrate such a hadith at all?

Similarly, Imam Malik narrated the hadith that people were ordered to place ‘the right over the left’ (unspecified place). Does this mean he found this to be the strongest evidence or acted upon it? Why even narrate such a hadith at all?

*Note*   It should be understood that placing the hands below the navel is the view of the Sunni Hanafi school of jurisprudence. It is also one of many views that are ascribed to Imam Ahmed and the Hanbali school of jurisprudence.   The Hanafi school brings us an anomaly.  This anomaly consists of instructing men to place the hands below the navel but instructing women to place their hands. The placing of the hands-on the chest is considered ‘makrooh’ extremely disliked in the Hanafi school.  In the school it is next to haraam.  One then wonders why one standard for the men and another for the women?

Certainly, this issue has perturbed many in the Hanafi school.

So we quoted the hadith from Abu Dawud about pressing the hands on the chest and two hadith about placing the hands under the navel.  Anyone who studies these hadith knows they are fraught with issues and intra-madhab rivalry and intra-Sunni fighting.

So then what about the hadith about praying with arms on the side (which is not disputed or controversial) and actually IS IN Bukhari is simply brushed aside?

It is related from Abu Hurayra,
“The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, entered the mosque and a man entered and prayed. He greeted the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who returned the greeting and said, ‘Go and back and pray. You have not prayed.’ He went back and prayed as he had prayed before. Then he came and greeted the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who said three times, ‘Go back and pray for you have not prayed.’ He said, ‘By the One who sent you with the truth, I cannot do any better than that, so teach me.’ He said,
‘When you stand for the prayer, say the takbir and then recite something you know well from the Qur’an and then do ruku’ until you are at rest in your ruku’ . Then stand back up until you are completely upright. Then go into sajda until you are at rest in your sajda. Then sit back until you are at rest in the sitting position. Do that throughout all of your prayers.’  (Sources:)

So where is all the Sunni critique of this hadith?  Where is the critique of its chains of transmissions, its matn, its narrators?

Again:

It has been related by Abu Dawud on the authority of `Amr ibn `Ataa al-Qurashi al-`Aamiri who said:

He said: “I heard Abu Humayd as-Sa`adi, who was present among ten of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, among whom was Abu Qatada, say the following. ‘ I am the most learned of you regarding the prayer of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.’ They said to him: ‘How is this? By Allah! You did not follow him more than us nor did you proceed us in companionship to him.’ He replied: ‘Indeed, this is true.’ They then said: ‘Then show us.’ He said: ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace when he stood for the prayer he would raise his hands equal with his shoulders.

يَقِرَّ كُلُّ عَظْمٍ فِي مَوْضِعِهِ مُعْتَدِلًا

He would then make the takbir letting all of his limbs settle in their proper places…

قَالُوا صَدَقْتَ هَكَذَا كَانَ ‏ ‏يُصَلِّي ‏ ‏صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
They all said: “You have told the truth. Likewise did he, may Allah ta`ala bless him and grant him peace perform his prayer.”

This hadith can be found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Ibn Maajah, and others and is sound!

Now my dear brothers and sisters and respected readers after reading all of this we have to do some reflection.

How is that the Ibadi, Kwarij, Shi’a, and even people like Said ibn Al Musayyib who were all opposed to each other historically and would jump at the opportunity to site the other for innovation and infraction can all agree that the method of the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) is to let the hands be at the side?

How is that the ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah‘  who seem to have more continuity and unity than any of the groups mentioned above, and yet have such conflicting views on where the hands are to be placed in the prayer!

We have in the Hanafi school men placing the hands below the navel and women placing them on the chest.  We have disputes among the Salafi who do not know if they place the hands on the chest after the ruku or not.

In fact, the Salafi have disputes on actually where to place the hands on the chest. The Arabic word yad could refer to any part of the human arm up to and including the shoulder joint.

This is why you see them placing the hands:

Pressed on the chest……

Clasped over the left hand.

On the forearm

On the shoulder

Just below the chin…

After examination and close consideration you will find that (the majority practice)  have as their evidence basically only two ahadith and one mursal hadith.

We can see that our brothers are relying upon lone narrator reports that chalked full of problems.  However, a very clear report about the Blessed Messenger (saw) praying without placing one hand over the other is reported in Abu Dawud, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, and the only ones seem to be following it are a few Sunni Muslims of the Maliki school.

Now, what is going on here?

May Allah (swt) open the hearts and the eyes of this Ummah!

With Allah (swt) is success!

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Shafi’i Muhaddith (Salah al-Din al-idlibi) questions age of Aisha in Bukhari

“Follow not that whereof you have no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart – of each of these it will be asked.” (Qur’an 17:36)

A very interesting discussion Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-’idlibī, a contemporary Muḥaddīth using matn critique to show that the age of Aisha as reported in Bukhari and understood by the majority does not add up when all evidence and factors are considered.

 

This is all too important because time and time again we hear that anyone who challenges the hadith corpus is some modernist Muslim who has no grounding in his/her faith.  This humble article is one of many that refute these overly simplistic and unfounded allegations. The source for the original article in Arabic is: https://salahsafa.blogspot.com/2013/02/blog-post_27.html?fbclid=IwAR0rRA_ODrbLmqTsJ4-ObzBNbTwWcuw7hjbi_KWnDruTvkKNLsEzt_PuTnw

 

Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Ibn Aḥmad al-’idlibī was born in 1948 in the Syrian city of Idlib. He is Shāfi‘ī in lineage and got a PhD in Islamic sciences with a specialty in Ḥadīth from the Dār al-Ḥadīth al-Ḥassīniyah in Morocco in 1980. He has taught Ḥadīth sciences at several Arab universities, including the Kulliyah al-Darāssāt al-’islāmiyah wa al-‘Arabiyah in Abu Dhabi and the Kulliyah al-Sharī‘ah in the United Arab Emirates.21 He has a website where his publications and media appearances are posted.

 

He is famous for writing a 22 detailed response 23 to a Salafī critique against the ’Āsh‘arī theological school.24 His first publication (probably a rework of his PhD thesis) is a detailed research that tries to prove that textual (matn) criticism of prophetic Aḥadīth has been part of Islam since its beginnings.25 The Aisha-age-traditions are not discussed in it, but he provides many examples of famous Aḥadīth that are found in the Ṣaḥīḥ collections, which has been criticized by many foundational scholars, including ‘Ā’īsha who was famous for criticizing traditions that spoke in a denigrating manner about women or traditions with anthropomorphic contents.26

 

This book in my eyes shows the key element in al-‘idlibī’s approach to the Ḥadīth corpus whereby traditions are determined firstly by contents, and not just by isnād. Although scholars of Fiqh have always applied textual criticism, over the centuries the authenticity level of the isnād became more and more decisive in accepting a tradition and increased the reluctance to reject it.27 Al-’idlibī on the other hand points out that to declare an isnād authentic (ṣaḥīḥ) it needs to comply to five conditions, while there are numerous reasons for a text (matn) to contain a mistake (’asbāb al-Wahm kathīrah).

 

Only a tradition which is deemed both ṣaḥīḥ in isnād and matn can overcome its probable truth factor (ghalab ‘alā al-Ẓann), but it still isn’t multiple transmitted (lā yatawātar) and thus doesn’t gain the certain truth factor (maquṭū‘a) of a multiple transmitted tradition (al-Mutawātir). When a tradition has 28 an authentic isnād but deviant contents (’isnād ṣaḥīḥ wa matnahu shādh) it is classified as weak and deficient (ḍa‘īf) and can be rejected.29 Al-’idlibī thus clearly presents an ’usūlī methodology in judging and classifying traditions .30, although he never references his methodology to any ’usūlī scholar.

 

Jonathan Brown calls this approach ‘Late Sunni Traditionalism’, which is a revival of the ’Ahl al-Rā’y juristic methodology whereby ”jurists, not hadith scholars, with the ultimate authority in determining the authenticity and implication of a hadith“, making jurists ”responsible for content criticism“.31 Al-’idlibī is clearly influenced by, or follows a similar vision as, the late ’Aẓharī scholar Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (d. 1996 CE) who saw a Ḥadīth only as truly ṣaḥīḥ if it didn’t contain a hidden flaw (‘illā) or contradict more reliable evidence.32 It is this methodology which we will also find in his discussion on the Aisha-age-traditions.

 

Al-’idlibī’s analysis on the age of marriage of ‘Ā’īsha

Although I was acquainted with English works on the age of ‘Ā’īsha, and knew there were already Arabic discussions on this matter from the 1950s 33, I hadn’t come across any work in Arabic until I saw a blog post by professor Mohammed Fadel (University of Toronto) where he recounted his meeting with al-’idlibī and had posted a link to al-’idlibī’s essay.34 While reading I noticed he used many similar sources and arguments as the English works, but because he used classical terminology it didn’t feel apologetic. That he wrote a specific essay on it shows that the age presented in the traditions were probably disconcerting to him, but by applying his methodology and terminology this apologetic element isn’t present.

 

In the essay, he points out that because the Aisha-age-traditions are of ṣaḥīḥ status, there is no avoiding in studying it. If we take his ’usūlī methodology in mind, it means that the ṣaḥīḥ status of the isnād demands that the matn must also be checked for an error (wahm), so that its probability status (ẓann) can be judged.

 

Secondly, he says he came across some articles on this subject by some scholars, and he wanted to write about it to “sharpen some scientific thoughts in the condoning indifference on the positions of weakness”. 

Meaning, he wants to point out to people that they remain too much indifferent to possible weaknesses in historical sources. Thus according to him, his objective is not to simply discredit the Aisha-age traditions because he rejects the possibility of the Prophet marrying an underaged girl, but to use it as an example of how people easily overlook mistakes in generally accepted sources. Just as his book on matn criticism tries to prove the classical practice of it, and thus its authenticity level as an Islamic methodology, this essay tries to show the necessity and usefulness of such criticism.

 

In his analysis he tries to determine ‘Ā’īsha’s age by determining:

 

  1. The age difference and the birth-year of her older sister ’Asmā’
  2. The possibility she experienced and narrated events at a certain age
  3. The words used to describe her
  4. When she converted to Islam
  5. When her father married her mother
  6. The way she was proposed as a possible spouse for the Prophet

 

He does this by using both graded and ungraded narrations, thus collecting as much evidence to prove there is a conflict between the gathered evidence and the original narration under question.

Part of his argument is also based on the idea that it is unreasonable that she was four or younger at certain events (2.) and when she was proposed to the Prophet (6.), which uses assumptions about a child’s capability and the way seventh-century culture discussed possible spouses. It thus not simply an argument based on the clear textual and linguistic comparison, but also involves the idea of what is reasonable. All this taken together is enough proof for al-’idlibī to declare the Aisha-age-traditions as containing an error (wahm), and thus being defective (ma‘lūl).

