“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
﷽
Praise be to Allah (swt) for the noble and truthful companion Ikrima (ra). He is the one who informed us that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had errors in his ijtihad. That a senior member of the Ahl Bayt Ibn Abbas (ra) corrected Ali Ibn Abu Talib.
Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ali had errors in his ijtihad that would go against the Qur’an & Sunnah. That he would get corrected by a senior member of the Ahl Bayt.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
This noble and truthful companion, Ikrima (ra), also informed us that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.
Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“That Ibn Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
Such a problem is the above sahih hadith that the Hanbali Ibn Taymiyyah al Harrani tried to come up with all kinds of crafty ways of dealing with the impact of the statement from the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Some have said that it is not authentic, and others have interpreted it. People have had different statements about the tradition of ‘Ammaar; of them are those who have criticized it.” He goes on: “But the people who have knowledge of this tradition have had three different statements. One group of them regards it to be inauthentic because to them, it has been narrated through a weak chain of transmitters!”
The tradition itself despite being in Bukhari is actually daif.
It has a suitable interpretation.
The Imam of the Muslims, the People of The Truth and Steadfastness, Al-Imamu Al-Qannubi says: “We do not know whom Ibn Taymiyyah means by his claim “Some (have said that it is not authentic)….” There will come explanation that many have classified this tradition as authentic….”
Source: (Al-QannubiAl-Tufan Al-JarifVol. 3, section two, p. 625)
But this interpretation has been objected to by even Ibn Taymiyyah himself!
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 210-211)
But – all of a sudden – we, finally, find Ibn Taymiyyah himself turning around to clearly state that the said tradition is authentic. “The tradition is proved, and it is authentic, being from the Prophet (saw).”
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 211)
Yet, surprisingly, he has misinterpreted it by saying: “His killers were those who held weapons and killed him.” Which he means to say not Mu’awiya!!! He says again: “The word “killer”, if loosely or absolutely used, means the one that has killed: not the one that has issued the order (of killing).”
This bizarre philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah indicates that if he were to live in the present age, he would – of course – agree with the claim that presidents are not responsible for the crime of the illegal, haphazard bloodshed committed by their armies in different Muslim and non-Muslim countries, but rather their troops are the ones responsible for that! Indeed, while Ibn Taymiyyah defends Mu’awiya in that way, we find that Mu’awiya himself proves him wrong, as he says: “Ali had two right hands (two strong assistants and supporters), one of which I cut on the day of Siffin, meaning ‘Ammaar bin Yasir; and the other I cut today, meaning Al-ashtar”
Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 3, p. 133. Ibn Al-Athir Al-Kamil Vol. 2, p. 705.)
Check mate!
Not only this but here is a tradition that contradicts Ibn Taymiyyah’s bizarre idea. The tradition says:
Not only this, but here is a tradition that contradicts Ibn Taymiyyah’s bizarre idea. The tradition says:
“He who assists with a half-uttered word in the killing of a Muslim, will come on the day of judgment between his two eyes there has been written “He has despaired of the Mercy of Allah.”
Source: (Al-Rabi’u bin Habib Al-Jami’u Al-Sahih p. 368, tradition no. 960. Ibn Majah Al-Sunan p. 444, tradition no. 2620. )
How does it come, then, that Ibn Taymiyya excludes the one from whose order the killing is carried out from being responsible for it?!
Typically, many Sunnis have used these tactics to get around this hadith. Even some of the early proto-Umayyad-proto-Sunnis say that the ones who slew Ammar ibn Yasir were the ones who brought him to the battlefield, meaning Ali ibn Abu Talib himself!
However, pro-Alid groups have tried to cast aspersions on this narrator, Ikrima, as well!
You can’t have your cake and eat it too! You can’t use ‘Ikrima as evidence against Muaviya and then say his evidence is not good when it comes to Ibn Abbas (ra) disagreeing with Ali burning people alive.
For those of you interested in reading more, you are invited to read:
May Allah (swt) open the eyes and the hearts of this ummah! May Allah (swt) unite us upon the truth!
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
We have absolutely been fascinated by those few individuals who have found there to be controversy surrounding the identity of Dhul-al-Qarnayn. The reason why we are fascinated is that historians and Orientalists are not actually interacting with the Qur’an per se. They are interacting with commentary about the Qur’an.
Historian: We found no evidence that X existed.
Believer: They have yet to find evidence that X existed.
Epistemology matters!
The chart above shows the difference between the different axioms of the believers and the doubters. Agnostics and atheists have a different epistemology than believers.
How The Above Chart Explains the Concept:
The Source (A): Everything begins with the “Original Source” (A), which is the divine, perfect narrative from God.
The Two Paths:
The human traditions (B) are a changed and corrupted version of the original story, having passed through centuries of human transmission (resulting in legends, folklore, and altered scriptures).
The Qur’an (C) comes directly and perfectly from the same original source (A), acting as a “Final Revelation” that restores the original message.
The Optical Illusion (The Core of Our Point):
The Skeptical View (dashed line) looks at the relationship between B and C and mistakenly concludes that C must have copied from B because B appears earlier in history.
The Islamic View (solid arrows) correctly identifies that both B and C draw from a common, older source (A). Therefore, when B contains elements that align with C, it doesn’t mean C copied B—it means B still contains remnants of the original truth (A) that the Qur’an (C) confirms and corrects.
The Verbatum Point: The arrow from C to B, labeled “Corrects & Purifies,” visually explains why you will never find verbatim copying. The Qur’an doesn’t replicate the corrupted narratives (B); it speaks with authority from the original source (A) to rectify them.
For the skeptics and doubters, their findings reinforce their epistemology and their axioms. For the Muslims, the findings of the skeptics and doubters provide corroborating evidence of our own epistemology and axioms.
As a Muslim, we know that a tafsir is not divine revelation.Tafsir is scholarly musings about the text.
1st, it should be noted that Dhul Al-Qarnayn, like Khidr, are simply epitaphs, like Al-Amin. These are not real names they are descriptors.
2nd, it should be noted that not much attention is given to the individuals (Khidr & Dhul Al-Qarnayn) beyond their epitaphs. The attention is given to the events that unfold or surround them.
3rd, the Qur’an only mentions Dhul Al-Qarnayn thrice.
So let us get into the narrative of Dhul Al-Qarnayn in the Qur’an.
“And they will ask you about Dhul-Al Qarnayn. Say: I will recount to you a remembrance of him.” (Qur’an 18:83)
“We established him on earth, and We gave him from everything a way.” (Qur’an 18:84)
“And he followed a way.” (Qur’an 18:85)
“Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhul-Al Qarnayn! Either punish or show them kindness.” (Qur’an 18:86)
“He responded, “Whoever does wrong will be punished by us, then will be returned to their Lord, Who will punish them with a horrible torment.” (Qur’an 18:87)
“But as for the one who believes and does righteousness, he will have the best of rewards. We shall require him to do only easy things.” (Qur’an 18:88)
“Then he followed a path.” (Qur’an 18:89)
“Until he came to the rising of the sun. He found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no shade.” (Qur’an 18:90)
“And so it was, Our knowledge encompassed all that happened to him.” (Qur’an 18:91)
“Then he followed a path.” (Qur’an 18:92)
“Until he reached between a barrier, where he found a people who could hardly understand a word he was saying.” (Qur’an 18:93)
“They said, “O Dhul Al-Qarnayn, Gog and Magog are corrupting this land. Can we pay you to erect a barrier between us and them?” (Qur’an 18:94)
“He responded, “What my Lord has provided for me is far better. But assist me with resources, and I will build a barrier between you and them.” (Qur’an 18:95)
“Bring me blocks of iron!” Then, when he had filled up ˹the gap˺ between the barriers he ordered, “Blow!” When the iron became red hot, he said, “Bring me molten copper to pour over it.” (Qur’an 18:96)
“And so the enemies could neither scale nor tunnel through it.” (Qur’an 18:97)
“He said: This is a mercy from my Lord; but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will lay it low, for the promise of my Lord is true.” (Qur’an 18:98)
“On that Day, We will let them surge ˹like waves˺ over one another. Later, the Trumpet will be blown, and We will gather all ˹people˺ together.” (Qur’an 18:99)
The first thing that we found fascinating about this set of texts is the use of twos. Things are in contradistinction to one another. Like two different items, two different scenarios, two things in contrast.
