And “O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat from wherever you will but do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 7:19)
﷽
We need to first understand why these questions come about and the possible intentions behind them. Especially in light of very clear verses of the Qur’an.
“(This is) a blessed Book which We have revealed to you, (O Muhammed), that they might reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded.” (Qur’an 38:29)
The first thing to say is that all who sincerely ponder upon the Qur’an will be rewarded. It is a very great act of worship.
The second is to say that all of us approach the Qur’an with our presuppositons. A presupposition is an implicit, underlying assumption about the world that a speaker takes for granted as true for an utterance to make sense in context.
So, if someone approaches the Qur’an with the idea in mind that miracles do not take place or the current Ijmāʿin science is the end, all be all, they will interpret the Qur’an in accord with this presupposition.
Others may feel the need to interpret the Qur’an in such a way in light of what they see as verses that could not be reconciled otherwise.
The Qur’an is clear that both Adam and his wife were in paradise (Jannah). Yet, this word literally means ‘garden’.
“O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat there in abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:35)
“So he brought about their fall through deception. And when they tasted of the tree, their nakedness was exposed to them, prompting them to cover themselves with leaves from Paradise. Then their Lord called out to them, “Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you that Satan is your sworn enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22)
“O children of Adam! Do not let Satan deceive you as he tempted your parents out of Paradise and caused their cover to be removed in order to expose their nakedness. Surely he and his soldiers watch you from where you cannot see them. We have made the devils allies of those who disbelieve.” (Qur’an 7:27)
And “O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat from wherever you will; but do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 7:19)
The first objection to Adam-alayi salam being created in the heavenly paradise rather than a garden on Earth.
The Satan’s Access Argument Examined.
So, whether this means the Paradise that the righteous go to when they die, or it means some place on the Earth that Adam (alayi salam) was expelled from, raises questions.
The first question it raises is as follows:
“Allah said, “Then get down from Paradise! It is not for you to be arrogant here. So get out! You are truly one of the disgraced.” (Qur’an 7:13) clearly states that Iblis was already in the same “Jannah” as Adam before his expulsion.
This verse makes it clear that Iblis was removed from Paradise. Yet, we have the following verse:
“But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” (Qur’an 2:36)
&
“O children of Adam! Do not let Satan deceive you as he tempted your parents out of Paradise and caused their cover to be removed in order to expose their nakedness. Surely he and his soldiers watch you from where you cannot see them. We have made the devils allies of those who disbelieve.” (Qur’an 7:27)
So how does Iblis have access to paradise? (Either the place the righteous go to when they die or the place on Earth that Adam -alayi salam was expelled from)
One approach that is used is to suggest that the satan that tempted Adam -alayi salam was not necessarily Iblis, but rather another Jinn that decided to go down the path of rebellion and perversion.
“And thus did We make for every prophet an enemy, the Shaitans from among men and jinn, some of them suggesting to others varnished falsehood to deceive (them), and had your Lord pleased they would not have done it, therefore leave them and that which they forge And that the hearts of those who do not believe in the hereafter may incline to it and that they may be well pleased with it and that they may earn what they are going to earn (of evil).” (Qur’an 112:113)
“He said: Get out of this (state), despised, driven away; whoever of them will follow you, I will certainly fill hell with you all.” (Qur’an 7:18)
“But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” (Qur’an 2:36)
“We said, “Descend all of you! Then when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows it, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.” (Qur’an 2:38)
So, as Iblis was an inhabitant of heaven before he became a shaitan, it is reasoned that the jinn that tempted Adam -alayi salam was an inhabitant of heaven before he became a shaitan.
Some will argue that this cannot be the case as Iblis is the shaitan identified in the following verse:
“O children of Adam! Do not let Satan deceive you as he tempted your parents out of Paradise and caused their cover to be removed in order to expose their nakedness. Surely he and his soldiers watch you from where you cannot see them. We have made the devils allies of those who disbelieve.” (Qur’an 7:27)
This may not mean Iblis directly but by way of proxy. “He and his soldiers.”
The two “Descents” Hubut (هبوط) approach.
Another way Muslim commentators have tried to approach this is to suggest we distinguish between two different “descents” or “expulsions”:
First Descent (Iblis): Iblis is expelled from the presence of divine mercy and from the company of the angels. However, he is not immediately removed from the physical location of the Garden. He lingers, seeking revenge.
Second Descent (Adam): After successfully tempting Adam, both Adam and Iblis are then commanded to descend to earth.
This view holds that Iblis’s expulsion in Qur’an 7:13 is primarily a spiritual and relational expulsion (loss of status), while his physical departure from the Garden happens simultaneously with Adam in Qur’an 2:36 and Qur’an 7:24.
The Two Descents approach creates a theologically unacceptable inconsistency:
Iblis: Commits direct, arrogant rebellion against Allah’s explicit command. Refuses to prostrate. Challenges Allah openly. His punishment? He is “expelled” but allowed to loiter around in the Garden long enough to tempt Adam -alayhi salam.
Adam: Makes a mistake. He forgets. He is weak. He is then deceived by the very being Allah allegedly allowed to remain. His punishment? Immediate removal. No lingering.
This portrayal makes Allah appear inconsistent. May Allah forgive us. The rebel gets deferment; the one who stumbles gets the hammer. This is not the Allah of the Quran, who is Al-‘Adl (The Just) and Al-Rahman (The Most Merciful).
Our objection is not just logical; it is theological dynamite. It exposes that the “two descents” harmonization, far from solving the problem, actually creates a worse one: a morally problematic portrait of divine justice.
كيف قام الشيطان بأغواء آدم عليه السلام؟أين كانت جنة آدم عليه السلام؟وهل يمكن أن يدخلها ابليس؟
This is the way that Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (H) has answered the above question:
The second objection to Adam-alayi salam being created in the heavenly paradise rather than a garden on Earth.
If Adam-alayhi salam is a special creation of paradise, then how did mud make its way into heaven?
˹Remember, O Prophet˺ , when your Lord said to the angels, “I am going to create a human being from sounding clay moulded from black mud.” (Qur’an 15:28)
This is a rather odd objection.
Why couldn’t Allah have created the dust and clay for Adam within Paradise itself? For a being who creates the entire universe from nothing (“Be, and it is”), Allah could have willed into existence a handful of dust within the celestial garden just as easily as He could have on earth.
The Qur’an has already established the following:
“O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat there in abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:35)
“So he brought about their fall through deception. And when they tasted of the tree, their nakedness was exposed to them, prompting them to cover themselves with leaves from Paradise. Then their Lord called out to them, “Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you that Satan is your sworn enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22)
“The description of Paradise promised to the righteous is that in it are rivers of fresh water, rivers of milk that never changes in taste, rivers of wine delicious to drink, and rivers of pure honey. There they will ˹also˺ have all kinds of fruit, and forgiveness from their Lord. ˹Can they be˺ like those who will stay in the Fire forever, left to drink boiling water that will tear apart their insides?.” (Qur’an 47:15)
Can you imagine!? Rivers of milk. Rivers of wine! Rivers of pure honey! Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory eat your heart out!
“And We will provide them with whatever fruit or meat they desire.” (Qur’an 52:22)
“˹They will also be served˺ any fruit they choose and meat from any bird they desire.” (Qur’an 56:20-21)
Allah (swt) has described the jannah as the place where Adam-alayi salam was eating. Does this then follow that he needed to relieve himself? Allah (swt) has described the jannah as a place that has trees, and it has leaves that Adam -alayhi salam used to cover his nakedness.
Therefore, the presence of these materials does not, in itself, prove the location was earthly. The miracle of creation is not bound by our physical laws of geology.
Just as one can have a garden on earth they can have a garden in heaven. Just as we can have trees and rivers on earth we can them in heaven.
The third objection to Adam-alayi salam being created in the heavenly paradise rather than a garden on Earth.
“And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalif, they said: Will You place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, and we celebrate Your praise and extol Your holiness? He said: Surely I know what you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:30)
It is argued that this verse somehow contradicts Allah’s initial purpose of sending a khalif to the Earth. The argument is that if Allah (swt) decided in the beginning to send Adam-alayhi salam to the Earth, then why does Allah (swt) need an excuse to send him down to earth as a punishment?
In other words, if Adam -alayi salam had not slipped, he would not have been sent to the Earth.
The first point is that nowhere does the Qur’an say that the khilafa is for one who does not sin. Nowhere does it state that to be an Imam for others you need to be free from sin.
The second point is that Allah (swt) knows all things including what would happen between Adam-alayhi salam and his nemesis. Also, Allah (swt) knew what the selection of adam-alayi salam would be. To argue against this is to argue against the Qur’an itself. To argue against what Allah (swt) said about himself here:
“He is the First and the Last, the Most High and Most Near, and He has knowledge of all things.” (Qur’an 57:3)
“How could He not know His Own creation? For He is the Most Subtle, All-Aware.” (Qur’an 67:14)
Questions that must be asked of those who believe the garden was a place on Earth.
Where is the location of this place?
Can humans re-enter this location? If not, why not?
Why does Allah (swt) need to inform Adam-alayi salam of the following:
But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” (Qur’an 2:36)
He said, ‘Descend, being enemies to one another. And on the earth, for you is a place of settlement and enjoyment for a time.’ He said, ‘Therein you will live, and therein you will die, and from it you will be brought forth.'” (Quran 7:24-25)
If the earth was their default location, why do they need to be informed of it?
If you enjoyed this article you may find our other entries interesting.
“O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat there from abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:35)
“But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” (Qur’an 2:36)
“So he brought about their fall through deception. And when they tasted of the tree, their nakedness was exposed to them, prompting them to cover themselves with leaves from Paradise. Then their Lord called out to them, “Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you that Satan is your sworn enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22)
(And Adam and his wife ate of it, and their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of Paradise. And Adam disobeyed (waʿaṣā ) his Lord and erred.) (Qur’an 20:121)
“They replied, “Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we will certainly be losers.” (Qur’an 7:23)
“Allah said, “Descend as enemies to each other. You will find in the earth a residence and provision for your appointed stay.”(Qur’an 7:24)
﷽
A bone chilling reminder. Dear brothers and sisters and truth seekers. This is the month of mercy and forgiveness. Seek it!
Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani reminds us:
“Allah The Exalted, removed our Father Adam alayi salam, from heaven. For what reason did Allah (swt) remove him? For the reason of committing a single sin only! For the people of now (in these times) belittle committing a single sin and consider it severe only when they gather many (sins).”
“As if a problem only arises and is connected only to when the sins become many. No!”
“A sin in the sight of Allah is considered severe. Even if it were just one!”
“And if it were not like that, then why did Allah The Exalted remove our Father Adam alayhi salam, from a huge blessing in the form of heaven for the sake of committing one sin only, only! “
“Do not disobey your lord, even if it is just by one sin (one time) only! For it is not the number of sins committed that is considered; rather, it is He who you have sinned against that is considered. And that is ALLAH the MAGNIFICIENT!”
“So if you commit a sin under the pretext that it is just one (one time) and one only and that you won’t commit more. And as a result of continuing such, you eventually lose huge favour (from Allah) such as: health, offspring, spouse, work, shelter or any other favour!”
“Then do not blame anyone other than yourself! For you are not greater than our Father Adam alayi salam.”
According to the proofs and evidence advanced by the Sunnī schools of theology (Ashʿarī, Atharī, Māturīdī) if a Muslim dies without repenting from their major sins, they will spend an undisclosed period in hellfire. (Billions of years perhaps).
