“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
﷽
Mohamed Hijab, who is a known Muslim speaker based in the United Kingdom, has recently put forward some excellent arguments against the idea of the Qur’an being eternal and uncreated (unbeknownst to him).
Now, to be fair, we want to say from the outset that Mohamed Hijab (as far as we know) believes that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated.
However, it doesn’t seem that he has pondered the implications of his kalaam argument on the subject of the Qur’an being makhluq (created).
Listen carefully to the exchange between Marwan and Mohamed Hijab
The contingency argument.
@1:28:36 listen to Marwan’s question about pantheism and contingency argument.
@1:30:18 Mohamed Hijab gives his reply listen carefully.
“This is a book, and it’s made out of parts and the parts are the pages of the book right. Correct? So these are the pages of the book. I dunno what book. ‘Jewish historical society of England’ …..This is a book, right, and this is the whole of the book, correct? And it’s made out of parts, correct? Now if I pick a part out. Now if I take all parts out of this book, does it remain as a book? If the parts are taken out, then the whole thing is taken out. If that’s conceivable that parts taken out the whole thing is taken out than there is no way that this thing that I’m talking about is necessary and independent. Because necessary and independent means it’s always there and it can never be any other way. It’s a simple as that. You said, well, if it’s inter-dependent, anything which is inter-dependent by definition is dependent because what does the word inter-dependent mean? Interdependent means things which rely upon each other.So, if in order for this book to exist, there’s an inter-dependence or each page relies upon the existence of other pages in this book in order to exist. Then what we’re saying is this thing is dependent, because everything interdependent is, by definition dependent. What is dependence? Something which relies upon something else for its existence. What is inter-dependence? Something which relies upon something else in order to exist. So, in many ways, what you’re saying is, if we admit that it’s dependent than khalas (finished), it cannot be dependent and necessary at the same time.”
@1:33:16 “How do we describe the kul here? How do we describe the whole of this book? How do we describe the whole of this book? We describe it through its parts, right? Now if I say I just dissembled all its parts, and it’s maybe what 3-400 pages, and I’ve scattered them around. They still exist, but they exist in a different form. Now what I’m saying is the fact that I can re-arrange them like this I can you see this hundred, I dunno, let me see 208 pages of this book, yeah. If I take the 232 pages and make page 1 and page 232 and make it like munaqis (opposite), so instead of 1,2,3,4,5 it’s 232, 231, etc., etc. I’ve re-arranged it. The fact that now I can rearrange this book means there is nothing necessary about the arrangement and the form of this book. There is nothing necessary about it at all.”
@1:34:27 “The book as it is the way in which the book is now from 1 to 232, the way in which the book is like that the form the sura the shaqil the hakel -what ever word you want to use, the form of the book as it is now can be re-arranged. Now let me give you an example because I feel, I feel like the issue here is we don’t know the difference between contingency in this necessity. Necessity: 2 +2=4. 2+2=4. Is there any way 2+2=4 can be arranged any other way. Can it re-arrange in any other way? Can 2+2=anything other than 4? Which means its necessary. So its impossible to re-arrange 2+2 to equal anything other than 4. It’s eternally that way, it’s necessarily that way and it will continue being that way. It cannot be any other way. Now this is not the same with the arrangement of the parts of this book. The arrangement of the parts of this book can be other ways. This book itself can be another way. Instead of this colour; which I will describe as beige I dunno maybe I’m colour blind. It could have been blue. I can actually paint it right now. I can make it blue. I can , you want me to do? It looks like a historic book I dun want to ruin it. But I can change this book. There is nothing necessary about this book. Now you might say well, if we define necessity as something susceptibility, destructibility and generation. Yeah? And then in the closed system of the universe energy cannot be destroyed. Cannot be destroyed and therefore the atoms will take another form. I’m saying. I am not defining. I’m not defining contingency in only that way. I’m defining contingency in three ways. Number 1. Something that can be any other way. Number one yeah? Number 2. Something susceptibility to destruction and generation destruction yeah? And number 3. Something which relies upon something else for its existence. Now even if you argued that well this cannot be really destroyed because it’s atoms will take other form. I’m saying its still not necessary because it can be arranged in another way. The parts of this whole can be arranged in a way which is currently not arranged. It can be a way which is currently not/is. So which means that it, it meets the criterion of contingency; because it can be another way.”
@1:37:24 “You are confusing eternality and necessity. O.K? It’s conceivable that something can be eternal and not necessary. It’s conceivable how so? Because something can be eternal but rely upon something necessary. And that’s why the ‘ulemah of Islam they differentiated between what is referred to as wajibun an nafsi and wajibun al ghayri which is necessary for its own sake and necessary or in and of itself and necessary because of something else. So for example if I were to say. You have a sun. Let’s say the sun is necessary. The sun yani. Shams yeah? And it’s rays are contingent based-dependent upon the sun. The fact that the rays exist and they are contingent on the sun doesn’t’ mean that just because they are both eternal. The fact that the rays exist and are contingent on the sun doesn’t’ mean that the rays are necessary just because their eternal because they are dependent upon something which is necessary in this case, the sun or the eternal. You get it?
@1:38:37 “Yeah that’s his Ibn Cena beliefs. Yeah well Islamic refutation of the universe being eternal is clearly against the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Al Ghazali had this kind of refutation if you wanna.”
Marwan ask about the attributes of Allah (swt).
@1:39:00 “We affirm all the attributes of God through these kind of argumentations. That is why, there is a point where you need like the Rahma of Allah. The fact that he is ghafu and afuw and raheem and all that stuff. That needs to be affirmed through revelation.”
Marwan ask are these attributes necessary or contingent?
@1:39:19 ‘Yeah all attributes of Allah are necessary.” @1:40:25 “We don’t use the word dependent it’s being controlled by the irada (intention) of Allah. By the will of God. So the verb all the attributes of God are controlled by the will of God. If Allah wants to speak yeah? If Allah wants to speak he wills that and he does that.”
Marwan so they are contingent upon his will?
Listen to how uncomfortable is the response of Mohamed Hijab. The sudden shift. Also notice that Mohamed Hijab does not affirm that Allah is speaking, or is speaking eternally. He attributes the speaking to his will! Al hamdulillah! Thank you!
@1:40:44 “We don’t need to use the word contingent. They are controlled by his will.“
I believe at this point Marwan doesn’t really seem to buy it. A quick glance of the ideas upward and simply responds . ‘O.K’
The arguments brought by Mohamed Hijab absolutely decimate the idea that the Qur’an is uncreated.
Its message is dependent upon asbaab an nuzul (occasion of revelation), which conceivably could have been different. According to our brothers from the Sunni denomination, it has text that has been abrogated and that is dependent upon what abrogates and what is abrogated. It is composed of letters and words and sentences that are dependent upon structure to have a coherent meaning. It’s conceivable that the Ahruf /Qir’aat of the Qur’an could be more or less than what they are. It is conceivable that the Qur’an could have been revealed in a language other than Arabic. It is conceivable that the Qur’an itself cannot be necessary, because it is conceivable that Allah (swt) could have had the Torah or any other revelation completely intact and reach us until this very day.
In the words of Fakhr al-Din Al-Razi:
“The impossibility of a word which is composed of letters and sounds being eternal is self-evident to the mind for two reasons:
The first is that a word cannot be a word unless its letters are sequential. The letter uttered before the last that is uttered is originated, and if something’s being originated is affirmed, its eternity is then impossible. So, for the letter following the end of the first, there is no doubt that it originated.
The second is that, if those letters from which the word is composed occurred in one go, the word cannot be. A word composed of three letters can occur in any one of six combinations. If the letters occurred altogether, the words occurring in some of those combinations would not be better than they are occurring in any of the rest. Alternatively, if the letters occurred in succession, then the word is originated.”
Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 1:P20.)