First, being the main focus of the individual in the narrative, is Dhul Al-Qarnayn — the two-horned one, one of two different epochs. The one with two braids. The one with two people.
ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا
That exact phrase appears twice.
Setting-place of the sun/he came to the rising of the sun (two different scenarios in relation to the sun)
Either punish or show them kindness (two different ways to deal with a particular people).
A people for whom We had provided no shade contrasted with a people who had no protection against tribes.
The tribes in question are two gog/magog. Two tribes.
He met two different types of people; people who could hardly understand a word, contrasted with people he could communicate with readily.
A barrier between you and them-a barrier is a separation between at least two different things.
The barrier they were not able to do two things: neither scale nor tunnel through it.
The barrier itself is made from two different metals: iron and copper.
If we are looking for clues of a historical vestige (remembrance), we would want to note the following:
A)What is the meaning of Dhul Al-Qarnayn in the Arabic language?
B) They will ask you. Who is the ‘they’?
C)How did they respond to the information?
D) Tribes are identified as Gog and Magog.
E) Blocks of iron and molten copper are used to seal an apparent gap/breach in a barrier.
Ea) It is assumed that there is a garrison that defends the area. The purpose of the wall is to prevent being overrun. *note*
Note: This is an assumption on our behalf.
Eb) It is assumed that whoever the Gog and Magog are, that they are either
a) raiders b) expansionists
If we assume they are raiders, this means they have had a foray into these people’s territories before. Though they never established dominion over them.
If we assume that they are expansionists, then the people that Dhul Al-Qarnayn encounter are those who presume expansion is heading in their direction and thus, they want to make preparations.
As regards Qur’an 18:98 we do not see that as connected to Qur’an 18:99 as in events that happen at the same time. For more on this please see:
There is nothing that an individual using the historical critical method or an orientalist has brought that even remotely challenges the narrative of the Qur’an. Nihil ad rem. People having doubts because a tafsir was challenged. That is an absolute nothingburger.
Recall:
“And they will ask you about Dhul-Al Qarnayn. Say: I will recount to you a remembrance of him.” (Qur’an 18:83)
There is nothing in that verse that indicates that the answers to the questions that they posed were matters that concern anyone outside those that asked the questions.
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although the mushrik make dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
The subject of the Mahdi concerns Islamic Eschatology or what is known as end-time events.
First and foremost, it is important to understand that when one speaks of Mahdi, different schools and expressions of Islam have different ideas in mind.
Twelver Shi’a
In Twelver Shi’a theology, the Mahdi is the twelfth and final Imam, Muhammed ibn al-Hasan al-Mahdi, believed to be the direct descendant of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed(saw) through his daughter Fatima (ra). He is in occultation: He is hidden from public view by Allah’s will. He will re appear in some future eschatological event to restore justice.
Isma’ili Shi’a & The Qarmatians & Muhammed bin Isma’il
The person of Muhammed bin Isma’il caused a fracture early on, causing one stream that historians label the ‘Qarmatians’ and the other founding the Fatimid Caliphate.
The Qarmatian View.
Muhammed ibn Isma’il was not just the 7th Imam; he was the Qā’im (the Resurrector) and the Mahdi.
The Ismaili (Later Fatimid) View.
Muhammed ibn Isma’il was the 7th Imam.
He went into hiding (satr) due to Abbasid persecution.
The Imamate continued in his descendants.
They recognized a hidden line of Imams following him, which eventually culminated in Abdullah al-Mahdi Billah, who publicly declared himself Imam in 899 CE and founded the Fatimid Caliphate in 909 CE.
For this group, the Imam was always present on earth, whether concealed or manifest.
The Zaydi Shi’a
For Zaydis, the term “Mahdi” (the Guided One) is not exclusively reserved for a single, predestined, end-of-times figure. Instead, it is a title that can be applied to any rightly guided Imam from the Ahl al-Bayt who rises to establish justice.
There are times when they have referenced their Imams as such. For example: Al-Mahdi Li-Din Allah
While not a core dogma, Zaydi literature does contain some hadith about a future messianic figure from the Ahl al-Bayt, often referred to as “al-Qa’im” (The One Who Will Arise) or “al-Mahdi.”
Sunni View.
The dominant view and position among Sunni Muslims is that Mahdi is a figure believed to be the direct descendant of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed(saw) through his daughter Fatima (ra). He will appear in some future eschatological event to restore justice.
Again, this is the view of the vast majority of Sunni Muslims. As the articles in this entry will clearly demonstrate, there are many in the Sunni tradition that do not share this belief.
Ibadi View. The idea of a Mahdi is not something found in our sources. We have no belief in any coming Mahdi. If the coming of this figure is true, we hope Allah opens our eyes to it. However, it is not a theological principle with us nor something we believe in.
It should be noted to the reader and researcher. Often, the various schools of Islam will have what is known as Shaadh (شاذ) — The Irregular/Anomalous Opinion. These are views that are anomalous or isolated. The Ibadi school has such and other schools do as well. Yet, on the issue of the Mahdi, we have not even come across a shaadh.
We establish the following facts.
The Qur’an has no mention of any Imam Mahdi.
The Ibadi hadith collection has no mention of Imam Mahdi.
There is no hadith about Mahdi in the Al-Jami’i Al-Salih, otherwise known as the Musnad Al-Imam Al Rabii.
The silence of Bukhari & Muslim.
The two great Imams of Hadith, Bukhari and Muslim, neither of them mentions Hadith concerning Imam Mahdi. What’s interesting about this is that both of them are aware of narrations on the subject that meet their criteria, yet they did not include them.
The silence of the Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas.
There is no hadith about Mahdi in the Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas.
What will Ahl Sunnah In the next 56 years and no Mahdi? Witness the genius of Ibn al-Hajr al-Asqalani as he tries to make sense of the data.
The man whho the ‘Abdulla bin Zaid Al Mahmoud Islamic Cultural Center’ in Qatar is named after and former Qāḍī al-Quḍāt, and Athari -Salafi , tells us why there is no coming Mahdi.
Ali Erbaş Turkish Islamic scholar and president of directorate of religious affairs -diyanet in Turkey, believes Mahdi will not come and that Jesus (as) is dead. The Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) is Turkey’s highest official Islamic authority.
The great ibn Khaldūn al-Ḥaḍramī, Ashʿarī in theology, and Mālikī in jurisprudence. Writes in the Muqaddimah (Book 1, Chapter 3, section on the caliphate) about the weakness of the chains concerning narrations of Mahdi.
Shaykh Dr. Muhammed Bin Yahya Ninowy, a descendant of the Blesed Prophet Muhammed (saw) through the line of Imam al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, expreses his doubts about the Mahdi.
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although they who rely upon other than or associate partners with Allah dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
Dr. Bashar Awad Maarouf, a Sunni historian and hadith specialist, has concluded that there is not a single authentic narration concerning the coming of some Mahdi.