According to the proofs and evidence advanced by the Shiʿi and Ibāḍī schools of theology, if a Muslim dies without repenting from their major sins they will be in hellfire without reprieve.
No matter our theological position on what happens to the unrepentant sinners in the hereafter (billions of years in hellfire or indefinitely), the Shaykh has made a forceful point.
Even in the various Ṣūfī tariqa. How often during the day is it permissible to be in a state of ghaflah (heedlessnes)? In taṣawwuf, when is it permissible to not be in a state of dhirk (remembrance) of Allah? When is it permissible to forget Allah?
When we sin are we in a state of dhirk or ghaflah?
We need to get right with Allah. We need to purfiy ourselves and our intentions.
“And keep in mind that Allah’s Messenger is in your midst. If he were to yield to you in many matters, you would surely suffer. But Allah has endeared faith to you, making it appealing in your hearts. And He has made disbelief, rebelliousness, and disobedience detestable to you. Those are the ones rightly guided.” (Qur’an 49:7)
“Muhammed is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah is ever Aware of all things.” (Qur’an 33:40)
“Blessed is He who has revealed the criteria (for discerning truth from falsehood) to His servant so that He could warn all beings.” (Qur’an 25:1)
﷽
All such articles related to this subject will be found here:
This is not an aqidah point for us. Thus, those Muslims who believe in and continue to believe that Jesus (as) will return are not a problem for us.
In regard to the harm or the benefit. The belief that Jesus (as) will return is in the same league with those Muslims who believe in Aliens, Sasquatch or the alleged lost cities of Lemuria and Atlantis. It will only become an issue when those who believe in such things want all others to believe in them as well. When they make it a point of creed or contention.
Of course, no doubt there are innovations introduced to the religion with such beliefs. It certainly undermines the belief that Muhammed (saw) is the last and final messenger. Those who believe that Jesus (as) will return deploy a series of ta’wil (if we want to be nice). copium (if we are being candid).
The idea that Jesus (as) is coming back and Muhammed (saw) is still somehow the last Prophet is usually done via the following three types of novelties (if we want to be nice). bid’ah (innovation if we are being candid).
The first is the idea of the Prophets coming non sequentially. Which has never happened. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet.
The non-sequential argument. Basically, Jesus (as) is A in the diagram below and Muhammed (saw) is B in the diagram below.
It is clear that if A comes before B and comes again after B that B is last in the sequence, and thus the last Prophet. The haqq, the truth about this is so clear that we could ask a small child. Which of the letters appears last? A or B?
The second idea is that a Prophet (saw) left the world with an uncompleted task. In this case, that Prophet would be Jesus -alayi salam.
“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel! I am truly Allah’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah which came before me, and giving good news of a messenger after me whose name will be Aḥmad.” Yet when the Prophet came to them with clear proofs, they said, “This is pure magic.” (Qur’an 61:6)
There is nowhere in the Qur’an where Jesus (as) mentions to his people about him returning in the future.
Only in the case of Jesus — alayhi salam is the novelty introduced of a prophet having an unfinished buisness.
The third idea is to strip the prophet from the office of anbiya. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet. No one has the authority to strip a Prophet of Prophethood!
Those who affirm Jesus’ future return cannot, without qualification, say Muhammed (saw) is the last prophet — only the last law-giving prophet.
In effect, Sunnī and Shi’i theology shifted from: “No prophet after Muhammed”
To: “No prophet initiated after Muhammed”
Next, the Sunnī cannot assail the Shi’i belief in the occultation of the Mahdi. Especially if they (Sunnī) believe that Jesus — Alayhi Salam himself is in occultation.
The strength of the belief in the second coming of Christ Jesus is threefold.
It is based upon an erroneous and groundless tafsir of Qur’an 4:157.
Inconsistent application of tawaffa when it relates to Jesus in (Qur’an 5:117 and Qur’an 3.55)
Based upon Hadith reports in which a great many believe are Tawātur and therefore convincing, if not binding, to believe in it altogether.
Lastly, if indeed we are mistaken in this position, we ask Allah (swt) to forgive us. Certainly there is a difference between not believing that Jesus (alayi salam) will return and not believing in him should he return.
Let’s be honest. Who wouldn’t want to see Prophet Jesus (alayi salam) come back and deal justice to the rebellious children of Banī Isrāʾīl?
The erroneous and groundless tafsir of this verse is partially responsible for this belief.
Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur, a famous Maliki scholar who wrote a tafsir of the Qur’an. He believed that Jesus (as) died. We did not hear any takfir made of him or any excommunication made of him.
Ali Erbaş Turkish Islamic scholar and president of directorate of religious affairs -diyanet in Turkey, believes that Jesus (as) is dead. The Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) is Turkey’s highest official Islamic authority.
“Every soul shall have a taste of death: And only on the Day of Judgment shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved far from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have attained the object (of Life): For the life of this world is but goods and chattels of deception.” (Qur’an 3:185)
﷽
The first point to keep in mind while reading this is there is absolutely no definite text anywhere in the Qur’an that says that Jesus will return. Albeit we recognize that there are texts that have been interpreted to be understood as such.
Our position.
We do not believe that Jesus -alayi salam will return. We do not believe that he will return physically, metaphysically, a shadow Jesus, or one in his likeness. Nothing of the kind.
The strength of the belief in the second coming of Christ Jesus is threefold.
It is based upon an erroneous and groundless tafsir of Qur’an 4:157.
Inconsistent application of tawaffa when it relates to Jesus in (Qur’an 5:117 and Qur’an 3.55)
Based upon Hadith reports in which a great many believe to be Tawātur and therefore convincing, if not binding, to believe in it altogether.
We have discussed the first issue here: (No Romans and No Christians!)
The reports that are considered to be Tawātur. We will not address those reports in this article. Insh’Allah, that will be for another entry. We may touch on a few. Suffice it to say that the Ummah iare not in agreement about what is Tawātur.
For example, illustrious scholars of our school such as Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) regarded the evidence for the punishment in the grave to be mutawatir whereas Shaykh Nabhan (r) regarded them as ahad.
So for the Sunni. Seeing Allah (Ruʾyat Allāh) in the hereafter is something which many of them regard as being mutawatir whereas we do not.
For the Shi’i. Ghadir Khumm is considered mutawatir whereas we do not.
The purpose of this article is to outline the reasons from the Qur’an that we believe Jesus (as) has died and that he will not return.
It is important to keep in mind while reading this is there is absolutely no definite text anywhere in the Qur’an that says nobody killed Jesus ever or that he did not die.
“Get you down, with enmity between yourselves. On earth, it will be your dwelling place and your means of livelihood—for a time. Allah said: “Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, but from it shall you be taken out.” (Qur’an 7:24-25)
“And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming. And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidence, their argument is only that they say, “Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful. ”Say, “ Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will gather you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do not know.” (Qur’an 45:24-26)
The Qur’an’s universal law: life → death → resurrection
We anchor the discussion in verses like Qur’an 45:24–26 and Qur’an 7:24–25. These establish a non-negotiable human pattern:
Life on earth
Death on earth
Resurrection from earth
This is presented as a universal sunnah, from Adam (as) onward, without exception.
No verse ever states:
A prophet bypasses death
A prophet lives bodily in heaven
A prophet returns after death to resume earthly legislation
Any claim of exception must be explicit in the Qur’an. It is not.
This has been the case from the time of Adam (as) and his descendants for every human being until today, without exception.
If anyone tries to counter by saying that Christ Jesus (as) is still living on Earth just in one of the seven heavens, then we have the right to ask them. “When it says that Allah (swt) took him to himself do any of you believe that Allah (swt) is one of the seven heavens?”
And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined up me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive.” (Qur’an 19:31)
What kind of embellished claims is one going to make about Jesus (as) giving zakat in the heavens?
Does Rafaʿa mean bodily ascent in the Qur’an?
“Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.“(Qur’an 4:158)
rafaʿahu is the Arabic used here.
“And mention Idrīs in the Book, surely he was a truthful man, a Prophet. And We elevated him to an honourable status.” (Qur’an 19:57-58)
warafa’nahu – is the Arabic used here.
The comparison with Idrīs is devastating to the “bodily ascension” claim.
Qur’an 4:158 (Jesus): rafaʿahu Allāhu ilayhi
Qur’an 19:57 (Idrīs): rafaʿnāhu makānan ʿaliyyā
What happened to Idris?
So, now taking the example of Idrīs, commonly identified as Enoch [Akhnukh] in the Judeo-Christian tradition, one should ask the scholars that they trust, what happened to Idrīs ? Where is he now? If you believe that Jesus is alive bodily in heaven based upon your understanding of that verb, then what about Enoch?
We would invite you, dear reader, to look at the various views they have on this matter here:
The hadiths they quote about the Blessed Messenger (saw) meeting Idrīs in heaven does nothing to establish that Idrīs died. Just like they would argue that the Blessed Messenger (saw) meeting Jesus in heaven does nothing to establish that Jesus died.
A similar belief is found here:
“By faith, Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ” (Hebrews 11:5)
“Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more because God took him away.” (Genesis 5:24)
Now there are three things we can do with this verb form – rafaʿah
1)Apply it consistently in saying that Jesus and Idrīs were both raised in honor and status by Allah [swt]. This is sensible.
2)Apply it consistently in saying that Jesus and Idrīs are both bodily alive in heaven. Neither has yet to die. Yet the question then becomes :why isn’t Idrīs coming back to aid the Muslims? If Jesus is 2000 years of age, Idrīs has to be thousands of years older.
3)Apply it inconsistently and have it mean one thing to Jesus which has never been used in any other instance and have it mean something else to Idrīs.
In every Qur’anic usage, rafaʿa means:
Raising in rank
Raising in honor
Raising in status
Never:
Spatial relocation to heaven
Suspension of death
Immortality
If one insists Jesus was bodily raised:
Consistency demands Idrīs is too.
Yet no coherent doctrine exists for Idrīs’ return.
Inconsistent special pleading (what actually happened)
Qur’an 3:55 only makes sense if Jesus has died
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful, disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
Four points to note here:
a. Allah [swt] is the one who causes Jesus to die and takes his life.
b. That Allah will raise Jesus up to him.
c. That Allah will purify Jesus.
d. That to Allah shall all return [not just Jesus].
Point A Allah [swt] causes Jesus to die and takes his life.
“His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. He gives life and causes death, and He is over all things competent.” (Qur’an 57:2)
The verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) seems to cause a great deal of needless distress among Muslim exegetes. Why is this so?
Yet the Qur’an itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Q 5:117 and Q 3.55).
For twenty-three of those passages the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition of this term, that is that Allah (swt) separates the soul from the body or makes someone die.
Think about it. For those passages that are not tied into ahadith about Jesus(as) coming back, they are translated and understood as per usual.
This is sufficient evidence that Jesus is dead. It is clear.
In the above article we have demonstrably shown that if it was not for these oral traditions Muslim exegetes would not argue the way they do at all.
So keep in mind that the interpretation of the verses that clearly say that Jesus died is influenced by ‘the tradition‘.
Point B Allah will raise Jesus up to him.
This is exactly what will eventually happen to everyone.
It does not indicate a spatial location.
For example:
“And he said: Lo! I am going to my Lord Who will guide me.”(Qur’an 37:99)
Ibrahim(as) says, I am going to my Lord. Did he mean from place to place? No.
Another example:
“Behold,” the angels told Mary, “Allah has given you the glad news of the coming birth of a son whom He calls His Word, whose name will be Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be a man of honor in this life and the life to come, and who will be one of the ones nearest to Allah.” (Qur’an 3:45)
Can it be argued that there ever was a time in which Jesus was not ‘near to Allah‘?