Fakhr al-Din took fellow Sunni Muslims of the Hanbali school to task when he says,
“These people are so low as to not deserve mention among the group of the learned. It happened one day that I said to one of them: “If Allah spoke these, then either He spoke them in one go, or in succession. The first is void because the speaking of all these letters in one go will not convey an orderly composition which is a combination in sequence. It necessarily follows that this composition, combined with these successive letters, cannot by themselves be Allah’s speech. The second is void, because if Allah spoke them in succession, then it would be originated.’ When the man heard this statement of mine, he said: ‘It is obligatory for us to affirm and pass on’, i.e., we affirm that the Qur’an is eternal and pass by this statement that we have heard. At that point, I wonder greatly at the safety of this speaker.”
“Indeed, We have made it (ja’alnahu) an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
﷽
This video was brought to our attention. Here we have our Muslim sister asking Mohamed Hijab about the age-old question about whether Allah’s words (speech) is created.
So what we are going to do is to let you listen to the exchange. We have also transcribed the exchange between Mohamed Hijab and the questioner (referenced as ‘Muslim sister’.) We will then provide our commentary and thoughts on the exchange.
Muslim sister:
“About like the Qur’an being like there, you know the issue about it being created and not created, about how there was a big debate in the past, so I don’t exactly understand like those two sides, like what do people mean when they say it’s created and what do they mean when they say it’s not created because I don’t think either side actually meant that created in terms of written by people so like how yeah so what do they even mean like how do you make sense of it.”
Mohamed Hijab:
“The Muʿtazilah believed that it was was created, it was makhluq. That Allah created the Qur’an. The words were created. They were not…whereas the Ahl Sunnah position is that the words are not created and that the words are exactly are uh, they are a subset of an attribute of Allah (swt) which is speech. So like I’m speaking to you right now, I have the ability to speak, and my speech is a subset of my ability to speak in my capacity to speak. Likewise, Allah (swt) speech is not created, it’s not manufactured. It’s a subset of one of his attributes. So the Muʿtazilah believed that it was created in the same way as human beings are created, or the universe was created. And Ahl Sunnah believed that’s not the case.”
The sister was asked: “Does that make sense?”
Muslim sister:
“Um, I mean, like it just don’t sound like I guess I cannot fully comprehend in (??) not in terms of how it’s possible but rather like, um, are the words kind of emitted at some point and does that omission all…” (interrupted by Mohamed Hijab)
Mohamed Hijab: “Yeah, omission …all right, look, so does Allah (swt) does he umm create?”
Muslim sister: “Yup”
Mohamed Hijab: “Yup.” So he creates. Allah (swt) does he hear all things?
Muslim sister: “Yeah.”
Mohamed Hijab: “Does he see all things?”
Muslim sister: “Yeah.”
Mohamed Hijab: “Yeah? Right, now all of those things are they created? Like did Allah create-Did Allah create an ability for himself to hear?”
Muslim sister: “Oh I see. So, when you say the words are not created like the Qur’an is not created you mean the ability to speak was not created, yeah?”
Mohamed Hijab:
“That Allah’s ability to speak is not created and that the words themselves are not created. They are uh omitted as you mentioned from Allah (swt) in a way that suits his majesty. Which is nothing like the khalq (the creation). But they are not created it’s like-just like Allah (swt) does not create his ability to hear, and he does not create his ability to see and thus, intrinsically, it’s a part its its its an aspect of what he is, not a part. An aspect of what he is. Then, in that case, the same can be said about kalam about speech. That he is not created.”
Muslim sister:
“But what if, like a single verse or like um like um, you know the message itself it’s dependent is it like of um depending on the rule of Allah? Or is it kind it’s not like part of the essence, right? It’s not like unnessary-it was I don’t know how..”
Mohamed Hijab:
“Yeah, I got you, I got you. So the sifat of Allah (swt) are broken down into two. There’s the attributes which are intrinsic and necessary. Actually all of Allah’s attributes are necessary, yeah? But there’s those which are intrinsic. They’re called Al-Sifāt Dhātiyyah. They’re the intrinsic attributes. So, for example that Allah is pre-eternal that he is post-eternal. That he is All-Powerful, that he has all knowledge all of that is meant Sifat Allah (swt) Dhātiyyah, or the intrinsic attributes of Allah. And then you have the will of Allah (swt) Okay? The Will of Allah. And the Will is Allah’s ability to make decisions okay?”
Muslim sister: “okay”.
Mohamed Hijab:
“And then then you have another set of sifat or attributes of Allah called Sifat Al Ikhtiyariyah or Sifāt Fi’liyyah -which are the verbal attributes -now verbal attributes refer to that which Allah does and that which Allah does it is linked to Allah’s will. So, when Allah decides something -the verbal attributes are then activated. Okay? As a result of whatever he wills. So some of the uh some of the examples of those is like speech. Allah wills to speak. He shall speak. If he wills not to he will not. If Allah wills to create he will create. If he wills not to he will not. So, the sifat, the attributes which are Sifat al filiyyaha they are connected to the will of Allah (swt)
Prima Qur’an commentary:
The first point to keep in mind is that the Qur’an and Sunnah are not quoted to the respected Muslim sister. The issue over whether the Qur’an was created or not created did not come up during the time of the companions. They contended themselves with Allah (swt) is uncreated and everything other than Allah (swt) is created. If only the Muslims were contented with this.
In Mohamed Hijab’s initial response he says:
“So like I’m speaking to you right now I have the ability to speak and my speech is a subset of my ability to speak in my capacity to speak. Likewise Allah (swt) speech is not created it’s not manufactured.”
Allah (swt) says:
There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing” [Qur’an 42:11].
So, whenever you get involved in tashbih (comparing Allah to his creation) like Mohamed Hijab does, you run into problems. His comparison breaks down because he (Mohamed Hijab) is a created being. His speech is created. He has the ability to speak, but he had not been speaking before he spoke. He produced a speech on the occasion of it. Allah (swt) could destroy Mohamed Hijab and the entirety of his existence, including his speech.
In the second reply to the Muslim sister Mohamed Hijab says:
“But they are not created it’s like-just like Allah (swt) does not create his ability to hear and he does not create his ability to see and thus intrinsically it’s a part its its its an aspect of what he is, not a part.“
People like Mohamed Hijab and the bulk of Sunni Muslims who come across as confused about the issue. Often times they also set up traps that are meant less to have meaningful discussion and more often to win.
Remember Mohamed Hijab said: “Allah wills to speak. He shall speak. If he wills not to he will not.“
He doesn’t create his ability to hear. We would agree.
He doesn’t create his ability to see. We would agree.
He doesn’t create his ability to speak. We would agree.
—————————————————————————————————
He doesn’t create his ability to hear. Agreed.
He doesn’t create his ability to see. Agreed.
He doesn’t create his ability to create. Agreed.
He doesn’t create his ability to speak. Agreed.
Now we ask:
Is that which he sees created? They say, “Yes”.
Is that which he hears created? They say, “Yes”.
Is that which he speaks created? They are silent.
You see they don’t like the way the question is framed. It is meant as a trap. A possible response to this could very well be: Is that which he speaks to created? They would say yes.
But that wasn’t the question. So you can see they evaded the question. Or they will reply to Is that which he speaks created? They can simply reply: “No.”
Or they could pretend to lay a trap for us:
Is his hearing created? We say, “No.”
Is his seeing created? We say, “No.”
Is his speaking created? We say, “Yes!”
So this is the problem with approaching the Creator using tashbih. Rather, it has to be decided by the decisive text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Now the last two paragraphs even had us puzzled because we began to say among ourselves. How is it that Sunni Muslims like Mohamed Hijab differ with us about this? Because he says:
“There’s the attributes which are intrinsic and necessary, actually all of Allah’s attributes are necessary yeah? But there’s those which are intrinsic they’re called Al-Sifāt Dhātiyyah. They’re the intrinsic attributes.“
Actually, we are glad Mohamed Hijab caught himself because we were wondering what attributes of Allah (swt) he thought were redundant or unnecessary because that creates a whole host of problems. Anyway, he says there are attributes which are intrinsic and necessary. We (Ibadi) agree.
