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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Source: [ https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.43a ]


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

1 Kings 18:25-40

New International Version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego & the Flaming Furnace. 

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

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

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

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

They replied, “Certainly, Your Majesty.”

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


When actually what the scripture says is:


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


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

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


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


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


 Please read: https://primaquran.com/2020/07/27/the-ibadi-view-from-the-quran-and-sunnah-will-we-ever-see-allah/ 

& https://primaquran.com/2019/05/17/a-jewish-argument-against-the-quran/


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dastardly Bowl Licking Dogs and The Thought Process of Some Muslims

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


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



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


The following is taken from https://islamqa.info/en/answers/41090/how-purification-from-the-najaasah-of-a-dog-is-done

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Now think dear Muslim brothers and sisters think !!!


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


No, it does not!

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

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

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



dog chewing 2xcats

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

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


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


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

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


Ya RasulAllah what if a giraffe licks my bowl ?!

Ya RasulAllah what if a possum licks my bowl ?!

Ya RasulAllah what if an orangutan licks my bowl ?!


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

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


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


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


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


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


It has been attributed to the Prophet Muhammad,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Not many, which is exactly my point!


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


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

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


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


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

The following is titled:

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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



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

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


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


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


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

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




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


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

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


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


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




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

Source: (Sharh Muslim, 10/236)

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



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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Filed under Uncategorized

The Trauma of being a Muslim convert.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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



Filed under Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

See for yourself! 


Here are some notes I took of the video.

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

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

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

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


My comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Filed under Uncategorized

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. 


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.



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.


@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.



“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)




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.


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

Something seems very off about this.



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.




#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)


“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).



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