In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah used Qur’an 3:55 to try and say that Allah (swt) has a location. This was responded to by Ibn Jahbal Al-Kilabi
“Perhaps he believes that elevation (al-raf’) can only be in the upward direction? If this is what occurred to him, then this, also, is inconceivable except in corporeal and dimensional terms. If he holds other than that, then his inference is not on a literal basis at all. If he actually asserts corporeality and dimensionality, then there is no need to point out his error. Perhaps he never heard of elevation being used in the sense of rank and the obtainment of status in the language of the Arabs and in common usage. Perhaps he never heard the phrase “Allah raised So-and-so’s state.”
Source: (The Refutation of Him Who Attributes Direction to Allah translated by Gibril Fouad Haddad on page 178)
Point C that Allah [swt] will purify Jesus.
What would Allah (swt) need to purify Jesus of? You mean Allah(swt)hasn’t already purified Jesus and cleared him of that which was said about him?
That line of thinking makes absolutely no sense, especially if the following conversation is taking place after some second coming:
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful, disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
The very presence of Jesus creates a bizarre redundant time paradox.
Think about it.
Look at the verse again: Imagine that Allah (swt) is saying this to Jesus, who came down from the skies, fought the Dajjal, got married and died.
Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful, disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.”
If Jesus is alive in the heavens,why is he not aware of this already?
Why is he not aware that Allah (swt) has already cleared him of falsehood by the Qur’an?
Even if he wasn’t aware after 2000 plus years, then surely he would have access to the Qur’an when he returned to Earth, and he could read the text that had already cleared him? After all, he gets married and lives among the Muslims. Muslims recite the Qur’an all the time. Jesus (as) would not hear of these verses?
Whereas if we understand the text as a revelation from Allah (swt) to his Prophet Jesus at the time of his death, it comes across as very comforting and reassuring. That Allah(swt) is the cause of your death (as he is ultimately the cause of all death) and you will return to your lord as the statement: “Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.” That he [Jesus] will be cleared of false accusations. That his followers will be superior to his detractors on the day of judgment.
“His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. He gives life and causes death, and He is over all things competent.” (Qur’an 57:2)
All of this makes more sense and is in keeping with context. This fits more with the context rather than a redundant revelation to Jesus about something he already knows.
Point D. That to Allah shall all return [not just Jesus].
“Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.” (Qur’an 2: 156)
Our four-point breakdown (a-d) is key.
“I shall cause you to die (mutawaffīka), raise you to Me, purify you, and judge all disputes.”
This reads naturally as:
A deathbed reassurance
Not a 2,000-year-later reminder of facts Jesus already knows
Otherwise, absurdities arise:
Why tell a living heavenly Jesus he will be purified? He read the Qur’an while on Earth the second time. Why relate redundant information?
Why tell him his followers will be vindicated when the Qur’an already did that?
Under the death reading, the verse is coherent, pastoral, and Qur’anically elegant.
Further proofs:
We have a word already established in the Qur’an, that the word was used of the Blessed Messenger (swt), to show that he was carried up, and that word is ‘asra’.
“Holy is He Who carried ‘asra’ His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Makka) to the farther Mosque (in Jerusalem) – whose surroundings We have blessed – that We might show him some of Our signs. Indeed He alone is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 17:1)
Qur’an 5:75 and Qur’an 3:144 destroy the “exception” theory.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had already passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Qur’an 5:75)
This text is in reference to the prophet ‘Isa, Christ—Jesus. If you read this text, it does not occur in your mind to think that Moses, David, and Solomon are alive. You have no reason to think that.
There is no reason to believe that Idrīs, commonly identified as Enoch [Akhnukh] in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is alive.
There is no reason to believe that Khidr has been alive since the time of Moses. The above text indicates the opposite of it. That is to say that Jesus is not divine. Thus, one should expect him to pass away like those before have.
However, if Jesus did not pass away like those before him, then perhaps the people of that time have credible evidence to suggest divine-like qualities.
“And Muhammed is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels! He will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful”. (Qur’an 3:144)
This same text that is used of Jesus above is also used of the Blessed Messenger (swt).
In fact, if Jesus had not already passed away, this text would make little to no sense. It could be objected that, ‘Jesus, Khidr, and Idrīs are still alive; and we expect the same for Muhammed‘.
Why would the All-Wise Creator open himself up to such an obvious counter-argument?
If an objection is raised that this means ‘some prophets and not all prophets’, the text would lose the thrust of its argument. “is no more than a messenger.”
How does it argue that he is no more than a messenger? It does this by asserting the fact that those before him have died.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him.” (Qur’an 5:75)
In fact, if those before him have not died, then it can be argued that they [Khidr, Idrīs, and Jesus] are something other than just prophets.
These verses argue against divinization by stressing mortality:
“Messengers before him passed away”
“Muhammed is no more than a messenger…”
The force of the argument collapses if:
Jesus
Idrīs
Khidr
are secretly alive somewhere.
If exceptions existed, opponents could reply: “Some messengers don’t die.”
Yet the Qur’an never allows that escape.
The Seal of the Prophets (33:40) excludes a returning prophet.
“Muhammed is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets, and Allah is ever Aware of all things.” (Qur’an 33:40)
wakhatama l-nabiyina This seal is a barrier over which nothing can penetrate or go beyond. The term alone completely turns to ash any argument that prophets come non-sequentially.
The non-sequential argument is used by the ‘Qadiani Ahmadiyya’ as well as Sunni Muslims.
Not only that, but all messengers were prophets, but not all prophets were messengers. If the term used here was messenger, then one could have scope to argue that more prophets would come. However, as the term used here is prophet, it is inclusive and final.
Not only this, but often the crucial statement ‘not the father of any man among you‘is overlooked.
There are many Father-Son combo prophets that have come and gone. Abraham was the father of Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was the father of Jacob. Nathan was the father of David and David was the father of Solomon.
Even though being a son of a Prophet does not guarantee that one will become a prophet. An example of this is Adam’s son Cain.
However, the fact that the Blessed Messenger (swt)has not left behind any sons and the phrase ‘not the father of any man among you‘ make it abundantly clear that he (swt) is the last.
The Blessed Messenger (swt) message is not meant for one tribe or nation but for the whole of mankind. His message is universal in scope.
“Blessed is He who has revealed the criteria (for discerning truth from falsehood) to His servant so that He could warn all beings.” (Qur’an 25:1)
Verses 33:40 and 25:1 form a powerful one-two combination that knocks out any concept or idea that any prophet will come after the Blessed Messenger (swt). This includes the prophet Jesus or any misguided sects that have claimed prophets after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Khatam al-nabiyyīn is final, inclusive, and absolute
A returning prophet who:
Rules
Judges
Abrogates law
Compels belief
is not functionally different from a new prophet.
A prophet returning after finality voids finality.
That is why:
Qādiyānī claims
Sunni second-coming claims
Both struggle here, despite opposing each other.
There are three types of Bid’ah introduced in the belief in the second coming of Jesus (as)
The idea that a Prophet (saw) left the world with an uncompleted task.
Stripping a Prophet from the office of anbiya.In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet. No one has the authority to strip a Prophet of Prophethood!
The idea of the Prophets coming non sequentially. Which has never happened. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet.
A cursory look at some of the hadith on the matter.
Hadith that support the Ibadi position.
Although this is a subject for another article. We will take a cursory look at some hadith on the matter that supports our position.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “My similitude, in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: ‘Would that this brick be put in its place!’ So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.”
* Note* that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is the completion of the house and the final brick. That would not be so if Jesus (as) was to come again in the future. In fact, if any other Prophet were to come, then the Blessed Messenger (saw) would not be that final brick. More work would need to be done.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (saw) said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.”
Thawban narrated that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said:
“The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me.”
Allah’s Messenger (saw) set out for Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina) Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet (saw) said, “Will you not be pleasedthat you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
Hadith that support the opposition and oppose the Qur’an.
The day of judgement was already supposed to have happened.
‘A’isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah’s Messenger (saw they asked about the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said:
If he lives, he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you (he would see you dying).
First. This is a flat contradiction of the Qur’an.
“They ask you regarding the Hour, “When will it be?” Say, “That knowledge is only with my Lord. He alone will reveal it when the time comes. It is too tremendous for the heavens and the earth and will only take you by surprise.” They ask you as if you had full knowledge of it. Say, “That knowledge is only with Allah, but most people do not know.” (Qur’an 7:187)
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (saw) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (as). He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head, even though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
So, according to the above hadith, Jesus abolished the following:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” (Qur’an 9:29)
“And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammed], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?” (Qur’an 10:99)
There are so many teachings of the Qur’an that Jesus would be abrogating if we were to believe the above hadith.
The hadith indicates a change in Allah (swt) because the Qur’an teaches that Allah [saw]doesn’t want people to be compelled to believe and yet sends Jesus to compel people to believe. It is rejected. It is totally rejected.
There are other hadiths in which the Muslims are supposed to take these as if they are revelations, they contain patently false information.
For example:
Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani made a calculation that the time of the Ummah should have already come and gone:
Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar:
I heard Allah’s Messenger (saw) while he was standing on the pulpit, saying, “The remaining period of your stay (on the earth), in comparison to the nations before you, is like the period between the `Asr prayer and sunset. The people of the Torah were given the Torah, and they acted upon it till midday, and then they were worn out and were given for their labor, one Qirat each. Then the people of the Gospel were given the Gospel,and they acted upon it till the time of the `Asr prayer, and then they were worn out and were given (for their labor), one Qirat each. Then you people were given the Qur’an and you acted upon it till sunset and so you were given two Qirats each (double the reward of the previous nations).” Then the people of the Torah said, ‘O our Lord! These people have done a little labor (much less than we) but have taken a greater reward.’ Allah said, ‘Have I withheld anything from your reward?’ They said, ‘No.’ Then Allah said, ‘That is My Favor which I bestow on whom I wish.’ “
Hafiz Ibn al-Hajr al-Asqalani says in his Fath al-Bari, (in vol.4, the book of hijara, page 448-449) commenting on these two narrations: “and it is evident ( from these stated narrations) that the lasting of this Islamic nation is somewhat a thousand years, this is because the age of the Jewish nation is equivalent to that of the time periods of the Christian and Muslim ages combined, and the people of transmission (ahl an naql) have agreed that the period of the Jews till the advent of Allah’s final Apostle Muhammad was more than 2000 years, and the span of the age of the Christians was 600 years from them. And also this narration points the fact about how little of the age of this world has remained.”
Torah time is = to Injil time + Qur’an time.
Torah time =2000 years.
Torah time = 2000 years -600 years = (1400) From Moses to Jesus.
Let us be generous and add 100 years.
The time of this ummah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) is 1500–600, which means only 900 years, and now we are in 1441.
When Muslims reached the 1,000th year, they thought they were nearing the end because of these Sahih ahadith which indicated we would have half the time the Jewish nation had, but Imam as-Suyuti [the author of the Tafsir al jalalayn] who was born in the 10th century and lived into the 11th century was alive during these times, he wrote a fatwa [legal ruling] to reassure Muslims, in which he said it was supposed to be 1000 years, but there is a dua of Rasul Allah in which he supplicates Allah to give his Ummah another half a day and the companions asked the prophet how long is half a day, and he answered 500 years. So the imam said the life of this Ummah is 1,500 years.