Mohamed Hijab says:
“And than then you have another set of sifat or attributes of Allah called Sifat Al Ikhtiyariyah or Sifāt Fi’liyyah -which are the verbal attributes.”
“So some of the uh some of the examples of those is like speech Allah wills to speak he shall speak if he wills not to he will not. If Allah wills to create he will create. If he wills not to he will not.”
Excellent! So, if Allah (swt) wants to speak, he will speak. If he wants to create, he will create. Just as what he creates is not eternal, neither is that which he speaks. He has the ability to do both. This is exactly the position of The Ibadi School. (The People of Truth and Straightness.)
However, you will find that, unfortunately, some of Mohamed Hijab’s cohorts have put the attribute of speech into two categories: both Sifat Dhatiyyah & Sifat Fi’liyyah and that is what our article spoke about as well.
May Allah (swt) bless Mohamed Hijab in his efforts for the daw’ah and attempting his level best to explain an issue to our sister that has unfortunately and unnecessarily split the Ummah.
Rather, it has to be decided by the decisive text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. In the article provided you will see that the textual evidence of our position is in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, starting off with a sahih (sound) hadith in which a well-known companion mentioned verses of the Qur’an is created. This is followed by the clear verse of the Qur’an and other textual proofs.
Both Sifat Dhatiyyah & Sifat Fi’liyyah and that is what our article spoke about as well. This issue was neither discussed by the Blessed Messenger (saw) discussed this issue nor his noble companions.
Unfortunately, some people form theological concepts and impose this upon the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Whereas our methodology is to be guided by the explicit text when available.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah!
“Have the unbelievers not ever considered that the heavens and the earth were one piece and that We tore them apart from one another. From water, We have MADE/CREATED all living things. Will they then have no faith?” (Qur’an 21:30)
﷽
The Arabic text above says, “waja’alna” (We have created)
When a person makes something, he/she does it out of other materials made by Allah. For example, a carpenter who makes a table does not create it but he/she merely assembles and joins pieces of wood with nails and glue together.
In other words, he/she has made a table out of materials created by Allah. But when Allah (swt) makes something he makes it out of nothing or out of other materials he has created out of nothing.
“And it is He who has created man from water” (Qur’an 25:54)
The Arabic text above says, “khalaqa” (created). Allah (swt) has used in Qur’an 25:54 and Qur’an 21:30 two different Arabic terms, yet both of these words are synonymous in what they convey.
“It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate so that he might dwell in security with her.” (Qur’an 7:189)
In the above text, the first term used is “khalaqakum” (created) and the second term “ja’ala” (created). Again, this shows the interchangeable nature of these two terms.
“Oh, mankind! Fear your Lord, who created you from a single person and created, out of him, his wife.” (Qur’an 4:1)
The above Arabic text is “khalaqakum” (created) and wa “khalaqa”(created). Allah (swt) used the same word twice. Allah (swt) did not use the word “ja’ala” (created) as he did in Qur’an 7:189. This once more shows that the two words convey the same meaning.
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
The Arabic term that is used here is “ja’alnahu” (made/created)
“Truly I am going to create man from clay” (Qur’an 38:71)
The Arabic term here is “khaliqun” (create)
Now let us look at Qur’an 38:72
The underlying words in verse 72 have, however, been given contradictory interpretations.
Professor Abdullah Yusuf Ali has translated them as: “And I breathed unto him of my spirit.”
So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him.”
The implication of the first translation is that Allah (swt) has given part of His spirit, so man is the essence of Allah.
This sounds very much like those who say the Qur’an is the essence of Allah.
In the second translation by Dr. Al Hilali and Dr. Khan, it means that Allah created man’s soul and then breathed it into him. This interpretation agrees with those who say that the Qur’an is created.
This is also the way the Sahih International translates it this way: “So when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My [created] soul, then fall down to him in prostration.” (Qur’an 38:72)
The three translations (Abdullah Yusuf Ali & Dr. Al Hilali /Dr. Khan and Sahih International are all three contradictory and have both been endorsed by the religious institutions in Saudi Arabia.
Fortunately for us, neither of the translators were Ibadi or the so-called, “Khariji” and thus, no sectarian uproar in the Islamic World!!
Unfortunately, this particular issue is complicated by the fact that there is quite a bit of obfuscation on behalf of our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah’ and that is because they do not want to tell us if they regard the attributes of Allah (swt) as being identical with the essence of Allah (swt) or being outside the essence of Allah (swt).
If you would like to learn more about the Qur’an being a creation of Allah (swt), you may wish to read the following:
“He only orders you to evil and immorality and to say about Allah what you do not know. And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?” (Qur’an 2:169-170)
﷽
When it comes to the issue of the Qur’an being created and the topic of the attributes of Allah (swt), we could put this into four views. This brief entry will show where these four denominations have overlapping agreement and/or disagreement.
A. There are four denominations in this subject.
Ibadi.
Muutazila.
Ahl Sunnah.
Jahmia.
Here are the points.
Ibadi & Mutazila say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are nothing other than Allah (swt)
Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are other things with/than Allah (swt).
Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt).
Ibadi & Mutzalia say: Qur’an is not an attribute of Allah (swt).
Jahmia say: Attributes of Allah are created by Allah (swt).
Ahl Sunnah say: All attributes of Allah aren’t created by Allah (swt).
We (The Ibadi) say there is evidence to prove that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt).
For the Jahmia, the proof that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt) is that the Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt). For them, all the attributes of Allah (swt) are created by Allah (swt).
Ibadi, Mutazalia & Ahl Sunnah all say anyone who believes that the attributes of Allah is created are kaafir. (disbelievers of shirk)
We, the Ibadi, say: The Qur’an is a word of Allah and created by Allah, but we don’t say the Qur’an is an attribute of Allah (swt).
“Our belief is upon Haqq and the belief of the Jahmia is upon kufr and batil.” -Shaykh Hamed Hafidh
We want to thank our teacher Shaykh Hamed Hafidh As Sawafi (hafidullah) for this explanation.
“It is He to whom belongs the dominion over the heavens and the earth, and who has not taken a son and has no associate in His dominion, for He has created all things according to precise measures.” (Qur’an 25:2)
﷽
Those people who claim the Qur’an is eternal. They say this precisely because they do not know what the Qur’an is.
We know the number of surahs/chapters is 114. We know each chapter of the Qur’an as well as the number of verses. In each word we know the number of letters. And for each letter we know the harakat.
We know these letters do not operate independently. They combine with other letters that make words and these words combine with other words to make sentences. These sentences combine to make the various chapters of the Qur’an. All of this is clear evidence that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt).
All scholars, all Muslims believe that all languages are created by Allah (swt).
By this we know that the Arabic language is created by Allah (swt). The Qur’an is informed in the Arabic language. The Arabic language is created by Allah (swt) and by that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt).
“And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colours. Indeed, in that are signs for those of knowledge.” (Qur’an 30:22)
“And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” (Qur’an 14:4)
“Look how We explain signs to them, then see how far they are turned away.” (Qur’an 5:75)
You may be interested in reading the debate among Muslim scholars regarding the foreign words that the Arabic language adopted here:
“Some proponents of this camp quoted the ‘father’ of Arabic grammar,Sībawayh (d. 180/796) himself, who wrote in his al-Kitāb that non-Arabic words could become Arabic if one substituted Arabic letters for the foreign ones, and then appended it to a known morphological form (wazn).”
Source: (Sībawayh, al-Kitāb, v. 4, p. 304.)
Sibawayh’s teacher was the famous Ibadi scholar, Al-Khalili ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi (The one who is credited for teaching your children (no matter what expression of Islam they follow) the harakat of the Qur’an.