While it is common knowledge that the Qur’an does not speak about the Mahdi at all. That the two most authentic collections of hadith, according to Sunni Muslims, Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim, do not speak about the Mahdi at all, what is not so commonly known is the general weakness and unreliability of all other reports.
If you are interested to see the full interview we would recommend:
Some background concerning Dr. Professor Bashar Awad Maarouf.
Bashar Awad Marouf was born in 1940 in Alazamiyah, northern Baghdad. He graduated from primary and secondary schools in the 1960s. He enrolled in the Department of History at the College of Arts in Baghdad University from which he graduated in 1964. In that same year, he enrolled in the Master’s Program of History and Archeology at Baghdad University. Professor Marouf was appointed in 1967 as the teacher at the College of Shari’a Studies at Baghdad University. He later earned his PhD from the College of Arts at the same university in 1976. His doctoral thesis was titled: “Ad-Dhahabi’s Approach in the History of Islam.” Professor Marouf worked at Baghdad University and advanced through academic work, eventually earning a professorship in 1981. He has been keenly interested in studying and minutely scrutinizing the Prophet’s Hadiths. He has been particularly devoted to studying biographies, narrators and the ‘hidden defects’ of some of the Hadiths. He has taught as Professor of Hadith at several universities. Many of Marouf’s studies have been published in Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, Tunis and London.
Notable among his publications are: “The Impact of Hadith on the Emergency of Muslim History.”, “Al-Mundhiri and his ‘Al Takmila”, “Baghdad’s Biographical Histories.”, “Ad Dhahabi’s approach to the History of Islam.” , “A Journey through Thought and Heritage.” , “The History of Islam and the concept of the Arab Leadership of the Islamic Ummah.” , “Explanation of the Rulings on Chanting the Qur’an.” “A Selection of the Prophet’s Hadith.” , “The Whole Musnad (22 volumes)” “Classified and Verified Musnad” (41 volumes)
Among the many books Professor Marouf verified are: “Al-Wafayat” by Abu Masoud Al Hajji, “Ahlu Al Mi’a and Upward” by Al Hafiz Ad Dahabi. “Postscripts of the History of Baghdad, City of Peace by Ibn Al-Daybathi (5 volumes). “The Grand Mosque” -by Imam Abu Issa Al Tirmidhi (six volumes), “Sunan Ibn Majah by Imam Muhammed Ibn Yazid Al Qazwini (6 volumes), “The Hstory of the City of Peace” by Hafiz Abu Bakr Al Khatib Al-Baghadadi (17 volumes). “The History of Islam and the Deaths of Celebrities and the Famous” by Al Hafiz Shams Addeen Ad-Sahabi (17 volumes) and many more.
Some of his works and publications may be purchased here:
A dean of investigators in the science of Prophetic Hadith. Former rector at the Islamic University in Baghdad. He is a Fellow of the Royal Aaal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman, Jordan.
Dr. Professor Bashar Awad Maarouf does not fear the blame of the blamer. He made his conclusion after thorough investigation, tracking all the narrators and investigating all the paths.
In regard to those who say: “But our club says this, and if you differ with the club it is a departure from faith!”
Is the weakness of these hadiths considered a denial of the Sunnah and a departure from Islam!!! Fear Allah!
We personally have considered that there are many such scholars among Ahl Sunnah who have come to this conclusion. However, they do not come out to the public for one of two reasons.
Being ostracized and condemned. Not being welcomed to the table anymore.
The fear that if this widely held belief is now considered mistaken it could cause the masses to wonder what other views or beliefs are mistaken. Thus, a desire to protect the tradition.
“Today those who disbelieve have lost all hope of (damaging) your faith. So, do not fear them, and fear Me. Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as Dīn (religion and a way of life) for you. But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger, having no inclination towards sin, then Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:3)
﷽
“O.K. Settle down, settle down.” We are going to go about this in a very orderly manner. Which one of you is the Mahdi? Simply raise your hand!”
“EARLIER this year Iran’s authorities arrested a score of men who, in separate incidents, claimed to be the Mahdi, a sacred figure of Shia Islam, who was “hidden” by God just over a millennium ago and will return some time to conquer evil on earth.”
“A website based in Qom, Iran’s holiest city, deemed the men “deviants”, “fortune-tellers” and “petty criminals”, who were exploiting credulous Iranians for alms during the Persian new-year holiday, which fell in mid-March.”
“Many of the fake messiahs were picked up by security men in the courtyard to the mosque in Jamkaran, a village near Qom, whose reputation as the place of the awaited Mahdi’s advent has been popularized nationwide by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When he took office in 2005 he gave the mosque $10m.”
“Iran’s economic doldrums may have helped to cause this surge in people claiming to be mankind’s saviour—and in women saying they were the Mahdi’s wife. “In an open atmosphere where people could criticise the government they would not believe these people,” says an ex-seminarian in Tehran, the capital, noting that most Iranians still get all of their news from state television and state-owned or -sanctioned newspapers.”
“Last year a seminary expert, Mehdi Ghafari, said that more than 3,000 fake Mahdis were in prison. Mahdi-complexes are common, says a Tehran psychiatrist. “Every month we get someone coming in, convinced he is the Mahdi,” she says. “Once a man was saying such outrageous things and talking about himself in the third person that I couldn’t help laughing. He got angry and told me I had ‘bad hijab’ and was disrespecting the ‘Imam of Time’,” as the Mahdi is known.”
“The most famous case was that of Ayatollah Boroujerdi, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2007 for—among other things—claiming he was the Mahdi. Like many influential “false” messiahs, he was forced to recant on state television, confessing that he had been against the Islamic Republic’s core tenets.”
“Mr Ahmadinejad has called his administration “the government of the hidden imam”. Last month he told a batch of new Iranian ambassadors to consider themselves “envoys of the Mahdi”. After his first speech at the UN in 2005, a video circulated showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a leading Iranian cleric that world leaders had been enchanted, during his oration, by a halo around his head that had been put there by the Mahdi himself.”
Prima-Qur’an Comments:
We have no idea where they keep all these 3000 Mahdis, but could you imagine if they were all in the same prison or same facility? Surely that would be volatile.
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20: 114)
﷽
Muslms, Scholars, Soldiers.
Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions.
About Professor Adam R Gaiser:
This is his CV – curriculum vitae.
BA, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Major: Comparative Religion. MA, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Major: History of Religions. Islamic Studies. PhD, University Of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Major: History of Religions. Islamic Studies.
Current Position: Professor of Religion (or Associate Professor of Religion), Florida State University (FSU), Tallahassee, FL. Affiliated Faculty, Program in Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, FSU.
His publications and books:
Book: The origin and development of the Ibadi Imamate ideal Book: Shurāt Legends, Ibādī Identities: Martyrdom, Asceticism, and the Making of an Early Islamic Community. Book: Sectarian in Islam: The Umma Divided. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023
First, one thing that you will notice when reading current works by Orientalist or Western Academics concerning the Ibadi school, is they are overly thankful to the Ibadi communities for the access to their libraries and manuscripts. This becomes a re-current theme.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many other scholars helped me during my year of research in Jordan; of special mention are ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Dūrī and Muhammed Khraysāt of the University of Jordan History Department, and Farūq ‘Umar Fawzī of the Omani Studies Department at Āl al-Bayt University. My appreciation goes to Ahmad Obeidat, Islam Dayeh, and Nihad Khedair, my research assistants at the time (and now accomplished scholars of their own), for our many hours spent together in translation and discussion. I also thank the Omani Student Union in Amman, Āl al-Bayt University, and the University of Jordan, all of whom granted me unlimited use of their library and access to their manuscript collections. Further research took me to Muscat, Oman; thanks to Michael Bos, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Sālimī, Shaykh Kahlān b. Nahbān al-Kharūsī, Shaykh Mahmūd b. Zāhir al-Hinā`ī, Dr. Khalfān al-Madūrī, Ahmad al-Siyābī, Shaykh Ziyād b. Tālib al-Ma‘āwalī of the Ma‘had al-‘Ulūm al Shar‘iyya, and to the students who shared their research and excitement. “
Source: (Acknowledgements: Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
“Fortunately, recent publications by the Omani Ministry of Heritage and Culture (Wizarat al-Turāth al-Qawmī wa al-Thaqāfa) of much of the Ibādī historical and legal corpus have made hundreds of works accessible to the researcher. In addition, the Libyan scholar ‘Amr Ennami collected and published several rare North African legal and theological works before his death.”