Imam as Suyuti mentions in his book: “Risalah Al-Kashf ‘An Mujawazt Hadeedth ul Ummah Al Alf” ”, or “Treatise on Revealing of the Proceeding of this Nation Beyond the Thousand,” page 206 about the advent of the Mahdi that:
“From what the narrations reveal is that the age of this ummah extends beyond a thousand, but it doesn’t exceed in increase another 500 in actuality beyond this thousand.”
So, if you do the math, 1500-1441=59 years left. So in these next 59 years, according to them, we should see this Mahdi, the coming of Jesus, the Gog and Magog causing havoc on the Earth, the Sun rising in the West.
Keep in mind according to the above hadith: “He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years, and then he will die.” 59-40=19. So, accordingly, Jesus will show up in the year 2039.
So what is going to happen to these Muslims who, after 59 years have passed and nothing of the sort has happened? Will they apostate from the faith? Will they leave the deen?
Ya Allah (saw) we sincerely hope not. wehope that they realize that just because certain interpretations and understandings of Islam are wrong, it does not mean that Islam is wrong.
“And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah, he will say: Glory be to You, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, You would indeed have known it; You know what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in your mind, surely you are the great Knower of the unseen things. I did not say anything to them except what you commanded me with: That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die (Arabic: Tawafaytani), you were the watcher to them, and you are witness of all things.”(Qur’an 5:116-117)
There are several things to take from the above passage:
1) This dialogue takes place on the Day of Judgment, where Prophet Jesus suggests that he has no knowledge of what has happened since his demise on Earth and after his ministry ended. “I was a witness to them as long as I was among them.”
2) From the discussion, it is clear that Prophet Jesus only came to Earth once, acting as a witness to his people. If indeed there was a ‘second coming’ before the Day of Judgment, he would have full knowledge of what had happened since his first departure. After all, he abolished the Jizya and forced the Christians and Jews to convert to Islam. This conversation with Allah (swt) would make little to no sense.
3) For the sake of the argument, let us imagine that those hadith that are claimed to have been spoken by the Blessed Prophet (saw) were true for a moment. So now Jesus (as) comes back and everyone becomes a Muslim. The Dajjal is defeated. Jesus (as) gets married. Then Allah (swt) causes Jesus (as) to die.
Then we have Jesus (as) saying after he dies to Allah (swt) “I was a witness to them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die, you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.”
A rather bizarre understanding, it seems.
Especially, if we take the following text into consideration: “And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159)
A rather bizarre situation the ‘traditional‘ and ‘dominant‘ position leaves us in.”
Jesus says on the Day of Judgment:
“I was a witness to them as long as I was among them, but when You caused me to die (tawaffaytanī), You were the Watcher over them.”
This statement is incompatible with:
A second earthly mission
A global enforcement of Islam
A forty-year reign
If such events occurred, Jesus could not truthfully say this.
The verse only works if:
Jesus lived once
Died once
And never returned
Shaykh Abdullah As Salmi (h) says:
“Let it be known that the Prophet has no Prophet after him. What people narrate that Christ will descend has not been heard before.” -meaning this is something not grounded in strong evidence.
Shaykh Nasser bin Abi Nabhan (h) says:
“Some people narrate that Allah sends the Mahdi and Anti-Christ appears. They also believe that Christ descends. All of this is a far cry from the truth. What we know is that Jesus is dead.”
Ibadi position: historically sober, Qur’an-first
Our citations from Ibadi scholars reflect a methodological clarity:
No doctrine without Qur’anic certainty
No speculative eschatology overriding revelation
No imported Judeo-Christian motifs
This is not “denialism.”
It is discipline.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”(Qur’an 5:83)
“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)
We have used two translations that are friendly towards those who claim that Jesus (as) did not die.
In this article we will comment on a discussion concerning Qur’an 3:55 given by Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki.
There were some very interesting points that were brought up during his commentary of Qur’an 3:55. Chief of which is that the Shaykh is convinced that the verse specifically refers to the death of Jesus (as).
However, the Shaykh gave us a perhaps scenario using an acceptable literary device.
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 everywhere else) — we could say o.k maybe those who believe Jesus (as) was to put sleep have some merit.
However, Qur’an 5:117 also has to be in harmony with Qur’an 3:55 doesn’t it?
This is where our interlocutors are in a most difficult situation. Why are they in the most difficult situation? Qur’an 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.
In fact, one of the Mauritanian Shaykhs — Shaykh Salek bin Siddina āl-Māliki doesn’t buy into the argument of redundancy either.
Respected Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki has attempted to give a response to a question on Qur’an 3:55 about a possible scenario.
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 we took of the video.
We thought it was interesting. The translator said: @ 0:55 “Isa alayi salam has died a complete death.”
Prima Qur’an comments: “What other kind of death is there?”
@ 3:30 minutes, the translator addresses what the Shaykh says: “Mutawafikka is a word that can be translated to ‘I will cause you to die.’ It is mentioned in a way that it does not indicate 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’ is the type of WA that is being used. Those 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.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
The respected Shaykh knows full well the obvious that ‘mutawafikka’ means ‘I will cause you to die’.
Secondly, he definitely is not on board with the interpretation: “No, he raises him up first and then will put him to sleep in the future!” Or the view that Allah (swt) put him to sleep first and then will raise him up.
Third, the Shaykh, being influenced by the traditions, has to make the Qur’an confirm his presuppositions. As we have 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, in the Arabic language you could say I put on my shoes and socks. No one understands that you put the shoes on and then the socks.
So what the Shaykh has given us is a perhaps scenario. And a ‘perhaps’ scenario is not something definitive in aqidah.
Also, do take note of the interesting admissions in the above interview:
@11:24 “There is a weak narration or a weak statement, an opinion that Allah (swt) caused Isa (as) to die for a few moments, or a few minutes or a short period of time, and then resurrected him after that.”
@12:04 “A place of acceptance, elevated and exalted; because Allah (swt) is not confined to space or time.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
This is very important because it shows us that rafi’uka does not necessarily mean a physical location. “I will take these AND raise thee to Myself.”
In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah used Qur’an 3:55 to try and say that Allah (swt) has a location. This was responded to by Ibn Jahbal Al-Kilabi
“Perhaps he believes that elevation (al-raf’) can only be in the upward direction? If this is what occurred to him, then this, also, is inconceivable except in corporeal and dimensional terms. If he holds other than that, then his inference is not on a literal basis at all. If he actually asserts corporeality and dimensionality, then there is no need to point out his error. Perhaps he never heard of elevation being used in the sense of rank and the obtainment of status in the language of the Arabs and in common usage. Perhaps he never heard the phrase “Allah raised So-and-so’s state.”
Source: (The Refutation of Him Who Attributes Direction to Allah translated by Gibril Fouad Haddad on page 178)
Which, by the way, there is no evidence that Jesus (as) was raised with a body in the Qur’an.
Also, do take note. They spent some time talking about Muhammad al-Tahir ibn Ashur, a famous Maliki scholar who wrote a tafsir of the Qur’an. He believed that Jesus (as) died. We did not hear any takfir made of him or any excommunication made of him.
You can read about Ibn Ashur’s view here: (which can easily be translated into English)
So what is important that we take away from this is the following:
The Shaykh understands the word mutawafikka in Qur’an 3:55 means death, not sleep. It’s just that he believes it is something that is yet to come.
A cursory reading of the text would be ‘I will cause you to die and then elevate you.’ The Shaykh has to rely upon a perhaps scenario. A perhaps scenario is not definitive in aqidah.
The obvious understanding of the text is made to conform to a literary device. This is obviously based upon the presupposition the Shaykh holds in given deference to the ahadith about Jesus (as) coming back.
“This (Prophet) is a warner from [i.e., like] those who warned in the past. The inevitable Daydraws near.” (Qur’an 56:56-57)
“What are the unbelievers waiting for, other than the Hour to come upon them suddenly? Its Signs have already come. But what good will it be to remind them once the Hour has actually arrived?” (Qur’an 47:18)
﷽
As regards the Ibadi school, we are Muslims who are focused on the NOW.
We are not bound by the past. Nor do we have to suffer while waiting for some salvinc figure (Mahdi/Jesus) etc…
The Ibadi school is here to remind the Muslims that Islam is not about the past or even the future. It is about NOW.
Right here, Right NOW! Where do I stand with Allah (swt) right NOW!
Not yesterday, not tomorrow, right now, because death can come at any time.
Tomorrow is too late to be prepared for death. Death may come before tomorrow.
So best to be prepared to meet death, NOW!
The following is from our beloved teacher and Shaykh, Shaykh Hafidh Hamed Al Sawafi (hafidullah)
1. Muhammed (saw) is the last messenger and he is the first big sign. Upon his arrival, the sands of the hour glass started to pour rapidly.
2. We Muslims believe that there will be haqq and batil until the very end.
3. Very importantly, Qiyyamat can come anytime. Unexpectedly, therefore every Muslim Must be prepared to die, to die upon haqq. Have your affairs in order.
4. Any liar is a dajjal, and there have been many dajjals and the biggest dajjal is the one who lies about the deen.
5. Any Taqiyi (Allah fearing) Muslim is Mahdi. All Allah fearing Muslims collectively =Mahdi, and those who oppose the truth and love for lies to flourish collectively =dajjal.
6. There is no coming of Mahdi, or Jesus (as), and certainly no coming of Dajjal, in the way Sunni and Shia say. None of that at all. Jesus (as) climbing down a ladder in Syria, some epic battle in which Dajjal is killed and then Jesus (as) gets married, and all the pigs are killed, crosses are broken and Jews get slaughtered and then everything goes south once more. None of that.
#3 is the most important and crucial point of all the points.
This is the nasiha (advice) given to us by our respected teacher, Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi (hafidhullah) concerning the so-called “Dajjal”
From Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (hafidullah)
Related by our honourable brother, Assad Al Muharrami, from His Eminence Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (hafidullah) as he states concerning The Masih Dajjal case:
“Seeking the help of Allah (swt ) from the fitnah of Masih Dajjal is authentic about the Blessed Prophet (saw) as it is also in the Musnad of Imam Al Rabe and the two Shaykhs and others. But this does not mean it is a specific individual who is described by attributes that make them special. As what is said about Dajjal cannot be depending upon on identifying his state and description, even if some have talked about Tawattur narrations that describe him.”
“That which is being pushed by tawatur is conditioned on it being free of disturbance and contradictions (of which there are many). But the authenticity of seeking Allah (swt) help from the dajjal includes all dajjals coming with a fitnah, as dajjal is a description that isn’t limited to one individual. It is a fitting description for all who deprive people and confuse them on matters in relation to their deen. And how many are the dajjals who are cautioned against seeking help from Allah (swt) is required from their evil in our age.?
Source: (Burhan Al Haqq 168/8)
Ibadiya’s Perspective of Christ’s descent, Anti-Christ, Mahdi
Some legends and crises are depicted in a number of Hadiths by some Islamic schools of thought. These show that the Prophet knows the unknown, and he tells about some events and phenomena that will take place right before the Hereafter. Some of these events are Christ’s descent and the Anti-Christ’s appearance.
Ibadiya’s perspective is that these contradict the Qur’an. The Qur’an and Hadiths are complementary, not contradictory.