A brief entry concerning the famous Ibadi scholar, Al Khalili Ibn Ahmad Al-Farahidi al-Ibadi here:
We do not have any reports from a companion(sahabah) to the contrary. So, our interlocutors will either have to weaken the hadith or employ interpretive principles to dismiss it as sound evidence.
Alas, Saudi, Salafi translations cannot hide the fact that the Qur’an is created.
The making the Qur’an Arabic is natural making, because it is a meaning abiding with the Qur’an, namely its being Arabic. This means that it will either be transforming from one quality to another.
1) It was first not-Arabic then Allah invented in it this quality (of being Arabic).
2) Or (it will be) creating it with this quality from the beginning
As Allah created, the sun joined with the quality of being a lamp; and as Allah created the night with the quality of being a covering, and created the day with the quality of being a space for seeking livelihood. That is definitely the sense that it is used here. In the case of making an Arabic Qur’an. This is also because of the non-existence of anything to indicate that it was not non-Arabic before, and then Allah transformed it into Arabic. As for its being Arabic since forever, relating the verb ‘making’ to it in this way is impermissible in reason and in the dictionary, because ‘making’ is an action and action precedes what is enacted, so ‘making’ definitely precedes the made.
The same will be said about His saying, Glorified is He: ‘But We made it a light, We guide by it whoever We will from among Our servants’ (Qur’an 42:52)
This will appear as self-evident to whoever reflects on the meaning of ‘making’, and thinks about the Eternal Necessary attributes of Allah, Exalted is He, and the impossibility of relating ‘making’ to these attributes. For it is impossible in law that one should say that Allah has made His Knowledge All-Encompassing, or His Power All-Containing, or that Allah has made His Existence Pre-Eternal and Sempiternal, or that He has made His Hearing catch all sounds, or made His Seeing encompass all that is visible-because these phrases imply Allah’s production of these attributes.
Even if the interlocutors want to state that Allah (swt) could have made his revelation in Hebrew or Aramaic or Hindi or Greek, they have no escape from the two categories above.
A) First, there is no textual proof that the Qur’an was non-Arabic before being Arabic. Even if it was the case, that would be a clear admission of defeat. That is because of the admission of contradiction-an eternal abiding quality going through a change. From one state to another.
B) Because there is no proof for A we are left with the clear meaning of the Qur’an. One in which we do not superimpose our theology upon it. The Qur’an has been made in Arabic.
The knock-out blow has already been delivered. However, some are tenacious in clinging to false beliefs. They will often use every day Arabic vernacular that they think are great examples that the layperson will understand. However, those examples actually work against them!
“He made us dance.” ”He made his son the King.”
So, even in both of these examples, we need to ask:
Is being the King an eternal quality abiding in the individual or was this something that came about before it did not exist?
Can it be said that dancing is an eternal action abiding in the individual or is it merely a transitional state from non-dancing to dancing?
Made — is that which is transferred from one state to the other, which cannot be except in that which is created. The second is the reasoning of its being made in the Arabic language with the intention that the one being addressed may understand it.
Like that verse are all the verses which make it clear that it is made. For example, His saying, Exalted is He: “But We have made it a light, We guide by it whomever We will from among our servants.” (Qur’an 42:52).
Imam Muhammad b. Aflah, (Ra) has commented on the evidence of ‘making’ as affirmation of its being created; he says:
“The ummah is in consensus that every doer is before his doing, and the maker is before the making, and the artist is before the art, and that the maker is other than the made. When the difference and precedence between them has been affirmed, then it is true that they are two things, and that the first and precedent is the Eternal Maker, and the second, the made, is the originated, being after it had not been.” Source: (The Overwhelming Truth)
He has argued from ‘making’ when referred to Allah, in many verses which denote it-such as His saying, Exalted is He: “He made the darkness and the light”. (Qur’an 6:1)
His saying: “Me made from it, its pair.” (Qur’an 7:189)
His saying: “He it is that has made for you the night that you may rest therein, and the day to make things visible to you.” (Qur’an 10:67)
His saying: “Or who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and set a separating barrier between the two seas.” (Qur’an 27:61)
His saying: “Of the hills He made some for your shelter.” (Qur’an 16:81)
His saying: “And has made for you ships and cattle on which you ride.” (Qur’an 43:2)
His saying: “And made the sun as a lamp.”(Qur’an 71:16)
His saying: “And We made the night and the day signs.” (Qur’an 17:12). Similar to those (verses is the meaning of ‘making’) in His saying:
“Have WE not made the earth as a place to draw together.” (Qur’an 77:25)
His saying: ‘Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse; and the mountains as pegs; and created you in pairs; and made your sleep for rest; and made the night as a covering; and made the day as a means of subsistence’. (Qur’an 78:6-11) and other verses.
Imam Abu l-Yaqazan Muhammed b.Aflah (May Allah have mercy on him), says:
“The meaning of ‘made’ in these places that we have cited is ‘created’. And so it is for the one who opposes [our argument], but not, he claims, in the context of the Qur’an, because ‘making’ in the Qur’an is other than creation. If that is allowed for him, then it must be allowed [also] for another to oppose that and say some similar thing about [something] other than the Qur’an-that the ‘making’, about which we [Ibadis and Hanbalis] agree, has the meaning ‘creation’, has [for him] another meaning than ‘creation’. But what is the difference between the two ‘makings’? For [if there is a difference] it means that Allah has addressed the Arabs with what they do not understand of their speech, and what they do not know of their language, and with what there in it is allowed for them to be in doubt and uncertainty about. In one place, ‘making’ is in the meaning of ‘creation’, ‘origination’ and ‘management’. And in another place [it has] another meaning that we do not understand, and we do not know. The All-Wise is not described as such!”
When we and they agree that ‘making’ in His saying ”And He made the sun a lamp.” (Qur’an 71:16)
His saying: “Indeed, We have made what is on the earth an adornment for it.” (Qur’an 18:7) His saying: “He made for you from yourselves pairs.” (Qur’an 42:11)
His saying: “And He made darkness and light.” (Qur’an 6:1) -is in the meaning of ‘creation’, then all ‘making’ when it is by Allah is in the meaning of creation. In that will be included the Qur’an and other than the Qur’an. Otherwise, debating will become pointless and any evidence [for the argument] will not be valid.
“If they oppose -relying on the saying of Allah: “It was not Allah who made slit eared she-camels or she-camels let loose in pasture.” (Qur’an 5:103) It will be said-Yes Allah did not create a slit-eared she-camel as a slit-eared she-camel, as you claim, nor a she-camel let loose in pasture as a she-camel let loose in pasture, as you claim. Rather, He negated from Himself what He did not do as the polytheist claimed [that He did]. So he criticized them because of their innovation. Its meaning is that We did not create you as you have described, rather, We created against that which you have described. The negation here is of the particular qualifier, not of the particular creation.”
“Like that is His saying: “Surely I will make you a leader for mankind.” (Qur’an 2:124) i.e. I will create in you the quality that was not in you, and the meaning that was not found in you, and I had not done so in you before that. The meaning of ‘made’ wherever it is found is ‘created’, ‘managed’, and all that is the same meaning, though the words are different.”
Prima-Qur’an comment: Another example is the following:
“Allāh has not made (ja’ala) for a man two hearts in his interior. And He has not made (ja’ala) your wives whom you declare unlawful your mothers. And He has not made (ja’ala) your claimed [i.e., adopted] sons your [true] sons. That is [merely] your saying by your mouths, but Allāh says the truth, and He guides to the [right] way.” (Qur’an 33:4)
One of them actually made the comment to us: “Can we say that Allah didn’t create sons or hearts or wives?” Of course not! Such a bizarre conclusion. Again, the negation is of a particular type or qualifier, not of the creation itself. Another thing we wish they had pondered is that if Allah (swt) had made (ja’ala) for man two hearts, or made (ja’ala) our wives our mothers, or made (ja’ala) our adopted sons our real sons the same word (ja’ala) would still be applicable.
That is Muhammad b. Aflah’s statement about ‘making’. (May Allah’s abundant mercy be upon him).