Translation of al-’idlibī’s essay

 

The transmitted Ḥadīth in the estimated age of the honorable ‘Ā’īsha on the day of marriage contract and marriage

 

In the name of Allah Most Merciful ever Merciful.

Praise to Allah numerous good blessed praising such as loving and pleasing our Lord, and praise to Allah whom by His blessings completes the righteous, the Lord completes through the good, and seals for us through the good, through Your beneficence and grace and honor, O Honored of the honored.

A Ḥadīth is transmitted about the Prophet, salutations of Allah upon him and peace 36, that the marriage-contracted (‘aqada)37 honorable ‘Ā’īsha, Allah’s pleasure upon her 38, and her years were six years and he married her [when she was] nine years. And is this Ḥadīth authentic in transmission chain (isnād) and textual contents (matn)?? [There] is no avoiding from its study.

 

I came across an article about this important subject written by some researcher in weakening (taḍa‘īf) that Ḥadīth regarding transmission chain and textual contents, and I found that one [can get] possible gain (al-Mumkin al-Istifādah) from it in the sharpening.

(al-Taqāṭ) of some scientific thoughts in the condoning (al-Taghāḍī) on the positions of

 

weakness (nuqaṭ al-Ḍu‘f), for the leaving [of this condoning] (al-Khurūj) through constituent result (bi natījah mu’assisah) on evidence (al-’Adilah) and conductive indications (al-Qarā’īn al-Muwaṣṣilah) towards the rational correct expression, by Allah’s authority.

And for necessary clarification (li ḍarūrah tajliyah) of the aspect of the rational correct (wajh al-Ṣawāb) in this important issue from the issues of the noble Prophetic biography and the reported tradition so this research supported through evidence in the history of the birth of honorable ‘Ā’īsha (rA‘), and estimation of her age (miqdār ‘umrahā) at the time the marriage-contract [was placed] upon her from the Messenger of God (ṣA‘ws) and her age at the time of her wedding. And in this [there are] two said issues:

 

The first saying is well known (al-Mashūr): Is that he marriage-contracted her and she was a girl of six years and he married her and she was a girl of nine. They take through what is established on it from her saying in ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and others, which means that she’s born after the Prophetic mission (ba‘ada al-Ba‘thah al-Nabawiyah)39 by four years.

 

The second saying: Is that he marriage-contracted her and she was a girl of fourteen years and he married her and she was a girl of eighteen years, which means that she was born before (qabla) the mission by four years.

 

The evidence of the first saying: 

Al-Bukhārī, Muslim, and others reported from Ṭariq on Hishām bin ‘Arwah on his father on ‘Ā’īsha that the Prophet (ṣA‘ws) married her and she was a girl of six years, and he consummated with her and she was a girl of nine years. And Muslim’s transmission is from Ṭarīq Mu‘ammar on al-Zuhrī on ‘Arwah on ‘Ā’īsha

 

And Ibn Ḥanbal and Muslim’s transmission is from Ṭarīq al-’Aswad bin Yazīd al-Nakha‘ī on ‘Ā’īsha. And the wording “he married her (tazawwajahā)” 40 is intended with the meaning of marriage-contract (al-‘Aqd), and this is the objective (al-Maqṣūd) here.

And the Ḥadīth it’s transmission chain (sanad) is ṣaḥīḥ. And it’s certainly incorrect (’akhṭā’) as an opinion (ẓann) that Hishām bin ‘Arwah is isolated (tafarrada) in its transmission and that it is from his imagination (’awhāmahu).41

 

The evidence of the second saying: 

1 – ‘Ā’īsha is younger than her sister ’Asmā’ (rA‘) with 10 years, and ‘Asmā’ was born before the Hijrah by twenty-seven years, meaning before the Prophet mission by fourteen years, and this means that ‘Ā’īsha was born before the Hijrah by four years.

Ibn ‘Asākir reported in the “Tārīkh Damashqi” through its sanad on ibn ’Abī al-Zanād that he said: ”’Asmā’ the daughter of ’Abū Bakr was older than ‘Ā’īsha by ten years.“42

And ’Abū Na‘īm said in the “Ma‘rifah al-Ṣaḥābah” in the biography (tarjamah) of ’Asmā’:” She was born before the history 43 by twenty-seven years, and she died seventy-three years later in Makkah after her son killed ‘Abd Allah bin al-Zubayr in [those] days, and she was a hundred years.“44 And [that] which confirms this report in the knowing the year of birth of ’Asmā’ is what ’Abū Na‘īm reported such about her that she said: ”I saw Zayd bin ‘Amrū bin Nafīl and supporting himself on the wall of the Ka‘abah, he said: Oh community of Quraysh, none of you today is on the religion of Abraham other than I.“ 45 Zayd had passed away and the Quraysh was building the Ka‘abah before He [God] send down a revelation on the Messenger of God by five years. Such was reported by Ibn Sa‘ad in the “al-Ṭabaqāt” on Sa‘yd bin al-Musayb 46, meaning [this] was before the Hijrah by eighteen years, thus her age was nine years [when] she heard this as that time.

 

And this is logical (ma‘aqūl), because anyone recollecting what was heard from him (yaḍbuṭ mithl hadhā al-Samā‘ minhu) cannot be anything other than predominantly nine (tisa‘a fī al-Ghālib). And ibn al-’Athīr in the “’Asad al-Ghābah”: ’Abū Na‘īm said: ”She was born before history by twenty-seven years.“47 And ibn ‘Abd al-Birr said in “al-istī‘āb”: ”And ’Asmā’ passed away in Makkah in Jumādī al-’Awwalā year seventy-three [after Hijrah], and at her death, she had reached a hundred years.“48

 

2 – Al-Bukhārī reported on ‘Ā’īsha (rA‘) that she said: ”Indeed He sent in Makkah on Muḥammad (ṣA‘ws), while I proceeded to play (li-jāriyah ’ala‘abu), {But surely the Hour is their appointed time, and the Hour is calamitous and bitter} 49, and what was sent down of chapter al-Baqarah and al-Nisā’ except what was already with him.“ 50

 

Al-Qurṭubī says in his commentary (tafsīr): Ibn ‘Abbās said: ”Between the sending down of this verse and between [the battle of] Badr were 7 years“51. And when it is as such, this means that it was sent down before the Hijrah by five years and after the [Prophetic] mission by eight.

And ibn Sayd said in the “al-Muḥkām” and ibn Manẓūr in ” 52 Lisān al-‘Arab”53: ”al-Jāriyah: The youthful from the women (al-Fatiyyah min al-Nisā’).“ And al-Fatiyyah is the juvenile woman (al-Shābbah). And they applied (yuṭaliqūn….‘alā) the word “al-Jāriyah” for the girl in her adolescence (fatā’īhā) and juvenileness (shabābahā) until the appearance of coming and  going [of her menstrual period].54

 

So how much is the age of ‘Ā’īsha with the sending down of the Exalted His saying {But surely the Hour is their appointed time, and the Hour is calamitous and bitter} which was sent down after the [Prophetic] mission by eight years?!

Concerning the first saying her age is four years and a girl of four isn’t called jāriyah as the first saying outlines. As for the second saying, her age is placed with the sending down of the verse estimating (thantī) ten years and thus is harmonious (al-Mansajim) with the meaning of al-Jāriyah.

 

3 – al-Bukhārī transmitted on ‘Ā’īsha (rA‘) that she said: ”I didn’t understand my parents except that they professed the religion [of Islam], and no day would pass except with the visit of the messenger of God (ṣA‘ws) at the morning daylight and night. So when the Muslims were tested [by being persecuted] Abū Bakr went out-migrating towards Ethiopia, and when he reached al-Ghimād early he was met by Ibn al-Daghnah…” [till the end of the] tradition.

The aspect of interference from this narration are two issues:

 

First of the two is that a child cannot know the custom (al-‘Āddah) professed by the majority of the people from its religious conversion and its religiosity (tadayyun) and its condition (aldīhu) by the religion of others at four years, and if ‘Ā’īsha was born four years after the [Prophetic] mission, and her first awareness (‘ayahā) of her surroundings in the 8th year [of the Prophetic mission] then her statement “I didn’t understand my parents except that they professed the religion [of Islam]” is a result without use; because Abū Bakr was known to have been one of the earliest converts to Islam, and [his wife] ’Umm Rūmān became Muslim in Mecca in early times, as Ibn Sa‘ad said.

However if she was born before the mission by four years, and her first awareness of her surroundings in the first year of the mission, that statement is useful. And is that – it explains she begins to become aware of her surroundings – she sees the condition of both of them professing the religion of Islam, and not only one condition.

 

And this proves that she was born before the mission with approximately four years, and this is proven in other evidence.

Second, of the two is that her statement ”So when the Muslims were tested [by being persecuted] Abū Bakr went out-migrating towards Ethiopia“ is a turning point (Ma‘ṭūfā) on her realization of her parents and they two professed the religion is so candid in that when she was was aware to this event (al-Ḥuduth) and the departure of the companions from Mecca for the migration to Ethiopia was in the middle of the fifth year from the mission and their migration second for her in the last of the fifth or beginning of the sixth.

 

And if ‘Ā’īsha was born four years after the mission it was possible for her to be aware of that event in the beginning of the sixth year, and because she was born before the mission with four years, thus this means the possibility of her awareness for that with clarity (bi-wuḍūḥ).

4 – Muḥammad bin ’isḥāq said in the Prophetic biography in mentioning ’Asmā’ as one of the first who became Muslim: ”Then people from the Arab tribes submitted, from them Sa‘īd bin Zayd bin ‘Amr bin Nafīl and his wife Faṭimah bint al-Khaṭāb, and ’Asmā’ bint Abū Bakr, and ‘Ā’īsha bint Abū Bakr and she was young (ṣaghīrah)….then Allah the Exalted commanded His Messenger (ṣA‘ws) that he proclaim (yaṣda‘) with what came with him. And that he announces through His command to mankind, and call towards Allah the Exalted, and maybe he concealed something and hide through it that command with its appearance, so it was broadcasted years after the mission, then God the Exalted said {So proclaim what you have been commanded, and turn away from the idolaters}.55

 

And Ibn Kathīr transmitted some of this text with the meaning as said: ”Ibn ’isḥāq said: Then Allah commanded His Messenger (ṣA‘ws) after three years after the mission through that he proclaimed with what he was commanded, and that he endured on whom are idolaters.“56 And Ibn ’isḥāq’s statement means here that ‘Ā’īsha became Muslim during the time of the secret call [to Islam] (fitrah al-Da‘wah al-Siriyah) after the mission, and that she was young, and if that fitrah time period was 3 years, ‘Ā’īsha may have been brought in to some of the gatherings of the Muslims at the end of the fitrah.

 

And on the statement that she was born after the mission by four years, this cannot be right in principle because she wasn’t born after.