First: Such Hadiths contradict the Qur’an since they describe the Hereafter as if the Prophet knows exactly the period when the Day of Resurrection comes. The Qur’an informs us that this day will come suddenly and neither the Prophet nor anyone else knows about when it will come. Allah says: “They ask you about the (final) Hour: ‘When will be its appointed time?’ Say: ‘The knowledge thereof is with my Lord [Alone]. None but He can reveal when it will occur. Heavy were its burden through the heaven and earth. Only, all of a sudden, will it come to you.’ They ask you as if you were eager in search thereof say: Say: ‘The knowledge thereof is with Allah [Alone], but most men know not.’ (Qur’an 7:187)
Second: These Hadiths give exact numbers of the dates of these crises. For example:
We said: Allah’s Messenger, how long would he stay on the earth? He (saw) said: For forty days, one day like a year and one day like a month and one day like a week and the rest of the days would be like your days.
The Qur’an, however, does not present these numbers with such events. Allah, when promising victory to Muslims, does not specify a period of time for such victory to happen. Allah says: “It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth [Islam] to cause it to prevail over all world views, even though the pagans may detest (it)” (Qur’an 9:33). The promise of victory in the Qur’an is not linked to a specific period. Allah says: “The Romans have been defeated. In a land close by: but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will be victorious. Within a few years, Allah is the Command in the Past and in the Future: on that day, the believers will rejoice.” (Qur’an 30: 2-4)
Third: These Hadiths assume a change of natural laws before the Hereafter. The Hadith mentioned above talks about altering the length of the day from 24 hours to a week or month or year. This length requires slowing down the rotation of the earth, which, in effect, would cause the earth to freeze, destabilize, and would cause scarcity of life on earth. The same goes for Hadiths in Abu Huraira professing the sun to rise from the west as a sign of the Hereafter.
This entails that the earth will rotate in the opposite direction, which also would cause slowing down the earth’s movement, then it might stop. It seems that those who innovated and created such stories did not know that the earth is round, and it rotates around itself. They thought that the sun rotates around the earth, which led them to think that the sun could rise from the west. They did not realize that for the sun to rise from the west, it should stop rising from the east first. This is, of course, if we assume that the atmosphere acts normally after all these tremendously notorious changes. Allah says: “(Such has been) the practice of Allah already in the past. No change will you find in the practice of Allah.” (Qur’an 48:23)
Fourth: These Hadiths are geographically restricted as they talk about places of the sons of Israel. They mention Damascus, Iraq, Jerusalem, Constantine as if events will only be restricted and connected to the geography of those who have changed the Injeel and Torah.
Fifth: These Hadiths talk about primitive weapons such as swords and arrows. Such weapons relate to the second century of Hijra [the time when Hadiths were recorded]. They are so primitive compared to the most basic new weapons of this century. How about the coming centuries?! This contradicts the precision of the place, time and characteristics of our current situation.
Sixth: These Hadiths profess the opening of Constantine when the anti-Christ appears, and the Christ descends. Ibn Al Hajaj specifies a chapter in his book, the title of which is “The Chapter of Constantine’s Opening, Appearance of Anti-Christ and Descend of Christ.”
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw as saying:
The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army) which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).
In reality, Constantine was opened in 1453 by Muslims and nothing of this sort happened at that time. On the realization of this, it became circulated among the Muslims about conquering Constantinople twice.
It is plausible that these were the hopes and wishes of various Christian sects who were opposed to the particular Christian sect who had control of Constantinople at the time. Seeing that Istanbul was formerly Constantinople, it is also plausible that some Muslims use these hadith to whip up anti-Turkish sentiments. Wallahu Alim. Allah knows best and His help is sought.
Seventh: These Hadith talk about legends as if they are signs of the Hereafter. Whosoever recites the Qur’an will find that the signs of the Hereafter have already taken place. Allah says: “Do they then only wait for the hour that it should come on them all of a sudden? But already come some tokens thereof, and when it comes to them, how shall they have their reminder?” (Qur’an 47:18).
The most important portents are sending the Prophets and Messengers. Allah also says about the sending of the blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) as a Messenger:
“This is a Warner of the series of the Warners of old. The (hour) ever approaches draws nigh” (Qur’an 53:56-57).
He also says: “Or some created thing that is yet greater in your breasts. Then they will say: “Who shall bring us back [to life]?” Say: “He Who created you first!” Then they will shake their heads at you and say: “When will that be?” Say: “Maybe it will be quite soon” (Qur’an 17:51).
It is reported that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said:
“Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d As-Sa`idi:
(a companion of Allah’s Messenger (saw) Allah’s Messenger (saw), holding out his middle and index fingers, said, “My advent and the Hour’s are like this (or like these),” namely, the period between his era and the Hour is like the distance between those two fingers, i.e., very short.
Even if one wants to interpret the following ayat of the Qur’an: “And (He/It) shall be a sign of (the coming of) the Hour (of judgment): therefore, have no doubt about the (Hour). And follow Me” (Qur’an 43:61)
Like the prior prophets, it is speaking about the fact of his already having come. Not some future event.
The following is the correct understanding of the verse:
Eight: These Hadiths describe the Hereafter in exact words and give a lot of numbers and details about that period. A person who lives until that time will not find it hard to realize its arrival. This, of course, contradicts the “sudden” on which the Qur’an insists. Allah says: “Do they then wait for the Hour that it should come on them all of a sudden?” (Qur’an 47:18).
Ninth: The Ummah does not agree on the validity of these narrations. There is, thus, no doubt that this news has spread from the People of the Book.
Shaykh Abdullah As Salmi (hafidullah) says: “Let it be known that the Prophet has no Prophet after him. What people narrate that Christ will descend has not been heard before” — meaning that nothing from this is firmly established.
Shaykh Nasser bin Abi Nabhan (hafidullah) says: “Some people narrate that Allah sends the Mahdi and Anti-Christ appears. They also believe that Christ descends. All of this is a far cry from the truth. What we know is that Jesus is dead.”
Abu Al Hassan asks about whosoever claims that there is a Day of Resurrection before the actual Hereafter in which those who were dead will be killed and those who were killed will die. He answered, “Lie!” Allah says: “Say: “It is Allah who gives you life, then gives you death, then He will gather you together for the Day of Judgment about which there is no doubt” (Qur’an 45:26). He also says: “And if you die or are slain, lo, it is unto Allah that you are brought together” (Qur’an 3:158).
Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:
I saw Allah’s Messenger (saw) pointing with his index and middle fingers, saying. “The time of my Advent and the Hour are like these two fingers.”
Therefore, it is not acceptable to have such claims about the Hereafter.
Jesus (as) descends:
Ibadhiya believe that Jesus (as) has died just like any other human being. Our evidence for this belief is:
1.“Behold! Allah said: “O [Jesus]! I will take you and rise you to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme, and I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject Faith, to the Day of Resurrection, then shall you return unto Me and I will judge between you in the matters wherein you dispute.” (Qur’an 3: 55). This proves that Jesus has died. It also proves that those who believed in what Jesus preached will gain victory over the Jews till the Day of Resurrection. This is what happened when Constantine accepted Christianity as a formal religion of the Roman Emperor. Then, Islam came and instilled Monotheism which Jesus and all the other Prophets have been sent with.
Jesus, as mentioned in the Qur’an, proved his death “Never did I say to them aught except what You [Allah] did command me to say: “Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” And I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them, when you did take me you was the Watcher over them” (Qur’an 5: 117). Until today, the Jews are living in scattered areas.
2. The idea of Jesus descending contradicts the concept of mortality stressed in the Quran. Allah says: “And we granted not to any man before you permanent life (here): if then you should die, would they live permanently?” (Qur’an 21:43). It also contradicts the verse “Before you, also, the Messengers We sent were but men, to whom we granted inspiration: if you know this not, ask of those who possess the Message. Nor did We give them bodies that ate no food, no were they immortals.” ( Qur’an 21: 7-8) Which proves the death of all the Prophets including Jesus (as). Allah’s way on earth that humans die after a while. Jesus’ immortality refutes Allah’s way, and this can not be believable. Allah says: “(Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived Aforetime: no change will you find in the practice of Allah.” (Qur’an 48: 23). Noah, however, lived for such a long time on Earth as mentioned in the Qur’an.
3. It contradicts the verse “Get you down, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling – place and your means of livelihood- for a time. Allah said: “Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, but from it shall you be taken out” (Qur’an 7: 24-25). However, many Muslims believe Jesus is living in Heaven above us!!
4. The idea also contradicts the Qur’anic verses by saying that tax (Jizyah) is exempted from the people of the Book. In the following narration:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — ‘And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them.” (4.159) (See Fath-ul-Bari, Page 302 Vol 7)
As known, tax is an obligatory payment by the people of the Book as mentioned in the verse “Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth from among the People of the Book until they pay Jizyah with willing submission.” (Qur’an 9: 29)
So, these narrations establish the idea that Jesus will descend with a new law that exempts Jizyah. As known, the Islamic law is eternal and will not be altered because Muhammed (saw) is the last Messenger. Allah says: “Muhammed (saw) is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets. And Allah has full knowledge of all things.” (Qur’an 33:40). These narrations, however, propose that Jesus is the seal of the Prophets since he will come at the end of the world.
There are three types of Bid’ah introduced in the belief in the second coming of Jesus (as)
The idea that a Prophet (saw) left the world with an uncompleted task.
Stripping a Prophet from the office of anbiya. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet. No one has the authority to strip a Prophet of Prophethood!
The idea of the Prophets coming non sequentially. Which has never happened. In order for it not to contradict that the Prophet (saw) is the seal and final Prophet.
Anti-Christ and the Awaited Mahdi
Many Muslims believe that there is a man with an uncanny ability who will appear at the end of life. This man, the awaited Mahdi, spreads justice after injustice has pervasively spread. Because this belief contradicts the Qur’anic verses, which promise Muslims victory if they follow Allah’s orders, we do not believe in it. Moreover, such beliefs might discourage hard work and the concept of striving to succeed. The concept of Mahdi has Torah roots as it in reality promises the coming of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). The Blessed Prophet (saw) is everything the Children of Isra’il had hoped for and more.
As for the Anti-Christ which such hadiths ascribe, it does not appear in the Ibadi school because miracles are attributed to Prophets and Messengers. Assigning these miracles to impostors negates the Messages of the Prophets. That was exactly what happened with Jews, who created and supported impostors to deny their Prophet’s warnings. Allah says: “Allah has heard the taunt of those who say: “Truly, Allah is indigent, and we are rich!” We shall certainly record their word and the act of their slaying the prophets in defiance of right” (Qur’an 3: 181).
Our school considers any person who fights Allah through bad deeds to be an impostor. Currently, the number of impostors has increased. Imam Abu Al Hassan Al Basiwi (ref. Aljami’. Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Oman) is asked: “What do you think about the impostor? Do they have a specific feature?” He says: “All wrong doers are impostors. I do not know the ‘particular’ impostor to whom you are referring.”
In summary, these ideas about waiting for some future salvic figure to “save” the Ummah is a trap. It is a trap that will not bring us any good. One 12er Shi’i cleric has been led to tell the truth about their “Mahdi” who is presumably hiding somewhere:
One of the great scholars of Ahl Sunnah has tried to save the concept of Mahdi arriving, and now what are our brothers and sisters from Ahl Sunnah going to do after 59 years have passed and now Mahdi?
So none of these Mahdi types ever brought anything good for this ummah. We have the Qur’an and the Sunnah and that is what we are to base our lives upon. No doubt many think tanks who wish the Muslim Ummah ill would prefer us to not have ambitions of setting up Islamic governance. They prefer us to keep our eyes on the sky seeking and waiting for salvation, rather than having greater economic, military, political, cultural cooperation among our Ummah. Allah (swt) knows best!