We add to that, we investigated occurrences of ‘making’ in the Qur’an referred to Allah, and we found it fell in either of two classes.
The ‘making’ is either natural or legal. In both there is creation of what did not exist (before).
In natural making, for example, there are the following:
In His saying: “He made from it its pair.” (Qur’an 7:189)
His saying: “And has made for you ships and cattle on which you ride.” (Qur’an 32:12)
His saying: “He made the sun a lamp.” (Qur’an 71:16) –The meaning of origination and contingency is clear.
The legal ‘making’ is as in His saying in the following:
“Surely I will make you a leader for mankind.” (Qur’an 2:124)
Another example of the same is the negated making in His saying, Exalted is He: “It was not Allah Who made a slit-ear she-camel or a she-camel let loose in pasture.” (Qur’an 5:103) i.e. He did not legalize the slitting of its ear. An(other) example of the legal ‘making’ is His saying, Exalted is He: “And He made the qiblah to which you were used only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels.” (Qur’an 2:143)
The differences between the two ‘makings’ are as follows:
The first of them is bringing into existence the essence of the made thing or an abiding quality of it which did not exist before. That implies bringing the made from one state to another state, or from one quality to another quality. That (turning from one to another state) is accomplished when ‘making’ is referred to mankind, and it is in the meaning of turning from one state to another, as (when) I made the dough bread, the flour dough. In both cases, there is a turning of the made from one state to another state in which it was not before. The flour being made dough was not dough, and the dough before being made bread was not bread. It is not understood from this other than that the thing made is moving with the making from what it was before (to the changed state).
The second is inventing a law that turns (the object of the action) from one verdict to another one, like the Ka’bah being made the qiblah of the Muslims after Bayt al-Maqdis had been their qiblah.
Dealing with objections: May Allah (swt) guide the sincere.
An objection has been offered to the argument for the creation of the Qur’an from its being made Arabic-that ‘making’ is sometimes other than creation, as in the following examples:
“They make for Allah daughters, Glorified Is He.” (Qur’an 16:57)
“Still, the pagans have made some of His creation out to be a part of Him. Indeed, humankind is clearly ungrateful.” (Qur’an 43:15)
“They made angels who are servants of the Most Gracious females.” (Qur’an 43:19)
His saying: “You make it your provision that you lie.” (Qur’an 56:82).
The answer to this is that the distance between the two ‘makings’ and makers is immense. The making, in the context of what we are here discussing,is an affirmed action referring to Allah, Exalted is He. Whoever rejects it or rejects its effect (namely, the Qur’an), has unbelieved. That which is made—namely, the Qur’an in Arabic, its giving light and its guidance is an established reality. Whoever rejects it, he has certainly unbelieved.
The ‘making’ in what they have objected to is a falsehood referring to the unbelievers. They made—namely, the angels being feminine — is nothing. Whoever affirms that will be regarded as an unbeliever. Who affirms that the made some of his creation to be a part of him is an unbeliever.
There is no problem with the sameness of the letters of the verb (ja’ala)in both references—namely,jim, ‘ayn, lam—because the verb in reference to Allah has one meaning, and in reference to someone else has another meaning regardless of there being no difference in the word. Examples:
“He is who created you and those before you.” (Qur’an 2:21)
“And Allah created you and whatever you do.” (Qur’an 37:96)
“Indeed We have created man from a quintessence of clay.” (Qur’an 23:12)
“We have indeed created man in the best of molds.” (Qur’an 95:4)-and other similar verses where the creation is referred to Allah.
It is in all cases with the meaning of bringing from non-being into being. You will find this same verb, the same word and the same letters, referred to the unbelievers. It has (in those references) a sense that is not proper to the righteous servants of Allah, let alone its being permissible in respect of Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, Exalted is He. That (meaning) is (explicit) in His saying: “And you created falsehood.”(Qur’an 29:17).
So the meaning of the word is the same.
Is there any way to interpret that in one place according to the meaning of the other?
Or is the comparison between the two verbs as impossible as the impossibility of the comparison between the two doers?
“For that is Allah, your Lord, the Truth. And what can be beyond truth except error? How then are you turned away?”(Qur’an 10: 32)
For more information you may wish to read our article here:
“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created (khalaqahu) him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
﷽
The Qur’an is Created because Jesus is Not God.
That is to say, because Jesus (as) is not the uncreated word of Allah, neither is the Qur’an the uncreated word of Allah.
The Qur’an is Uncreated = Jesus is the eternal attribute of Allah.
This would mean, according to Sunni theology (Athari, Ash’ari, Maturidi), that Jesus is not identical to Allah’s essence, but he is not other than Allah’s essence either.
Christian theology states that Jesus (as) existed as the Word of Allah before being placed inside of Mary (as).
فِي البَدْءِ كَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَوْجُودًا -In the beginning the Word (AlKalimat) Existed.
وَكَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ، -And the Word (AlKalimat) was with Allah.
وَكَانَ الكَلِمَةُ هُوَ اللهَ. –And the Word (AlKalimat) was Allah.
كَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ فِي البَدْءِ – The Word (AlKaimat) was with Allah in the beginning.
بِهِ خُلِقَ كُلُّ شيءٍ، -By Him all things were created.
وَبِدُونِهِ لَمْ يُخلَقْ شَيءٌ مِمَّا خُلِقَ. -And without Him nothing would have been created.
Is Jesus the created word of Allah or the uncreated word of Allah?
“When the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word (bikalimatin)from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. (Qur’an 3:45)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words (bikalimati) of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)
Mary (as) is believing in the Lord and his words. Meaning they are not identical.
“O People of the Scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalam al-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)
“Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)
All these words come from the same Arabic trilateral root.
ك ل م (kaf) (lam) (mim) Jesus is the created word of Allah (swt) just as the Qur’an is the created word of Allah (swt). If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the uncreated word of Allah (swt), then that would be Christianity. If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the created word of Allah (swt), that would be Islam and the path of safety.
One of our teachers has known of people who have left Islam for Christianity. You also encounter them online and some of them have said a study of the Qur’an helped in making that decision. We would submit that it was not the Qur’an that lead them to this decision but a certain theological perspective about the Qur’an and Jesus being Allah’s creation and command not being able to distinguish between the two.
We have never heard of a Muslim who believes that Allah (swt) alone is the Creator and everything else (including the Qur’an as being created) becomes a Christian.
So what we are looking for is consistency.
On what consistent basis is Jesus ‘the word of Allah’ (kalimatuhu) created but the Qur’an (kalam al-lahi) ‘the words of Allah’ uncreated? Listen to what Mohamed Hijab says above.
“The word is actually defined as Kun.” -Mohamed Hijab
If the word is defined as ‘Kun’, then according to the following Sunni Muslims, then Jesus (as) is the uncreated Word of Allah.
We have actually had one Sunni Muslim brother from India (no doubt equipped with his Shaykhs and Alims) come and assert the following thinking it would be some powerful argument and not realizing they had erred in the following:come
1) The lack of depth in understanding the Qur’an and Arabic.
2) The bizarre theological implications of their view.
So they advanced the following:
“He is the One Who has originated the heavens and the earth, and when He wills to (originate) a thing, He only says to (lahu) it: ‘Be’, and it becomes.” (Qur’an 2:117)
“All it takes, when He wills something ˹to be˺, is simply to say to (lahu) it: “Be!” And it is!” (Qur’an 36:82)
So their argument was that if the ‘kun’ was created, then you would need another ‘kun’ to create that ‘kun’, leading to an infinite number of ‘kun’ regressing back through time.
If this saying (of ‘Be’) had (itself) been created, then it would not be correct to (say that) the creations were created by it, because the creation is not created by a creature.
Going back to the opening verse of this article:
“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created (khalaqahu) him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
A transliteration would be:
inna mathala ʿīsā ʿinda l-lahi kamathali ādama khalaqahu min turābin thumma qāla lahu kun fayakūn
The audio of it is here:
A) It is not really explained by our interlocutors how the word ‘kun’in which the sound‘n’ is eternal when that sound itself is preceded by the sound‘k’, which presumably is eternal.