Source: (pg. 5 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
It is a common theme at least when engaging with Ibadism. That we are open and we give access to what people are looking for.
We had a brother mention an indiviudal who did an interview and claimed there was ‘gate keeping’ going on with us; this information came as a dissapointment. The individual knows better. We are doing our level best to get information about the Ibadi school out there. The western academics themselves acknowledgethe tremendous help they have received in getting such access.
So first the unfortunate. Professor Gaiser continues to assert that the Ibadis were from the Kharijis, even though he knows better. He knows it is from heresiographical works. This is certainly dissapointing.
“As the sole remaining Khārijite subsect, the Ibādiyya are the last representatives of the opposition movement that was Khārijism, and the inheritors of its narrative and legal traditions.”
Source: (pg. 3 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
“One problem plaguing the study of the Ibādiyya and Khārijites is the uncritical reliance on either Sunni or Ibādī sources for historical narratives. Such an approach ignores the fact that these accounts were, to varying degrees, tailored to serve the polemical and self-serving interests of the sect.”
Source: (pg. 5 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Then why do Orientalist and western academics continue to use this terminology? The nomenclature of Ibadis being a sub sect of the Khawarij? So do take note to the orientalist and western academics reading this. Going forward why not point this out in the beginning of your works? That you are simply using Sunni polemical nomenclature that you find convenient.
“Caution should therefore be exercised when dealing with heresiographical texts, as the predilections of their authors, the structure of their texts, and reliability of their information are not always clear.”
Source: (pg. 15 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Professor Gaiser makes a very interesting point here:
“Yet another flawed method of viewing the Khārijites is to interpret their activities through the lens of their most extreme or militant subsects. It is not uncommon to find, for example, a focus on the Azāriqa (or Najdāt), whose core activities lasted a mere fourteen years, as representatives of “the original Khārijite position.”This statement grossly overestimates the importance of the Azraqite subsect to the general history of Khārijism, and relegates the Ibādiyya, who have survived for thirteen centuries (and, incidentally, opposed the Azāriqa from the outset) to an undeserved historical footnote that does not reflect their longevity. Such distortions prevent an accurate appreciation of the role of Khārijite thought in shaping the Ibādiyy…”
Source: (pg. 6 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Professor Gaiser makes an interesting point here:
“In reality, it seems that the imām al-kitmān was a theoretical construct established in order to retroactively create Imāms out of the ‘ulamā’ who led the early quietist Khārijite movement in Basra (and who eventually established the Ibādiyya as a distinct Khārijite subsect).”
Source: (pg. 13 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
However, he doesn’t seem to connect his ideas very well when later he states:
With the establishment of the Rustumid dynasty in Tahert and the first Ibādī dynasty in Oman, the practice of shirā’ was recognized to have potentially dangerous implications for the Ibādī state; the inherent danger of shirā’ lay in its latent ability to inspire rebellion in the name of Islamic justice.In an effort to diffuse the potentially destabilizing effect of shirā’, the Ibādī ‘ulamā’ developed the office of al-imām al-shārī as the leader of the shurāt. Likewise, the term shurāt, which had once referred to the early Khārijite heroes, became divorced from its original heroic connotations and came to specify the volunteer Ibādī soldiers who defended the Ibādī state against its enemies. In such a way, the practice of shirā’ was kept under the control of the Ibādī state. As a result, the practice of shirā’ changed from being a spontaneous practice to being a formal institution governed by social and legal regulations.”
Professor Gaiser makes a blank statement without really giving us much more. For exampe: Can practical examples be given in how the Ibadi ulama’ s development of the office of al imam al shari create stabliity? Especially considering his above statement:
“It seems that the imām al-kitmān was a theoretical construct established in order to retroactively create Imāms out of the ‘ulamā’”
What prevents the imam al-kitman from becoming the imam al-shari?
Ultimately there is nothing destablisizing about it. Rule with justice.
Do we consider any institute to be inheriently unstable because there are mechanism in place that prevent abuse of power?
One can attack a particuar lineage (alids) or tribe (quraysh) that could be a relatively easy feat. However, attacking and keeping an entire scholarly class under control is no easy feat.
Professor Gaiser often makes blank statements without telling us how he arrived at such conclusions.
“Likewise, distinctions between the imām al-zuhūr, imām al-shirā’, imām al-difā‘, and imām al-kitmān are not nearly as clear as post-medieval Ibādī imāmate theorists (and the non-Ibādī scholars who rely on them) would have us believe.”
What were the points of clarity that he felt were lacking? What did he think needed more elaboration? Especially given the knowledge that imām al-shirā’, imām al-difā‘ are more interm and temporary positons during a transition period.
So the reader has a few choices when it comes to this information.
1) Accept it blindly. Accept it as factual. Don’t think critically about the information.
2) Think about the information critically. Actually read the source and information that the school has written about it self and come to your own conclusion.
When we go through the foototes it is challenging to determine what sources Professor Gaiser relied upon for his information.
For those of you do not want to depend upon orientalist or western academis for information and would like direct access to Ibadi sources that speak on the subject we can provide the following:
“Masalik al-Dīn wa Atharuhā fī Ḥifẓ al-Wujūd al-Ibāḍī”
Author: ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz bin Suʿūd bin Sīf Ambusaidi Supervisor: Ismāʿīl bin Ṣāliḥ bin Ḥamdān al-Aghbari Examiner: Ibrāhīm bin Yūsuf bin Sīf al-Aghbari
We found another strange assertion of Professor Gasier here:
“The specific example of the Muhakkima’s attribution of sin to ‘Alī as the result of his agreement to arbitrate the Battle of Siffīn became the basis for the general Khārijite belief that sin makes a person an unbeliever (kāfir)—the Khārijite doctrine of sin. Although it is not explicitly stated in the sources, it is safe to assume that the attribution of sin/infidelity to an individual immediately disqualified that person from a position of authority over the Muslims, and thus, the connection between sin and ineligibility in leadership can be generalized to all Khārijite subsects.”
Source: (Pg. 39 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Two major assumptions indeed.
‘Alī as the result of his agreement to arbitrate the Battle of Siffīn became the basis for the general Khārijite belief that sin makes a person an unbeliever (kāfir)—
Although it is not explicitly stated in the sources, it is safe to assume that the attribution of sin/infidelity to an individual immediately disqualified that person from a position of authority over the Muslims
What is this based on?
Why would one think that Professor Gaiser be given a free pass to make such statements and yet, “we have to be careful what heriseiographers and even Ibadi sources say?
” Although this view is not explicitly stated in either early Ibādī literature or heresiographical materials, it is strongly implied by the doctrine of sin.”