In regards to the second statement, her age would be six years or seven. Perhaps ibn ’isḥāq mentioned her as being amongst the first Muslims in spite of her young years as a respect for her father Abū Bakr (RA‘) and consisted the turning point (Ma‘ṭūfah)57 of her sister ’Asmā’ who was older than her by ten years.

5 – al-Ṭabarī says in his “Tārīkh”: ”Abū Bakr married in the pre-Islamic times (al-Jāhiliyah) Qutīlah ibnah ‘Abd al-‘Uzzā and she fathered for him ‘Abd Allah and ’Asmā’, and he also married in the pre-Islamic times ’Umm Rūmān bint ‘Amir and she fathered for him ‘Abd al-Raḥman and ‘Ā’īsha, so all these four children were born from his two wives whom their [marriage] oaths were taken in the pre-Islamic times.“58 So these historical texts are candidly obvious in that ‘Ā’īsha (rA‘) was born before the Prophetic mission.

 

6 – Ibn Abī ‘Āṣam transmitted in the first and second, and al-Ṭabarānī in the “al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr” and al-Ḥākim in the “al-Mustadarak” on ‘Ā’īsha (rA‘) that Khawlah bint Ḥākim, the wive of ‘Uthmān bin Muẓa‘ūn (rA‘), said in Mecca to the messenger of God (ṣA‘ws): ”In other words, the messenger of God desists from marrying? He said: And who [do you suggest]? She said: Do you want a young woman (bakrā) or an old woman (thayibā)? He said: So who is the young woman? She said: The daughter of the most beloved of Allah’s creation to you, ‘Ā’īsha bint Abī Bakr. And he said: Who is the older woman? She said: Sawdah bint Zama‘ah. He said: So go and mention me to both of them.“59

 

 

The context (al-Siyāq) proves that Khawlah (rA‘) wanted to speak to the messenger of Allah (ṣA‘ws) after the passing of the honorable Khadijah, because from that moment he had no wife, and in the purpose (Ghāyah) is improbable that she speaks to him in this case about her who is of the age of six years!! However when she is a girl of fourteen years then this is reasonable (ma‘qūl), and seems that this is correct (al-Ṣaḥīḥ).

 

– And there is no doubt that together these proofs and external indications on the statement in that the Prophet (ṣA‘ws) married ‘Ā’īsha and her age being eighteen years is proven by strong proof that this is correct.

 

And in regards to what is established about ‘Ā’īsha from that the messenger of God married her and she was of nine years, and it is unavoidable that this is an error (wahmā). And she (rA‘) lived – [based] on the deciding statement here – seventy-five years. So perhaps she was afflicted (’aṣābahā) by forgetfulness (al-Nisayān) in this matter, thus its narration is erroneous (al- awahhum).60 And the error of the narrated statement (tawahhīm al-Qawl al-Murawī) about ‘Ā’īsha (rA‘) doesn’t escape it, and that from the gathered evidence and indications which presents its conflict (khilāfahi).

 

The summary of the research:

 

Based on the gathering of evidence and indications that the honorable ‘Ā’īsha (rA‘) was born before the mission by four years, and she was marriage-contracted (‘aqada ‘alayhā) by the messenger of Allah (ṣA‘ws) in the tenth year of the mission and her age was fourteen years, before the Hijrah by three years. And married her at the end of the first year after the Hijrah and her age were eighteen years.

 

The mentioned tradition in specifying the age of ‘Ā’īsha by six years on the day of the marriage-contracting and nine years on the day of marriage are authentic in the chain of transmission (ṣaḥīḥ al-’isnād), however, it conflicts with the researched texts and historical indications. Thus it is defective (ma‘lūl) because it is from those that are erroneous (al-’Awhām).

 

The imams (rA) stated that the narration when its contents (matn) conflicts with what is stronger evidence from reliable history, it is thus rejected (yuradd), because it is proven that it is in some way unsound (al-Khalal) through an occurring cause of the error (al-Wahm) in the single narration.

 

And Allah knows best.

And praise is to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

 

References:

19 See a discussion on this in Jonathan A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy (London: Oneworld, 2014), 145-148. Early 20th century Orientalist writing caused some discussions on this among higher classes and some intellectuals in Egypt, but it is the post-1990 era when this discussion seemed to have returned in Arabic, in far more Arab countries among the larger population, and by scholars trained in Islamic sciences.

20 See for example a lecture by the well-known preacher Dr. Adnan Ibrahim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Nz2LpiYVs (accessed on 26-01-2015).

21 Personal communication from his students at these universities.

22 http://www.salahsafa.blogspot.com

23 Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-’idlibī, ‘Aqā’īd al-’Āshā‘irah fī Ḥiwār hādī ma‘ Shubhāt al-Munāwi’īn (Cairo: Dār al-Salām, 2010).

24 Safar ibn ‘Abd Raḥmān al-Ḥawālī, Minhaj al-’Āshā‘irah fī al-‘Aqīdah (Riyadh: Dār al-Taybāt al-Kudharā, n.dt.).

25 Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-‘idlibī, Minhaj Naqd al-Matn ‘inda ‘ulamā’ al-Ḥadīth al-Nabuwī (Beirut: Dār al-’Afaq al-Jadīdah, 1983).

26 For example, a famous tradition transmitted by Abū Hurayrah claims that the prayer is nullified when a donkey, dog or woman passes in front of the praying men, ‘Ā’īsha scolded Abū Hurayrah for this. Another famous saying by her is that “anyone claiming Muḥammad saw Allah is lying, as God cannot be seen by human eyes”, whereby she refuted the still dominant belief that Muḥammad’s night journey to heaven was in a bodily form.

27 Wael B. Hallaq, “The Authenticity of Prophetic Ḥadîth: A Pseudo-Problem”, Studia Islamica, No. 89 (1999), 75-90.

28 A Mutawātir is a Ḥadīth or saying (khabar) which is transmitted in every stage of the stages of the sanad by multiple transmitters (general agreed-upon requirement is 10 transmitters), whereby it can be rationally be concluded that these transmitters could not have agreed upon a fabrication (’ikhtilāq). A Mutawātir provides necessary knowledge (al-‘ilm al-Ḍarūriyya). Any ṣaḥīḥ tradition that doesn’t confirm to these criteria, but has an authentic isnād, is of the status of Aḥād (singular transmission) only provides conditional knowledge (al-‘ilm al-Mutawaqqif), which needs further investigation. Maḥmūd al-Ṭaḥḥān,Taysīr Muṣṭalaḥ al-Ḥadīth (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma‘ārif li-lNushr wa al-Tawzī‘a, 1425 AH), 23-25, 27.

29 al-’idlibī, ibid, 33.

30 For the difference between’usūlī and ’athārī methodology, see Hallaq, ibid, 79-85. For a classical ’usūlī exposition, see Abū Ishāq al-Shāṭibī, al-Muwāfiqāt fī ’usūl al-Sharī‘ah (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, n.dt.), 4:3-21.

31 Jonathan A.C. Brown, Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World (Oxford: Oneworld, 2009), 262.

32 Brown, ibid, 263. See the first two chapters in al-Ghazālī’s The Sunna of the Prophet between the People of the Fiqh and the People of the Ḥadīth (al-Sunnah al-Nubuwiyyahbayna ʾAhl al-Fiqh wa ʾAhl al-Ḥadīth) (translated by Aisha Bewley, Istanbul: Dar al-Taqwa,2009).

33 See footnote 19 above. Brown also points out that other known ‘Late Sunni Traditionalist’ scholars as ‘Alī Goma‘a also have written arguments against the Aisha-age-traditions, I hope to compare these in later writing.

34 http://shanfaraa.com/2013/07/salah-al-din-al-idlibi-on-the-age-of-aisha-r-when-shemarried-the-prophet-s/ (accessed on 10-09-2014). I thank prof. Fadel for his kind encouragement to translate and analyze al-’idlibī’s essay. The Arabic essay is added as Appendix I.

35 I have transliterated important words between brackets (), my additions to the text to amplify readability between [], and I stay as close to the Arabic sentence structures as possible by retaining the long sentences as much as possible. al-’idlibī refers to several sources without precise references (he doesn’t use footnotes in this essay), when I could trace the exact citations in the mentioned works I have added them in footnotes. I have added dates of death of the mentioned historians to show the period they were working in (which was mostly centuries after the compilers of Ḥadīth).

36 Translation of ṣalā Allah ‘alayhi wa salam, in the rest of the translation abbreviated as: (ṣA‘ws)

37 The contracting of marriage refers to the agreement between the guardians and/or prospected spouses on the wish to get married and on the amount of dowry. The root-word ‘aqada literally means making a knot (thus the English expression on marriage as “tying the knot” comes very close) and is used for contracts, agreements etc. It can be used to refer to the contracting of the marriage and the existing marriage itself as a form of contract. In classical Sharī‘ah constructs, betrothal (khiṭbah), contracting the marriage (‘aqd), and consummating it are separate acts whereby the first is an unofficial agreement between parties, the second an officializing agreement between parties with a dowry, while the latter is generally when the female is deemed physically ready. [al-Zuḥaylī, ibid, 7:23-26, 43-65. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, 143]

38 Translation of raḍī Allah ‘anhā, in the rest of the translation abbreviated as: (rA‘)

39 Throughout most of the essay, al-’idlibī uses only al-Ba‘ath, the mission, to refer to the advent of the Prophetic mission. Although I will sometimes add ‘prophetic’ between brackets, I mostly just translate it literally with ‘the mission’, but it is best read as ‘advent to the Prophetic mission’. It is generally accepted that the Prophet received his first revelation in 610 CE, thirteen years before the Hijrah.

40 See footnote 3 above.

41 Here al-’idlibī dismisses the attempts by some apologists to try to find a weakness in the transmission chains of the Aisha-age-traditions to discredit them. See footnote 18 above.

42 Abū al-Qāsim ibn al-‘Asākir (d. 571 AH), Tārīkh Damashqi (Dār al-Fikr al-Ṭabā‘h wa al-Nushr wa al-Tawziya‘, 1995), 69:8. The isnād is not graded, thus its authenticity compared to the Aisha-age-traditions is unknown.

43 The history here means the Hijrah in 623 CE, when the Meccan Muslims migrated to Medina, which soon after was turned into the starting point of the Islamic calendar, and thus, history.

44 Abū Na‘īm al-’Aṣbihānī (d. 430 AH), Ma‘rifah al-Ṣaḥābah (Riyadh: Dār al-Waṭan li-lNushr, 1998), 6:3253. See also ibn al-‘Asākir, ibid, 69:9. Again the isnād is not graded, thus its authenticity compared to the Aisha-age-traditions is unknown.

45 al-Aṣbihānī, ibid, tradition 2843, 3:1134. Ungraded isnād.

46 ibn Sa‘ad (d. 230 AH), al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1990), 3:291. Ungraded isnād.

47 ‘Azz al-Dīn ibn al-’Athīr (d. 630 AH), ’Asad al-Ghābah fī Ma‘rifah al-Ṣaḥābah (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1994), tradition 6705, 7:7. Ungraded isnād.