If you are interested perhaps you would like to read these articles:
“There shall be sheets of fire above them and beneath them. This is the end against which Allah warns His servants. So dread My wrath, O you servants of Mine!” (Qur’an 39:16)
“When you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah, most serious.” (Qur’an 24:15)
“Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!” (Qur’an 7:99)
﷽
Dear respected readers, dear truth seekers, today we will speak with you about a matter of the utmost importance, a grave matter.
We must be reminded of who Allah (swt) is. The Sovereign, the Most High, The Owner of the Throne. Look at this universe that has been created. In it are natural phenomena that are both awesome and terrifying. Allah (swt) is the Most High. Allah (swt) is the Master of the Day of Judgement. We are the slaves of Allah (swt).
The Reality of The Sin: by Shaykh, Dr Scholar Abdullah bin Saeed bin Abdullah Al Ma’mari. May Allah protect him and continue to benefit us from him.
Who are we?
“Has there come upon the human being a span of time when he was nothing to be mentioned?” (Qur’an 76:1)
“He created humans from a sperm-drop, then—behold!—they openly challenge ˹Him˺. (Qur’an 16:4)
And our open enemy, Satan, Iblis, the cursed one, vowed to Allah (swt).
“I shall attack them from all directions, and You will find most of them will not be grateful to you”. (Qur’an 7:17)
One of the many ailments and sicknesses of the Muslim ummah and, indeed the human condition is without how light we treat the issue of sin, of open rebellion against Our Creator.
Our Creator who made this universe for us, who told all other creation to bow down in subjugation to us.
May Allah (swt) forgive us and guide us to repentance.
This ummah has been deceived into accepting theological views that are not in line with the Qur’an. They are not in line with the greatness of Allah (swt). They take light the threats of Allah (swt), they take the punishment of the hellfire as some light matter.
Sadd adh-dhara’i’ -blocking the means. In this case, to that which is harmful.
Treating rebellion against Allah (swt) as a light matter.
The belief that believers will go to the hellfire for a little while and then be released from it. (not a single verse in the Qur’an supports this).
What is the meaning of the word MUSLIM? Have we forgotten?
Doesn’t the word Muslim mean ‘one who submits’ to Allah?
Does Muslim mean one who submits completely or partially?
Can you submit 90% to Allah (swt)? What is the meaning of the word ‘Muslim’?
“But no! Whoever submits their whole selves to Allah and good will have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve. (Qur’an 2:112)
“So whose way of life could be better than that of he who submits his whole being to Allah, does good, and follows exclusively the way of Abraham whom Allah took for a friend?” (Qur’an 4:125)
“Now whoever surrenders his whole being unto Allah, and is a doer of good nevertheless, has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing: for with Allah rests the outcome of all events.” (Qur’an 31:22)
May Allah (swt) guide us to the truth! “Perhaps your Lord will have mercy on you ˹if you repent˺, but if you return ˹to sin˺, We will return ˹to punishment˺. And We have made Hell a ˹permanent˺ confinement for the disbelievers.” (Qur’an 17:8)
“O believers! Stand firm for justice as witnesses for Allah even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or close relatives. Be they rich or poor, Allah is best to ensure their interests. So do not let your desires cause you to deviate. If you distort the testimony or refuse to give it, then Allah is certainly All-Aware of what you do.” (Qur’an 4:135)
﷽
The position of the Ibadi school concerning the Wali of Allah. Whoever has attained the rank of wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah (true spiritual guardianship), his guardianship is never nullified under any circumstance. Therefore, there is no room for enmity against him, even if he were to commit grave sins.
However, falsehood is never accepted from him, and if he falls into one of the prescribed punishments of Allah, the punishment of Allah is carried out upon him — yet his guardianship is not revoked.
Indeed, the Messenger of Allah (saw) carried out the punishment of stoning on Māʿiz (may Allah be pleased with him), and instructed his companions to seek forgiveness for him. The same was the case with the Ghamīdī woman. Thus, wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah neither nullifies rights nor abolishes punishments.
The Ghamīdī woman & Ma’iz b. Malik al-Aslami -may Allah be pleased with them both.
‘Abdullah b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma’iz b. Malik al-Aslami came to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and said:
Allah’s Messenger, I have wronged myself; I have committed adultery and I earnestly desire that you should purify me. He turned him away. On the following day, he (Ma’iz) again came to him and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery. Allah’s Messenger (saw) turned him away for the second time, and sent him to his people saying: Do you know if there is anything wrong with his mind. They denied of any such thing in him and said: We do not know him but as a wise good man among us, so far as we can judge. He (Ma’iz) came for the third time, and he (The Blessed Prophet) sent him as he had done before. He asked about him and they informed him that there was nothing wrong with him or with his mind. When it was the fourth time, a ditch was dug for him and he (The Blessed Prophet) pronounced judgment about him and he wis stoned.
أُرِيدُ أَنْ تُطَهِّرَنِي -I want you to purify me.
He (the narrator) said: There came to him (The Blessed Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (The Blessed Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (The Blessed Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (The Blessed Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Messenger (saw)heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (The Blessed Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.
Buraida told that Ma’iz b. Malik came to the Prophet and said, “Purify me, Messenger of Allah.” He replied, “Out upon you! Go back, ask Allah’s forgiveness and turn to Him in repentance.” He said that he went back not very far, then came and said, “Purify me, Messenger of Allah,” and the Prophet said the same as he had said before. When this went on till a fourth time he asked, “For what am I to purify you?” and he replied that it was because of fornication. Allah’s Messenger then asked if the man was mad, and when he was told that he was not, he asked if he had drunk wine. A man got up and smelt his breath but noticed no smell of wine, so the Prophet asked him if he had committed fornication, and when he replied that he had, he gave orders regarding him and he was stoned to death. Two or three days later Allah’s Messenger came and said, “Ask forgiveness for Ma’iz b. Malik. He has repented to such an extent that if it were divided among a people it would be enough for them all.”
The Key Point: After the execution of the punishment, the Blessed Prophet (saw) did not declare them to be enemies of Allah or eternal denizens of Hellfire. Instead, he spoke well of their repentance and even instructed the companions to pray for them. This prayer (ṣalāt al-janāzah) itself is an act that is only performed for Muslims.
This proves that while their sinful action demanded earthly punishment, their essential faith and status as believers (awlīyāʾ in the true sense) were not completely obliterated. Their sincere repentance preserved their wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah
The 10 sons of Yaʿqūb/Jacob -peace be upon him.
We also believe in the wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah of the ten sons of Prophet Yaʿqūb (peace be upon him) who wronged their brother, fabricated false stories to cover their crimes — their falsehood is not accepted, yet their guardianship is not revoked. It remains upon them, their father, their brother, and our Messenger (peace and blessings be upon them all).
“But My Promise is not within the reach of (zalimin) evil-doers.”(Qur’an 2:124)
What did these descendants of Prophet Ibrahim (as) get up to?
They cried, “Our father! We went racing and left Joseph with our belongings, and a wolf devoured him! But you will not believe us, no matter how truthful we are.” (Qur’an 12:17)
These Muwahid, The Ahl Bayt of Jacob (as), Sons of a Prophet lied to their father! Imagine telling your own father that his son (your own brother) was eaten by a wolf! Can you imagine the grief it would bring him?!
Allah (swt) tells us in very vivid language how severe the grief and trauma of Jacob (as). The trauma that Prophet Jacob (as) went through on account of his progeny, the progeny of the Household.
“He turned away from them, lamenting, “Alas, poor Joseph!” And his eyes turned white out of the grief he suppressed.” (Qur’an 12:84)
He replied, “O my dear son! Do not relate your vision to your brothers, or they will devise a plot against you. Surely Satan is a sworn enemy to humankind.” (Qur’an 12:5)
Jacob (as) knew among his ahl bayt were schemers!
“˹Remember˺ when they said ˹to one another˺, “Surely Joseph and his brother ˹Benjamin˺ are more beloved to our father than we, even though we are a group of so many. Indeed, our father is clearly mistaken.” (Qur’an 12:8)
Can you imagine talking about your father (a Prophet) like that?
“Kill Joseph or cast him out to some ˹distant˺ land so that our father’s attention will be only ours, then after that you may ˹repent and˺ become righteous people!” (Qur’an 12:9)
They said, “O our father! Why do you not trust us with Joseph, although we truly wish him well? (Qur’an 12:11)
The Ahl Bayt of Jacob (as) Lie #1 to their father.
“Send him out with us tomorrow so that he may enjoy himself and play. And we will really watch over him.” (Qur’an 12:12)
So he can enjoy himself, Lie #2, and they will watch over him Lie #3.
“Then they returned to their father in the evening, weeping. They cried, “Our father! We went racing and left Joseph with our belongings, and a wolf devoured him! But you will not believe us, no matter how truthful we are.” (Qur’an 12:16-17)
“And they brought his shirt, stained with false blood. He responded, “No! Your souls must have tempted you to do something ˹evil˺. So ˹I can only endure with˺ beautiful patience! It is Allah’s help that I seek to bear your claims.” (Qur’an 12:18)
Look at the extent of their manipulation! Fake tears like actors crying on que! A prop piece—his shirt stained with false blood. Gaslighting their father.
Joseph was eaten by a wolf. Lie #4 Brought a shirt with false blood Lie #5
“Return to your father and say, ‘O our father! Your son (Benjamin)committed theft. We testify only to what we know. We could not guard against the unforeseen.” (Qur’an 12:81)
They claimed their other brother, Benjamin, was a thief and lied to their father, yet again. Lie #6
The Ahl Bayt of Jacob, the guilty among them, finally return in repentance to Allah (swt)
“They admitted, “By Allah! Allah has truly preferred you over us, and we have surely been sinful.” (Qur’an 12:91)
“They begged, “O our father! Pray for the forgiveness of our sins. We have certainly been sinful.” (Qur’an 12:97)
Satan ignited rivalry between the Ahl Bayt of Jacob (as)
“Then he raised his parents to the throne, and they all fell down in prostration to Joseph,1 who then said, “O my dear father! This is the interpretation of my old dream. My Lord has made it come true. He was truly kind to me when He freed me from prison, and brought you all from the desert after Satan had ignited rivalry between me and my siblings. Indeed my Lord is subtle in fulfilling what He wills. Surely He ˹alone˺ is the All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 12:100)
What to make of the sons of Jacob (as) Al Muwahid who lied to their father (a Prophet) because they were jealous of their brother? The sons of a prophet can conspire against their brother.
Their falsehood is not accepted, yet their guardianship is not revoked.
Analysis of the Examples Provided
The Sons of Prophet Yaʿqūb (AS):
This example is even more striking and is particularly emphasized in Ibāḍī theology to drive the point home.
Their crime was immense: they attempted murder on their brother Yūsuf (AS), threw him in a well, lied to their father, and caused him immense grief. This constitutes major sins involving injustice, deception, and breaking familial ties.
Ibāḍī Interpretation: Despite this, the Qur’an never refers to them as disbelievers (kuffār). They are still considered among the prophets’ descendants. Prophet Yaʿqūb (AS) and Prophet Yūsuf (AS) eventually forgave them. Their story ends with forgiveness and family reconciliation.
This demonstrates that even such heinous sins did not irrevocably sever their essential connection to the legacy of prophethood and faith (wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah), though they were certainly held accountable for their actions in this world and were rebuked in the Qur’an.
The established principle regarding spiritual guardianship (wilayah) is that one who possesses true guardianship never loses it, regardless of sins committed — we are certain they will die repentant. Thus, we reject their wrong actions while maintaining a connection to their essential spiritual station. The converse is equally true.