B) One will not fail to note that in all the verses above (Q 3:59, 2:117, 36:82) that grammatically the structure of the sentence is that Allah (swt) is saying to the ‘lahu’ translated above as ‘he’ or ‘it. “Be!”
Thus, they want us to believe that Allah (swt) is saying to his knowledge of all things (which exist for all eternity) to ‘be’ and it becomes!
The meaning of ‘Be’ in the like of His saying, exalted, is He, “For to anything which We have willed, We but say “Be” then it is.” (Qur’an 16:40)
This relates to the execution of His Will. Exalted is He, in respect of anything of the mumkinat (what is possible) in the context of giving it existence or completing it. It is explained by his Saing, “When We have willed’ i.e. When Our Will has conjoined with it in a way of execution (of the command). Because ‘when’ is for time in the future, and this is emphasized in His saying: “an naqula la-hu.” (that We say to it), (Qur’an 16:40) which is in the imperfect tense which, when it is with ‘an’, means the future.
It is known with certainty that whatever is since forever-like His Knowledge, His Power and His Life-the Will cannot be conjoined with it, because nothing can precede (what is eternal).
And this is emphasized by His saying ‘fa-yakun’ (then it is), the connecting particle ‘fa’ meaning order and sequence. From this you know that His saying, exalted is He, ‘kun fa-yakun’, is, wherever it occurs, nothing but an indirect expression of the speedy response of things to Him, glorified is He, in accordance with the conjunction of His Will with these things. Otherwise, there is no utterance of kaf nun (kun) in the concrete sense (of utterance). If we accept that, then we will say that our discussion is about the Word revealed, such as the Qur’an, not the Word unrevealed.
It is also a metaphor for the expediency of Allah’s creative command.
“Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days” (Qur’an 7:54).
“So woe to those who pray yet are unmindful of their prayers.” (Qur’an 107: 104-105)
﷽
Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported:
We came to the Prophet (saw) while we were young men, and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them, and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them.” Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.
Shaykh Uthman REFUTES Shia lies on Folding Hands in Prayer [MUST WATCH]
It is refreshing to see that those who claim to be following the early generations are starting to relax their position on this matter. Al hamdulillah.
For example, Salafi preacher, Assim Al Hakeem mentions that one can pray with their arms to the side with no problem.
If you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable -Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq.
Shaykh Uthman says @0:46 “If you feel that you want to pray with your hands to your side ,and you feel that’s the correct opinion based on the evidence that you have seen, it’s up to you. No problem. That’s between you and Allah. I believe with the evidences from the Qur’an itself and from the authentic hadith of the Prophet (saw) and the sahabam, ahl bayt and others that the sunnah is to fold the hands.”
Shaykh Uthman says @1:09 “But I’m not pushing that opinion. I don’t believe in dividing the ummah based on this. I believe even if you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable.”
Shaykh Uthman says @3:24 “Now when, whether you fold your hands or don’t fold your hands, personally I’m not going to argue with you on this issue. If you feel this is the way of the Prophet (saw), then that’s between you and Allah.”
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq: Misquotes the Shi’a man.
@7:14 “This man is saying there’s not a single narration that shows among the Ahl Sunnah to fold the hands. That’s hwat he’s saying. Listen to him again.”
Actually, that is not what the man said.
The Shi’a man: “Within Ahl Sunnah there is no single proventradition from the holy prophet (peace be upon him and his family in regard to folding of the hands in prayer.”
Proven (adjective) = established beyond doubt.
Something to be mindful of. The idea that something is more established than it truly is. In fact, throughout the video, Shaykh Uthman makes this claim about the Sh’ia man several times.
If one person narrates something to 50 students and those 50 students copy this narration into their books and a person quotes those 50 students, the one listening may get the false impression that the evidence is overwhelming. They may reason to themselves. “Look how many people narrate this.” However, in reality they all quote the one channel.
This is not necessarily dishonest, however, it can give the false impression that something is stronger than what it actually is.
@12:06 “But he mentioned that Ibn Mundhir has mentioned from Ibn Zubayr, from Hassan Al Basri from Nakha’i, about leaving the hands on the side. That not folding the right on the left and this was reported by an-Nawawi, upon the authority of Layth ibn Sa’ad.” (Shaykh Uthman stops reading..)
@12:26 “Now, the honesty that we believe in we quote this. We’re not going to hide anything from you.” (NOTICE THE VIDEO EDIT).
Notice, dear reader, and in this case, dear viewer, that at the point where Shaykh Uthman says, ‘We’re not going to hide anything from you.” The video skips. Which shows that part was cut. Does this mean that nothing was hidden or revealed? Allah knows best. However, it is worth taking note of.
@12:31 “Now what does he say? He says Ibn Al Qassim has mentioned this from Imam Malik one of the great a’immah of Medina that is also reported from him Ibn Al Qassim, but he says he was opposed (@12:47 the video is cut) by Ibn Al Hikim who said that Imam Malik believed in folding the hands as well.
Prima Qur’an:Why can’t Shaykh Uthman simply quote the narration that Imam Malik regarded praying with the hands at side? The way the video is sliced and spliced is done in such a way that it skips over it.
Where did these knowledgeablesalaaf get their view from about placing the hands at the side in prayer?
Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr Al Hassan al-Basri Ibrahim al-Nakha’i Imam Malik
Shaykh Uthman says: @13:49 “20 authentic narrations leading back to 18 different sahaba from the Prophet (saw).”
You have to wonder if that is what Shaykh Uthman believes himself? Are all those narrations authentic? Because it is important to note what Shaykh Uthman is doing is talking about narrations concerning folding the hands in prayer.
Shayky Uthman Ibn Farooq is caught lying.
Shaykh Uthman, while reading from a text, says: @15:04 “We were ordered in the time of the Prophet (saw), as Abu Hazim has clarified, to fold the hands, right on left in the prayer.”
Which Arabic in the text below is he rendering as: ‘In the time of the Prophet’ ?
Often Shaykh Uthman makes mistakes in his Arabic.
@16:03 “Ali radianhu” ???
Insh’Allah we will come back to this hadith. This hadith they feel is their ultimate trump card. Suffice it to say that the text does not say: “were orderedin the time of the Prophet.”
They wish it said that!
We remind Shaykh Uthman the seriousness about lying on the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Narrated `Ali:
The Prophet (saw) said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.”
Does this really need any comment? Does one really see anything in this text about the placement of hands in the prayer?
Shaykhk Uthman says: @17:12 “Imam Malik himself and I’m going to put a link to the Muwatta Imam Malik in the description. He has an entire chapter in his Muwatta about folding the hands in prayer; from the people of Medina. Not a single hadith in the Muwatta, not a single chapter that says, ‘dangle the hands in prayer’. And Imam Malik style of writing if he saw the people of Madina doing something opposite to that which was narrated, then in the Muwatta he would write, ‘This is what is narrated, but the people of Madina did opposite. But he did not say that about folding the hands.”
There are a few points to take note of.
The Muwatta is not the only work attributed to Imam Malik. The following are also attributed to him.
al-Mudawwanah al-Kubrā
Risālat Mālik ilā al-Layth ibn Saʿd
al-ʿUtibiyyah
2. @12:31 Shaykh Uthman didn’t actually give us the quote that is from Malik on his stance.
3. As we mentioned in our other article. Just because someone narrated something doesn’t mean they acted upon what was narrated. Narrating a hadith shows awareness of its existence.
4. Fiqh is stronger than hadith. Hadith is a narration and fiqh is understanding of the narration.
We mentioned that we would come back to this: “were orderedin the time of the Prophet.”
Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:
The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (saw) .”
Abdullah ibn Maslamah narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa’d, who said: “People were commanded that a man should place his right hand on his left forearm during prayer.” Abu Hazim said: “I know of it only as being attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Isma’il (a narrator in the chain) said: “It is attributed” — and he did not say “he attributes it.”
Effectively, the hadith they think is a trump card actually is an athar. It doesn’t describe something that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did. It describes actions that people did that were attributed to the Prophet (saw).
A note about Sahl ibn Sa’d he lived to see the Umayyad imperium.
Al-Bukhari’s hadith comes through two chains: one from ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama and the other from Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways, both narrating from Imam Malik ibn Anas, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa‘d, who said: “The people used to be commanded…”
• In the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama, Abu Hazim said: “I do not know it except that he attributes it (yanmī dhālika) to the Blessed Prophet (saw).”
• In the narration of Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways, it says: “I do not know it except that it is attributed (yunmā dhālika) to him.”
Based on this, the hadith is defective (ma‘lūl), weak, and cannot be used as evidence, because it is merely Abu Hazim’s supposition, and it is also inconsistent (muḍṭarib).
20 different chains from 18 different sahabah?
A Sunni, Maliki scholar Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali translated a work that showed the problems in these chains.
So when the Shi’a man says: “Within Ahl Sunnah there is no single proventradition from the holy prophet (peace be upon him and his family in regard to folding of the hands in prayer.”
Proven (adjective) = established beyond doubt.
This is correct.
As the article by Shaykh Abdullah states:
“True or not, there exists sufficient doubt about every single report that exists to this effect that weakens the “popular” claim and understanding that it is well established that the Prophet prayed while placing one hand over the other.”
You may also be interested in reading the following:
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq, his first point, lands hard. That was quite embarrassing for the Shi’a to quote that as a reference. Also, something Shi’a has to contend with is the idea of women praying with their hands folded.
However, Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq himself blatantly lied and misled his audience concerning what the Arabic text said.
“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 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.
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 Quran.
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 article:
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans,then marry other women those that please you, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline to injustice.“(Qur’an 4:3)
﷽
The above-mentioned verses have been used by self-proclaimed spokespersons for Islam past and present, albeit unwittingly, to regulate these verses to redundancy.
So it is disheartening to see Muslims with a ‘modernist‘ bent turn certain verses of the Qur’an to redundancy.
Also, we all need to be very careful not to prohibit that which Allah (swt) has made permissible.
“O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”(Qur’an 5:87)
Redundant Revelation: The Question of Polygyny.
The example we will discuss today is the following verse:
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry other women, those that please you, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one of those whom your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline to injustice.” (Qur’an 4:3)
We would also have to rank this particular verse of the Qur’an as the one most used and abused.
We would have to say those who ‘use and abuse’ it the most are those who follow under three broad categories.
Category A)
‘Modernists’ or ‘reformers’.
Category B)
The next group most likely to abuse these verses are those Muslims who consider themselves ‘traditionalists’. Often they are trying to find favour with post-modern liberalism.
Category C)
The last group that we would say that are most likely to abuse these verses are those who follow the ‘Hafs Qur’an only’ Religion.
What do we mean by abuse of the text?
Flat lies concerning the Asbab Al-Nuzul?
By this we mean those who are usually not favorable towards traditionalist interpretation will tell you how this verse was ‘revealed during the context of a war’. They will mention how there was a ‘surplus of all these widows’ and ‘men just rushed out to marry them all.’ This is to elicit the ‘Oh, so very noble‘ response from you.
The reality of this verse is that it does no such thing. It doesn’t tell me to marry widows. In fact, the next time someone tells you that this verse was revealed in the context of war, ask them:
“Can you kindly show me the source for this information?”
This is not in the Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al Wahidi.
“(And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans…) [4:3]. Abu Bakr al-Tamimi informed us> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad> Abu Yahya> Sahl ibn ‘Uthman> Yahya ibn Za’idah> Hisham ibn ‘Urwah> his father> ‘A’ishah who said, regarding the words of Allah (And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans): “This was revealed about any custodian under whose care is a female orphan who possesses some wealth and does not have anyone to defend her rights. The custodian refuses to give this orphan in marriage out of greed for her money, harms her, and treats her badly. And so Allah, exalted is He, says (And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans marry of the women, who seem good to you…) as long as they are lawful to you and leave this one”. This was narrated by Muslim> Abu Kurayb> Abu Usamah> Hisham. Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, Qatadah, al-Rabi‘, al-Dahhak and al-Suddi said: “People used to be wary of the wealth of orphans but took liberty with women and married whoever they liked. And sometimes they were fair to them and sometimes they were not. So when they asked about the orphans and the verse (Give unto orphans their wealth), regarding the orphans, was revealed, Allah, exalted is He, also revealed (And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans). He says here: ‘Just as you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphan, so should you fear that you do not deal fairly by women. Therefore, marry only as many as you can fulfill their rights, for women, are like orphans as far as weakness and incapacity are concerned’. This is the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas according to the narration of al-Walibi”.
This idea that these verses were revealed during the context of war is not in the Tanwir al-Miqbas of Tafsir Ibn Abbas.
This idea that these verses were revealed during the context of war is not in the Tafsir of Al Jalalayn.
This idea that these verses were revealed during the context of war is not in the Tafsir of Al Qushairi.
This idea that these verses were revealed during the context of war is not in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir.
Not limited to asbab al-nuzul.
Now, even if we were to imagine that the order to marry only orphans or up to four women came during the context of war (which we still await evidence of), even then it would not be limited to that context. Asbab al-nuzul is the timing that Allah (swt) feels is appropriate to deliver a specific revelation.
It would be very strange if the Blessed Prophet (saw) and his companions were having a meal together and suddenly a revelation came saying, “Marry women of your choosing, 2, 3 or 4...” It makes sense that certain rulings are revealed in a certain context. However, it does not mean they are limited only to that context. If that was the case, we would have real problems in the implementation of the Qur’an 2:256.
Masruq said: “A man from the Helpers, from among the Banu Salim Banu ‘Awf, had two sons who had converted to Christianity before the advent of the Prophet, (saw). After the migration of the Prophet,(saw), these two sons came to Medina along a group of Christians to trade in food. Their father went to them and refused to leave them, saying: ‘By Allah! I will not leave you until you become Muslim’. They refused to become Muslim and they all went to the Messenger of Allah, (saw), to settle their dispute. The father said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! How can I leave a part of me to enter hell fire while I just sit and look?’ Allah, glorious and majestic is He, then revealed (There is no compulsion in religion…) after which he let them go”.
If we are to follow the logic of modernists, who say that the Qur’an 4:3 only applies to the context of orphans and/or to women after the war, it would mean that the Qur’an 2:256 only applies to sons. Or it only applies to those who convert to Christianity. So, this means if they were daughters they could be compelled. This means if they converted to a religion other than Christianity, they could be compelled to. Would anyone reason like this?
What is the context of the Qur’an 4:3?
The whole context of the Qur’an 4:1-12 is the distribution of wealth and property.
Quite a number of conflicts in tribal society would erupt over this. It happens until this very day. We find people fighting over the distribution of property and wealth even in our times.
So let us look at the verse in question again.
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, THEN marry other women those that please you, TWO or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline to injustice.“(Qur’an 4:3)
Note three interesting points.
POINT 1)
The verse starts off with ‘And if you fear that you will not deal justly with orphans, then.….”
So let us look at the verse before this one.
“And give to the orphans their properties and do not substitute the defective [of your own] for the good [of theirs]. And do not consume their properties into your own. Indeed, that is ever a great sin. (Qur’an 4:2)
This is in context with a verse that comes later:
“Indeed, those who devour the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming into their bellies fire. And they will be burned in a Blaze.” (Qur’an 4:10)
POINT 2)
After orphans, it addresses marrying women who are neither orphans nor slaves.
Notice that it starts off by saying, “Marry 2, or 3 or 4. It is interesting that it does not start off by saying, ” marry 1.”
Now if one wanted to manipulate the Qur’an in the way that Muslims who pander to post-modern liberalism do, you could make the argument that marrying 2 was imperative!
You could also make the argument that 2 is actually optimal followed by more; as 1 was simply offered up as a ‘better than nothing’ solution.
So the fact that it starts off by saying “marry 2” is interesting and flat out neglected (ignored?) by post-modern liberal interpretations.
However, we have also noted that those given to post-modern- liberal interpretations will say, “2 or 3 or 4 but if you cannot deal justly with them, then only one.“
Yet the text does not stop there. There is a conjunctive.
The Arabic word ‘aw’ which means ‘or’
There is a flow that I feel is ignored by the three categories (mentioned above).
So then the verses pick back up by saying, “but if you fear that you will not deal justly, then marry those whom your right hand possesses.”
This is addressed here:
“And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slaves. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free women. This is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:25)
So, if we are to follow the approach that some people take, and we are to be consistent, we should understand Qur’an 4:2-3 as this.
1) You should marry orphans first and foremost.
2) Failing to do justice to them, you should marry free-believing women.
3) Failing to deal with them justly, you should marry those whom your right hand possesses.’
However, notice it stops here. Why does it not continue and say, failing to do justly with them…. etc.?
1) How the translators have used the conjunction ‘aw‘.
2) How they have translated ‘Thus it is more likely that you will not do injustice.’
The whole thrust of Qur’an 4:3 if one looks at it in light of the overall context of the distribution of wealth and property is what is a man looking at getting married for?
What may he find beneficial for him? In fact, the verse itself is obviously directed towards men.
It tells us that men may find the idea of marrying an orphan appealing, as some may want to usurp their property, wealth, and/or belongings, as we are told in the Qur’an 4:10.
“Indeed, those who devour the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming into their bellies fire. And they will be burned in a blaze.” (Qur’an 4:10)
It then goes into the idea of marrying free-believing women. Nowhere does the verse say that we are to marry one woman. Interestingly enough, it starts off with the number two.
However, a man may find that he still has financial constraints in trying to marry free-believing women.
Thus, it is simultaneously brought to his attention to marry his slave women.
This is dealt with in more detail in Qur’an 4:25.
“And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free women. This is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:25)
So let us look at the other verse that is brought in to say that Muslim men can only marry one woman.
“And you will never be able to be equal between wives, even if you should strive [to do so]. So do not incline completely [toward one] and leave another hanging. And if you amend [your affairs] and fear Allah – then indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful. (Qur’an 4:129)
This verse is nowhere telling men that, because they cannot deal justly with more than one wife that they should marry only one. The context itself tells us this. The following sentence reminds the man not to incline towards one wife, letting the other feel neglected.
What we feel many of us neglect when reading the Qur’an 4:129 is that not only do men read this verse, but women do too! Thus, women are reminded that men won’t be able to be totally equal in all respects. Some women may have more needs than others. You may have a wife who has a mental or physical handicap. So this verse is also a reminder to women to keep the larger picture in mind.
Hafs Only Qur’an Religion begin their manipulation of the translation.
In fact, you will see that the post-modern ‘free minds translation’ of the Qur’an is being manipulated right here:
“And you will not be able to be fair regarding the women even if you make every effort; so do not sway too greatly and leave her as one hanging in a void. And if you reconcile and do right, then God is Forgiver, Merciful.”.
Wouldn’t be surprised if they ‘clean up’ this translation later. Notice the verse is obviously addressing women (plural) and then suddenly the theme is switched to one woman (the wife)?
Manipulation of the text at its best!
There is no text in the Qur’an that tells men they are restricted to marrying only one wife.
If Allah (swt) wanted Muslim men to marry only one woman, he would have told us this in very clear terms.
If we are to believe the view of modernists, this means that when the Qur’an mentions 2 or 3 or 4 and then says, well, in reality it only means one is to say the Qur’an is not only couched in obfuscation but that it contains redundant language.
Surely, as Allah (swt) says, if the oceans were ink to write his words, the oceans would deplete before Allah (swt) would run out of things to say.
Say: “If the ocean were ink to write the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another ocean like it for its aid.” (Qur’an 18:109)
Surely, Allah (swt) would say simply marry only one. Simple.
Now one thing I want to clear up is that the Qur’an is not saying that it is mandatory for a man to marry more than one woman.
However, to say that the Qur’an does not allow men to marry more than one wife is simply pandering to a post-modern liberal world view.
Mind you, there are also those who say, well, if a man marries another woman, she should be absolutely destitute, having been divorced and so forth.
The Qur’an also does not say those marrying women who are destitute or divorced are a priority. Again, these are people who seek to impose their own criteria on whom a man may or may not marry. Did these very people go and seek to marry the handicapped, the most destitute, those considered ‘undesirable’ by society?
To marry such people is a choice. The irony is that many men and women who claim that the verse in Qur’an 4:3 is only in regard to women who are destitute and down and out not only ignore the verse itself but gives the impression that women are weak and powerless.
Note the following part of the verse again,
THEN marry other women those that please you, TWO or three or four.
These “other women” are not slaves nor orphans. There are women in a society that are socially upwardly mobile. Women in society that are wealthy or have careers. These women want husbands because they have any number of needs.
They might want children. They could simply want affection and male companionship. They could want sexual gratification. They might feel more secure being in a relationship with a man that has already proven he can be a good Imam for his children and household than to risk a marriage with someone who is unproven.
The point is that if a woman or any woman who marries a man of their own free will and volition are in agreement with such an arrangement, then who are we to impose post-modern liberal values upon them?
It is also interesting to note that verse 4:129 does not say “You will not be able to love them equally.” The theme is justice.
Allah (swt) is admonishing the husband by taking the perspective of one of the wives. Allah (swt) is also reassuring a husband who may be having doubts about his ability to be a good husband that He (Allah) is forgiving and merciful.
In the end, perfect justice is the purview of the divine; and complete and perfect justice belongs only to Allah (swt).
“Have you not turned your vision to those who claim sanctity for themselves? Nay-but Allah Does sanctify whom He pleases. But never will they fail to receive justice in the least little thing.” (Qur’an 4:49)
Muslim men can marry an unrestricted number of women according to modernist, liberal interpretations!
You read that correctly! If we are to believe, even for a moment, the modernist interpretations of the Qur’an, then it means that Muslim men can not only marry 4 wives but possibly 5,6, 7 unlimited! Why? Because, according to them, Qur’an 4:3 is an example of takhsees—the specification of a general ruling.
1) The Qur’an nowhere tells us to marry only one woman. It obviously has no such verse if it does indeed tell men they can marry more than one orphan (as modernists agree it says).
2) If Qur’an 4:3 is only restricted to orphans, and it does not mean women in general, then this means it is laying down no rules concerning women other than orphans. So the marry-up to 4 rule is only applicable to orphans. This means that for modernists, the Qur’an gave no principle in regard to women who are not orphans, therefore allowing a man to marry an unrestricted number of women!
Conclusion:
The Qur’an nowhere restricts men from marrying only one wife. Even those people who say that marrying more than one wife is only concerning orphans are the same people who would say that polygyny is not applicable today! Even though there are certainly orphans in Yemen, Syria, Palestine. Anyone who leaves their ivory tower in Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines knows there are plenty of orphan women.
The people who restrict polygyny to only orphans have actually unwittingly given license for men to marry an unlimited number of women! Those who are dead set against polygyny claim that the Qur’an 4:3 was revealed in the context of war, and yet they do not furnish proof of this. It is clear there is no verse in the Qur’an that tells men not to marry more than one woman.
If there was such a verse, the opponents of polygyny would produce it. Obviously, no verse can exist as it would contradict even by their own standards concerning Qur’an 4:3. As regards saying that no man can deal justly with more than one woman, therefore, they are to marry one, Allah (swt) himself said that a man would not be able to deal justly but admonished a man not to incline towards one wife and neglect the other.
You may be interested in reading the following entries:
Prima Quran 