48 ibn ‘Abd al-Birr (d. 463 AH), al-istī‘āb fī Ma‘rifah al-Ṣaḥābah (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1992), tradition 6705, 7:7. Ungraded isnād. See also in al-‘Asākir, ibid, 69:8.

49 Qur’ān 54:46.

50 al-‘Asqalānī, ibid, 7:290. Isnād graded ṣaḥīḥ.

51 Shams al-Dīn al-Qurṭubī, Jāma‘a al-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyah, 1964), 17:146. Ungraded isnād. The battle of Badr occurred in 2 AH (624 CE).

52 Bin Sayd al-Mursī, al-Muḥkām wa al-Muḥīṭ al-‘Aẓim (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 2000), 7:625-626 (under the heading al-Shīn wa al-Bā’, the root of al-Jāriyah is jarā).

53 ibn Manẓūr al-’Anṣārī, Lisān al-‘Arab (Beirut: Dār Ṣādr, 1414 AH), 7:81.

54 I interfere that it refers to the coming and going of her menstrual period, although by my knowledge it is unusual to use it for such.

55 Qur’ān 15:94

56 Ibn Kathīr al-Damashqī (d. 774 AH), al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyah (min al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah li-ibn Kathīr) (Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘rifah li-lṬabā‘h wa al-Nushr wa al-Tawzī‘, 1976), 1:454. Ungraded isnād.

57 Meaning here the conversion of ’Asmā’.

58 Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH), Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk (Beirut: Dār al-Turāth, 1387

AH), 3:425-426. Ungraded isnād.

59 Abū al-Qāsim al-Ṭabarānī, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr (Cairo: Maktabah ibn Taymiyah, 1994),

23:23. Nu‘īm bin al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadarak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘ilmiyah, 1999), tradition 2704, 2:181. Isnād graded ṣaḥīḥ.

60 Wahm is a technical indication within the classical Ḥadith sciences: ”When an error (wahm) is discovered through external indications (al-Qarā’īn) and the gathered the paths [of transmission], then it is defective (al-Mu‘allal)“, al-‘Asqalānī, Nukhbah al-Fikr fī Muṣṭalaḥ Ahl al-Athār (Cairo: Dār al-Ḥadīth, 1997), 8.

Dr. Shaykh al-Din al-idilibi (May Allah continue to benefit many by him)

 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Textual Manipulation of Hadith To Advocate Prayer Positions.

“Take what the Messenger gives you, and do without what he forbids you from.” (Qur’an 59:7)

 

This entry will show the manipulation and changing of the ‘matn’ text in the chains of transmission to advocate various positions for the prayer.

 

Hopefully, in writing this in the process we will be able to defend the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) as was the practice of the people of Madinah in his time, namely the practice of laying the hands at the side. This practice is continued among those who follow the Jafari and Zaydi School of jurisprudence as well as the oldest living school of jurisprudence which the people of Oman are upon, The Ibadi school.

This blog entry will also show that Imam Malik (r) only prayed that way (sadl) because it is what he saw as the practice of the people of Madinah and it’s not because he was beaten which is a lie that has been circulated by a certain group of Muslims have invented their own methodology of doing the prayer.

 

MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 1 Imam Malik only prayed like that (arms to the side) because he was beaten so badly that he couldn’t pray with one hand over the other.

 

“He was severely beaten in the year 764 CE by the order of the Ameer of Madeenah, because he made a legal ruling that forced divorce was invalid. This ruling opposed the ‘Abbaasid rulers’ practice of adding in the oath of allegiance given to them by the masses the clause that whoever broke the oath was automatically divorced. Malik was tied and beaten until his arms became severely damaged to such a degree that he became unable to clasp them on his chest in Salaah and thus he began the practice of praying with his hands at his sides according to some reports.”

Source: ( pg 78. The Evolution of Fiqh Islamic Law & The Madh-habs) By Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips International Islamic Publishing House.)

 

“Some reports” such as? Doesn’t Abu Ammenah Bilal Philips have to give his evidence or are we just suppose to accept what he said?

 

Can such a claim be verified by and in any of the traditionally relied upon books of Islamic history? One will be hard-pressed to find any evidence substantiating this argument.

 

Remember what Allah said:

“Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidence, and the guidance, which We have sent down after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse.” (Qur’an: 2:159)

 

So where is the proof?

Secondly, how could Imam Malik (May Allah have mercy on him) not have enough strength to clasp his hands on his chest but still be able to do the tabkir-, go into ruku, and go into sajdah and to push his hands up from sujuud since Imam Malik’s (r) view is that the knees go up than the hands after sajdah? What about all the other Tabieen who prayed the way Imam Malik (r) did? Did each and every one of them have their arms broken as well?

 

MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 2 The Malikis get their prayer from the Shi’a in Iran!

 

Now let me ask you, people, something why would Sunni Muslims go and ask the Shi’a about how to pray? That’s just absurd! The second point is this, Why don’t the Malikis follow the Shi’a in everything on the prayer, like raising the hands in ruku and when going into sujud? Or making sujud on a stone? Or placing the knees before the hands? Or saying the whole prayer out loud? Or include the basmallah before Al Fatiha like the Shi’a do. Also, a very good question would be where did the Shi’a get their prayer from? Do the Shi’a follow some guy who got his arms broken too?!?

 

The Shi’a don’t follow Imam Malik (r) because they don’t accept him as one of their Imams in jurisprudence. This whole point again is another flat lie. If such a claim were true then you should give the evidence. You have to have tangible evidence of it.

 

“And of mankind is he who purchases idle talk (lahwal hadeeth) to mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge (ilm), and takes it by way of mockery. For such there will be a humiliating torment.” (Qur’an 31:6)

 

I see this ayat as applying directly to those people who will take the Hadith (reports) over the Sunnah (practice). Those who have no ilm (no fiqh). In this instance, those who will take the Hadith over the mass transmitted Sunnah of the blessed Messenger (saw).. We have to understand and this cannot be stressed enough. The Sunnah is a ‘living tradition’ it is organically passed down from one generation to the next.   The hadith WERE fragments and snippets of the sunnah, which at times became a mechanism to convince people of controversial issues.

 

“Pray as you see me pray”.

I’d like to remind myself and also my friends that the Prophet (saw) is reported to have said, I leave you two things. “The Qur’an and my Sunnah”. He (saw) did not say I leave you the Qur’an and Hadith. And with all due respect, I ask anyone reading this to find a single statement where The Blessed Messenger (saw) said I leave you “Qur’an and Hadith”.

 

People who say that the prophet (saw) said “Qur’an and Hadith” are trying to use Hambali and Shaf’i usuli methods and impose these methodological principles on the rest of the Muslim ummah.

 

By that, I am not saying that Imam Ahmad or Imam Shafi (May Allah cover them both in mercy) was wrong. In fact, I am in no position to say so. I am simply saying that our brothers from the so-called ‘Salafiyyah’ today cherry-pick their usuli methods.

 

 

The Blessed Messenger (saw) never handed to his followers a Mushaf of the Qur’an or a Sahih Bukhari volumes 1-4 etc. What he gave was a living breathing revelation from Allah preserved foremost as an oral tradition and then his living breathing organic practice, deeds, and ways of living that collectively we call the Sunnah; again which was orally transmitted.

 

The living breathing practice is witnessed and transmitted as a living breathing, organic practice. The hadith is transmitted on the basis of one from one and can be corrupted, added to, mistakenly transmitted, leave out important details, have hidden defects, and so on.

 

The problem today is that people who graduate from Madinah University are using Shaf’i and Hambali Usuli principles to judge the rest of the Muslim ummah on the Qur’an and Sunnah and it doesn’t work like that.

 

The point being Imam Malik (r) saw the living sunnah around him every day. For the Malikis, the ‘Amal’ or practice of the people of Madinah is mass established sunnah.  They did not need to split hairs trying to find documented sunnah evidence in the form of hadith for everything they do.

 

In fact, a principle of the Maliki madhab is that even if there is a Sahih hadith but if it clashes with the Sunnah of Madinah Imam Malik (r) drops it.

Why?

Because again you need to understand that Muhammed (saw) said, “I leave you the Qur’an and Sunnah”. If we are talking in terms of what has more weight, Rabia (r) one of Imam Malik (r) teachers said to him, “I would rather take 1000 from 1000 because that 1 from 1 can strip the sunnah right out from your hands!”

 

The vast majority of Hadith are which means narrations one from one. Imam Malik (r) is basically saying, “Look people I live in the city where the 10,000 sahabah are buried and which the Blessed Himself (saw) is buried if there ever was a sunnah established or practiced we know about it cause we live it every day.”

 

Again I am no Faqih or even close. To me, the following examples show corruption in the Hadith traditions that try and promote grasping of the hands in prayer.

 

Now I will give what I believe to be the original accounts of Sadl, and the transformation of it into Qabd, and for whatever reason, someone found it important to try and undermine the way we understand the prophet’s prayer, which Al hamdulillah is being followed by the people of Oman today.

 

 

Remember Islam began as a stranger and it will return to the world as a stranger, reflect upon that!

 

An original orally transmitted report…

 

In the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah, the following can be found:

 

Yahyaa Ibn Sa’eed declared to us: On the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn Al- ‘Eezaar. He said: “I used to accompany Sa’eed ibn Jubair: So, he saw a man praying while placing one of his hands on the other. This one on this one, and this one on this one. So, he went, separated them, and then returned (to me).” The Musannaf is one of the earliest hadith canons in Islamic history.

 

Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr in his book al-Tamheed narrates that (20:76):

 

‘Abd Allah ibn al-Izar said, ‘I used to make tawaf around the Kaba with Said ibn

al-Jubayr. Once, he saw a man placing one hand over the other, so he went to him, separated his hands, and then returned to me.

 

The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.

The Hadith of Ibn Masud

Actually reported in Abu Dawud and Sunan of Nasai

 

“The Prophet saw me placing my left hand on my right hand in Salat. So he took my right hand, and then placed it over my left hand.”

 

Abu Dawud’s chain is: Muhammed ibn Bakkar from Hushaym ibn Bashir from

Al-Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab from Abu Abi-Uthman from Ibn Mas’ud.

 

Nasa’is chain is: Hushaym ibn Bashir from Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab from Abu Abi

‘Uthman from Ibn Mas’ud.

 

In the chain is Hushaym ibn Bashir

Dhahabi states in Al Mizan [5/431], and Ibn Hajar states in

Taqrib al-Tahdhib [2/269] that he: “Often used trickery in his reports to convince others to accept unacceptable chains of narration in addition to being guilty of conveying subtly distinguishable incomplete chains of narration.” (kathir at-tadlis wa al-irsal al-khafi).

 

The Hadith of Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah Reported by Ahmad and Daraqutni

“The Messenger of Allah passed by a man who was praying while placing

his left hand on the right hand. So he snatched it and placed the right on the left.”