Source: (Pg. 40 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Even in the example Profesor Gasier has given:
“Certain evidence in heresiographical materials corroborates the application of the doctrine of sin to the Khārijite Imāms. It is reported, for example, that a faction of the Najdāt forced their leader, Najda b. ‘Āmir al-Hanafī, to recant and repent for his opinion that a person is excused from sin if he is ignorant of the fact that the action is a sin.”
Source: (Pg. 40 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
But did they remove him as the Imam or simply ask him to repent for his sin and retain him?
We are simlpy not told.
This information clashes with what Professor Gasier gives us here:
“A smaller section of the Najdāt then decided that it was not their place to question the ijtihād of their Imām, and forced Najda to repent his original repentance—which Najda did. As a result of this second repentance, the majority of the Najdāt deposed (khala‘ūhu) Najda and forced him to choose the next Imām.”
Source: (Pg. 40 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
If they forced him to repent of his original repentance and then deposed him it means that he was still their Imam when he initially repented. Thus the information Professor Gasier presents us clashes with his own conclusions!
Professor Gasier aslo states:
“However, an Imām who sinned or behaved in a way that was improper did not immediately become an illegitimate Imām. The Ibādī community gave him the opportunity to repent and make amends, such as the opportunity given to ‘Uthmān before his killing. If the Imām repented, he regained his proper place as leader of the Muslims. If he persisted in his sinful behavior, dissociation from him and active opposition to him then became a duty.”
Source: (Pg. 46 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
The above information makes it very clear that if an Imam commits a sin this in and of itself does not necessitate his removal from office. This again clashes with previous information presented by Professor Gaiser.
Alas, the informaton in the above paragraph presented by Professor Gaiser is incomplete and does not allow nuance. A very important point is the type and manner of sin the Imam commits. For example if the Imam committed adultery, and the proof is established against him there is no resuming the office of Imam. This should be clear from the perspective of jurisprudence.
Now let us turn our attention to something eslse Professor Gaiser says:
Alī as the result of his agreement to arbitrate the Battle of Siffīn became the basis for the general Khārijite belief that sin makes a person an unbeliever (kāfir)—
Source: (Pg. 39 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
He repeats this assertion here:
“Just as the Muhakkima’s rejection of ‘Alī on the basis of the sin of accommodating the arbitration of Siffīn formed the basis for later Khārijite doctrines of sin, so the acceptance of ‘Abdullāh b. Wahb al-Rāsibī further entrenched the precedent whereby piety became the main criterion for legitimate leadership.”
“Source: (Pg. 41 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
” Additionally, the qurrā’ at the Battle of Siffīn reportedly forced ‘Alī to accept arbitration against his better judgment, which is itself an indicator of a certain amount of authority.
Source: (Pg. 57 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
This raises all kinds of questions.
How could the qurrā on the one hand be the people who forced someone to accept something that they would see as the basis that makes a a person an unbeliever (kāfir).
“Similarly, the Muhakkima at Harūrā’ demanded of ‘Alī: “So repent as we have repented and we will pledge allegiance to you, but if not we will continue to oppose you.”
Source: (Pg. 37 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
Note 89 Foot note Source: Abū Mikhnaf in al-Tabarī, Tārīkh, 1:3353; see variants in al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf, 3:123; Abū al-‘Abbās Muhammed b. Yazīd al-Mubarrad, al-Kāmil: Bāb al-Khawārij (Damascus: Dār al-Hikma, n.d.), 24.
” Additionally, the qurrā’ at the Battle of Siffīn reportedly forced ‘Alī to accept arbitration against his better judgment, which is itself an indicator of a certain amount of authority.
It is appreciated tht Professor Gasier gave the source for the sentiments above:
Abū Mikhnaf was a flamming hot chetto of a Shi’i. We are thankful that Professor Gasier mentions the following about him:
“The pro-‘Alid author Abū Mikhnaf portrays ‘Ammār as an early Companion of the Prophet Muhammed, and uses his story to highlight the illegitimacy of the Umayyad regime.”
Source: (Pg. 97 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
A Modern Historical Perspective: From a modern, academic historical viewpoint, Abū Mikhnaf’s value is immense. His bias is not dismissed but is itself a source of information. He represents the historical memory and narrative of the early Kufan Shi’a. Historians use his works to understand:
How these early communities viewed themselves and their struggle.
The political and social climate of 8th-century Iraq.
The development of early Shi’ite identity. The key is to use his material critically, comparing it with reports from other sources with different biases (e.g., pro-Umayyad historians).
Understanding the sectarian lens that are used when detailling events.
It is also not clear if Professor Gaiser sees the muhakkima and the qurrā as interchangeable names for the same group, or interchangeable groups. Or a singlular group that had divisons among themselves in regard to the arbitration.
The following chart can help Professor Gaiser advance his claims. It can also make sense of what seems to be contradictory information. This is a possible model.
Unless Professor Gaiser contest that the Muslims had the Qur’an with them then on what consistent basis can he condidently say that rather than the event at Siffin that they simply did not draw from the Qur’an?
“And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the ungrateful (l-kāfirūna).” (Qur’an 5:44)
No consideration is given to the idea that, as Qurra these people would be memorizers of the Qur’an and with the Qura’n not being a considerably large corpus, the warnings not to follow the people of the book the admonishment that those who judge by other than what Allah revealed are the disbelievers most likely echoed among them over and over.
This allows for Professor Gasier to present his thesis in a very clear way. That there were those who saw Ali’s decision as going against the clear guidance of the Qur’an. That he judged by other than what Allah had revealed. We know there were people who urged Ali to continue his fight against Mu’awiya.
There are those who were initially pro arbitration and a group from among them regretted that decision. That group joined up with those who were against it from the start. It is that group that says: “So repent as we have repented and we will pledge allegiance to you, but if not we will continue to oppose you.”
The only thing the Professor Gasier needs to do is follow the history and the logical conclusion. Committing a sin or an act of kuffar does not permanently preclude you from the office of Imam.
Additional thoughts. Not related to Professor Gaiser’s book, but one does have to wonder how Ali himself was viewed from the perspective of his followers. Rather, his followers and supporters were against his decision for arbitration or forced his hand. Either way, it seems like they had vastly different understandings of the authority of Ali than what the Shi’i masses are being told.
Professor Gasier states:
” Two points must be borne in mind when investigating how the medieval Ibādī institution of the imām al-shārī assimilated the early Khārijite phenomenon of shirā’, appropriated the Khārijite figures associated with the phenomenon of shirā’, and adapted the concept of shirā’ to a political institution of authority. “
Source: (Pg. 81 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
We were puzzled by this. Rather than appropriation from a stream that it is claimed they belonged to, why not just simply say they drew upon the Qur’an and examples of earlier martyrs?
You have to wonder how you appropriate from a tradition that you are already a part of?
“Unfortunately, North African jurists did not develop the notion of the shārī Imām, and therefore it remains a somewhat vague institution..”
Source: (Pg. 108 Adam R Gaiser: The Origin and Elaboration of the Ibadi Imamate Traditions)
What is there to be detailed about it? The very title, Shira’ indicates that this office is a temporary office. Victory or Death. In victory you can be appointed as The Manifest Imam or you step down.
This particular office does not require a great deal of elaboration.
Over all the book is a very good read. It is not taxing. There is allot of information that one may find useful.
If you would like to read more about the four stages of the Muslim community you may read our article here:
“Who respond to their Lord, establish prayer, conduct their affairs by mutual consultation, and donate from what We have provided for them.” (Qur’an 42:38)
﷽
Professor Joseph Lumbard made a very interesting assertion during a teaching/lecture in New Mexico on Islam.
For those not familiar, Professor Lumbard He received a Ph.D and M.Phil in Islamic Studies from Yale University, an M.A. in Religious Studies and a B.A. from the George Washington University.
He is an American Muslim scholar of Islamic studies and associate professor of Qur’anic studies at the College of Islamic Studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar. He is the author, editor, and translator of several scholarly books and many articles on Islamic philosophy, Sufism, and Quranic studies
So let us get the disappointment out of the way. Disappointing because the respected Professor knows better than to label one according to the epitaph of their opponents.
@1:36 he says: “That was against the Kharijites, from which the Ibadis came out.”
Well, so with that disappointing statement out of the way we can get to the interesting point.
@1:55 “What the Ibadis have done which is different very different from the Sunnis and the Shiites is that they claimed that somebody outside of Quraysh could be the leader. They, their basic claim was that they most…shall we say…what is the word I’m looking for? Um, the most qualified person was the person who should be the leader. And that actually the community can force that person to be the leader if that person doesn’t want to be the leader.” -Professor Lumbard.
“And so remember how we went through and this is where it becomes very important, remember we looked through that the that For the Umayyads and for the Abbasids, the Caliph came through the lineage of the Quraysh. Of course for the uh for the Shiites the caliph is going to be from the lineage of the Quraysh; because its a descendant of the Prophet. Right?” -Professor Lumbard.
“So, Here they were the first ones to come out and say, “No!” Actually that doesn’t matter that is not where it needs to be located. It needs to be the most qualified person and they said theologically in a reading of the Qur’an, this is the best theological understanding of what God intended in the Qur’an. “On that particular point I agree with them, actually. ” -Professor Lumbard.
Al hamdulillah.
What makes this a particularly powerful admission is that Professor Lumbard has not shown himself invested in sectarianism. He is certainly familiar with Sunni claims, as well as that of the Shiites that the ahl bayt are the crème de la crème.
When the respected Professor stated:
“They said theologically in a reading of the Qur’an, this is the best theological understanding of what God intended in the Qur’an.”
Personally I am not quite sure what the respected Professor intended by this. Or what his reading of the Qur’an that makes this clear for him. It is just that these ideas of leadership being from the Quraysh or from the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw) were not seen as established from their point of view.
Though, we do have our justifications from the Qur’an for the position that we hold. I would have been keen to see the respected Professor flesh that out.
In fact, for us it was Al-Ash’ath bin Qais who had as one of his motivating factors to get Ali to move against the people of Nahrawan because of the election of Imam Ar Rasibi (ra). -aka a Non Qurayshi.
Al-Ash’ath bin Qais motive was clear.
Divert Ali’s attention away from the Syrians. Giving them more time to strengthen and solidify their positions.
Pit Ali against the former die hard loyalist knowing full well that the killing of these companions and tabi’un would leave a bitter taste in the mouth of many -as we will see with Ibn Abbas (ra).
Ensure the nexus of power remains among the Quraysh and that any non-Quraysh would not even have a whiff of authority over the Quraysh.
Any qualified righteous believer, be they Arab, Jewish, Ethiopian, or any ethnic group or tribe you can think of, can be the Amir Al Mumineen. That is to say: The Commander of the Faithful for the entirety of the Muslim Ummah.
Here are some reasons on why we do not believe the leadership of the Muslims needs to be exclusively from the Quraysh(though it can be).
Perhaps the follower articles will be of interest to you.
“And don’t mix the truth with the falsehood, or conceal the truth while you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
There was a recent interview with Dr. John Andrew Morrow on the Bridging Minds Channel on YouTube. I would encourage those who visit Prima Qur’an to subscribe to the following channel: https://www.youtube.com/@bridgingminds7512 -the channel is in its infancy and insh’Allah good things will follow.
“And don’t mix the truth with the falsehood, or conceal the truth while you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)
I lead with this particular verse because as a Muslim I am dutybound not to conceal the truth when I know what it is.
Also, unfortunately our school, the Ibadi school has a great deal of misunderstandings surrounding it and we take opportunities when and where we can to clarify these misunderstandings.
I believe that this article will also prove that being in academia does not necessarily entail that a person is well informed on a particular matter.
Case in point. Let us look at Brother Dr. John Andrew Morrow’s impressive CV- curriculum vitae.
“Dr. John Andrew Morrow is a professor, research scholar, and author. He has three degrees from the University of Toronto: an Honors BA with double majors in Spanish and French Language and Literature, as well as an MA and a PhD in Spanish American Literature.”
“After completing his PhD, he pursued post-doctoral studies in the Arabic language at the Arabic Language Institute in Fez, the University of Utah’s Middle East Center, and the Qalam wa Lawh Center in Rabat.”
“Dr. Morrow has been an undergraduate and graduate faculty member at numerous universities, holding the ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, Program Head, and Department Head. He has taught at the University of Toronto, Park University, Northern State University, and Eastern New Mexico University, receiving student impact, performance, and leadership awards for outstanding teaching and service. “
“Dr. Morrow has also been a Visiting Researcher at Harvard University, Purdue University, and the University of Chicago. In the Fall of 2011, he served as professor of Spanish, English, and Religious Studies for the University of Virginia’s Semester at Sea Program. A specialist in Hispanic, Native, and Arabic-Islamic Studies, he has lectured worldwide in his areas of expertise.”
“His research interests include the Amerindian influence on Spanish American poetry, the Arabic and Islamic influence on Spanish and French literature, Aljamiado literature, Arabic sociolinguistics, Islamic Studies, and herbal medicine. A prolific, internationally recognized researcher and writer, Dr. Morrow has hundreds of scholarly, literary and artistic publications to his credit, including: “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World,” “Islamic Images and Ideas: Essays on Sacred Symbolism,” “The Encyclopedia of Islamic Herbal Medicine,” “Amerindian Elements in the Poetry of Ernesto Cardenal,” “Islamic Insights: Writings and Reviews,” “Amerindian Elements in the Poetry of Rubén Darío,” “Arabic, Islam, and the Allah Lexicon,” ” The Book of Divine Unity,” “El islam shiita: ¿ortodoxia o heterodoxia?,” “Shiite Islam: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy?,” and “Humanos casi humanos.”
Brother Kamal Southall and Brother Dr. John Andrew Morrow were having a really great back and forth conversation, sharing information. It is when the conversation became more free that there were some comments made about the Ibadi school that caught my attention.
The conversation begins at around @1:13:19
Brother Kamal was leading in with ISIS having what he believes to be a khariji tendency.
Dr. John Morrow: “and I believe it’s true it’s true and I’ve condemned the Khawarij a lot in the past as well but I’ve reconsidered my assessment of them. I mean there again it’s their enemies who wrote these narratives and demonized them. There are some good things about the Ibadis that you know I came to discover. Um so yeah!”
Brother Kamal: “That’s a good point!”
Dr. John Morrow: “Now, now for example, okay? So again the Khawarij, the Khawarij okay, their, their demonized by the Sunnis and by the Shi’a; and of course I did the same thing. I said you know what I’m going to study Ibadi literature. I’m going to connect with Ibadis and get to the bottom of this.” “They’re very moderate people by and large. They’re quite tolerant. They’re not very strict about hijab or things like that. Any how, so they they repudiate they repudiate the extreme Khawarij of the past. But in any event okay so these people revolted. Nobody questions why they revolted. Okay so, okay why did they revolt? Alright, so you have Ali on one side and then you have Muawiya on the other side, and Aisha, and all of these people. Okay? So, on the side Muawiya they believe that the Caliphate belongs only to the tribe of Quraysh. This is like even in Sunni-you know doctrine and everything. It belongs to Quraysh that’s that. Okay, that’s a type of dynasty.”
Brother Kamal: “Right.”
Dr. John Morrow: “I’m sorry it’s very racist too. It’s supremacist, it’s a type of dynasty and monarchy and so on. On the other side you have Ali and he says nuh-uh my family only my family. But the funny thing about the Shi’a they can never agree as to who was part of this family or which member should be the successor. And each time an Imam died they would break up into even more factions; everyone fighting for this and that. Even within the same family. Okay they say oh Imam Jafir As-Sadiq was the successor. Well, his brother thought he was the successor too. And you had brothers fighting each other. It was just like any kingdom, they were fighting for power. So, okay and what was the point of the view of the Khawarij? Any just knowledgeable Muslim can aspire to leadership? Hello? Egalitarian. Based on Shura, every democratic. It was not a dynasty, it wasn’t a monarchy.So, wait a second are these guys really so, so know I’ve compared Isis to the khawarij. But I was wrong. That’s not what they were fighting for. You know the other thing that revolted them? The marriage of 9-year-old girls. They thought that was the sickest thing they had ever heard of.”
Brother Kamal: “The Ibadis?”
Dr. John Morrow: “The Khawarij, the Ibadis.”
Dr. John Morrow: “This is one of the reasons they revolted. They said what the F? No way in hell! Now wait a second these are Tabi’un. Some of these people are sahabas. They had a radically different understanding of the message of this religion, and it’s practices. They didn’t buy this child marriage thing.”
Brother Kamal: “I don’t either.” Dr. John Morrow: “I don’t either.”
Prima-Qur’an comments:
There is a lot to unpack here.
First and foremost, the good. I want to thank my brother, Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam) for being humble enough to walk back associations of Isis with the Khawarij. (Though he is not entirely mistaken-will come to this).
I think that all of us, as lovers of truth and people who pursue truth, need to amend positions when mistaken. I was dismayed that the terms Ibadi and Khawrij were swapped out and interchangeable. However, we are getting there. What I mean by ‘getting there’ is that there is a willingness to go beyond the Sunni paintbrush of their opponents. This I am grateful for. May Allah (swt) bless him for this.
To admit to making mistakes is a sign of true moral character and real moral strength. Not many people can do that. We must always be right.
Points of concern andoutright shock.
“They’re not very strict about hijab or things like that.”
I am not quite sure what brother, Dr. John Morrow based this on?
If it was a book of jurisprudence, could he cite it?
Did he have interactions with people who identified as ‘Ibadi’ and were flippant in regard to their dress code?
I have to ask these questions because the ‘Ibadi’ school takes the Khimar, what Dr. John calls ‘the hijab’ very seriously. Modest dress for Muslim men and women is a very important matter for us. It is a matter of obeying Allah and his Messenger.
In fact, the Mufti of Oman says it is preferable for women to wear a niqab if possible. Though he does not say it is proved by the Qur’an and Sunnah.
One of our teachers that we have theology classes with, Shaykh Juma Al Mazruii, cleared up wide-eyed rumors and speculation circulating around Reddit.
Negligence with regard to a modest dress code is considered a sin by us. I personally have not known any of our scholars or teachers to be lax in regard to the ‘khimar’ or hijab.
So I am not sure what that statement is based upon.
Why did many of the companions and successors leave the army of Imam Ali?
“But in any event, okay, so these people revolted. Nobody questions why they revolted. Okay so, okay, why did they revolt?”
It is clear that brother, Dr. John Morrow is of the understanding that it was primarily done to who should lead the Muslims. I am here as an Ibadi to tell you that this is not the case at all. The primary reason for leaving the camp of Ali was his decision to arbitrate on matters in which Allah (swt) made his judgement clear.
Now, we do say that one of the motivations for Ali attacking the Muslims at Nahrawan was from Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, an individual who did not want to see the Imamate leave the Quraysh. For Imam Abdul-Allah bin Wahab Ar-Rasbi Al-Azdi (r) appointed Imam was not from the Quraysh. But this was not ‘THE’ reason to leave the camp of Ali.
Let us think about this logically as well. If that was ‘THE’ reason, then why be in the camp of Ali to begin with?
Ibadi’s predecessors revolted against Ali because he was a supporter of 9-year-old child marriages?!!
“You know the other thing that revolted them? The marriage of a 9-year-old girl. They thought that was the sickest thing they had ever heard of.”
“This is one of the reasons they revolted. They said “What the F? No way in hell!” Now wait a second. These are Tabi’un. Some of these people are sahabas. They had a radically different understanding of the message of this religion and its practices. They didn’t buy this child marriage thing.”
Now I have seen some academics make mistakes -we all do. However, I have to be quite honest in saying these are some of the wildest assertions yet!
This is the wildest assertion attributed to our school that I have ever seen! I am going to attribute these statements to the free flow of the discussion and perhaps there were many thoughts swirling around and somewhere things got lost in the conversation.
There are many thoughts here.
First and foremost is, what is the source of this?!
This actually goes against all those people who are arguing against child marriage! All those liberals, Hafs-only Quranists, modernists are now shaking their heads and wondering what on Earth? Because now what our brother, Dr. John Morrow has effectively done is to assert that this (child marriage) was indeed held by early Muslims, many of them companions and successors, and that Muslims had a major war over this!
Considering that the Ibadi predecessors were the muhakima that split from Ali’s camp and they (the Ibadi predecessors are portrayed as saying: “What the F No way in hell” this must mean that Ali and his supporters were gung ho for child marriages? How can one not draw this conclusion based upon the data given?
Considering that it is suggested that Ali and his supporters were gung ho for child marriages, should we then understand that Imami and Zaydi Shi’i are pro-child marriage?
Considering the person in question -Aisha (ra) was not anywhere near Siffin, how would she not play a role in any of that?
I have shared my concerns with Brother Kamal -who is a very good friend, close brother and sincere Muslim. May Allah bless him and bless his channel.
I have to write things like this because our school is terribly misunderstood and maligned. Brother Dr. John Morrow has shown his willingness to backtrack statements. Which is the sign of a sincere believer. May Allah love him.
I hope that maybe in the future he can clarify some of these statements.
For those who are keen and interested in learning more about the Ibadi school from Ibadi sources, I would kindly direct your attention to our resource page here:
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
This was a short interview between the writer Anthony T. Fiscella and a friend from our brothers in the Mzab community of Algeria. (May Allah keep them steadfast and support them). Most notable was the semi-autonomy granted to the community and their self governing principles. Located in the Wilaya of Ghardaïa
Most of the brothers here are of Amazigh or Free-Men origins.
Although most of the brothers in the region read and write Arabic, they speak the Zenata dialect of the Berber language, for which there is no written form.
Despite political changes in Algeria over the years, the community continues to peacefully resist interference in the affairs of their community and strive to preserve their unique religious and cultural identity.
They have a reputation of being honest and astute businessmen. They also continue to be productive farmers in the M’zab Valley, supplying the fresh produce needs for their own communities and for marketing elsewhere.
The beautiful M’zab Valley of Algeria was given UNESCO World Heritage Site status in 1982, as a superb example of a traditional human habitat that has been adapted to the environment. This is confirmation that although values in the rest.
In Ghardaïa, is said that there are no beggars and that no thieves exist. The people of this society is very tightly knit with such activities from business to studies and marriage all done through the community. They cling to the unique clothing, language, architecture, and lifestyle.
Wherever they are, They always have one foot in Ghardaïa. Whatever their social situation, they never sever their roots and actively contribute to the life of the community.
Ghardaïa was founded over 1,000 years ago to provide shelter for their community after the fall of the the Ibadi Rustamid state. The village, 500 kilometres south of Algiers, was founded in the middle of a rocky desert. Other towns from the era existing to this day include El Atteuf, Melika, Bounoura, and Beni Izguène.
It is said that their insular nature has preserved the area, and the Ibāḍī Σezzaba continue to dominate the social life of the area. A federal council, Majlis Ammi Said, unites representatives of the seven settlements as well as Ouargla, an ancient town located 200 km South-East of the Mzab valley. This council forms a federative body for religious, social and, increasingly, cultural matters. This religious federal council represents an “Islamic type of government” unique today.
Numerous details of Ibāḍiyya social life are ruled by this Islamic government, such as the weight of gold given as a dowry to a woman (maximum 60 grams) to the length of wedding celebrations (three days). The council makes decisions on details such as dowries, celebrations, dress. It used to impose punishments including exile, and a form of tabriyya “quarantine”, where the offender may not interact with his fellow citizens. I would imagine this is a time of dissociation or bara’ until the offender has repented and amended his/her ways.
May Allah (swt) continue to bless them. May Allah (swt) preserve them! May Allah (swt) bring stability and peace to Algeria. May they continue to be the light in the region for the good people of Algeria. Amin!
This remains true as the people M’zab valley Algeria, Nafusa Mountains in Libya, Djerba Tunisia, have remained steadfast upon the Haqq. As well as the revival of the Qur’an and Sunnah via the Ibadi school among the Hausa, Tuareg, and Fulani peoples. Al hamdulillah!
It is hard to imagine how this paper granted Jason Van Riel a Master’s thesis. I have said it before and I will say it again. Universities are basically just handing credentials to people.
I can’t imagine writing about another people’s history, culture and religion and writing with the type of smug dismissiveness and pretention that Orientalist and others often write with.
It is simply gross.
1st Jason van Riel rides on the tired coattails of the Ibadis being Khawarij and worse yet, a sect from among the Khawarij; and even bigger blunder rest assured.
We can see this in his thesis where he states:
He asserts: “Ibāḍī Islam has its origins in the Khārijite sect that came into existence during the first fitna (37/657), the civil war…”
“although the Ibāḍīs were not Azraki they were still a Khārijite sub sect.”
“To ensure that Ibāḍī traders were not restricted in and around Sijilmasa, to the commercial and financial advantage of both the Rustamids and Midrārirds, the two ruling houses frequently intermarried with each other, even though they were of rival Khārijite sects.”
Calling groups of Muslims by the pejorative labels used by their opponents is anything but academic.
To support my position on why I believe universities almost feel obligated to confer credentials upon people because they paid their course fees will be readily seen. How on Earth does one read a paper like Jason Van Riel and not wonder what basis are his smug and dismissive comments made?
Here just some samples:
“Although it must be noted that only the Ibāḍī doctrine of “all-Muslim equality regardless of social or ethnic origin” was what the Berbers cared for, they had very little interest in any of the other aspects of Ibāḍīsm and Khārijism.”
For example if I am reading his paper I would press him. Van Riel on what basis did you draw this conclusion?
“The control and maintenance of these trade routes was an important source of income for these Berber tribes, either through the levying of tolls or through the blackmail of merchants travelling the roads under their control.”
Again you have to wonder where Van Riel has basis for this. Why would you need to blackmail travelers via trade routes that are mutually beneficial for all involved?
Does it not occur that if trade routes are the subject of blackmail they become troublesome?
“And even though the Arab chroniclers would want to have the their readers believe that the local rulers of Bilād al-Sūdān were Muslim (and converted in a most spectacular fashion) they were in most cases Muslim in name only.”
This is the type of comment that a non serious person would make. This is where if I were grading Van Riel’s paper I would ask him why does he need to muse on the intentions and sincerity of people’s conversion to Islam? If he said it was perhaps possible that some were not sincere that maybe possible.
However, to assert : “They were in most cases Muslim in name only.” It is really hard to see this as unacademic disdain.
However it is perfectly fine for orientalist and so called historians to “fill in the blanks” so to speak.
We read:
“One of the main concerns that this thesis faces is a lack of available sources, and this will be explained – along with an elaboration of the available sources – in the next section. In my opinion it is important for scholars to be creative when they face a lack of sources, as this does not entail that historical events did not occur. In combination with this I also strongly believe in Karl Popper’s criterion of falsifiability whereby “only if I can say how my theory might be refuted, or falsified, can I claim that my theory has the character of an empirical theory.”
This is very cringe.
Then Van Riel also states:
“Even if these sources can be located, the families owning them are wary of outsiders digging through their, sometimes centuries old, papers for fear of “secrets” being divulged.“
He doesn’t care to elaborate what these “secrets” might be. Just another off the cuff comment that strikes one as truly bizarre. In fact, this would have been a perfect opportunity for Van Riel to make another smug remark about other cultures by saying something along the lines of:
“Given the poverty that many people face in these countries, historians should seize the opportunity as locals would only be too willing to hand over parchments for a paltry sum!”
Surprised he didn’t!
Van Riel states:
The main problem with Lewicki’s work is that his articles tend to focus on a single category and, more importantly, Lewicki is considered to have approached Ibāḍī documents uncritically. Or as E. Savage puts it: “Curiously, Lewicki never takes up the theme of the historiographic context of his Ibāḍī sources but appears to have accepted them a priori as historical.”
Huh?! The treachery of it all! Imagine! Allowing a people to present their own history and narrative!
The orientalist must always approach and other the ‘other’ as being dishonest, having a motive and or an agenda. Did it not occur to Van Riel that even Ibadi opponents acknowledge our honesty and transparency.
Kitman is one thing when needed. Yet, lying is a major sin. We do not play with fire!
So that is my critique. I did find the thesis informative over all.
These are some notable bits of information.
“Even though Ibāḍī merchants were not the first Muslims to reach Bilād al-Sūdān, they did end up staying to ensure that the trans-Saharan trade became a constant source of gold and slaves for the north and salt and other general trade goods for the south.”
“It is generally believed that in pre-Almoravid times the majority of Muslim merchants in Bilād al-Sūdān, those who originated from the Maghreb, were Ibāḍī.”
According to Professor T. Lewicki’s research the Ibāḍī merchant-shayks where very active missionaries who tried to convert the pagan populace in Bilād al-Sūdān to Ibāḍīsm. And Lewicki continues by stating that these Ibāḍī merchant-shayks represented “the only form of Islam in West Africa, until the Almoravids brought their Sunni-Islam.”
“The reason why it is generally accepted that the kings of Ghana were converted to Ibāḍī Islam was because of the combination of Ibāḍī architecture used for the Grand Mosque of Gao, the capital of Ghana, and because of the historically close ties between Gao and Tahert, since the 2nd/8th century, that still existed when the kings of Ghana converted to Islam.”
“After the rulers of Ghana were defeated by the Almoravids and forced to convert to Sunni Islam (Malikite Islam), halfway through the 5th/11th century, Tādmekka became one of the many towns in the western part of Bilād al-Sūdān that was cleansed of all Ibāḍī influences
“Because many prominent Ibāḍī ‘ulamā’ had left Basra for either Oman or the Maghreb, its Ibāḍī community went through a period of intellectual decline which ultimately meant that it lost its position as the most important center of theology and jurisprudence in the Ibāḍī world.”
“It was not long before Ibāḍī merchants could be found all the way from the Maghreb to India, and it is even alleged that Ibāḍī merchants were amongst the first to set up business ventures in China.”
Prima Quran 