An example of the converse being true: Bara’ah al-Haqiqa
The example of Abu Lahab.
May the hands of Abu Lahab perish, and he perish! Neither his wealth nor gains will benefit him. He will burn in a flaming Fire, and his wife, the carrier of kindling,around her neck will be a rope of palm-fibre. (Qur’an 111:1-5)
Some Muslims use a flawed argument about Abu Lahab to prove the truth of the Qur’an, saying: “If Abu Lahab had taken the shahādah, it would have made the Qur’an false.”
This is incorrect. The words of Allah (swt) are absolute truth, whereas Abu Lahab’s actions (if he had ever claimed faith) would have been deception. Allah (swt) has already decreed his fate. He is the very definition of one being in barā’ah ḥaqīqah (the true dissociation), being truly cut off.
If Allah (swt) did not reveal this about Abu Lahab, and he took the testification of faith, he would be in Walayah al-Dhahir – The apparent friendship. This is a matter of jurisprudence.
However, since Allah (swt) revealed his state Bara’ah al-Haqiqah – The real dissociation. This is a matter of theology.
The example of Adam -upon him be peace.
We believe in the true spiritual guardianship of our father Adam (as), while Allah explicitly states in Scripture that he disobeyed and erred, then sought forgiveness and repented. We affirm his true guardianship while disassociating from his wrong actions. Similarly:
“They said: ‘Our Lord we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers’ ” (Quran 7:23)
“So Adam disobeyed his Lord, and lost his way. Then his Lord chose him, accepted his repentance, and guided him.” (Qur’an 20:121-122)
Thus, Adam-upon him be peace, is in true spiritual guardianship.
The Ahl Bayt of Adam (as). The household of the Prophet Adam (as)
The first murderer in human history was a descendant of a Prophet.
Cain killed his brother Abel. Both were descendants of the Prophet Adam (as). Yet, one was righteous and the other became the ‘first’ murderer. Such that Allah (swt) made an example of this particular incident throughout time.
“So his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:30)
“And recite to them the story of Adam’s two sons, in truth, when they both offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], “I will surely kill you.” Said [the former], “Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him]”. (Qur’an 5:27)
Humanity is not even in its infancy and here we have two descendants of the Prophet Adam (as). One of them has the hallmark of being remembered for all time as being the first murderer. Allah (swt) said that one of them was (mutaqi) righteous, meaning the other was not.
Does the son of Adam (as) get a pass for murdering his brother simply because he is the son of a Prophet?
“Then Allah sent a crow digging in the ground, in order to show him how to bury the corpse of his brother. He cried, “Alas! Have I failed to be like this crow and bury the corpse of my brother?” So he became regretful.” (Qur’an 5:31)
The regret here is not from his action but because he was not able to cover up his action. This son of Adam is in Barā’ah. This son of a Prophet is in Barā’ah
It is from the Sunnah of the Prophet to disavow any Muslim (including a companion) when they commit a sin.
First and foremost, to disavow any Muslim when they commit a sin is from the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw). This includes the companions.
Narrated Salim’s father:
The Prophet (saw) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (saw) raised both his hands and said twice, “O Allah, I disavow before You what Khalid has done.” اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَيْكَ مِمَّا صَنَعَ خَالِدٌ
Core Principles of the Ibāḍī Position on Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah
The Separation of Status from Action: A person’s fundamental spiritual state (ḥāl)—their belief, inner conviction, and love for Allah—is distinct from their outward actions. A major sin is a catastrophic failure in action, but it does not automatically annihilate the foundation of faith (īmān) in the heart.
Two Types of Wilāyah: Our scholars often delineate between:
Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah (True/Essential Guardianship): This is the inner, spiritual reality of being a friend of Allah. It is based on sincere belief, knowledge of Allah (maʿrifah), and righteous intention. This state, once truly attained, is considered by us Ibāḍīs to be a permanent reality that is not nullified by subsequent sin. It is a matter of the heart’s condition, which is known only to Allah.
Wilāyat al-Dīn (Religious/Legal Guardianship): This is the outward, legal expression of that friendship. It governs how the community interacts with the individual. This can be nullified by public, major sin because the community must judge based on what is apparent (ẓāhir). Loss of wilāyat al-dīn means the person is no longer considered part of the community of believers in a socio-legal sense; they may be ostracized or subject to legal penalties.
If they sincerely repent, they are put back into Wilāyat al-Dīn. If they have committed an offense that comes under qisas, hadd, or ta’zir, they are dealt with accordingly.
Our examples perfectly explain the consequence of this distinction: the inner wilāyah remains, but the outer consequences of sin are not waived.
To find out more on this please see our article here:
This position places classical Ibāḍīsm in a unique middle ground between other schools:
Vs. Khawārij: The Khawārij held that any major sin makes a person a disbeliever (kāfir), nullifying any form of wilāyah and making them eternally damned. The Ibāḍīs vehemently reject this, as shown by our text.
Vs. Murjiʾah: The Murjiʾah held that sin does not harm faith at all; a person’s faith remains complete regardless of their actions. We, the Ibāḍīs reject this, insisting that sins have real consequences and that outward wilāyah is lost.
A person’s essential spiritual identity as a friend of Allah (wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah), once truly established through sincere faith, is a resilient reality that is not erased by sin. However, this inner state does not provide immunity from divine law or its consequences in the world. The community must uphold justice (execute punishments, reject falsehood) while maintaining a principled optimism about the depth of Allah’s mercy and the potential for a sinner’s heart to still be oriented toward Him.
Understanding Qur’an 49:9
First, regarding the noble verse: ‘If two groups of believers fight each other…’(Quran 49:9) – Note here that before identifying which party is the aggressor, Allah says “from the believers” and not “two believing groups”, commanding reconciliation because mistakes may occur. As stated: ‘It is not for a believer to kill another believer except by mistake.’ (Qur’an 4:92)
Through reconciliation, the aggressor party becomes known and must repent to remain within the circle of faith. If they persist in their aggression, then fighting them becomes obligatory – this being one of Allah’s prescribed limits (hudud), like the punishments for theft, slander, adultery, brigandage, and alcohol consumption. Whoever violates these divine limits must face the prescribed punishment, even if they possess true spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah).
This is why Ammar (ra) fought against the Mother of the Believers, Aisha (ra), in the Battle of the Camel while still affirming her status.
The example of Aisha-may Allah be pleased with her.
The amr of Allah belonged with Ali. Ayesha (ra) opposed him and later repented. We also know this because she (Ayesha) — may Allah be pleased with her is in real spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah).
Narrated Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Aasadi:
“When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and Hasan bin `Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. Al-Hasan bin `Ali was at the top of the pulpit and `Ammar was below Al-Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard `Ammar saying, “`Aisha has moved to Al-Busra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him (Allah) or her (`Aisha).”
So even though Aisha (ra) is acknowledged by Ammar bin Yasir (ra) to be the ‘wife of the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter‘, he was not about to leave the commands of Allah (swt).
Whoever violates these divine limits must face the prescribed punishment, even if they possess true spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah).
Allah makes known the status of the wives of the Blessed Prophet (saw) when he states:
“The Prophet has a stronger affinity to the believers than they do themselves. And his wives are their mothers.” (Qur’an 33:6)
Yet, Allah (swt) also informs us:
“O wives of the Prophet! If any of you were to commit a blatant misconduct, the punishment would be doubled for her. And that is easy for Allah.” (Qur’an 33:30)
We affirm the true guardianship of Aisha (ra) while disassociating from her wrong action in fighting against the Imam of the Muslims.
Summary of the battle of the camel and the actions of Aisha -May Allah be pleased with her.
Quranic Mandate:Qur’an 49:9 provides a clear command: if two groups of believers fight, Muslims must seek reconciliation. If one group is clearly the aggressor (baghat), the community must fight that oppressive group until it returns to the “command of Allah” (amr Allah).
Historical Application: In the conflict between Imam ʿAlī and the group led by ʿĀ’ishah (ra), Talḥah, and Al-Zubayr, we posit that the amr Allah (the legitimate command and authority) was with ʿAlī. Therefore, the group that took up arms against him was, in that specific instance, the oppressing party (al-bāghiyah).
Theological Principle: This is where we link it to the previous concept. Even though ʿĀ’ishah (ra) holds the rank of wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah (“the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter”), this spiritual status does not grant immunity from the consequences of worldly actions that violate divine law and order.
Consequence: Therefore, it became obligatory to oppose her military action and fight to bring that group back to obedience, exactly as ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir (ra) stated. The punishment for this political transgression was the worldly consequence of battle.
Status Preserved: Following the event, ʿĀ’ishah (ra) repented and was deeply remorseful, which is a key point. Her repentance and her esteemed status indicate that her wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah was not nullified by this error in political judgment and action.
Analysis and Further Context:
The ḥadīth we cited is crucial. ʿAmmār (ra) perfectly encapsulates the dilemma and its solution:
Acknowledgment of Status: He begins by unequivocally affirming ʿĀ’ishah’s (ra) unparalleled status and virtue. This establishes the principle of wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah.
Primacy of Obedience to Allah: He immediately follows by stating that this status is not the ultimate factor in deciding political allegiance. The test from Allah is whether Muslims will obey Allah by obeying the legitimate authority He has placed, or obey a person, no matter how esteemed, in opposition to that authority.
The example of Fatima-May Allah be pleased with her.
Narrated `Aisha: Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”
Now, does one need to hate Fatima (ra) in order to administer the justice of Allah? How do people reason? Does anyone think that Adam (as) did not love both his sons? Even though one is a murderer?
The core question is about reconciling love/respect for individuals with the obligation to uphold Allah’s laws.
Does one need to hate Fatima (ra) to administer the justice of Allah?
Absolutely not. In fact, the opposite is true. One must love and respect her so much that they will uphold the command of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (saw) even upon her.
The hadith we cited is one of the most powerful illustrations of the principle of blind justice in Islam. The Blessed Prophet’s (saw) statement is the ultimate expression of his commitment to divine justice.
Love for Allah and His Law Supersedes Personal Love: The Prophet’s (saw) love for his daughter was immense. But his love for Allah and His commandments was greater. By declaring he would punish her, he was teaching that no personal relationship, no matter how cherished, can stand between a Muslim and the fulfillment of Allah’s law.
Administering Justice is an Act of Worship: The judge who would carry out the ruling is not doing it out of personal hatred for the criminal. He is doing it as an act of obedience to Allah, fulfilling a trust (amanah) placed upon him. Carrying out a hadd punishment on a beloved individual would be one of the most difficult tests of faith, precisely because it requires separating personal feelings from divine obligation.
True Love is to Want What is Right for Someone: From a spiritual perspective, allowing a beloved person to escape punishment for a crime corrupts their soul and increases their burden of sin in the Hereafter. Enforcing the law, as difficult as it is, serves as a purification for the offender and a deterrent for society. In this sense, administering justice is a form of tough love that seeks the ultimate good of the individual and the community.
Therefore, the reasoning is: We love and honor Fatima (ra) because, first and foremost, she is a righteous believer and second, because she is the daughter of the Prophet (saw). And because we love and honor him, we would uphold his command and his Sunnah without exception, even if it were to apply to her.
People who struggle with this concept often conflate two separate domains:
The Legal Domain (Justice – Haqq Allah/ Haqq al-‘Ibad): This is the realm of objective, applied law. Here, relationships, status, and personal feelings are irrelevant. The law must be applied equally to the prince and the pauper.
The Emotional/Spiritual Domain (Love/Hate): This is the realm of personal feeling and spiritual assessment (wilayah).
The error is to believe that these two domains must be connected—that administering a punishment requires personal hatred, or that loving someone requires being lenient with them regarding Allah’s laws.
The Islamic reasoning, as demonstrated by the prophets, is that these domains are separate and must be kept separate. A judge can deeply love his own son while convicting him of a crime. A parent can love a child while disciplining them. The action is condemned, but the person is still loved.
The example of Ibrahim (as) and his son (as). A Wali of Allah proceeds to kill another Wali of Allah.
If we are to ask is Ibrahim (as) a wali of Allah? The answer would be yes.
If we are to ask the son of Ibrahim (as) a wali of Allah? The answer would be yes.
Yet this did not stop Ibrahim (as) to kill another wali of Allah (his son) because it was an ‘amr (command) of Allah.
“Then when the boy reached the age to work with him, Abraham said, “O my dear son! I have seen in a dream that I sacrifice you. So tell me what you think.” He replied, “O my dear father! Do as you are commanded. Allah willing, you will find me steadfast.” (Qur’an 37:102)
If someone were to say that Ibrahim (as) knew that his son would be spared, then this would hardly be a test of faith or obedience. The point here is that one wali of Allah was asked to kill another wali of Allah in order to show his obedience.
This is when the son of Ibrahim (as) is not known to us to have done any violations that would require the forfeiture of his life.
How much more for those who commit violations that require such a forfeiture?
And can it be said that Ibrahim (as) in carrying out such an act had hatred for his son?
We seek protection in Allah from that! Of course not! His obedience to Allah (swt) was foremost.
We judge by the apparent-the dhahir.
‘Abdullah bin ‘Utbah bin Mas’ud reported:
I heard ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab (ra) reported saying: “In the lifetime of Messenger of Allah (saw) some people were called to account through Revelation. Now Revelation has discontinued and we shall judge you by your apparent acts. Whoever displays to us good, we shall grant him peace and security, and treat him as a near one. We have nothing to do with his insight. Allah will call him to account for that. But whosoever shows evil to us, we shall not grant him security nor shall we believe him, even if he professed that his intention is good.”
This brings us full circle to the initial principle of wilayat al-haqiqah:
A person’s spiritual status (wilayat al-haqiqah) does not invalidate their worldly responsibilities or protect them from the consequences of their actions. Likewise, our love and respect for an individual (their spiritual status) does not invalidate the need for justice.
Fatima (ra) is revered and loved, but had she stolen, the law would apply.
The Sons of Ya’qub (as) were among the chosen family of prophets, but their crime against Yusuf (as) had consequences and they were rebuked in the Qur’an.
Cain was the son of a prophet, but he was punished for murder.
In conclusion: Islamic justice is not built on the emotion of hatred but on the principle of objective, divine command. True faith is demonstrated when one can uphold the law of Allah without being swayed by personal love or personal hatred. The greatest examples of this are the Prophets themselves, who administered justice and taught truth, all while maintaining love and compassion in their hearts for their people, even for those who wronged them.
This is why Imam Abu Sa’id al-Kudmi (May Allah have mercy on him) said: ‘We accept no falsehood from the blessed, nor reject any truth from the wretched.’
If you want to learn more about this all too important concept in Islam we recommend the following articles:
“Behold, We revealed this (Qur’an) on the Night of Power.” (Qur’an 97:1)
﷽
May Allah bless us and grant us forgiveness, mercy, guidance, closeness to Allah (swt) and overflowing love for his Messenger (saw). We, at Prima-Qur’an are thankful you all are here.
Welcome to all the newcomers!!
May Allah continue to bless and guide you and us. Remember all the oppressed wherever they are in this world. Please keep us in your du’a this month. Please forgive our shortcomings. From our ‘s to your heart ‘s
Our du’a for you this Ramadan is that Allah (swt) grants you many openings and many beautiful resolutions to any and all challenges you may be facing.
We can only du’a that Allah is pleased with us all, considers us among the obedient slaves; that we are all spoken well of by Allah swt’s Angels and we all are protected and comforted by them; that our loved one be blessed ameen
{space for Nurul, Haider, ‘Abdullah to share their thoughts}
*The Grace of Ramadan*
Ramadan as Allah said is the month of the Qur’an, and Allah exalted commanded the believer to fast during this month, but contrary to what most people believe, fasting is not about abstaining from eating and drinking only, but fasting is abstaining from everything that Allah forbids, The Blessed Prophet (saw) said: “Backbiting breaks the fast and Wudu'”, and said: “No fasting except by abstaining from the prohibitions of Allah” and based on this we conclude that the importance of Ramadan is not just in abstaining from food and drink, but Ramadan is an entire school in patience and purification, the prophet peace be upon him said signifying the grace of Ramadan: “Who ever fasts Ramadan with faith and hope of retribution, his former sins will be forgiven, and if you knew the virtues of Ramadan you will wish it lasted a year”.
———————
*Ignorance of the religion*
Ignorance is not an excuse in the religion after obligation
Obligation in this context is directing the commands and prohibitions to the creature by his creator, and it has three conditions:
1- Intellect
2- Puberty
3- Establishing the argument
The argument is the proof, if someone meets the conditions then he is not excused for his ignorance, in addition to these conditions, there is “the absence of deterrent”, meaning: to be able to do what Allah commanded you to do, as Allah says: “Allah does not require of any soul more than what it can afford”.
Another aspect of this topic is the importance of seeking knowledge in Islam, Allah says: ” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Are those who know equal to those who do not know?” None will be mindful ˹of this˺ except people of reason.” and the prophet peace be upon him said: “whoever Allah wants his goodness will give him knowledge in the religion” and said: “whoever purses a path seeking knowledge, Allah will make his path to paradise easier”.
———————
*Breaking the fast intentionally and unintentionally*
1- If someone unintentionally breaks his fast by forgetting and eating for example, he should continue his fasting and he doesn’t have to redo that day later
2- If someone intentionally breaks his fast by eating, drinking, having intimacy…etc, he has to redo that day after Ramadan and has to perform Kafarah Mughalladah, which is to free a slave or fast two months, and if he can’t then to feed 60 poor people.
“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 is the way of many Muslims all over the world until today. It is possible that outsiders of Islam have the perspective that the view that dogs are ritually unclean is due to the fact that one of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence (The Hanafi school) is also the most prevalanet Islamic school. This is also the position of other Islamic schools.
This blog entry will attempt to show the validity of those of us who hold that dogs are pure. By using the primary and secondary sources of Islam. It will also show the inconsistency of the views opposed to this understanding, 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 Muhammed (saw)
“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.”
[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,
(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)
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).”
[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.”
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 drunk (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. We 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 leftovers of a dog should be spilled, and the utensil should be washed, as it is a ritual act of non-rational worship, because 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 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 was 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)
This narration is reported by Imam Muslim in his Sahih 89/279 as well as by An-Nasaa’i hadith number 66
Source: 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, which seems to bring a lot 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.”
We would encourage the reader to look at the following information ,and then we 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 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 to in Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd, this only applies to containers which contain water. Containers which contain other useful contents are not to be discarded 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 anything 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 of 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 with consuming that milk. I [Sahnun] said: Did Malik use 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 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 we would like to ask people.
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 this dish afterward?
Not many, which is exactly our 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?
Case in point: The Shaf’i School of jurisprudence.
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.
MALIKI SCHOLAR IBN AL LABBAD’S REFUTATION OF IMAM SHAF’I
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 we will take our information from, since it critiques the Shaf’i view on the matter.
The following is titled:
Kitab fihi radd(u) Abi Bakr ibn Muhammed ala Muhammed 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 Muhammed’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 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).
Source: (“Setting the Record Straight: Ibn al-Labbād’s Refutation of al-Shāfiʿī” (published in the Journal of Islamic Studies), Sherman A. Jackson analyzes the critiques leveled by the 10th-century Maliki jurist Muhammad b. Idrīs al-Labbād (d. 333/944) against Imam al-Shāfiʿī)
This is an intra-Sunni critique. A scholar of the Maliki School of jurisprudence giving a rebuttal to the founding jurist of one of Sunni Islam’s most prominent schools 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.
The Hadith should be understood in light of the Qur’an and the practice of the Sunnah that was orally transmitted and practiced by the masses of 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 dogs.
“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 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 we could see in 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.
THE AHADITH AND DOGS
Allah forgave a prostitute 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 tied it with her head-cover. She drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that.”
Of course, this means that the woman was sincere in repenting for her sins and this action, coupled with her repenting of her sins, became a source of mercy for her.
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?
TheBlessed 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.”
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 Blessed Prophet (saw) is reported to have said, “A man saw a dog eating mud because of 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 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.)”
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.”
Prima Qur’an Comment: This is not a command not to keep dogs but simply that they should have seperate areas from where people reside.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
Prima Qur’an Comment: The above hadith mentions that the dog should have a utility. Thus, it has been argued by some scholars that seeing eye dogs that help blind people are utility dogs. Dogs that guard the home and property from would-be attackers and thieves are utility dogs. Animals can also generate soothing effects that relieve high blood pressure in people.
IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO KEEP A DOG TO GUARD HOUSES?
Al-Nawawi said: “There is a difference of opinion about 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 that it is to be understood from the hadith, which is based upon necessity. ”
Source: (Sharh Muslim, 10/236)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
If we look at all the hadith evidence above, something becomes very obvious and that there is not an explicit prohibition on keeping 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 for the purpose of (hunting, sheepdog, guard dog, guards live stock, guarding family).
So, for example, a person may get a poodle and claim that it is for guarding the family and this may be an unlikely scenario. However, dogs also make noise when there is intrusion, and they serve their purpose to guard human lives.
The former United States of America (under the Zionist occupation) 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. Many people may agree that it is more safe to have a dog securing the parameters of the house, protecting and guarding the family than it is to own a gun.
Again, there is no prohibition against owning a dog in one’s home. Simply saying that rewards are moved for keeping a dog for an intention other than serving some use is also not a prohibition.
Even if a person said it was their intention to keep a dog simply for the purpose of entertainment, the traditionalist may consider that person to be negligent.
Today, in the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, West Africa, Oman and places where the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is practiced and maintained with vigilance, we find that 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 the 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, then the angels would not enter houses and mosques (masjids) because of the presence of toilets.
You can also find a hadith that has been narrated that includes the phrase (except the angel of death) which should raise an eyebrow. 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 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 a cab with his or her seeing eye dog.
Not only that, but angels ‘not entering the house’ should be pondered over due to the fact that many people live in apartment complexes, so what would actually constitute a house? Could an angel be in your apartment while your neighbor has a loud barking dog? These questions have to be answered to keep people from doing extreme things or taking issues out of context.
The hadith about Angel Gabriel not entering 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.
DIDN’T THE BLESSED PROPHET MUHAMMED (SAW) ORDER DOGS TO BE KILLED?
“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.”
Without going into the various hadeeth that talk about the killing of dogs, the two statements above alone will suffice.
Why?
They suffice because Imam Malik, the ‘founder’ of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, 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.
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 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.
We hope Muslims will better understand Islam. This is why we ask Muslims that it is imperative for them to take the Qur’an and the mass transmitted practice over the Hadith.
The vast majority of Muslims, YouTube Preachers, and even those who have taken ‘alim courses are not very well grounded in Islamic jurisprudence. Also, when it comes to Hadith transmission, 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), then we will continue to be a source of embarrassment and rage.
We 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.
We, at Prima-Qur’an are thankful you all are here.
Prima Quran 