 

But this is reported by way of Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab -from Abu Sufyan-from Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah.

 

Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab has been declared to be weak by ‘Ali ibn Al-Madini, Nasa’i, Ahmad, and Daraqutni as stated by Dhahabi in Al Mizan [1/462].

 

 

My comments after using reasoning logic and deduction:

 

Now in the original report, we see that someone was praying with hands folded (qabd) to which offense was taken and so their hands were separated during the prayer. Now what happens is that in order to support the practice of folding one hand over the other (qabd) the highest authority in the land the Prophet (saw) himself is invoked in the story. To make the argument more clever the issue is not even the releasing of the hands but ‘how the hands were folded‘. So the person who hears the narration would assume that folding hands leaving at the sides is not an issue at all but would learn that the person in the narration simply folded it the wrong way! Then Ibn Hajar gives sweeping condemnation of Hushaym ibn Bashir in his commentary. It’s interesting to see that Hushaym Ibn Bashir in all three reports gets his information from Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab who does not fare any better when he is critically examined.

 

What was added: The prophet was seen doing it to make it more authoritative

What was changed: The issue was on how to fold the hands properly (sadl: laying of the hands at the side) was taken out completely!

 

An original orally transmitted report.

Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer

Yahya related to me from Malik that ‘Abd al-karim ibn Abi-LMukhariq Al Basri said, “Among the things, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said and did are: ‘As long as you do not feel ashamed, do whatever you wish’, the placing of one hand on the other in prayer (one places the right hand on the left), being quick to break the fast, and delaying the meal before dawn.”

 

The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.

 

The Hadith of ‘Aisha bint Abu Bakr Reported by Daraqutni and Bayhaqi

Aisha said: “Three things are from prophecy: Making haste to breakfast, delaying the predawn meal, and placing the right over the left during Salat.”

 

Point 1) Ibn Hazm related it in Al-Muhalla [4/113] as a statement of ‘Aisha but without a chain.

 

Point 2) there is a break in the chain. So it even cannot be ascribed to ‘Aisha.

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in Talkhis al-Habir [1/223]: “Daraqutni and Bayaqi related it as a statement of ‘Aisha. And it has a break in its chain.”

 

Comments: Now we do not even apparently have the complete chain of this. Now I do not expect devilry at work at every corner. But if you compare the statement in the Muwatta to that of Imam Malik (r) then look at the following: It is the word for word with two very huge changes.

 

The change is now some unknown comes along and either intentionally and maliciously invokes Aisha (r.a) to make it authoritative. After all, she’s the prophet’s wife and spent so much time with him so she would be an authority right?

Or the reporter relying upon memory makes a mistake. I believe the former that the change is intentional due to what was actually changed.

So this is a very obvious question.

What is from the prophecy (or from the prophet)?

 

Did He (saw) say to place the right hand over the left? Or did He (saw) say that doing such indicates that a person really has no shame?

 

Two original orally transmitted reports

In the following, I will give you two original reports of the hadith in the Muwatta of Imam Malik (r) and then the attempt two combine the two hadiths into one due to oral corruption in the transmission.

 

Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer

 

Yahya related to me from Malik that ‘Abd al-karim ibn Abi-LMukhariq Al Basri said, “Among the things, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said and did are: ‘As long as you do not feel ashamed, do whatever you wish’, the placing of one hand on the other in prayer (one places the right hand on the left), being quick to break the fast, and delaying the meal before dawn.”

 

Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn Sa’d said, “People used to be ordered to place their right hands on their left forearms in the prayer.” Abu Hazim added, “I know for sure that Sahl traces that back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.”

 

The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.

 

Hadith of Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas reported by Daraqutni.

“Verily we -assembly of Prophets-have been ordered to hold our right hands over our left hands.”

Weakness #1 One of the transmitters, Talha ibn ‘Amr, has been classified as being an unreliable narrator. The author of Awjaz al-Masalik says, “And in its chain is Talha ibn ‘Amr who is relinquished (matruk).

Likewise, it is mentioned in Al-‘Ayni (Sharh of) Al-Bukhari.”

Dhahabi said in Al-Mizan (3/54): “Ahmad and Nasai’i said (about Talha)” “(He is) relinquished in hadith. And Bukhari and Ibn Al-Madini said: “He is insignificant” (Laysa bi shayin).”

 

Comments: It can be seen above the original hadith statement in the Muwatta of Imam Malik (r) slowly evolved into a statement that supposedly the Prophets were ‘ordered’ to place one hand over the other.

 

Finally, the two hadiths were joined together to get the following ‘Sahih’ narration.

(Ibn Hibban relates it in his sahih, (13-14/3 #1767)

The prophets were ordered to delay the suhoor and expedite the breaking of the fast and hold with our right hands our left hands in our prayer

 

Comments:  So here you have it the finished product. What were two distinct hadiths in the Muwatta of Imam Malik (r) that were transformed into one hadith that combined elements of both?

In this new hadith, we find that it wasn’t people who were ordered it was the Prophets who were ordered and of course the only one to give orders to the prophets is Allah (swt) himself!

 

So if we can’t ascribe it to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), let’s ascribe to the Prophet (saw), and if that doesn’t work let’s ascribe it as an order to all the Prophets -which only comes from Allah!

 

So what this hadith effectively does is eliminate any doubt on where such an order would come from. Also as in the “Aisha Hadith” quoted above the original hadith in the Muwatta of Imam Malik (r) was changed so that instead of folding the hands in the fard prayer being an act of shame it becomes meritorious, and not only that, but something directed by the divine himself!

 

And this is also supported by the fact that ibn Turkamaanee, the Shaykh of al-Haafidh az-Zayla’i mentioned in his ‘al-Jawhar’ two weak hadeeth to support his madhab where he said, ‘Ibn Hazm said, “it is reported to us from Abu Hurayra who said, ‘place the hand upon the hand below the navel.’ And from Anas who said, ‘three are from the manners of the Prophethood: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in the prayer.’”’

 

The hadeeth that ibn Hazm mentions in ‘al-Muhalla’ in ta’leeq form from Anas with the wording, ‘three are from the manners of the Prophet-hood: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in the prayer.’

 

Ash-Shaikh Haashim as-Sindee said in his letter, ‘Diraahim as-Surra’, ‘and from them is what az-Zaahidee mentioned in his ‘Sharh al-Qudooree’, and ibn Ameer al-Haaj and ibn Najeem mentioned in ‘al-Bahr ar-Raa’iq’, that it is reported from the Prophet (SAW), “three are from the habit of the Messengers: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in prayer.”

 

He said: I have not come across the sanad to this hadeeth except that az-Zaahidee added that it is reported by Alee bin Abu Taalib (RA) {3} from the Prophet (SAW). But ibn Ameer al-Haaj and ibn Najeem said, “that the reporters of hadeeth do not know the wording, ‘below the navel’ from a marfoo or mawqoof narration.”’

 

Anas reports that there are three aspects from the character of Nubuwwa [Prophethood]: to open fast early, to delay the suhur [pre-dawn meal], and to position the right hand over the left one beneath the navel while in salat. [al-Jawharal-naqiyy 2:31]

 

Since the graduates of Madinah University cherry-pick Shafi’i and Hanbali usuli principles to establish daleel (namely that a person has to have documented sunnah in the form of hadith) than let us entertain them.

 

The hadith of Sahl ibn Sa’ad -PEOPLE WERE ORDERED TO PLACE THE RIGHT OVER THE LEFT IN PRAYER

 

“Abdullah ibn Maslama related to us from Malik from Abu hazim from Sahl ibn Sa’d. He said:

“The people were ordered that a person is to place the right hand over his left forearm during Salat.” Abu Hazim said: “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet.” Isma’il said: “(I know only that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika). And he didn’t say: “He attributes” (yanmi).  Source: (Bukhari, 224/2)

 

The weakness of this hadith

In spite of being in both the Muwatta of Imam Malik (r) and the Sahih of Bukhari is not definitive proof that the Prophet’s sunnah was to pray while holding his left hand with his right hand. What weakens such an assumption made from this hadith are the following:

  • This is not an explicit statement, report, or action of the Prophet.

 

  • Sahl does not say that the prophet gave the order, so it’s possible someone else gave the order.

 

  • The saying, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet” is not the statement of Sahl. Rather it is the statement of the Tab’i, Abu Hazim. So there is no certainty that Sahl actually attributed this to the Prophet since Abu Hazim is merely conjecturing about what he remembers.

 

  • The statement of Ismail that, “(I know only that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika).” And he didn’t say: “He attributes” (yanmi)” further emphasizes the belief that Abu Hazim didn’t actually hear Sahl attribute that order to the Prophet.

 

  •  The above mention hadith further corroborates with what is in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah,

“Ibn ‘Ulayyah declared to us: On the authority of Ibn ‘Aun about Ibn Seereen that he was asked about the man who holds his right hand with his left. He said: “That was merely done because of the Romans’ (influence).”

 

Also, people who claim that Imam Malik (r) only prayed sadl because his arms were broken need to look at the above hadith if the people were indeed ‘ordered‘ to pray one hand over the other means that they didn’t always do that!

It means indeed there was a time the Prophet (saw) and his blessed companions prayed with their arms to the side and this hadith is absolute proof of it.

 

The proof is out there for anyone to see we know who fabricated the hadith chains. We know claims are inconsistent and who wish to attack the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and bring in place of it lahwal hadeeth (Qur’an 31:6)

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Refuting an argument for stoning to death for adultery. Taking my evidence from the Qur’an.

Say: “Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? – when He it is Who has sent unto you the Book, explained in detail.” They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord  in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.” (Qur’an 6:114)

 

I would like to turn the reader’s attention to a particular link here: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/07/opposition-rajm-analysis-refutation.html

I put this link to show the apologetic lengths that sectarian Muslims will go to in order to justify putting their tradition over the edicts of the Qur’an.

 

For those who have not seen my entry on the subject, I would refer you here: https://primaquran.com/2020/09/03/what-is-the-punishment-for-adultery-in-the-quran/

This will help give you a better perspective when approaching the subject.

Once you have read the entry at ‘letmeturnthetables’ you will have also have a view of  Para -Qur’an (those who put sources alongside/or above the Qur’an).

Let’s look at the first points raised by  Gabriel Keresztes and Waqar Akbar

“Firstly, it is not really true that Qur’an has nothing about stoning though it is true that Qur’an does not explicitly mention it. A reference to Rajm is however found in Surah al-Ma’idah, verse 43 wherein Allah says;

وَكَيْفَ يُحَكِّمُونَكَ وَعِنْدَهُمُ التَّوْرَاةُ فِيهَا حُكْمُ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يَتَوَلَّوْنَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ وَمَا أُولَئِكَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ

How do they ask you to judge while the Torah is with them, having the ruling of Allah? Still, they turn away, after all that. They are not believers.” (Qur’an 5:43)

:”The verse was revealed when a couple from amongst the Jews committed adultery. They came to the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- asking him to judge on the matter. Actually, their holy book, Torah, asked for the stoning of such offenders, they came to the Blessed Prophet hoping that he would give a lesser punishment.”

 

My comments:

I do not dispute this point.  I am very thankful that they spoke truthfully when they said,: “it is true that the Qur’an does not explicitly mention it”

Yet, is it not curious that one does not reflect upon the scorn that Allah directs at the people of the Torah for not following the ‘ruling of Allah’?

Allah even says that the ruling is ‘with them’.

Allah furthermore says that after they turn away from the ‘ruling of Allah’ that is ‘with them ‘they are not believers’

So in fact this verse is in favour of those who support Prima Qur’an.  In the verse quoted is a message to all of those who will turn away from Allah’s rulings.

Here is something else that they quote:

“It is for this reason that Ibn Abbas- may Allah be pleased with him- said: “He who disbelieves in stoning (the adulterer to death) will have inadvertently disbelieved in the Qur’an, for Allah said, ‘O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture’ (Qur’an 5:15), and stoning was among the things that they used to hide.”

 

My comments:

When it says, ‘He who disbelieves in stoning’  you will not fail to note that they include in brackets (the adulterer to death).  This statement is crystal clear that the address is to the followers of the Torah.  ‘He who disbelieves’.   Also, it is very misleading the way the authors present this quote.   The quote itself says: “Has a passage from the Qur’an which states:

O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture’.  (Qur’an 5:15)

Again nothing disagreeable here.  Stoning to death is what we find in the Torah, it is not what we find in the Qur’an. Now let us look at how the two authors try and refute Allah’s law.

Gabriel Keresztes and Waqar Akbar say:

“Another argument is about the general import of the hundred lashes punishment given in surah al-Nur verse 2. They say rajm is, therefore, a contradiction to the Qur’anic instruction.”

“This argument is flawed for a number of reasons;

i) The verse with a hundred lashes punishment cannot be general and Qur’an itself testifies to it. In Qur’an 4:25 the punishment of female adulterer is specified to be half of the free female fornicator. With this fact known the idea of the totally generic implication of surah al-Nur ayah 2 is laid to proven wrong. Strictly considering the word “zani” used in Surah al-Nur verse 2, it does not differentiate between a slave and a free like it does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise. So to say that it is absolutely universal in application contradicts Qur’an itself.

ii) The context of the hundred lashes verse itself proves it is for fornicators (un-married people) and not adulterers (married people). While the opponents of Rajm are convinced that this verse proves their stance in the light of logic and reason they fail to look at verse number three.  How could it be that if the people referred to in this verse included both married and unmarried the following verse said that the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator or a polytheist?  In the case of a man, one could say that he can marry more than once, but in the case of the woman, it does not make sense, as she can only marry one husband which shows that verse number two talks about unmarried people. “

Comments:   It is obvious that the co-authors of the entry have made a number of logical and inconsistent statements.

Remember the following three key statements:

Statement 1)

The punishment of female adulterer is specified to be half of the free female fornicator

Statement 2)

Strictly considering the word ‘zani’ does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise” and

Statement 3)

How could it be that if the people referred to in this verse included both married and unmarried the following verse said that the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator o a polytheist.”

Let us look at the three statements.

Let us start with statement 2.

Strictly considering the word ‘zani’ does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise

My comments: 

It should be pointed out that the co-authors of the article agreed that the word ‘zani’ does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise.

Thus, (Qur’an 24:2) could very well talk about fornication or adultery or both. alhamdulillah!  They are not arguing against that!

This point is further buttressed by the following oral tradition mentioned in their article:

Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked ‘Abdullah bin Abi ‘Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, “The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam,” I asked, “Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?” He replied, “I do not know.”

 

Let us look at statement 3.

How could it be that if the people referred to in this verse included both married and unmarried the following verse said that the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator o a polytheist.”

My comments:

Actually, even if the man had four wives, verse 3 would still apply to him.   The co-authors would have to make the case that verse 2 (even if the man had 4 wives) that verse 3 would not be applicable to him. Verse 3 should be understood primarily by the context of the Qur’an and not outside speculation.

Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honorable. (Qur’an 24:26)

In the case of adultery, it would be known that this man or woman has brought shame to their household.  In the case of fornication, it is mostly done in secret.  That person (man or woman) should not marry a Muslim man or woman who has guarded their chastity.   That is the right of those who have safeguarded their chastity.

Verse 3 still applies to those who commit adultery.  This is exactly our point. How can someone get married to someone who is going to be stoned to death?

Now let us look at statement 1

The punishment of (slave) female adulterer is specified to be half of the free female fornicator

My comments:

This statement is very odd.   I added the word (slave) in brackets above to help them make their point. Otherwise, it may be confusing to people.

You can read further where they say concerning (Qur’an 4:25) where the co-authors of the article say the punishment of the married slave woman is half that of a free woman.

They say:

“Simply put the “muhsanat” half of whose punishment is for the adulterer slave-women are free unmarried women. And their punishment, if it comes to it, is 100 lashes not stoning. And the punishment of a hundred lashes can easily be halved. Simple common sense issue!”

So the co-authors would have us believe that the system should look something like this:

Free woman unmarried (fornication)-100 flogging

A free woman married (adultery)-stoning to death

Slave woman married (adultery)-50 flogging

Slave woman unmarried (fornication)-??? (25 floggings) ?

The Qur’an when meeting out punishment should be very clear and not ambiguous.     The argumentation put forward by  Gabriel Keresztes and Waqar Akbar would also fail to explain the following verse:

“O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.” (Qur’an 33:30)

How do you double stoning to death?  You can double 100 floggings to 200.  I would imagine that we might see some real slick apologetic that will tell us that “The Punishment would be double to her, ‘would mean stoning in this life and hell in the next life‘.   This seems to be an exegetical stretch aimed at saving oral tradition above the Qur’an.

There are really two other points for consideration from the article by the co-authors.

1) the issue of Mutawatir

As I have mentioned before  Mutawatir hadith cannot override Mutawatir Qur’an.

The Azraqi/Sufriya, Najdiya sects have always used Qur’an 4:25  as a proof against our brothers from among the Sunni/Shi’a sects, as a reason not to enforce stoning to death.   I wonder if they are included in the Mutawatir consensus of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah?  I guess not.

* source:  (Fahmi Huwaydi, Hatta la Takuna Fitna, p. 132)

 

2) Rajm (stoning) abrogated by flogging.

The co-authors had this to say:

“The fact however remains that most if not all of the incidents of rajm practiced by the Prophet –peace, and blessings of Allah be upon him- took place after the revelation of surah al-Nur. Consider the following points;

1- Surah al-Nur was revealed after a false charge was made against the Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah Aisha, which happened immediately after the Battle (ghazwah) of Bani Mastaliq. [8]

2-Historians differ as to the date of this Battle. According to Ibn Ishaq it was in the year 6 A.H.[9] According to al-Waqidi[10] and Ibn Sa’d[11] it took place in the year 5 A.H. According to one report attributed to Musa bin ‘Uqbah it happened in the year 4 A.H.[12], however, more authentic reports from him also put it in the year 5 A.H.[13]Hafiz Ibn Hajr considering various narrations and facts has said that the most preferable opinion is that of 5 A.H.

Therefore we can say, the latest battle took place in the year 6 A.H. though according to the most authentic view it took place in the year 5 A.H., and immediately after it the Surah al-Nur was revealed. Most accounts say it was the month of Sha’ban.

3- There is evidence of rajm carried out by the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- after year 6 A.H.

The incident of stoning to death of the Jewish adulterers is reported by the blessed companion Abdullah bin al-Harith, and he said, “I was among those who stoned the two.”

My comments:

The co-author’s state:

Surah al-Nur was revealed after a false charge was made against the Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah Aisha, which happened immediately after Battle (ghazwah) of Bani Mastaliq.”

My response:

Mash’Allah I wish they would reflect on that.  The charge of Aisha (who was a married woman) was a charge of adultery. Surah al-Nur would have been the perfect occasion to mention anything about stoning. However, the verses as we have seen mention nothing about stoning at all!   So they would have to explain why that is.

They also said:

that most if not all of the incidents of rajm practiced by the Prophet –peace, and blessings of Allah be upon him- took place after the revelation of surah al-Nur.”

My response:

Yet, the one incident that is quoted is interestingly enough involving a Jewish adulterer! To prove that the Qur’an did not come to abrogate the practice of the stoning (as was practiced by the Jews) they quote of all cases an incident involving a Jewish woman!

Was that woman a Muslim?

Were they simply acting upon what the Jewish Shari’ah as based upon the Torah?

These are questions that need answers.

So they are uncertain about dates.   To see a good take on the so-called ‘history’ I would highly recommend the following:

http://quransmessage.com/articles/karbala%20historicity%20FM3.htm

 

This entry was given so the readers can see what happens when we rely upon extraneous sources at the expense of divine revelation.

People who believe in such remind me of what Allah mentions in the Qur’an. 

“But when there came unto them the Truth from Our presence, they said: Why is he not given the like of what was given unto Moses? Did they not disbelieve in that which was given unto Moses of old? They say Two magics that support each other; and they say: Lo! in both we are disbelievers. Say: Then bring a scripture from the presence of Allah that gives clearer guidance than these two that I may follow it if you are truthful. And if they answer you not, then know that what they follow is their lusts. And who goes farther astray than he who follows his lust without guidance from Allah. Lo! Allah guides not wrongdoing folk.” (Qur’an 28: 48-50)

 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Refuting death for apostasy.

“Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will reject (it)” (Qur’an 18:29)

And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers? And it is not for a soul to believe except by Allah’s permission, and He casts uncleanness on those who will not understand.” (Qur’an 10: 99-100)

He said, “O my people have you considered: if I should be upon clear evidence from my Lord while He has given me mercy from Himself but it has been made unapparent to you, should we force it upon you while you are averse to it? (Qur’an 11:28)

“And whoever invokes besides Allah another deity for which he has no proof – then his account is only with his Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will not succeed.” (Qur’an 23:117)

 

1) The argument from Logic.  Allah (swt) is All-Knowing.

 

The “traditional” understanding of apostasy laws makes sense in the context where Islam would always be the dominant polity. However, as we can see that has not been the case for some time now. As we can see in secular societies ex-Muslims are given no choice but to preach against the spread of Islam. Their very lives are at stake. So Muslims employ very circular reasoning. If people apostate it will encourage others to do so.  This is answered by saying that the first apostate is Iblis. Point of fact, Allah (swt) did not destroy him. Rather, Allah (swt) uses the apostasy of Iblis to test the believers until the end of time. 

Notice that Iblis knows full well that retribution is coming his way for going against Allah (swt).  Yet, look at what he asks for. He didn’t ask Allah (swt) for extra time so that he could do tawba. No! He didn’t ask Allah (swt) for extra time so that he could do good. No! He asked Allah (swt) for extra time for the expressed purpose of tirelessly assailing the hearts, and minds of the believers until the day of recompense. How brazen a request in light of his open apostasy! 

Ponder these verses…

 

He said, “My Lord, then reprieve me until the Day they are resurrected.” He said: Then lo! You are of those reprieved Until the Day of the time well-known.” He said: My Lord! Because You cast me out, I verily shall adorn the path of error for them in the earth, and shall mislead them every one, Except, among them, Your chosen servants.” (Qur’an 15:36-40)

 

He said: “Because you have thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way: Then I will come to them from before them and from behind them and on their right and on their left, and You will not find most of them grateful to You.” (Qur’an 7:16-17)

 

Iblis will assault from all directions. We should expect to be assailed spiritually, challenged intellectually, and on all fronts.

 

So the whole purpose of the first apostate as recorded in the Qur’an is to be fitna for the believers. Allah (swt) did not destroy him for his apostasy. Instead, he gave him respite.

 

2) The argument from hypocrisy.  

It should be clear to anyone who has even cursory knowledge of the Qur’an that Allah (swt) has the most damning words for hypocrites.

“The hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper will you find for them” (Qur’an 4:145)

“To the hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty; (Qur’an 4:138)

“O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,-an evil refuge indeed.” (Qur’an 9:73)

And there are people who say, “We do believe in God and the Last Day,” the while they do not [really] believe. They would deceive Allah and those who have attained to faith-the while they deceive none but themselves, and perceive it not. And when they are told, “Do not spread corruption on earth,” they answer, “We are but improving things!” Oh, verily, it is they, they who are spreading corruption but they perceive it not?  And when they are told, “Believe as other people believe,” they answer, “Shall we believe as the weak-minded believe?” Oh, verily, it is they, they who are weak-minded -but they know it not! And when they meet those who have attained to faith, they assert, “We believe [as you believe]”; but when they find themselves alone with their- evil impulses, they say, “Verily, we are with you; we were only mocking!” (Qur’an 2:2-16)

“Deaf, dumb, blind – and they cannot turn back.” (Qur’an 2:18)

It becomes painfully obvious from the above verses that hypocrites are those who say what they do not really believe.  Their hidden hypocrisy is the cause for spreading corruption in the earth; they assert they believe as others believe but when they are alone with their evil impulse that is what they hold to.

Lastly, Allah (swt) asserts that such people can never revert or turn back.  Never!

This enough can end the debate about forcing apostates back into Islam at the point of a scimitar.  If the point is that apostates can bring harm to the faith, then why should someone be punished for their honesty in either having a crisis of conscious or not believing something, whereas a hypocrite remains in stealth weaving his or her destructive schemes within the rank and file of the Muslims?

“The Hypocrites-they think they are over-reaching Allah, but He will over-reach them: When they stand up to prayer, they stand without earnest, to be seen of men, but little do they hold Allah in remembrance.” (Qur’an 4:142)

The question is why would Allah (swt) speak so strongly against hypocrisy and yet institute a law that would strongly encourage it?

If people are threatened with a scimitar and they truly do not believe and yet ‘come back into the fold’ for fear of losing their life how will these people not be “those who stand up in prayer, they stand without earnest, to be seen of men?”

How will these people not be among those who say, “We do believe in God and the Last Day,” the while they do not really believe.”?

How will such people not be among those who assert,We believe as you believe”; but when they find themselves alone with their- evil impulses, they say, “Verily, we are with you; we were only mocking.”?

In other words: “Hey everyone it’s cool now I’m a Muslim again. You can put your scimitar down now.”

We have never been told by any of our scholars how the scimitar brings people back to faith?

For example: when we read this beautiful passage in the Qur’an.

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

Does the scimitar produce this type of Islam?

“Allah has sent down the best statement: a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefore of those who fear their Lord; then their skins, and their hearts, relax at the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills. And one whom Allah leaves astray, for him there is no guide.” (Qur’an 39:23)

Does the scimitar produce this type of Islam?

Or is there a very strong possibility that the scimitar invites the kinds of hypocrisy mentioned in the above verses. The very type of hypocrisy that Allah (swt) so strongly spoke against!    Does the scimitar invite disgruntled and restless souls who being forced back to Islam a chance to plot and plan vengeance within the community?

 

3)The argument from sectarian chaos: The implications this has upon sects and sectarianism in Islam.

 

Abdullah bin Mas’ud (r.a) narrated that the Prophet (saw) said,

It is impermissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, except in one of three cases: the adulterer, a life for a life, and the renegade Muslim (apostate), who abandons the Muslim community.”

Source: (Bukhari – Kitab Ad-Diyyat /Book on Blood Money/hadith #6878)

The first point this hadith mentions three things: life for life, apostasy, and adulterer.  You cannot decouple this hadith. You cannot accept part of it and reject another part. If any part of that text is found to be false the hall of the text is destroyed. It is absolutely my contention that the punishment for adultery is not being stoned to death, rather it is 80 lashes. Please see: https://primaquran.com/2020/09/03/what-is-the-punishment-for-adultery-in-the-quran/

Please also see:https://primaquran.com/2020/09/05/refuting-the-argument-of-stoning-to-death-for-adultery-taking-the-quran-as-the-primary-guidance/

 

Now considering the name Mu’tazili’s ends up meaning ‘separate’, ‘withdraw’ and  Khariji means to ‘walkout’ or ‘go out’ from. Do you really think for a moment that these people called themselves Mu’tazaili and Kharijites?

The problem with the apostasy law is that it becomes a powerful tool to persecute other Muslims with different political and theological positions. The same as we saw during the Omayyad, Abbasid, Ottoman, Fatimid, Almoravid & Almohad dynasty not to mention the ‘Mihna’ and so on.

 

If it is claimed that when someone becomes an apostate or ‘abandons the Muslim community‘ we now have a tool that suggests to us that ‘might is right’.  Indeed throughout the centuries, various Muslim factions have claimed that other Muslim factions have become apostate and left Islam.

This concept puts many Muslim scholars today in a hypocritical position of condemning groups like ISIS but not condemning doctrinal/textual evidence used to make licit the blood of fellow Muslims.

Which begs the question of ‘what is Islam’?   And ‘what all does it entail’?

When a person embraces Islam, what actually do they embrace?   Would it be more appropriate for someone to say “I have embraced what I feel is Islam.”  Or “I have embraced the Islam I have learned thus far.”

 

 

4) The Argument from consistency: The self-refuting nature of apostasy laws.

The whole idea that is espoused by many is that if a person were to leave Islam they could corrupt the hearts and minds of other believers. Yet this argument already falls flat seeing that Allah (swt) has allowed the continued apostasy of Iblis for that very purpose. 

“Say: Allah is the conclusive argument. If He had willed He could have guided every one of you.´” (Qur’an 6:149)

“You cannot give guidance to whomsoever you wish, but Allah gives guidance to whomsoever He wills, and He best knows the ones who are on the right path.” (Qur’an 28:56)    

So we know that guidance is the purview of Allah (swt)- alone.

“As for those who have faith and then return to unbelief, and then again have faith and then return to unbelief, and then increase in unbelief, Allah will not forgive them or guide them on any path.” (Qur’an 4:137)

“O you who believe, fear Allah, as He should be feared, and let not yourself die, except as Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)

The two verses coupled together show two things.

a) We need to be upon the cycle of faith and not unbelief if we have hope of Allah forgiving us and being guided.

b) We should not die unless we are in a state of surrender to Allah (swt) i.e-Muslims.

All these verses show the self-refuting nature of the apostasy laws.  They scimitar does not guarantee faith for anyone.  In fact, in this day and age, the apostasy law is the cause of apostasy!

It would be of utmost interest as a sociological experiment if someone were to take Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ and share them with Non-Muslims and ask them, ‘would this make you not want to be a Muslim?’  And then share with them the “traditionalist” view on apostasy and ask them, ‘would this make you not want to be a Muslim?” and let us see which one would be more effective in drive people away.

I read Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ it was absolute rubbish.   How many Muslims left Islam because of this book as compared to how many actually leave Islam because of the apostasy law itself?

 

Answering objections:

Compel or not to compel? 

“There is no compulsion where the deen is concerned. Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error. Anyone who rejects false gods and has iman in Allah has grasped the Firmest Handhold, which will never give way. Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 2:256)

There are those among the “traditionalist” who say that you cannot compel people to accept Islam, however, once they accept Islam you can compel them.  Then are those who say you can compel people to enter Islam.

Go and look at their arguments here:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/244191/refutation-of-those-who-claim-that-the-hadiths-which-speak-of-executing-the-apostate-are-contrary-to-the-quran

Notice that they say,

So no one is forced to enter Islam, but if he enters the faith and becomes Muslim voluntarily, then he is bound to abide by its rulings, whether he wants to or not, and one of the rulings of Islam is that the one who apostatizes from the faith is to be executed.”

This is like a person who has never traveled to some country; he is not obliged to travel to it or enter that country, and its laws do not apply to him, so long as he is in some other country and has not traveled there. But if he does travel there then he is bound by its laws and will be subject to them, and they will be applied to him; whether he wants that or not.”

MY RESPONSE
So let us say that we were to agree with the first paragraph above.  ‘’But if he enters the faith and becomes Muslim voluntarily, then he is bound to abide by its rulings.’     Let us say we agree that this applies to people who are converts and have tied to weigh the merits of Islam.  What does this say however about the millions upon millions who were simply born and raised Muslims?   Are they allowed to leave Islam or convert to other faiths because they were born and raised Muslims by default?   Obviously, the arguments used above fall flat. As does the argument that one is not obligated to travel to another country because in that argument one can travel to another country (not like being there) and travel out of it without any threat to his/her life. 

#1) So let us deal with those who say that you can compel people to enter into Islam.  These are those who believe in a theory called ‘abrogation’.   It is a train wreck of a doctrine that is so bizarre and so incoherent that the only consensus that Sunni Muslims seem to have on it is that it exists.

https://primaquran.com/2020/07/22/why-abrogation-in-the-quran-is-a-false-doctrine/

 

So our brothers from among the Ahl Sunnah need to get this sorted out before they use any such theoretical concepts to say that Qur’an 2:256 is null and void.

2) Let us deal with those who say that you cannot compel people to enter into Islam.  Well, they are obviously refuted by those who say that you can in point #1 above.  We let them sort that out since it is their understanding and not ours.

So this doesn’t take Prima-Qur’an from the hot seat. What would be a Prima-Qur’an position on Qur’an 2:256 then?

“You have your deen and I have my deen.” (Qur’an 109:6)

So the Allah swt clearly tells us there is no compulsion in our deen.  However; once a person has chosen to embrace Islam as a deen (way of life) there becomes obligations upon him/her like paying the zakaat (purification tax).

When you live in any country you pay taxes to that land.   They say there are two things we won’t be able to escape ‘death and taxes’.   So just as an immigrant who came to the United States would be his/her consent agree to abide by the terms and conditions of that state so too would anyone who enters into the ‘deen’ -way of life of Islam agree to abide by its terms and conditions.  If you leave Islam than the zakaat (purification tax) would of course no longer be applicable to you. You would now be paying the jizya and/or other liable taxes. 

 

Verses misconstrued to justify death for apostasy within the Qur’an. 

1)

“They ask you about the sacred month- about fighting therein. Say, ‘Fighting therein is a great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid-Al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah. And fitnah is greater than killing.” And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever-for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and in the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally.”  (Qur’an 2:217)

No one is killed for changing their religion. The warning is that if these people die while they are in a state of unbelief (either from fighting Muslims, tonsillitis, slipping on a banana peel, old age, etc…) that it will all be for naught in the world to come.

 

2)

“They swear by Allah that they said nothing, but they definitely spoke the word of unbelief and returned to unbelief after their Islam. They planned something which they did not achieve and they were vindictive for no other reason than that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them from His bounty. If they were to make repentance, it would be better for them. But if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Next World, and they will not find any protector or helper on the earth.” (Qur’an 9:73-74)

This verse is in reference to people who believed after their Islam and joined the ranks of enemies who were against the Muslim community. As you can see they were in that state for some time. This verse would have been a perfect time to implement a hudud law for leaving Islam.  None was implemented. If it were the proponents of apostasy would quote this all the livelong day.  So Allah (swt) will punish them in this life and in the next life.  Allah (swt) is not instructing any death penalties on Earth here.

3)

“Do not try to justify yourselves; you have gone from belief to disbelief.’ We may forgive some of you, but we will punish others: they are evildoers.” (Qur’an 9:66)

This is actually a strong proof against any type of punishment for apostasy.  It clearly says that Allah (swt) will forgive some and punish others (which are clearly the prerogative of Allah (swt).  However, where is this punishment coming from?

The previous verse explains:

“Did they not know that whoever is hostile towards Allah and His messenger, he will have the Fire of Hell to abide in? Such is the greatest humiliation.” (Qur’an 9:63)

These people were doing what? They were mocking the Messenger of Allah (swt).

“And from them are those who harm the prophet, and they say: “He only listens!” Say: “What he listens to is best for you. He believes in Allah, and he has trust for the believers, and he is a mercy to those who believe among you.” Those who harm the prophet, they will have a painful retribution..” (Qur’an (9:61)

If only Muslims today could be patient and heed the advice of the Qur’an. There is no need to burn down embassies when people insult our beloved Messenger (saw). That does not honour Him (saw).  Allah (swt) is the best to set forth our affairs.

“So remind them! You are only a reminder. You are not over them a controller. However, he who turns away and disbelieves Then Allah will punish him with the greatest punishment.” (Qur’an 88:21-24)

4)  

“They would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of Allah; and if they revert to open enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you may find them. And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succor, unless it is such of them as have ties with people to whom you yourselves are bound by a covenant, or such as come unto you because their hearts shrink from the thought of making war either on you or on their own folk – although, if Allah had willed to make them stronger than you, they would certainly have made war on you. Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, Allah does not allow you to harm them.” (Qur’an 4:89-90)

Once again we are confronted with a context and situation of open war against Muslims by those who were in a treaty with Muslims and broke it.   So Allah (swt) says if they are in open hostility find them and slay them.    However, Allah (swt) says, “if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, Allah does not allow you to harm them.”

No killing apostates for simply leaving the faith in these verses. The killing of apostates is coincidental with them fighting against the Muslims, and if not they are to be left alone. 

 

5)

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or imapailed, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter, theirs will be an awful doom; save for such [of them] as repent before you become more powerful than they: for you must know that Allah is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. (Qur’an 5:33-34)

We can see that for making war upon Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) or for spreading corruption in the land that death be not necessarily mandated, as expulsion from the land is acceptable.  It would seem rather farfetched that death is mandated for one’s personal convictions when even making war upon Allah (swt), His Messenger (saw), or spreading mischief in the land can be dealt with by expulsion.

No killing for apostates in the above verses. In fact, expulsion from the land is a viable option. 

 

In the following verses, Allah (swt) could have at any moment mandated death for one’s personal convictions and did not.  Yet, even Allah (swt) admonished the Blessed Messenger (saw) to be patient and not to be ignorant.

 

O you who have attained to faith If you ever abandon your faith,” Allah will in time bring forth [in your stead] people whom He loves and who love Him – humble towards the believers, proud towards all who deny the truth: [people] who strive hard in Allah’s cause, and do not fear to be censured by anyone who might censure them: such is Allah’s favour, which He grants unto whom He wills. And Allah is infinite, all-knowing.” (Qur’an 5:54)

“Surely, those who disbelieve after their believing then increase in unbelief, their repentance shall not be accepted, and these are they that go astray.” (Qur’an 3:90)

“If their turning away is hard on you, then go down a tunnel deep into the earth, if you can, or climb up a ladder into heaven, and bring them a Sign. If Allah had wanted to He would have gathered them all to guidance. So do not be among the ignorant.” (Qur’an 6:35)

Say – For Allah’s is the final argument – Had He willed He could indeed have guided all of you. (Qur’an 6:149)

“Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will reject (it)” (Qur’an 18:29)

And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers? And it is not for a soul to believe except by Allah’s permission, and He casts uncleanness on those who will not understand.” (Qur’an 10: 99-100

 

Cases of the Blessed Messenger (saw) not executing apostates.

One of these so-called “apostates” supposedly is Dhu al-Khuwaysira al-Tamimi (Hurqus b. Zuhayr)-Al-Saidi.  It is obvious for anyone who reflects pensively about this. You cannot have a situation where Ahl Sunnah claims that all of the conflicts between the companions were a matter of personal ijtihad and than not do that with the major companions who differed with Ali (r.a) and his decision at Siffin. Therefore those companions need to be discredited.

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: (Muslim 1063)

Comments: Notice the obscurity of the identity of the person. “A man”,  “The man”. 


Ibn Hajar al- ‘Asqalani mentioned a report from ‘Abd al-Razzaq al- San’ani who said,
Dhu al- Khuwaysira al- Tamimi’s real name was Hurqus b. Zuhayr and he was the founder of the Kharijites”. Thus the later-day Kharijites had the same mindset as their founder. 

Imam Ahmad was asked by his son Abdullah: “Was Abd Al-Razzaq of the Shiites? Did he go far in his Shiite leanings?” He answered: “Personally, I heard nothing from him on this point at all, but he was highly interested in historical reports.” 

Comments: Those people from Ahl Sunnah who usually quote this have not given me the sources nor any chains of narrations. Nor have they given the evidence by which Abd al-Razzaq supposedly made this claim.

As Imam Dhahabi states in his Siyar, “Abd Al-Razzaq bin Himam, Ibn Nafi’, the great hadith master, the scholar of Yemen, Abu Bakr Al-Humayri, their mawla Al-San’ani, the trustworthy, the Shi’ite.” (Kitaab Siyar)

“O, Muhammed! I have seen what you have done this day.” The Prophet responded, “Indeed, And how do you judge my actions?” Duh al-Khuwasira responded, “I have not seen you do justice.” The Prophet (saw) became angry and said, “Mercy on you! If justice is not from me, then from whom shall it come?” Umar bin al-Khattab witnessing this said to the Prophet (saw), “O Messenger of Allah! Shall I kill him? He said to Umar, “No, leave him! For surely there shall arise from him a faction who shall become so absorbed in the religion that they will exit from it the way that an arrow is extracted from the game. One looks at the arrowhead and finds nothing. Then, he looks at the shaft and finds nothing. Then preceding any excretion or blood.” Source: (Sira Ibn Hisham, p 649-650)   

This is supposed to be the same incident and the wording is very different. These hadiths are nothing more than fanciful fabrications created by a redactor and used as a polemic against other Muslims. 

 

 

 

 

The companion Al Ash’ath b.Qays. He entered Islam, left Islam -stayed away for Islam long after 3 days, and came back to Islam. 

Source: (Ahmad b ‘Ali b. Hajar al-Asqlani, Kitab Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Beiruit: Dar al-Fikr, 1415/1995, p. 369)

Wikipedia has a short write up about him although it is important to take information from more official sources like the one above.

 

Another interesting case is: ‘Abd Allah b ‘Sa’d b. Abi al Sarh. This companion embraced Islam than left Islam and claimed that he was actually a Prophet! So not only was this a matter of leaving Islam the man was clearly involved in the sedition of the highest magnitude for the fledgling community. Source: (Abd al-Ghani al-Ghanimi al-Maydani, Sharh al-‘Aqida al-Tahawiya. Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 1988, p. 124)

 

You also have some brief mention of this encounter in the Sunan Abu Dawud:

Narrated Sa’d:

On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Messenger of Allah (saw) gave protection to the People except for four men and two women,  and he named them. Ibn Abi Sarh was one of them. He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn Abi Sarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Messenger of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his head and looked at him three times, denying him every time. After the third time he received his oath. He then turned to his Companions and said: Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We do not know, Messenger of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us a hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye.” Source: (Sunan Abu-Dawud Kitab Al-Jihad 14 hadith 2677)

Even though it shows that the Blessed Messenger desired that the man be killed he was not killed. He ended up re-entering Islam and fought on behalf of Islam.

 

 

The Companion Al-Abbas b Mirdas

 

This companion of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was do disturbed by not being given a larger portion of the spoils of a battle that he started to composed verses of poetry that scolded the Prophet (saw) for not giving him what he felt he rightfully deserved. Upon hearing the words of Al-Abbas, the Prophet (saw) ordered his companions saying, “Go and cut his tongue off from me.” Source: (Sira Ibn Hisham p, 649-650)

Which if you are not familiar with the eloquence of the Arabic language you can misconstrue this as the Blessed Messenger (saw) saying to go and literally cut his tongue out! He actually means to shut him up. The companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) then went and gave this companion more of the spoils and kept giving him until he was content. 

 

In many ways, apostates today have legitimate concerns and justifications for expressing their discontent with some Muslims. the major mistake they typically equate the abuse of oppression they suffer in their cultural homelands with Islam. Islam does not oblige people to mutilate female genitalia, no does it authorize or condone honor killings, forbid women to drive cars, or stop women from getting a divorce!

Many Muslims are simply not used to be challenged for their faith.  Even though as mentioned before Iblis has promised (and Allah has allowed) that he will challenge us on all fronts.

The only time apostates are actually killed is not on account of their crisis of consciousness but when it comes coupled with acts of sedition, treason against the state, or any other act deemed as an act of war.  Allah (swt) knows best and the help of Allah (swt) is sought. 

 

 

 

 

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized