“Oh My Lord Advance me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.” (Proverbs 3:5-6)
﷽
One thing one will not fail to notice when reading the Bible is that in some areas God seems very focused on precision.
The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits thick.” (Revelation 21:15-17)
In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the fall of the city—on that very day the hand of the Lord was on me and he took me there. In visions of God he took me to the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, on whose south side were some buildings that looked like a city. He took me there, and I saw a man whose appearance was like bronze; he was standing in the gateway with a linen cord and a measuring rod in his hand. The man said to me, “Son of man, look carefully and listen closely and pay attention to everything I am going to show you, for that is why you have been brought here. Tell the people of Israel everything you see.” I saw a wall completely surrounding the temple area. The length of the measuring rod in the man’s hand was six long cubits, each of which was a cubit and a handbreadth. He measured the wall; it was one measuring rod thick and one rod high.Then he went to the east gate. He climbed its steps and measured the threshold of the gate; it was one rod deep. The alcoves for the guards were one rod long and one rod wide, and the projecting walls between the alcoves were five cubits thick. And the threshold of the gate next to the portico facing the temple was one rod deep. Then he measured the portico of the gateway;it was eight cubits deep and its jambs were two cubits thick. The portico of the gateway faced the temple.Inside the east gate were three alcoves on each side; the three had the same measurements, and the faces of the projecting walls on each side had the same measurements. Then he measured the width of the entrance of the gateway; it was ten cubits and its length was thirteen cubits.In front of each alcove was a wall one cubit high, and the alcoves were six cubits square.Then he measured the gateway from the top of the rear wall of one alcove to the top of the opposite one; the distance was twenty-five cubits from one parapet opening to the opposite one.He measured along the faces of the projecting walls all around the inside of the gateway—sixty cubits. The measurement was up to the portico facing the courtyard.The distance from the entrance of the gateway to the far end of its portico was fifty cubits.The alcoves and the projecting walls inside the gateway were surmounted by narrow parapet openings all around, as was the portico; the openings all around faced inward. The faces of the projecting walls were decorated with palm trees.Then he brought me into the outer court. There I saw some rooms and a pavement that had been constructed all around the court; there were thirty rooms along the pavement. It abutted the sides of the gateways and was as wide as they were long; this was the lower pavement. Then he measured the distance from the inside of the lower gateway to the outside of the inner court; it was a hundred cubits on the east side as well as on the north.Then he measured the length and width of the north gate, leading into the outer court. Its alcoves—three on each side—its projecting walls and its portico had the same measurements as those of the first gateway. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide. Its openings, its portico and its palm tree decorations had the same measurements as those of the gate facing east. Seven steps led up to it, with its portico opposite them. There was a gate to the inner court facing the north gate, just as there was on the east. He measured from one gate to the opposite one; it was a hundred cubits.Then he led me to the south side and I saw the south gate. He measured its jambs and its portico, and they had the same measurements as the others. The gateway and its portico had narrow openings all around, like the openings of the others. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide. Seven steps led up to it, with its portico opposite them; it had palm tree decorations on the faces of the projecting walls on each side. The inner court also had a gate facing south, and he measured from this gate to the outer gate on the south side; it was a hundred cubits.Then he brought me into the inner court through the south gate, and he measured the south gate; it had the same measurements as the others.Its alcoves, its projecting walls and its portico had the same measurements as the others. The gateway and its portico had openings all around. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide. (The porticoes of the gateways around the inner court were twenty-five cubits wide and five cubits deep.) Its portico faced the outer court; palm trees decorated its jambs, and eight steps led up to it.
Then he brought me to the inner court on the east side, and he measured the gateway; it had the same measurements as the others. Its alcoves, its projecting walls and its portico had the same measurements as the others. The gateway and its portico had openings all around. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide.Its portico faced the outer court; palm trees decorated the jambs on either side, and eight steps led up to it. Then he brought me to the north gate and measured it. It had the same measurements as the others,as did its alcoves, its projecting walls and its portico, and it had openings all around. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide.Its portico faced the outer court; palm trees decorated the jambs on either side, and eight steps led up to it. A room with a doorway was by the portico in each of the inner gateways, where the burnt offerings were washed.In the portico of the gateway were two tables on each side, on which the burnt offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings were slaughtered.By the outside wall of the portico of the gateway, near the steps at the entrance of the north gateway were two tables, and on the other side of the steps were two tables.So there were four tables on one side of the gateway and four on the other—eight tables in all—on which the sacrifices were slaughtered. There were also four tables of dressed stone for the burnt offerings, each a cubit and a half long, a cubit and a half wide and a cubit high. On them were placed the utensils for slaughtering the burnt offerings and the other sacrifices. And double-pronged hooks, each a handbreadth long, were attached to the wall all around. The tables were for the flesh of the offerings. (Ezekial 40:1-44)
So the above text presents us with a God who seems to be all about precision when it comes to temple measurements.
However, if one were looking for a straightforward answer on the appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children. Here the bible does not give a specific age. In terms of exact precision, you will not find an answer. You will, however, get some clues as to the physical question
“Myriads, like the plants of the field I have made you, and you have increased and grown, and you have come with perfect beauty, breasts fashioned and your hair grown, but you were naked and bare. And I passed by you and saw you, and behold your time was the time of love, and I spread My skirt over you, and I covered your nakedness, and I swore to you and came into a covenant with you, says the Lord, and you were Mine.” (Ezekial 16:7-8)
I let you grow like the plants of the field; and you continued to grow up until you attained to womanhood, until your breasts became firm and your hair sprouted. You were still naked and bare when I passed by you [again] and saw that your time for love had arrived. So I spread My robe over you and covered your nakedness, and I entered into a covenant with you by oath—declares the Sovereign GOD; thus you became Mine. (Ezekial 16:7-8)
So, in the above passage, God is speaking about a betrothal to the nation of Israel. God is noting the development of breasts and hair. The hair here means public hair. It was only then that God saw that her time of love had arrived. Thus, the signs of puberty were appropriate for betrothal.
“We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken for?” (Song of Solomon 8:8)
Little here can mean: least, lesser, little one, smallest, one, quantity, thing, younger,
Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” (Mark 5:41)
Much of the discussion around age is based upon social constructs.
In the United States, you can be 18 to go to war, fight and kill another human being. However, you cannot drink a beer until you are 21.
In the United States, it sets 14 as the minimum age of employment. So they must think an individual at the age of 14 is old enough to understand contractual agreements and that if you show up and work on time you will be paid x amount.
In the United States, you legally can leave your home without parental permission.
In Australia and Singapore, the age of consent is 16, meaning that anyone above the age of 16 can legally have sexual relations with a person who is 16.
In the United States, to travel abroad one can generally be 14 or 15. If you are younger You will need a letter from a parent or guardian.
In the United States, most states make it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to be out later than 10pm or 11pm on school nights.
Age at which someone can be tried as an adult in the United States. Some states allow minors as young as 10,12 or 13 to face adult charges.
Christians when they assail Islam do so under the pretext that one of the wives of the Blessed Prophet (saw) was prepubescent. Although they bring up age as if it is a factor. So if the individual is pubescent, then what?
Thus, any supposed argument they have against Islam collapses.
May Allah (swt) guide them out of the darkness and into the light.
May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah. May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.
“It is He who caused the Book to descend to you. In it are verses, that are (muḥkamāt) definitive. They are the essence of the Book and others, ones that are (mutashābihāt) unspecific. Then, those whose hearts are swerving, they follow what was unspecific in it, seeking discord (l-fit’nati) and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7).”
﷽
“Biologists as well as philosophers have suggested that the universe, and the living forms it contains, are based on chance, but not accident. To put it another way, forces of chance and of antichance coexist in a complementary relationship. The random element is called entropy, the agent of chaos, which tends to mix up the unmixed, to destroy meaning. The nonrandom element is information which exploits the uncertainty inherent in the entropy principle to generate new structures, to inform the world in novel ways.
Source: (Grammatical Man—Information, Entropy, Language, and Life by Jeremy Campbell. Page 15)
The intent of this entry is so that those who are among the Muslims who come into contact with adherents of the Hafs Qur’an Only religion can have some introspection with regard to their own position.
It is hoped that people may be able to look beyond the oversimplification of issues.
Our colleague was once listening to a lecture by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf where he mentioned that as Muslims we believe that the Creator is One, we believe the revelation is one; however, the revelation is being refracted through the prism of the human mind.
It reminded them of the famous cover of the Pink Floyd album “The Dark of the Moon.”
They found it an interesting point.
Clear has been defined as: 1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.
“clear and precise directions”
The quality of being clear, in particular.
The quality of coherence and intelligiblity.
Here are some examples of things that are clear but are they intelligible?
You will understand the meaning of the universe once the ball sings to Jill about the biz. Mace Windu understood the peanut butter sandwich using his clear signals so that the computer would jazz out to Dan Excalibur swimming passing the switchboard flying kites. Very funny though the syntax as he whizzed past the train, who was busy cramming algebraic thoughts into his fish tank.
The answer to five minus five is purple because pancakes don’t have bones.
Anyone familiar enough with the English language should be able to understand every word that we have typed above.
However, would anyone care to tell us what we were talking about above?
If the Qur’an is recited to people who do not understand the Arabic language is it clear to them?
The claim of the Qur’an is that it has has verses that are muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt
“It is He who caused the Book to descend to you. In it are verses, that are (muḥkamāt) definitive. They are the essence of the Book and others, ones that are (mutashābihāt) unspecific. Then, those whose hearts are swerving, they follow what was unspecific in it, seeking discord (l-fit’nati) and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7).”
To us, the Qur’an makes it clear that it is both clear and unclear. If it was not the case, it would not be possible to ‘fitna’ or discord with something that is clear. We have already stated that in other places one of the sure signs of a cult or sect among Muslims is that they will try and appeal to a ‘controversial’ verse, or a verse that is subject to many interpretations to base their case. This has happened many times, especially in matters of theology.
For example, the Qur’an has many verses that make it clear that those who enter the hellfire do not escape from it. However, there are one or two verses that could be interpreted contrary to this. Thus, instead of taking the multitude of verses that make it clear that the one who enters hellfire does not escape from it, the people of the opposition take those one or two verses that are not entirely clear, and they build their theology upon this.
Also notice that the above text says: “And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge.“
If a text or a revelation was clear in and of itself, it would not only be grasped by men of understanding but by anyone.
Often the Qur’an begins a chapter with something ambiguous and then affirms that it is clear.
Examples abound:
“Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the Book and a clear Qur’an.” (Qur’an 15:1)
“Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the Clear Book. Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 12:1-2)
“Ta, Seen, Meem. These are the verses of the Clear Book.” (Qur’an 26:1-2)
“Ta, Seen. These are the verses of the Qur’an and a clear Book“ (Qur’an 27:1)
“Ta, Seen, Meem. These are the verses of the Clear Book.” (Qur’an 28:1-2)
“Ha Meem, By the clear Book, (Qur’an 43:1-2)
“Ha Meem, By the clear Book, (Qur’an 44:1-2)
There is also something interesting here.
Allah (swt) informs us throughout the Qur’an that it is possible that his revelation may not be clear to people.
Examples:
“They ask you about intoxicants and gambling: say, “In them, there is a gross sin and some benefits for the people. But their sinfulness far outweighs their benefit.” They also ask you what to give to charity: say, “The excess.” Allah clarifies the revelations for you, that you may reflect,” (Qur’an 2:219)
“Do not marry idolatresses unless they believe; a believing woman is better than an idolatress, even if you like her. Nor shall you give your daughters in marriage to idolatrous men, unless they believe. A believing man is better than an idolater, even if you like him. These invite to Hell, while Allah invites to Paradise and forgiveness, as He wills. He clarifies His revelations for the people, that they may take heed.” (Qur’an 2:221)
“Allah thus explains His revelations for you, that you may understand.” (Qur’an 2:242)
“Do any of you wish to own a garden of palm trees and grapes, with flowing streams and generous crops, then, just as he grows old, and while his children are still dependent on him, a holocaust strikes and burns up his garden? Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you, that you may reflect.” (Qur’an 2:266)
“You shall hold fast to the rope of Allah, all of you, and do not be divided. Recall Allah’s blessings upon you – you used to be enemies, and He reconciled your hearts. By His grace, you became brethren. You were at the brink of a pit of fire, and He saved you there from. Allah thus explains His revelations to you, that you may be guided.” (Qur’an 3:301)
“O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they may even wish to see you suffer. Hatred flows out of their mouths and what they hide in their chests is far worse. We thus clarify the revelations for you, if you understand.” (Qur’an 3:108)
“They consult you; say, “Allah advises you concerning the single person. If one dies and leaves no children, and he had a sister, she gets half the inheritance. If she dies first, he inherits from her, if she leaves no children. If there were two sisters, they get two-thirds of the inheritance. If the siblings are men and women, the male gets twice the share of the female.” Allah thus clarifies for you, lest you go astray. Allah is fully aware of all things.” (Qur’an 4:176)
“Allah does not hold you responsible for the mere utterance of oaths; He holds you responsible for your actual intentions. If you violate an oath, you shall atone by feeding ten poor people with the same food you offer to your own family or clothing them, or by freeing a slave. If you cannot afford this, then you should fast for three days. This is the atonement for violating the oaths that you swore to keep. You shall fulfill your oaths. Allah thus explains His revelations to you, that you may be appreciative.” (Qur’an 5:89)
“Allah thus explains the revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Wise.” (Qur’an 24:18)
“O you who believe, permission must be requested by your servants and the children who have not attained puberty (before entering your rooms). This is to be done in three instances – before the Dawn Prayer, at noon when you change your clothes to rest, and after the Night Prayer. These are three private times for you. At other times, it is not wrong for you or them to mingle with one another. Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.” (Qur’an 24:58)
“Once the children reach puberty, they must ask permission (before entering) like those who became adults before they have asked permission (before entering). Allah thus clarifies His revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.” (Qur’an 24:59)
“The blind is not to be blamed, the crippled is not to be blamed, nor is handicapped to be blamed, just as you are not to be blamed for eating at your homes, or the homes of your fathers, or the homes of your mothers, or the homes of your brothers, or the homes of your sisters, or the homes of your fathers’ brothers, or the homes of your fathers’ sisters, or the homes of your mothers’ brothers, or the homes of your mothers’ sisters, or the homes that belong to you, and you possess their keys or the homes of your friends. You commit nothing wrong by eating together or as individuals. When you enter any home, you shall greet each other a greeting from Allah that is blessed and good. Allah thus explains the revelations for you, that you may understand.” (Qur’an 24:61)
“Know that Allah revives the land after it has died. We thus explain the revelations for you, that you may understand.” (Qur’an 57:17)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
All of these verses, if you removed the phrase ‘Allah thus explains/clarifies the revelations for you’, you could still get an understanding of the verses in question. However, Allah (swt) knows why He (swt) has decided to further elucidate on selected passages of the Qur’an.
Even when Allah (swt) says ‘We thus explain the revelations for you’ in the above passage about Allah (swt) giving life to the land after it has died, it doesn’t explain or clarify the ‘how’ of it. It simply says, ‘Know’.
Theological issues concerning the clarity of the Qur’an.
The Shafite Mutzalite ‘Abd al-Jabbar epitomized the Basra Mutazalite position on the principle of clarity. He declared that any form of delayed clarification was impossible not simply because Allah’s justice requires that he make his requirements known, but more importantly because his speech is his created act, and therefore must be good, from which it follows that his every utterance must fulfill its purpose of indicating his will.
This is a very important point that Shaykh Abd al-Jabbar has made. This is why we know many of the followerse of the Qur’an Only religion are in a very difficult situation theologically speaking.
According to the theory of meaning introduced by Shaykh Abu Ali al-Jubbai’ who was a Mutazalite rival of Shaykh Abd al-Jabbar, the meaning of an utterance is not simply a function of its verbal form, but also of the speaker’s will or intent.
Bottom line. If Allah cannot leave the meaning of his speech unclear, then he cannot leave humans without the evidence needed for reconciling seemingly conflicting texts. The fact that we lack evidence about which text came first must itself be evidence that the text should both be implemented, which is best accomplished by particularization. This is a strong logical proof for the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
In light of all of the above, would it not be fair to assert that this argument is oversimplified and the issue is a little more nuanced than that?
In fact, the clarity of the Qur’an is not internal to the Qur’an itself! It is dependent upon thoughtful reflection!
“Thus do We explain the verses for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 10:24)
The static you hear in an untuned or poorly tuned radio is the random background noise, but the coherent radio transmission signal within that noise requires a radio receiver to decode it.
The receiver performs several critical functions to achieve this:
Tuning: It selects a specific frequency from the myriad of radio waves the antenna picks up, filtering out others.
Amplification: It strengthens the weak incoming signal to a usable level.
Demodulation: This is the actual decoding step. The receiver separates the original information (such as sound or data) from the carrier wave that transported it.
Output: It converts the decoded electronic signal into an audible sound or viewable data.
The following verse that we are going to quote caused our colleague to drift off in thought. They mentioned that it was challenging to type this as their eyes welled up with tears, and their heart was overflowing in love for the Beloved Vessel (saw) that Allah (swt) gave such a monumental task to carry!
“If We had sent down this Qur’an upon a mountain, you would have seen it humbled and coming apart from fear of Allah. And these examples We present to the people that perhaps they will give thought. (Qur’an 59:21)
Subhan’Allah!
Our point is that the Blessed Messenger (saw) did not have the medium of his mind like we do when approaching the Qur’an with our limited human reasoning and capacity. The total and complete understanding of the Qur’an was poured into his heart. His heart and conscience were light. There is no prism, no spectrum when it comes to the Blessed Messenger. (saw)
Let us be honest for a second and ask ourselves. How many of us can say we have reached the state of total and complete submission in the way that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed (May Allah’s choicest blessings and peace be upon them all) did?
The Proof Is In the Pudding.
The very fact that there is now a proliferation of Qur’an only groups, each vying with each other, each with disparate understandings of a revelation that they in their approach to revelation says ‘is clear as day’.
So we end up with some groups saying the Qur’an requires us to pray 2 times a day, or 3 times a day, and some saying that there is no ritual prayer at all!
However, some of the Quraniyoon will just keep throwing their selective verses of choice at you again and again.
I think the point is missed. We as Muslims do not disagree with any verse of the Qur’an as being a revelation. We agree with the Qur’an does it say it ‘explains itself’ and that it is ‘clear’.
Part of that explanation and elucidation comes through the example of the Blessed Messenger (saw) himself.
“It is He Who raised up among the unlettered a Messenger from among them who recounts His signs to them and makes them pure and teaches them the Book and wisdom even though they had been before, certainly, clearly going astray.” (Quran 25:32)
Teaches them– wayuʿallimuhumu — when you teach or instruct someone you are doing more than simply relaying information. A teacher does not simply pass a student a book and say, ‘here you go‘.
Those who follow the Qur’an Onlyl religion will often claim that the Blessed Messenger is only a letter carrier. There is a deception in saying that his only duty is to convey the message.
Yet this is contradicted by the following:
Say, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then he is only responsible for his duty, and you are responsible for yours. And if you obey him, you will be ˹rightly˺ guided. The Messenger’s duty is only to deliver ˹the message˺ clearly.” (Qur’an 24:54)
“But if they turn away [Messenger], remember that your only responsibility is to deliver this revelation clearly.” (Qur’an 16:82)
The second part of instruction is would relate to things that need demonstration.
“When you are with them and you lead them in prayer, let one group of them pray with you—while armed. When they prostrate themselves, let the other group stand guard behind them. Then the group that has not yet prayed will then join you in prayer—and let them be vigilant and armed.” (Qur’an 4:102)
“Say, [O Muhammed], “If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
The above verse is conditional. The love of Allah (swt) is conditional upon love for the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“Certainly did Allah confer a favour upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them(wayuzakkihim) and teaching them (wayuʿallimuhumu) the Book and wisdom, although they had been before in manifest error.” (Qur’an 3:164)
It stands to reason that the Blessed Messenger (saw) could not ‘purify’ the believers if he himself was not purified!
teaching them (wayuʿallimuhumu) -it cannot be said that I am teaching anyone if I was simlpy just a mail carrier.
The Qur’an itself refutes this.
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is only responsible for conveying the message clearly.”(Qur’an 64:12)
The Blessed Messenger (saw) explained the message. That is the purpose of bayan. This is reflected in the words, deeds, and actions — what we know as the sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
To believe that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was not an expositor as someone who lived and imbibed the teachings of the Qur’an is difficult to fathom.
“O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger, making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” (Qur’an 5:15)
“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon their hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)
There are many people who read the Qur’an and it does not do anything to their hearts. That is because the Islam consist of accepting that Muhammed (saw) is the last of Allah’s Messengers. The Blessed Prophet (saw) is that light. So the people who read the Qur’an without that light they read the Qur’an in darkness.
There was no prism, no veil, and no lock upon the heart of the Blessed Messenger (saw)!
So is the Qur’an clear?
Allah (swt) has made it clear that the Qur’an has verses that are muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt.
“In it are verses, that are (muḥkamāt) definitive. They are the essence of the Book.” (Qur’an 3:7)
Then there are verses that are a trial.
“and others, ones that are (mutashābihāt) unspecific. Then, those whose hearts are swerving, they follow what was unspecific in it, seeking discord (l-fit’nati) and seeking its interpretation.” (Qur’an 3:7)
Even then this verse seems directed at the people who are hasty with the Qur’an as Allah (swt) admonishes the Blessed Prophet (saw).
High above all is Allah, the King, the Truth! Be not in haste with the Qur’an before its revelation to you is completed, but say, “O my Lord! advance me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
The Qur’an also makes it clear that it requires clarity. We see Allah (swt) himself has to come and introduce phrases such as, ‘Allah thus explains/clarifies the revelations for you’ as if otherwise it wouldn’t be clear.
The Qur’an makes it clear that the Blessed Prophet (saw) would explain the Qur’an and teach it to us.
“Indeed, Allah does not feel shy in citing any parable, be it that of a gnat or of something above it (in meanness). Now, as for those who believe, they know it is the truth from their Lord; while those who disbelieve say, “What could Allah have meant by this parable?” By this He lets many go astray, and by this He makes many find guidance. But He does not let anyone go astray thereby except those who are sinful.” (Qur’an 2:26)
“He it is Who has sent down the Book upon thee; therein are signs determined; they are the Mother of the Book, and others symbolic. As for those whose hearts are given to swerving, they follow that of it which is symbolic, seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7) -The Study Qur’an.
“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:7) -(Sahih International)
﷽
By the grace of Allah (swt) we have finally got around to writing this article. This is something we have been meaning to write about for some time now.
We asked some brothers to write their experiences of why they chose the Ibadi school or what drew them to the school. We were quite surprised at the re-telling of one story when we read the following:
“I read Ibadis take Qur’an seriously and don’t make tafsir of it to validate their personal prejudices. They believe only Allah knows the Qur’ans true meaning.”
We were really quite shocked and surprised by this. When we tried to correct the brother on this misunderstanding, he was rather recalcitrant. So we simply asked him where he got this information from.
To his credit, he cited the Qur’an 3:7. That is fine and good, but he did not cite any Ibadi sources, saying that only Allah knows the Qur’an’s true meaning. The reason he did not cite them is that none exist! There are no Ibadi sources stating this.
Second, simply using logic, we asked him what was the point of sending a revelation that no one will understand? That is an exercise in futility at best.
Finally, we pointed out to him that his contention (which is certainly not from the Ibadi) was in relation to the mutashabih.
For example, as we read to him the following:
“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are(muḥ’kamātun) decisive, they are the basis of the Book), and others are allegorical…” (Shakir’s translation)
muḥ’kamātun -which actually can be translated as clear. Or that which does not require further elaboration.
So, even then, we informed him that the muḥ’kamātun verses are certainly not verses in which anyone says that only Allah (swt) knows them. The dispute is rather about the mutashābihātun.
Mutashābihātun is often translated as unspecific, symbolic, allegorical, subject to more than one interpretation or understanding. So the center of dispute is around such verses.
The importance of punctuation.
So here we have two sentences:
I take great pleasure in eating my dog and my plants.
I take great pleasure in eating, my dog, and my plants.
The first sentence would leave the reader with the impression that a person takes great pleasure in eating their dog and their plants.
The second sentence would leave the reader with the impression that the person takes great pleasure in eating, as well as finding pleasure in having a dog and having plants.
This will give you an exhaustive list of different translations. The keen eye will note the following:
Translations that state that Allah and people grounded in knowledge know the meaning of the mutashabiha, such as:
“He it is Who has sent down the Book upon thee; therein are signs determined; they are the Mother of the Book, and others symbolic. As for those whose hearts are given to swerving, they follow that of it which is symbolic, seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7) The Study Qur’an.
Translations that state that only Allah knows the meaning of the mutashabiha such as:
“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:7) (Sahih International)
Translations that seem to be ambiguous on the matter due to their punctuation.
“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.” (Shakir)
“It is He who revealed to you the Scripture. Some of its verses are definitive—they are the foundation of the Book—while others are allegorical. Those with deviant hearts pursue the allegorical, seeking discord and seeking its interpretation. However, none knows its interpretation except God and those firmly grounded in knowledge say, “We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.” Only those endowed with understanding take heed.” (Talal Itani & AI 2024)
“It is God who has revealed the Book to you in which some verses are clear statements (which accept no interpretation) and these are the fundamental ideas of the Book, while other verses may have several possibilities. Those whose hearts are perverse, follow the unclear statements in pursuit of their own mischievous goals by interpreting them in a way that will suit their own purpose. No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All its verses are from our Lord.” No one can grasp this fact except the people of reason.” (Muhammed Sarwar)
So what is going on here?
Note that the verse states about the people who are firmly grounded/rooted in knowledge will say that: “We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.”
Note that the verse talks about some people who are hyper-fixated upon the mutashabiha.
“Then, as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation.”
Note that these people are not described as people of knowledge.
The first principle of interpreting the Qur’an is: Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)
The second principle is interpreting the mutashabi (unspecific, allegorical, subject to several interpretations) is to establish its meaning by that which is muḥ’kam (foundational, not requiring further clarity).
For example, the Blessed Prophet (saw) can bring elaboration and elucidation.
“With clear proofs and divine Books. And We have sent down to you the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them, and perhaps they will reflect.” (Qur’an 16:44)
So, when it comes to our faith, we do not base it upon that which is mutashabi. In fact, the beautiful point of this whole verse is not to muddy the waters but to give the believers a clear sign concerning the people of schism and aberrant doctrines. You will more often than not find misguided sects that will base their framework upon a verse(s) that is/are mutashabi. They base theological doctrines upon such.
The people of sound doctrine interpret the mutashabi in light of the muh’kam. Thus, those firmly grounded and rooted in knowledge of the muh’kam are the best capable of extrapolating the meaning of the mutashabi. Chief among them is the Noble Messenger (saw).
Which brings us to our first point.
If we are to understand Qur’an 3:7 as regarding the mutashbi verses that ‘no one can understand except Allah’ then it means those who hold such a position believe that Muhammed (saw), to whom the Qur’an was revealed did not even know the meaning of such verses.
This notion is refuted by the verse already mentioned:
“With clear proofs and divine Books. And We have sent down to you the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them, and perhaps they will reflect.” (Qur’an 16:44)
The Blessed Prophet (saw) would explain what has been revealed to them. What has been revealed to them is the Qur’an. If the Blessed Prophet (saw) did not understand it, no one ever would. Thus, we would be given a Qur’an in which much of it is concealed from us.
Also, this verse shows that the Blessed Prophet (saw) comprehended what was revealed to him:
“Exalted is Allah, The True King! Do not rush to recite the Quran before it is (yuq’da) conveyed as revelation (waḥyuhu) , and pray, “My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.”
Is it possible that the Qur’an can be concealed from us?
The answer to that is yes. The Qur’an itself mentions that, due to the sinful and/or arrogant nature of some human hearts, they will never be able to penetrate the Qur’an.
“And We place a covering on their hearts so that they do not comprehend it, and We cause a heaviness in their ears; and when you mention your Lord, the Only True Lord, in the Qur’an, they turn their backs in aversion” (Qur’an 17:46)
“And who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the verses of his Lord but turns away from them and forgets what his hands have put forth? Indeed, We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if you invite them to guidance – they will never be guided, then – ever.” (Qur’an 18:57)
“Will they then not (yatadabbarūna)meditate on the Qur’an, or are there locks on the hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)
“This is a Book which We have sent down to you, full of blessings that they may (liyaddabbarū) ponder over its Verses, and that (ulu l-albabi)men of understanding may remember.” (Qur’an 38:29)
It is also our contention that the muh’kam verses could have a mutashabi aspect to them which is brought about through tabbadur (reflection, pondering) and using the methods of sound tafsir that are available to us.
An example:
“None touch (yamassuhu) it except the (l-muṭaharūna) purified.” (Qur’an 56:79)
This verse is generally understood by the fuqaha (people of jurisprudence) as a reference to being clean when touching and handling the mushaf of the Qur’an. This makes sense, as reverence towards the sacred text is the obvious meaning.
However, we also know that there are people who are not clean who pick up and touch the Qur’an. Muslims who are not in a state of ablution and people like the demented Christian polemists that ate pages of the Qur’an or the U.S. military that would put the Qur’an into the toilet. (Surely they incurred the curse of Allah, and it remains upon them until they repent).
muṭaharūna-is also understood to mean angels.
Another way to understand the text of Qur’an 56:79 is to understand that yamassuhu is not like ‘yalmasuhu’.
So, for example, in the Qur’an we have:
“If something good ‘tamasakum’ (comes your way), it grieves them.” (Qur’an 3:120) This does not necessarily mean only to physically touch.
Also, in the preceding verse we have:
“In a well-preserved Record.” (Qur’an 56:78)
In this context, the purified (mataharuna) are indeed the angels and this refers to the Tablet in paradise.
That when it comes to the believers, there is an adaab (mannerism) in how we handle the sacred text.
That only those who are sincere and have purity of intention will be moved by this Qur’an and able, by Allah’s grace, find such meanings via reflection.
Point 3 describes such a state or condition of truth seekers among Christians.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”(Qur’an 5:83)
So when it comes to the reading of the Qur’an 3:7 there are two opinions on the matter.
One opinion says that the reader of the Qur’an should stop at: “But none knows its interpretation except Allah.” Then (after a brief pause) continue reading: “and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say.”
The second opinion is that one does not pause, but one should continue reading: “But none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say,”
So how did this difference come about?
Punctuation marks or (Rumuz al-Awqaf) were added by the scholars after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Diacritical marks (Tashkeel) to distinguish words or grammatical structures were added by scholars after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
ﻡ “This letter mim is an abbreviation of al-waqf al-lazim. It means if a stop is not made here, an outrageous distortion in the meaning of the verse is possible. So, it is better to stop here. Some phoneticians of the Qur’an have also called this al-waqf al-wajib or the obligatory stop. But this is not ‘wajib’ of fiqh, which brings sin if abandoned. In fact, the purpose is to stress that making a stop here is the most preferable of all stops (al-Nashr, 1/231).”
We find this al-waqf al-lazim in Qur’an 3:7 after “except Allah.” This was done with the intention of making the recitation of the Qur’an easier. These additional punctuations, though welcomed for ease of recitation, were neither given by Allah (swt) nor his Blessed Messenger (saw).
This is also something that follow the ‘Qur’an Only religion’ fail to grasp. That is the very textual history and transmission of the Qur’an.
“A. L. R. (This is) a Book, with verses that give judgement (uḥ’kimat) and these are expounded upon (fuṣṣilat) – from One Who is Wise and Well-acquainted (with all things).” (Qur’an 11:1)
An objection based upon improper understanding of the Arabic grammar and syntax.
Beyond the importance of punctuation.
The importance of understanding Arabic grammar and syntax and language!
One objection that is raised is usually by those who do not have a sound grasp of Arabic grammar, or syntax. That objection is as follows:
“But none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
So the objection is based upon their misunderstanding that Allah (swt) would not say: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
But this is not the proper understanding at all. The verse: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.” Is a reference to : “Those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.” and not to Allah (swt).
This was a conversation with a brother from the Zaydi school, and we pointed out to him a similar example to this in (Qur’an 18:80) but he has never replied to that point.
What point is that?
Let us give context to the verse:
“As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people, working at sea. So I intended to damage it, for there was a king ahead of them who seizes every ship by force. “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place. And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure for them, and their father had been righteous. So your Lord intended that they reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord. And I did it not of my own accord. That is the interpretation of that about which you could not have patience.”(Qur’an 18:79-82)
There are three points here:
Causing damage to the boat fa-aradttu (I intended)
The killing of the child and the subsequent replacement of fakhashina (we disliked) fa-aradna (we intended). A. Killing the child (he returns to himself)B. Allah replaces the child with another one. Killing is from Khidr and the Replacing is from Allah.
Causing the boys to reach maturity. Fa-arada rabbuka (Your Lord intended)
fa-aradttu 1st person singular
fakhashina 1st person plural perfect verb
fa-aradna 1st person plural
fa-arada 3rd person masculine singular
Not really having the depth of Arabic grammar or syntax, one can make these types of mistakes or rely upon this type of misunderstanding. May Allah help us.
A faulty argument used by our side against the other.
There has been a faulty argument that has been used by those of us who believe Qur’an 3:7 should be understood as: Allah and people grounded in knowledge know the meaning of the mutashabiha.
It is used to assail those who believe Qur’an 3:7 should be understood as: only Allah knows the meaning of the mutashabiha.
That argument goes like this.
To say that we believe in it, but we do not know what it means would be like saying we do not know what we believe.
This is not a fair argument against the other side. The reason being is that first, and foremost, there is no group among the Muslims that feel that they are unncertain about what they believe. We may dispute this. However, every group of Muslims are confident and certain about what the core tenets of their belief are.
Secondly, Allah (swt) could have such verses to leave us gobsmacked. Also, to humble us.
“But above those ranking in knowledge is the One All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 12:76)
Prima Qur’an concluding remarks.
It is not the position of the Ibadis school that only Allah knows the meaning of the Qur’an. You are not going to find this in any of the books by the Ibadi.
The difference in understanding of Qur’an 3:7 has to do with the Rumuz al-Awqaf (punctuation marks).
The dispute is not over the muh’kam but rather over who understands the mutashabi.
As the Blessed Prophet (saw) understood the whole of the Qur’an, it is not possible to render the reading as only Allah knows.
The people firmly rooted in knowledge are those who base their understanding upon the muh’kam.
The people whose hearts are given to perversity and deviation go straight to mutashabi.
The irony is that the understanding of this verse must fall under the category of muh’kam or else it would be mutashabi and thus all who give an understanding of it would be among the perverse. The self-refuting nature of this is evident.
With reflection and understanding that which is mutashabi can become muh’kam.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to him.
“Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and the One whom Cherishes, Who created” (Qur’an 96:1)
﷽
We have seen this issue raised by Christians repeatedly. We have also remembered Dr. Anis Shorrosh using it in his debate with Dr. Jamal Badawi. Debate: (Qur’an word of God or word of Muhammed?)
It is one of the reasons why we choose the Yusuf Ali translation above.
One could ask: what was God thinking?
You are approaching a man that is obviously illiterate, and you’re asking him to read, again and again….and yet again.
However, the narrative shows that the term ‘Iqra‘ can mean read (as from a book) or recite, or repeat (as in a repetition).
What we find fascinating is that the account of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and his receiving of the revelation are not found in the Qur’an. Rather, it is found in secondary sources. We think this is very profound.
In the Bible, we would read the historical bits, get some revelation as well as the thoughts of the narrators all mixed in together.
The very fact that the Qur’an does not have a detailed narrative of how the Blessed Messenger (saw) received the revelation speaks well for the Prophet (saw), the Qur’an, and the veracity of Islam.
In fact, it is one of the most remarkable things for us. Because we never hear in the Bible what that was like. What is that moment like when you encounter the divine? What is it like to know that you are being appointed as a Prophet of God? What is your mental state? How does that feel?
That has to be indescribable beyond words! Powerful!
In the Bible, we are just given the impression that one day the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to write, so he picked up his pen and off he went. Not really inspiring. Rather lackluster for a divine encounter.
“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammed], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.” (Qur’an 10:94)
Question: If Muhammed (saw) were in the habit of reading and writing, he wouldn’t need to ask the people of the book anything. He could simply go to their text for verification.
Now, this is, of course, assuming that they had their text with them.
However, the interesting thing about this passage is asking the Blessed Messenger (saw) to verify the truth outside the Qur’an or at the very least corroborate with what the divine directive was, by checking outside references.
No doubt those who follow the ‘Qur’an Only Religion’ would like to dismiss the dominant narrative for two reasons.
Our colleague was in an exchange with Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, @ our Beacon http://www.galaxydastak.com refuting the points he made that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was the one who wrote the Qur’an. Needless to say, he was banned from the forum for ‘not participating in the project’.
He was initially invited there by a friend and former teacher, Hamza Abdulmalik from IPCI. He believes his former teacher was testing the waters before he decided to leave Islam for the “Qur’an Only Religion“.
The two reasons that ‘Qur’an Only Religion’ would want to reject the dominant narrative are these:
The very first word ‘iqra‘ suggests that the Qur’an is composed in a language that has depth, nuances, clarity, and ambiguity. This takes the wind out of one of their sails. Namely, that the Qur’an is clear; which usually means “Agree with our interpretation.”
The very first word ‘iqra’ also suggests that the Qur’an would be transmitted through both written and oral means. The idea that the Qur’an would be transmitted orally is problematic to those who castigate oral transmission in its entirety.
Understand that point 2. above is their sole reason for making the claim that the Blessed Prophet (saw) wrote the Qur’an. It is because they do not like the idea of the Qur’an being preserved through oral transmission.
This might cause other uncomfortable thoughts like: “What else may be preserved through oral transmission?“
The “Qur’an Only Religion” does not like the historical narrative that has been passed down to us about how the Blessed Messenger (saw) received the revelation.
Let us see if their perspective holds true.
“Read in the name of your Lord Who created. He created man from a clot. Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,” (Qur’an 96:1-3)
If the Blessed Messenger (saw) is being asked to ‘read‘ rather than recite/repeat, where is this text at?
In other words, whoever is telling Muhammed (saw) to read, what exactly is he being asked to read? Is it a divine template? Is this an ethereal revelation that is appearing like a holographic image?
Wouldn’t it make sense to say, ‘write‘?
So let us deal with the next point.
“Who taught (to write) with the pen. Taught man what he knew not.” (Qur’an 96:4-5)
So the “Qur’an Only Religion” will say, “How can Muhammed be taught by the PEN if he cannot write?“
However, this assumes two things.
That this verse does not generally address the gift of literacy, which is a blessing from Allah (swt).
That Muhammed (saw) is the one being addressed here. After all, the verse does say, taught man (plural)…
. To suggest that the above verse is imperative. Meaning that Allah (swt) has taught every person to read that would be incorrect. Vast swathes of humanity still cannot read. The proliferation of literacy is a modern phenomenon.
“In honored sheets, exalted and purified, In the hands of scribes noble, virtuous.” (Qur’an 80:13-16)
It would have been a perfect occasion to say, “I will teach you the use of the pen, or I will teach you that which you know not.”
In fact, we never get an example of the Blessed Messenger (saw) reading the Qur’an to anyone. However, we do have examples of him reciting it.
“A messenger from Allah, reciting pure pages.” (Qur’an 98:2)
“Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur’an) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and promulgate it; but when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital’ (Qur’an 75: 16-19).
Why not ‘move not thy eyes‘ concerning the Qur’an?
Why not ‘move not thy pen‘ concerning the Qur’an?
It is interesting to note here that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was told to not be hasty in his recitation; nothing about ‘move not thy pen‘ concerning the Qur’an.
Now we are going to use a translation of the Qur’an that we think is one of the worst possible. Interestingly enough, this translation gets as close as is grammatically possible to supporting the proposition that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote the Qur’an.
So we are going to use a translation that actually favours our interlocutors (Qu’ran only Religion) in this regard.
“Neither did you (O Muhammed SAW) read any book before it (this Quran), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.” (Qur’an 29:48) – Muhsin Khan translation.
We would encourage the readers to see how this verse is translated from disparate translations from translators with disparate theological backgrounds etc…
The reason we chose the ‘Muhsin Khan’ translation above; is because it can give the impression that Muhammed (saw) didn’t read any book before the Qur’an; meaning he can now! Nor has he (saw) written any book (until now!!)…
So let us put our focus on the second part of this verse…
“In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.”
Let us say that for the sake of argument we take the understanding of those who claim the Blessed Prophet (saw) wrote the Qur’an. Meaning that, suddenly, Muhammed (saw) is now able to read and write.
How does that alleviate the doubt of unbelievers?
It seems the argument being made is that “Haha, you can’t doubt that the Qur’an is a product of Muhammed because he can read and write, and therefore wrote it!
Erm…….. (stares off blankly into space)….. are we missing something here?
What argument is that? Seriously?
We would encourage anyone to carefully read how “Qur’an Only Religion” will posture in regard to the above verse. They half quote it.
Let us look at some of their other claims.
“Moreover, they say, “Legends of the former peoples which he has written, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.” (Qur’an 25:5)
We actually found this argument to be very desperate. The fact that (unbelievers) alleged that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote down the Qur’an is now proof that he actually did write the Qur’an?
This is a specious argument for anyone who is intellectually honest.
“We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.” (Qur’an 16:103)
“Moreover, the Unbelievers would almost trip you up with their eyes when they hear the Message; and they say: “Surely he is possessed!” (Qur’an 68:51)
Let’s stop for a moment on this above claim. The claim that ‘he is possessed.’
This is a very fascinating and insightful claim against our Blessed Prophet (saw). The unbelievers ascribed to the Qur’an a supra natural origin. They were just not ready to say that it came from Allah. However, the fact that even they ascribed to it a supra natural origin is quite powerful.
Let us follow the fuzzy logic given to us by these people who claim that the Blessed Messenger (saw) could read and write the Qur’an.
So here it is:
Just because the (unbelievers) charged Muhammed (saw) with writing the Qur’an, does it also follow that a man taught him the Qur’an?
Just because the (unbelievers) charged Muhammed (saw) that he was possessed means that it is true?
So those people who make such claims would do well to remember it was non-Muslims who charged that the Prophet Muhammed (saw) wrote the Qur’an.
The first claim that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote the Qur’an came from (unbelievers). That is the company that followers of the ‘Quran Only‘ religion are in; not the company we would like to be in.
Another text they would use.
“And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), And then severed his life-artery.” (Qur’an 69:44-46)
There is certainly a lot to be desired in this translation.
Invented is taqawwala -this should have been translated as spoken
So this should read: “And if he had spoken some sayings over Us, We surely should have...”
seized him –la-akhadhna-can be translated as to take or to seize or to call to account.
his right hand-bil-yamini-can be translated as hand or oath.
So this should read: “And if he had spoken some sayings over Us, We surely should have seized him with power and might.”
Alternatively, it could read: “And if he had spoken some sayings over Us, We surely would have called him to account for his oath.”
The first part is how we understand the second part. If someone is speaking and saying it would make sense to say, ‘we seize him by his tongue.’
That is why that argument put forward by the ‘Hafs Qur’an Only Religion’ is easily dismissed. When someone is speaking lies, why is the attention directed towards the hand?
So let us take their understanding and translate it the way they want to: “We surely should have seized him by his right hand.”
Why doesn’t the text before it say:
“So if he had written false sayings concerning Us.”
“Had he uttered any other teachings.”-Rashad Khilafa
“Also, had he attributed anything falsely to Us.”-The Monotheist Group.
In fact, the only person trying to be sly among the Quraniyoon in their translation is Shabir Ahmed
“So if he had ascribed his sayings unto Us.” -Shabir Ahmed
Why handle the Qur’an in such a false manner? Why the deception? What is the agenda here?
Was the Qur’an only revealed to those who were literate? Even today, there are vast areas of the world where people cannot read and write. What of the situation in the past? What was the situation of slaves, farmers, and people from other trades?
How was a textual Qur’an distributed to all of these people? If that is the case, why is there a dearth of written Qur’anic material from the early period?
“However, if they turn away, you are responsible only for conveying the message clearly.” (Qur’an 16:82)
If the Blessed Messenger (saw) was writing the Qur’anand the Qur’an is clear, there would be no need for him to explain anything to anyone. He would simply tell them to refer to the book itself! Better yet to their own written copies, parchments, etc. I think we know better.
We think the idea that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote the Qur’an is both intellectually lazy and the result of wanting to skirt around the issue of the preservation through oral transmission of the Qur’an.
We think that issues are nuanced, and sometimes a little more academically challenging than we are ready to admit. Some answers are simply not microwavable.
Something else we want to point out. Was it possible that the Blessed Messenger (saw) learned to recognize and understand some words in the Arabic script over time? Of course!
When our colleague was the Executive Docent Officer at the Singapore Sultan Mosque and leading the ATMT (Awareness Through Mosque Tour) program, they used to have fun showing copies of the Qur’an to curious non-Muslims.
They would open a page of the Qur’an that had many usages of the word ‘Allah‘ in Arabic. They would point out the word. They would then ask them to find that word anywhere on the two pages. They did without fail! They asked them to read that word, and they said, ‘Allah’!
For example, they have highlighted the word ‘Allah’ in the Arabic text below. See if you can find at least 3 other examples of it.
This was a great interactive experience for our colleague and them. Our point here is that it’s possible that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was able to recognize words (after all they are simply symbols) and say or repeat what they mean.
“Neither did you (O Muhammed SAW) read any book before it (this Quran), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. If that was the case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.” (Qur’an 29:48)
“We sent them with clear proofs and the Zabur. And we revealed to you the message that you may make clear to mankind what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” (Qur’an 16:44)
﷽
This section will be on engaging the Pseudo-Islamic.
In particular this section of the blog will have all articles related to two Pseudo-Islamic movements.
The first being the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion.
THE HAFS QUR’AN ONLY RELIGION
It is important to understand that we believe that the adherents of the Hafs Qur’an only movement are a distinct religion in much as we respect the way the Baha’i movement is a distinct religion from Islam.
Insh’Allah this section will deal with common arguments among the federation of sects that are known collectively as the ‘Qur’anist’.
This section will be refuting their many bold assertions; as well as showing why this particular attempt to re-interpret Islam and make it altogether different religion is deeply flawed.
Now why are they called the Hafs Qur’an only view? These people will either out of ignorance about the transmission and textual history of the Qur’an refer to their platform as ‘Qur’an Only’ or Quraniyoon. However, the Hafs Qur’an did not fall out of the sky. Thus, is important for them to reflect on why so much foundational trust is put into the men that transmittedthe Hafs Qur’an to the exclusion of all other transmissions of the Qur’an.
At the core of this religion of theirs is a massive epistemological problem.
In regard to approving comments from followers of the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion we have taken seriously the verse of the Qur’an: “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” (Qur’an 5:2)
Thus, they would do well to read the article listed below: Is the Qur’an a detailed explanation of all things? to understand the policy on this website that keeps them as well as us from sinning and keeps them consistent with in their worldview. Insh’Allah.
THE QADIANI MOVEMENT Also known as AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT is a divided movement, split into two competing jama’at or congregations. That is the LAHORI whom we refer to as The Ahmadiyya A and the QADIANI whom we refer to as the Ahmadiyya B.
As the Qadiani or Ahmadiyyah B believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a Prophet after The Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have been marked as being outside the millat of Islam. Likewise, they (the Ahmadiyyah B) or Qadiani have made anyone outside of their jama’at to be kafirs. Though, their is some tongue in cheek wordplay see their website. Source: (https://www.alislam.org/articles/are-non-ahmadis-muslim-or-non-muslim-ahmadiyya-muslim-perspective/)
To the dismay of the Muslim Ummah, The Qadiani have a Khalifa, named MIrza Masroor Ahmed, he lives in Tilford, United Kingdom, where he pays taxes to the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali were not known to have paid taxes to a Non Muslim government.
For future reference all articles addressed to either of the above movements will be found under: AHL AL-QIBLA / AHL AL-KHILAF under: Engaging with the Pseudo-Islamic:
Refutation that oral traditions came 300 years after the Prophet.
Even though they used to say that the hadith -oral traditions came some 300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw). Praise be to Allah the more educated among them have backed away from that claim. However, this article is here because many in that movement may be unaware.
See Harold Motzki (a Non-Muslim orientalist and academic) who made short work of that Quranist claim
Does the Qur’an itself tell us to reject all hadith?
This article is a nail in the coffin for the entire movement. Some from their movement have commented but ended up leaving in frustration. It looks at their arguments and misquotations of the Qur’an. Also given in this article is an irrefutable example of Allah confirming a hadith to the Blessed Messenger [saw].
Did the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) write the Qur’an?
Our colleague had written a refutation like this many years ago on the ‘Qur’an only‘ web site known as http://www.ourbeacon.com/ or it used to be known as ‘GalaxyDastak‘. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed founder of the forum had me banned. This was also the last our colleague heard from their former teacher Hamza AbdulMalik. Hamza AbdulMalik used to be the director of IPCI international until he dropped off the radar and re-emerged as a Quranist.
Well, our colleague may have been removed from the forum but here is the refutation of their arguments for all to see here:
A pre-eminent argument used by ‘Quranist’ ripped to shreds By Dr. Jeffery Lang.
The most oft-quoted verse used by Quranist is analyzed and ripped apart by a Muslim convert, academic, and professor of math, Dr. Jeffery Lang.
This is a centerpiece argument used by Edip Yuksel, Sam Gerrans, “Joseph Islam”, Rashad Khilafa, Shabir Ahmed and the lot of them. The reason why this argument is especially devastating coming from someone like Dr. Jeffry Lang is that Dr. Lang is critical of the hadith corpus as we have it today.
The following is a look how Quranist have both misunderstood the word hikma as a reference to the Qur’an and how they do not understand that it is something that Allah gives his messengers to deal with situations and context not immediately addressed by the revelations they were given.
Hating a hadith just for the sake of hating a hadith.
This article a hypothetical question is posed. What if a particular ahad hadith turned out to be correct? Especially one that is of a scientific nature? What would the Quranist do in such a scenario?
Salaat in the Qur’an is not ritual prayer? Examining the claim of some Quranist.
This article looks at one Quranist claim that salat is not ritual prayer. This is what happens when you abandon the understanding of the Blessed Messenger and follow the ‘every man for himself’ approach of the Quranist.
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
We have the principle of al-walāya (allegiance) and al-barā’a (disavowal), which are either general or specific. The specificity is either established by truth through a text from the Book of Allah and direct hearing from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. Or apparent through observation, acknowledgment, testimony of just witnesses, or evident truth supported by proof. If someone’s status is unclear, one should refrain from including them in al-walāya or al-barā’a. No one is definitively assigned to Paradise or Hell except those who are in the state of true allegiance and true disavowal, as established by a text from the Book of Allah and direct hearing from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.
The Companions and others are equal in this principle, except that the default for the Companions is al-walāya (allegiance) only.
Allah’s rulings encompass everyone, and no one is above the ruling of Allah Almighty.
The status of the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The position of our school is not in agreement with those who call themselves the people of the Sunnah. Their position is that all the companions are considered just and righteous.
However, our school is not built upon the praise of anyone other than the Blessed Prophet (saw). Nor is it built upon the cursing of anyone other than Iblis and his minions.
We can console ourselves with the noble verse of the Qur’an:
“That is a nation which has passed on. It will have [the consequence of] what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 2:141)
For the layperson and the laity, the default position is one of wuqoof. This means pausing or to stop on anyone we are not certain of. It is based upon insufficient data. This is the position of the vast majority of people in our school, as the vast majority are the laity.
That is to say they are in wuqoof with all those companions in which there is some dispute about their status in our school. Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubayr, for example.
They need not concern themselves with these disputes that happened among the companions. However, the scholars or those who have studied under them take various positions based upon what they feel is sufficient data. That sufficient data may lead them to disavow a companion or to put a companion in guardianship.
What is also important is that everyone in our school ascribes to general friendship as well as general dissociation. So, no matter the conclusions we reach based upon apparent evidence, our friendship or dissociation is with people based upon reality.
What does this mean in a practical sense?
Example 1
You put person A in Bara’ah based upon some apparent evidence. Based upon the current condition of person A.
However, since you declared the Walayah al-Jumlah and that person had a good ending, they are in wilayah with you in reality.
You made an ijtihad based upon the conditions of the person that were apparent to you at the time.
Example 2
You put person A in Walayah based upon some apparent evidence. Based upon the current condition of person A.
However, since you declared the Bara’ah al-Jumlah and that person had a bad ending, they are in bara’ah with you in reality.
You made an ijtihad based upon the conditions of the person that were apparent to you at the time.
How to declare the intention for the general wilayah and the general bara’ah?
Walayah al-Jumlah – The general or common friendship.
One declares (you reading this can declare now.) “I ally with every single person among mankind and jinn who ever lived or ever will live that is righteous.”
Bara’ah al-Jumlah – The general or common dissociation.
One declares (you reading this can declare now.) “I disown every person among mankind and jinn whoever lived or ever will live that will be among the denizens of hellfire.”
It is to say in your heart: Anybody Allah loves, I love him. Anyone whom Allah hates, I hate them.
Thus, if Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubayr fall into either category, we have already declared our love for them or a disavow of them based upon reality.
How many are those who declare with their tongues that which is not in their hearts?
“They were closer to disbelief than to belief on that day—for saying with their mouths what was not in their hearts. Allah is All-Knowing of what they hide.” (Qur’an 3:167)
How can an individual be both in walayah and bara’ah with the righteous?
Possible scenario.
Person A left Gwadar Port. The people of that place know person A to be upright and fair dealing. However, Person A, when he arrives in Port Bell, is known to swindle and cheat people.
The righteous people at Gwadar port judge based upon his outward actions. The righteous at Port Bell judge based upon his outward actions.
The actions of the person in Port Bell never reach the people of Gwadar port.
Walayah and Bara’ah are ultimately not about personal relationships.
Allah is always the focus!
Whether it is a relationship between yourself and another person. Or a relationship between person A and person B. You are neither person A nor person B.
Example: You have someone who is very close to you. Your mother, your father, or even your child. You love this person. You have familiar ties to that person. However, if this person is a sinner. They would be in bara’ah for the duration of the time they indulge the sin. It has nothing to do with your relationship to them at any given moment and everything to do with their relationship to Allah at any given moment.
Example: There is a tyrant ruler. This tyrant ruler gives everyone their full rights. This person prays the five daily prayers. However, he gets drunk. He drinks alcohol. In this case, do you ally with him or dissociate from him? Even though he treats you well and gives you your full rights. Because he drinks alcohol in that condition, he is an enemy of Allah (swt). He will be so for the duration of the time he spends doing so. Your relationship with this ruler may be cordial, but you disown him because it has nothing to do with your relationship to him at any given moment and everything to do with his relationship to Allah at any given moment.
Example: A fellow Muslim for whom, whatever reason, you do not like. Human beings can be fickle. Maybe it is the way they laugh or anything at all you personally find fault with. However, that person prays, fasts and does not commit any sins that you are aware of. No matter your personal feelings towards this person, you must ally with them. They are in wilaya with you, and you cannot put this person in bara’ah based upon personal feelings or a whim. That is because it has nothing to do with your relationship between him and you at any given moment and everything to do with his relationship to Allah at any given moment.
This is more about recognizing the rights of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) reigns supreme over all his creation.
You might be interested to read our other articles on the subject here:
“Then learned Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 2:35-37)
“Say, “Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 6:164)
﷽
“Then learned Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 2:35-37)
The above touching heartfelt verse teaches us original forgiveness.. We know that he was forgiven because it was Allah that taught Adam the very words by which to seek reconciliation with The Divine!
Allah! Ar Rahman Ar Raheem! Allah!!!! Most Merciful!!!! The Ever Compassionate!!!!
After he learned to turn towards Allah (swt), he was forgiven. That is it. Full stop!
There is no sin through which death entered the world, causing amoebas and single-celled organisms and everything else to die because of this person’s actions!
Now, dear respected reader, what you read is two different accounts of what happened with Adam and Eve.
You are not reading a Muslim response to Genesis chapter 3. We want to make that very clear.
What you are reading is what God has revealed in the Qur’an.
The choice you need to make is to discern which of these two accounts is true. The account as given by God in the Qur’an or the account as given in Genesis chapter 3.
It is important for you as a Christian, dear reader, to understand that the concepts of Original Sin, Inherited Sin, Total Depravity, Limbo, God Incarnate, the idea of God sending a ‘Son’, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, Vicarious Atonement, Justification by Faith, Paul’s letters and the entirety of the New Testament all have their basis in Genesis chapter 3.
There is no need for Muslims to engage in any of these other beliefs, because if what God revealed in the Qur’an about Adam and Eve is correct, then all of these Christian beliefs that have their basis in Genesis chapter 3 are in and of themselves irrelevant.
Genesis chapter three is all that stands between Islam and Christianity.
One chapter in the entire Bible is all that separates Islam and Christianity.
If it was not for that chapter in the Bible there would be no Christianity.
That particular chapter gives us the following:
Original Sin
Inherited Sin
Total Depravity
Limbo
The concept of God Incarnate
The need for God to send His Son
The Crucifixion
The Resurrection
Vicarious Atonement
Justification By Faith
Paul’s Letters
The New Testament as a whole.
Adam and the events that unfolded in the Garden of Eden is such a central theme in Christology and if we were to juxtapose the events as related by Genesis chapter 3 with what is revealed in the Qur’an, we will be able to get a deeper appreciation of what is central that divides the two faith traditions.
We will also find out that which brings much needed clarity.
Let us begin with the question:
Who truly committed The First Sin?How does sin enter into the universe?
What does sin mean?
Christians define sin as transgression, lawlessness, and missing the mark.
The first issue to clear up is that Christians are absolutely forced to agree with Muslims on this.
The first sin, missing the mark or transgression against Allah, was done by a non-human entity!
In Christian theology, it is an X-Angel named Lucifer.
In Islamic theology, it is a Jinn named Iblis.
Either way, it was not Adam or Eve (May Allah’s peace be upon them both) that erred first.
“So behold, We said to the angels: “Bow down to Adam: “And they bowed down: not so Iblis: he refused and was arrogant: he was of those who reject Faith. We said: “O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Garden, and eat of the bountiful things in that respect as you will, but approach not this tree, or you will run into harm and transgression.”(Qur’an 2:30-37)
Sin enters into the universe via beings created with sovereign choice.
The sovereign choice to obey or to submit to the will of God.
So the position of Islamic theology is clear. Howeve, have you ever read any text anywhere in the Bible that makes the claim that Satan was an X-Angel named Lucifer and that he rebelled against Allah?
There is no such text anywhere in the Bible at all! It is a fable that came into Christian circles from apocryphal sources. The best attempt at trying to glean such a view comes from the following:
“How have you fallen from heaven, the morning star? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.” (Isaiah Chapter 14:12)
What did Protestant reformer John Calvin have to say about this text?
“How art thou fallen from heaven! Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; 220 and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.”
As Calvin rightly states, it is a metaphor. Otherwise, we have the very awkward situation of calling Jesus ‘Lucifer’ as Lucifer simply means “Morning Star” or a reference to Venus — a star that outshines the others.
Jesus is called “Lucifer” or Morning Star in the following verse in the Bible.
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” (Revelations 22:16)
There are two other texts that Christians often appeal to as well:
“And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” (Luke 10:18)
This text says nothing about Satan being an X-Angel or that his name was Lucifer etc.
“So war broke out in heaven and Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon and his angels, and the Dragon and his angels prevailed not.” (Revelation 12:7)
This is possibly the closest text as it does mention angels waring with each other in heaven. Yet this text does not mention angels becoming X-Angels, but rather angels at war with each other.
At the very least, the Christian book of Revelation and the Qur’an both point to the fact that a non-human(s) was(were) the first to transgress or sin against Allah; however, there are major points of difference in the two theologies.
In Christian theology, an X-Angel rebelled against Allah. However, in Islamic theology it was a Jinn. In Islamic theology, angels do not go against the divine plan. There is a race of beings known as the Jinn that can go against the divine plan.
So the first question here would be: Why is there not a doctrine of salvation for fallen angels? In Islam, we know that the Qur’an was sent to save humanity and the Jinn.
“So when we (Jinn) heard the guidance, we believed in it. And whoever believes in his Lord will not fear deprivation or burden.” (Qur’an 72:13)
“And We have sent you not but as a mercy for the ‘Alamin.” (Qur’an 21:107)
‘Alamin (mankind, jinn, and all that exists beyond)
“You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.” (James 2:9)
So, in Islam, any being that sins against Allah (swt) can repent and reconcile with Allah (swt).
“By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out of darknesses into the light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path.” (Qur’an 5:16)
The second question would be: Who wants to go to a heaven where wars break out? I mean people constantly deride the Qur’an for its metaphorical usages of women and wine in paradise; yet the Christian heaven is one of intrigue, assassination attempts, and wars!!!
In Islamic theology, the fall of Iblis (not the fall of humanity) fits logically into the greater picture of Allah’s wisdom.
However, we want to know in Christian theology what is to prevent the next disgruntled angel from trying to create wars and strife in heaven?
Finally, the Qur’an gives us a teaching of original forgiveness!! Allahu Kareem (Allah is Most Generous)
Though Adam did transgress, he was not the first transgressor.
The story of Adam, Eve and the Garden as compared/contrasted by Genesis chapter 3 and the Qur’an.
The whole Genesis account gives us a picture of a capricious divine being that lacks attributes of mercy, wisdom, justice or foreknowledge.
Again, dear truth seeker, contrast again the accounts in Genesis and the Qur’an.
“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:5-7)
Now, this does not sound like a divine plan at all. This sounds like a plan going terribly wrong.
How can a person find hope in the Christian tradition when Allah himself is in despair?
To attribute despair and regret to Allah is an affront to divine sovereignty and to the understanding that Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.
Contrast dear reader the absolute lack of sovereignty, will, and divine foreknowledge as given in the above passage with what Allah has revealed to us in the Qur’an.
“Behold, your Lord said to the angels: “I will create a vicegerent on earth.” They said: “Will you place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- while we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify your sanctity?” He said: “I know what you know not.” (Qur’an 2:30)
“So set your purpose for the way of life aligned with humanity’s upright nature – the nature (framed) by Allah, in which He has created humanity. There is no altering of the work wrought by Allah. That is the correct way of life, but most men do not know.” (Qur’an 30:30)
The angels look at the crude form of humanity and immediately see the capacity for violence. Also, notice that the angels are basically saying that they praise and worship Allah (swt) as is so what possible purpose does humanity serve?
The response of Allah (swt) is “I know what you know not.” That was a sufficient response to the angels. In other words, there is a plan for humanity.
You should know, dear reader, that in the order of Creation in Islam there are four types of creation with regard to will (choice).
Two in the unseen world.
Angels which oscillate at frequencies of pure light. They do not go against their nature. Thus, there is no concept of fallen angels in Islam.
Jinn are beings which are made from a fire that does not emit smoke. These beings can go against their nature and go against the divine plan.
Two in the natural seen world.
Animals, plants and other living creations that do not go against their nature.
Humanity can go against nature and go against the divine plan.
The first point of agreement between Christianity and Islam concerning Adam and Eve is that they were both blameless and sinless. They also had to have in some sense had the faculties of reasoning and understanding in order to understand commands and prohibitions.
The whole of Christianity is based upon Genesis chapter 3.
That one chapter presents to humanity a bizarre picture of The Divine Being and human destiny. It is the very foundation upon which Christian theology is built.
Whereas the Islamic Theological position is simply surrendering to the will of Allah. Adam and Eve slipped, they were reprimanded and ultimately forgiven.
Whereas in Christology, Adam and Eve were placed in the company of their mortal enemy with absolutely no heads up and no warning!
Can you imagine what kind of loving father puts their children in a garden with a shape-shifting entity intent on hurting the children and when the shape-shifting entity ends up duping the children, not only are the children punished but the whole of humanity is culpable for their slip?
Contrast this with what Allah revealed in the Qur’an.
“Did I not forbid you from the tree and tell you that Satan is to you a clear enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22-23)
“So We cautioned, “O Adam! This is surely an enemy to you and to your wife. So do not let him drive you both out of Paradise, for you would then suffer hardship.” (Qur’an 20:177)
“We cautioned, “O Adam! Live with your wife in Paradise and eat as freely as you please, but do not approach this tree, or else you will be wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:35)
Adam and Eve were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why?
Adam and Eve had sovereign free will.
Adam and Eve were not alone. They had an agent provocateur.
We can see that Allah clearly gave warning to Adam and Eve about their enemy and disobeying Allah. In fact, due to this warning about an adversary in Islam, Adam and Eve are more culpable than they are in the Christian tradition!
Whereas in Genesis 3 there is no indication of any agent provocateur at all! It’s as if Adam and Eve were walking into an ambush!
“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.” (Genesis 1:31)
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.”(Genesis 3:1)
All that God creates is very good. God created snakes (serpentes) that were very good and very crafty at the same time?
Not only this, but to show you this vengeful portrayal of the Divine has whole entire species (serpentes) or snakes condemned simply because a shape-shifting entity imitated one of their kind!
“So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:14)
So even more bizarre is the fact that Satan doesn’t get punished at all in Genesis chapter 3. It is the entire species of snakes (serpentes) that get punished instead!
“Allah said, “Descend, both of you, from here together ˹with Satan˺ as enemies to each other. Then, when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance will neither go astray ˹in this life˺ nor suffer ˹in the next˺. (Qur’an 20:123)
What was the snake’s method of locomotion before it was to “crawl on it’s belly?”
Why wouldn’t Allah know that Satan was either a shapeshifter who appeared as a snake (serpentes) or that Satan made it appear that a snake (serpentes) was speaking to them?
It doesn’t justify a punishment upon a whole suborder of animals, namely snakes (serpentes).
So none of this is good! None of this is an accurate portrayal of A Wise and Judicious Creator working in this world. None of this is an accurate portrayal of the attributes of mercy, wisdom, justice, foreknowledge, or will at all!
The whole Genesis account gives us a picture of a capricious divine being that lacks attributes of mercy, wisdom, justice or foreknowledge.
Again, dear truth seeker, contrast again the accounts in Genesis and the Qur’an.
“The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:5-7)
Now, this does not sound like a divine plan at all. This sounds like a plan going terribly wrong.
How can a person find hope in the Christian tradition when Allah himself is in despair?
In the Christian tradition, the agent provocateur is not immediately punished. Rather, wrathful punishment is given to an entire suborder of animals, namely snakes (serpentes).
To a Muslim reading and reflecting on this, it all seems very bizarre and even a case of misplaced judgement.
As Allah says in the Qur’an:
“My mercy has encompassed everything.” (Qur’an 7: 156).
Allah (swt) never states that his wrath encompasses everything but his mercy does.
You cannot imagine anything not benefiting from His mercy; otherwise, nothing could have come to existence, and even if so, nothing could have survived.
Even the fact that Satan is able to continue his life is due to Allah’s mercy. When Satan insisted on his wrong behaviour and was cursed, he requested Allah to be given time until the day of Resurrection:
“My Lord. Respite me until the day they will be resurrected.” (Qur’an 15:36)
Allah replied:
“You are indeed among the reprieved until the day of the known time.” (Qur’an 15:37-38)
The very role of Satan/Iblis as laid out in the Qur’an.
He said: “Since you have let me wander off, I’ll waylay them along Your Straight Road; then I´ll come at them from in front of them and from behind them, on their right and on their left. You will not find that most of them are grateful.” (Qur’an 7:16-17)
The whole point of Iblis, the arch enemy of mankind is to show that most of us (humanity) will be kaffir (ungrateful) to Allah (swt).
“And incite whoever you can of them with your voice, mobilize against them all your cavalry and infantry, manipulate them in their wealth and children, and make them promises.” But Satan promises them nothing but delusion.” “You will truly have no authority over My servants.” And sufficient is your Lord as a Guardian.” (Qur’an 17:64-65)
“Allah said, “This is the Way, binding on Me: you will certainly have no authority over My servants, except the deviant who follow you,” (Qur’an 15:41-42)
What is it that Allah makes obligatory on himself? To give certain of his creations choice.
“Allah responded, “Be gone! Whoever of them follows you, Hell will surely be the reward for all of you—an ample reward.” (Qur’an 17:63)
Genesis chapter 3. The Origin of Wrath or the Origin of Forgiveness? Is the woman to blame or are Adam and Eve both culpable?
Apparently, according to the Book of Genesis, after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of good and evil and had a conversation with Allah, they were quite cavalier about the whole ordeal.
Whereas Allah tells us in the Qur’an that the progenitors of the human race were more sensible, whereas they said:
“They said, “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves, and if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we will surely be among the losers.” (Qur’an 7:23)
“Then Adam learned from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 2:35-37)
This is the teaching of original forgiveness, and we know that he was forgiven because it was Allah that taught Adam the words by which to seek reconciliation with the divine.
Also, of note that in Islamic theology both Adam and his wife were deceived and both asked for forgiveness, and they were both forgiven. Whereas in Christian theology the woman is the one who was deceived.
“And he succeeded in deceiving them. As soon as the two had tasted [the fruit] of the tree, their nakedness became obvious to them, and they started covering themselves with leaves from the Garden. Their Lord called to them, “Did I not forbid that tree to you and tell you, ‘Satan is your clear enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22)
“And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:14)
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. (Genesis 3:6-7)
Now pay attention to the above text. The woman was apparently duped by the Snake (Serpentes). However, when she took the fruit and ate it didn’t she realize immediately that she was naked so that she could warn her husband?
Apparently not. The text allows for interpretative story telling. Such that Eve got the fruit (she hadn’t eaten it yet) and then brought some to Adam. They began to eat together and had the joint discovery together. Yet, this is where the text is extremely hurtful to women in a way that the Qur’an never is.
The question now arises.
Did Eve just give Adam the fruit without telling him what it was? Or did Eve tell Adam where that fruit was from, and he ate it anyway?
The text simply does not say.
Imagine a man who steals a fruit from a garden, and he gives it to another man to eat that fruit. In Christian theology, both the man who stole the fruit and the one who ate it are guilty. However, in Islamic theology, as long as the man who eats the stolen fruit is unaware that the fruit is stolen, he is not guilty of eating stolen fruit.
So, in Christian theology, Adam is punished for a sin he very well could have been unaware of! Islamic theology does not allow this type of ambiguity. Especially, in regard to the severity of the consequences of such an action in Christian theology.
The nature of death and dying in Christianity and Islam. Are human beings culpable for the sin and errors of others?
“And no burdened soul can bear another’s burden. And if one weighed down by a burden calls another to carry his load, naught of it will be carried, even though he be near of kin. You warn only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer. And whoever purifies himself purifies himself only for his own good. And to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Qur’an 35:18)
Contrast this with:
“For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being: For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life.” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people because all sinned. To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.” (Romans 5:12-14).
Death and the nature of death.
“He is the One Who created you from clay, then appointed a term ˹for your death˺ and another known only to Him ˹for your resurrection˺—yet you continue to doubt!” (Qur’an 6:2)
“We settle whatever We will in the womb for an appointed term, then bring you forth as infants, so that you may reach your prime. Some of you die earlier, while others are left to reach the most feeble stage of life so that they may know nothing after having known much.” (Qur’an 22:5)
“He brings you out as an infant, then causes you to grow into full maturity, and then causes you to grow further so that you may reach old age, while some of you He recalls earlier. All this is in order that you may reach an appointed term and that you may understand.” (Qur’an 40:67)
“His is the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He gives life and causes death, and He is over all things competent.”(Qur’an 57:2)
Allah is the giver of death, the taker of life. One of the names of Allah is the Taker of Life.
Because Allah is also the giver of life.
“Say, “Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever name you call -To Him belongs the best names.”(Qur’an 17:110)
“For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)
Prima Qur’an Comment: “The wages of sin is death.” So because of what Adam and Eve did not only does this sin get transferred to every newborn child, but amoebas, single-celled organisms, insects, fish, and every type of living thing dies because of this.
This peculiar doctrine leads one to reflect on some of the following points:
What kind of world would there be if nothing died?
Surely if Allah created predatory animals there would be animals that would be the prey?
If Allah ordered Adam and Eve to eat all the fruit, surely the fruit would ‘die’ once it was removed from said tree or plant?
What would be the population of the planet if nothing died?
Al hamdulilah! We as Muslims do not have such a bizarre and unnatural doctrine. Death is a natural part of life. In fact, we as Muslims believe that Allah (swt) is Al Hayyu (The Ever Living).
What would be the point of calling Allah ‘The-Ever-Living’ if all living things were to be ‘Ever-living’ as well?
The very fact that Allah, God, is ‘The Ever Living’ in and of itself shows you that the nature of everything else is opposite to that. This includes Adam.
Death is a contrast to life so that we understand the sacredness of life, the sanctity of life, and to appreciate the limited time we have been given to live on such a beautiful planet that offers many delights.
There is an entire Goth subculture in the West. They see death as something beautiful.
There is beauty in things not lasting and a peace in knowing that everything is in transition. It causes one to embrace the moment and to cherish the now. Perhaps more than the busy denizens of the city, the goth appreciates the currency of time, and they understand that, perhaps more than most, one must spend it wisely.
One of the contributors to Primaquran, ‘Abd al-Mumit’ chose this name because of this very fact.
There is no eternal permanence except Allah.
If Christians claim that Adam’s death was a ‘spiritual death‘, you have to reflect on the following:
Why is there absolute silence on Adam’s reconciliation to Allah in the Book of Genesis?
In light of Adam’s knowledge of the tree of ‘good and evil‘, why does the Bible portray Adam and Eve as so cavalier regarding their spiritual estrangement from Allah?
Adam is such a central figure, especially in Christology, and we hear nothing more than that he had some children and then died.
The deity of divine forgiveness and restoration for all or the deity of divine wrath, making pain and suffering the path of redemption for the few.
The God that desires that we are sincere, that we repent with a contrite heart and gives opportunity after opportunity for man to reform.
“It is not their flesh, nor their blood, reaches Allah, but it is your piety that reaches him. Thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah for guiding you. And give good news to those who do good.” (Qur’an 22:37)
This statement from the Qur’an is very important. Accordingly, the first idea of blood sacrifice goes back to the story of Cain and Abel.
The Biblical Version:
“Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time, Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favour on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering, he did not look with favour. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” (Genesis 4:1-7)
The Version in the Qur’an:
“Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! They each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. He said: I will most certainly slay you.”Surely,” said the former, “Allah does accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.” (Qur’an 5:27)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Notice that in both accounts we are not told of the treachery that one of the brothers did. In fact, up until the point of murder, whatever he did that estranged him from his Lord was kept as a personal matter between him and God.
The Christians get the idea [with absolutely no proof] that Allah favoured Abel’s sacrifice because he brought Allah some fat — a sacrifice from one of his flock. Whereas, according to the Christians, Allah didn’t like the vegetables that Abel brought.
Now think about this for a moment. Doesn’t this make God sound capricious? Of course, it does!
However, you can read in both accounts in the Qur’an and in the Bible that the reason that one sacrifice was accepted was due to the fact that one was righteous. It was the state of his heart and not what was presented!
So who will it be?
Contrasting a divine being that delights in the blood atonement and suffering from an animal, the outward material things of this world, with that of a divine being that looks at the contents of the human heart.
“The Day when neither wealth nor children shall profit, only the one will be saved who comes before God with a sound heart.” (Qur’an 26:88-89).
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
May Allah Guide them to the truth so that they do not burn in hellfire.
“Had We sent down this Quran upon a mountain, you would have certainly seen it humbled and torn apart in awe of Allah. We set forth such comparisons for people, perhaps they may reflect.” (Qur’an 59:21)
﷽
The first thing you should understand dear reader is that this issue on rather or not the Qur’an is created or uncreated was not discussed by the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself.
This issue was also not addressed by the noble companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
This issue came about later. The Umayyads did not restrain the tongue of John of Damascus and it is via his machinations that this debate and intrigue came to the Muslims.
Each side took a position and gave their proofs and justifications.
As regarding making takfir of other Muslims on this issue.
As our teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui, (Hafidhullah) taught us we do not make takfir of other Muslims on this issue.
His Eminence Shaykh Dr Kahlan B. Nabhan al Kharusi, The Assistant Mufti of Oman, (Hafidhullah) has made our position clear:
What is not in dispute between us and the Sunni Muslims.
The things we both affirm about the Qur’an.
1) That Allah (swt) has never been unable to produce speech from all eternity.
2) That the Qur’an does not originate from any other than Allah (swt).
3) It is his Word, His Revelation and that which He sent down.
4) It was revealed in letters and words.
5) It was revealed to the heart of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
6) It is inimitable in its combinations and meanings. No human being can produce the like thereof.
7) It has been narrated from the Blessed Messenger (saw) through firm tawatur
The Truth about the Qur’an: Created or Uncreated? (This article shows some of the proofs and evidences that each side uses to justify their position.)
This discussion relates to some possible theological conundrums and challenges they can face when holdling the view that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated.
The position of Sunni/Atheist/Materialist. Allah is worthy of worship based upon auditory perception i.e the ability to be heard.
The Created Qur’an: Yasir Qadhi, Salafis and Atheist.
The position of the Sunni/Neo Platonist. The Monad & the Logos
An uncreated ‘Kun’ by which everything else is created. The ‘kun’ acts as the intermediary between Allah, the transcendant and the material world.
However, the Sunni believe that this uncreated ‘kun’ is not identical to the essence of Allah nor other than Allah’s essence. In our view this is a step away from monotheism and a bridge towards Christology and logos theology.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:3)
Thus for the Ibadi school. The Qur’an is created because Jesus is Not God.
You can see this student of Bin Baz asking Bin Baz that he had the chance to refute Al Khalili(h) and show that he was upon batil (falsehood) so why did he not take it? Bin Baz replied but what if Khalili (h) has strong evidence then what?
The way the following video is framed it paints a picture as if Bin Baz was the wise one in the situation. As if he was saying: “If I debate him he might have a stronger argument and this will cause the misguidance of many people.”
Noble Shaykh Khalid Al Abdali (h)has an excellent 10-part series in Arabic on the Qur’an being created.
Conclusion:
As a Muslim, regardless of whether it is created or not, your duty is to adhere to every single verse in it and believe in it all. We are to continue to ponder upon the Qur’an. To be transformed by it and healed by it.
The Ummah has bigger challenges. Many Muslims today are being led astray. There are many expressions of Islam today, pseudo-groups who follow as Caliphs and Imams, people who do not even know how to recite the Qur’an. It is not even proven that these people know how to recite the Qur’an properly. Yet, people are being duped into following them.
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
﷽
We never met this beautiful soul, Joshua. May Allah guide him! He is a very intelligent man. This makes sense. We have a feeling that he is keen on Islam. However, just as he is aware that Judaism has various debates on various issues, he is also smart enough to know that the house of Islam, unfortunately, is not one big happy family.
Probing positions and views before deciding to commit to something IS an intelligent thing to do!
This man, Joshua, had Ali Dawah on the ropes when they were discussing the issue of whether Allah (swt) rested. Because, using a consistent approach, Ali Dawah began to realize he had no scope to argue with the forceful position of this young man. To Ali Dawah’s credit, he didn’t force the issue.
Now to this topic: Discussion with Josh (Jewish) | Is the Quran Being Uncreated Against Tawheed?
Abbas: “I don’t think it was its attribute. We, we’ve, I think we’ve answered the question many times that, with the knowledge of Allah, the Qur’an would have existed eternally. See. The actual physical book the mushaaf that was sent down and this is obviously an English translation, but the actual Arabic text when it was written down it is something that once it gets old it’s even burnt or it’s buried or whatever. To dispose of it in a respectful way.”
Abbas: “Burning it is actually not disrespectful in Islam. It’s a valid way of getting rid of an old manuscript that’s damaged and can’t be read, so you would have to have a new copy or whatever and the old one would be respectfully ah sort of ah, you know, gone away with in that way. But the knowledge of Allah, as a Jew, umm I think that you would accept that whatever knowledge Allah has, for example, the Torah itself. Would you say that the Torah itself is something that came into existence or did God have that in his knowledge but bring it into existence when he chose to?”
Josh: “So I believe that the Torah was in fact created. Only God himself is uncreated. But everything within the so-called “knowledge” of God is created at some point.”
Abbas: “Right, so then are you saying that there was a time when God did not know of the Torah?”
Joshua: “No, there was not a “time” before it, because God is above time. So God created time. Rather or not God created the Torah before he created time is not something I know.“
Abbas: “So, basically what were saying is that was there ever a moment when God did not know of the Torah?”
Joshua.” In a sense, yes. Prior to the creation of the Torah, there could be no knowledge of the Torah.”
Abbas: “So there was a moment when God had no knowledge of the Torah. (Now there is a moment there where the video does a flash sequence. I do not know if that means the video was edited or that is just a video effect.)”
Joshua: “Yes.”
Hamza: “So you don’t believe God has all full knowledge.”
Joshua, “No because, because knowledge we believe is an attribute of God. God’s omniscience is an attribute of him. Therefore, he created his own omniscience.”
Abbas: “Josh, is that a mainstream Jewish belief? In terms of actual rabbinical grounding. That the Torah, at one point God did not actually know what he was going to say. What God was going to give to Moses.”
Hamza (interrupts): “Josh, do you believe that God knows the future?”
Josh: “Yes, because there is no future when it comes to God. Cause for God all time, past, present and future” (could make out due to Hamza speaking over).
Hamza: “So then God knows what the Torah isn’t it always?”
(The team got Josh to admit they had a point that there could be no ‘before’ as he (Joshua) just admitted that past/present/future….)
Imran: (The best listener out of the bunch, in our opinion) He pivots back to the original question: “Your question was really an interesting one because you, you raised this as a question about Tawhid. And you said that this is uh, it requires an explanation having the Qur’an as an uncreated statement that the Qur’an is uncreated, and then you have Allah, who is eternal. Does it affect Tawhid in any way? That was really underlying thing that I think you were trying to get to. So I am going to give you an analogy. Now, obviously, all analogies are imperfect, and we can’t perfect analogies, particularly when it comes to the Creator. But I am gonna try and give an analogy to drawn on and explain. So you’re speaking, right Josh?”
Josh: “Yes.”
Imran: “Can your speech exist without you?” (Can you exist without speaking)
Josh: “I don’t know. Can my speech. Theoretically there could be my speech without me. I suppose. I’m not sure though.”
Imran: “I would say that that’s clearly, that clearly the answer to that question is No. Um, I don’t know how your thinking…if you did not exist, could your speech exist?”
Josh: “Depends. If my speech has to, if there’s prerequisite to the existence of my speech is the existence of myself.”
Imran: “Sorry, sorry to interrupt you. Your thinking. I don’t understand your thinking process. What you’re doing is your taking this speech and your giving it attributes. Now we agreed that speech is an attribute of the Creator. We’ve agreed this. Like just as speech manifests from you. Now the question is do the attributes exist on their own or not?”
Joshua: “With regard to attributes of myself or attributes of God?”
Imran: “So the analogy is to get you to think about the Creator. I am trying to use yourself as an example just to try and give that. So, for example is: Can your speech exist without you?”
Joshua: “So if we (God forbid) leave God out of this picture for this particular analogy. Um, otherwise it’s going to get far too complicated. Then for sure, then you would be right that my speech could not exist without me.”
Imran: “So now I’m going to say now let’s talk about the Creator. Now I’m going to say the attributes of the Creator can’t exist without the Creator.”
Joshua: “Yes, that’s true.”
Imran: “Yup, so now we don’t have a conflation between were not comparing two different things. The Qur’an is the speech of Allah. It’s an attribute you understand? So now the question comes. When we’re talking about (holds up the Qur’an) the text, do we/are we referring to that attribute or not? So there’s two things and now we have to differentiate this. The attribute we’ve agreed is eternal. Why? Because the Creator is eternal, the attribute is eternal. Therefore, the Qur’an is uncreated and eternal. So now that’s a dealt with thing. This is a (holding up the Qur’an) a creation, like somebody has put these pages together, written the pages and the ink down. This (holding up the Qur’an) is not that attribute.”
Joshua: “I understand the difference between the written Qur’an and the spoken Qur’an that..” (unintelligible as Imran talked over him.)
Imran: “So that means coming to the concept of Tawhid. It doesn’t impact that at all. Another example would be: Creation. One of the attributes of God is that he is the Creator. Now, (we agree with this yeah?) “
Joshua: “Yes.”
Imran: “So the creative command is not separate from the creator in any sense, right?”
Joshua: “I would disagree with that because, prior to because prior to having created anything, how can God be considered to be a Creator? In order to be a Creator you need to have a creation.”
Imran: “So o.k that’s interesting, so I think that you sorry Hamza, you wanna…”
Hamza: “You don’t need to create to have the attribute of a creator you just need to create to demonstrate the attribute.“
Joshua: “But that depends on how we understand what the attribute is. Um so, let me just think about how to explain.”
Hamza: (getting visibly impatient) “Oh o.k before Allah, before God created the universe, you believe God created the universe?”
Joshua: “Yes.”
Hamza: “Did he have the attribute of Creator?”
Joshua: “Before he created anything he did not….”
Hamza: “Did he have the attribute of Creator?”
Joshua: “No.”
Hamza: (Surprised) “No!? How did he create than?”
Imran: “O.K. Let’s change the word for a moment, Josh. Let’s make the word ability.”
Joshua: “Ability? o.k. Did God have the ability to create? Yes.”
Imran: “O.K so that’s the attribute.”
Hamza: “That’s the attribute.”
Joshua: “Oh that’s what you mean when you say attributes.”
Hamza: “The Creation is the manifestation of the attribute. Evidence of the attribute if you like.”
Joshua: “It’s the manifestation of ‘Ah’..” (light bulb moment).
Comments:
Over all, that was a very good exchange. In reality, the question Joshua poses is two-fold in nature.
Is the Qur’an created or eternal?
If it is created or eternal, does this pose a problem for the doctrine of Tawhid?
The first argument brought by Abbas is not a good argument.
The eternity of knowledge does not imply the eternity of the known. Otherwise, all things that have come into being would be eternal! Imagine saying, because Allah (swt) has eternal knowledge about Christ Jesus, that Christ Jesus would be eternal! Christians would just love that!
Imran seemed the more learned of the three, at least in terms of Sunni theology. He got straight to the point. However, Imran did a very clever cart before the horse when he asked:
Can your speech exist without you? Actually, we could ask: (Can you exist without speaking?)
The answer to that is yes. You can exist without speaking.
We affirm the attribute of “speech” for Allah (swt) as Imam Diya al-Din ‘Abd al-Aziza Thamini (raheemullah), says in his Mu’alim:
“Know that speech is sometimes referred to Allah in the meaning of negating dumbness of Him, and it then is to be understood as an essential attribute in the way of such attributes. And sometimes it is referred to Him in the sense of its being one of His actions, and it is then to be understood as such. So the meaning of His being Speaking, according to the first interpretation, is that He is not dumb; and according to the second that He is a Creator of Speech.”
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky for Sunni theology.
Imran: “So the creative command is not separate from the creator in any sense, right?”
Response: What do you actually mean by the creator and his attributes? Because the Sunni theological position is that the attributes of Allah (swt) are not equal to Allah (swt) nor other than his essence!
This is a very, very BIG problem for Sunni theology.
Questions for the Athari/Salafi school.
So, if the attributes are not identical to the essence or other than the essence, what are they?
Can you prove your claims that the attributes are not identical to the essence using kitab wa sunnah?
Using the Qur’an and the Sunnah?
Will you need to rely upon kalam?
Actually, a VERY GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY SUNNI MUSLIM IS:
‘What do you mean when you say God is one?’
This may come as a surprise to the readers. They may say the being is one, but can they really, since they also have these attributes that have a quasi/pseudo-being status, in that they are not equal to the being nor other than it?
The second point from Imran
Imran: “So the creative command is not separate from the creator in any sense, right?”
“And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah gives you glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who comes) to confirm A WORD (bikalimatin) from Allah lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous. (Qur’an 3:39)
Are we sure that we want to say that Jesus (A WORD) from Allah is not separate from the Creator?
On what consistent basis is Jesus Allah’s word and his spirit and yet be created when the Qur’an is Allah’s word and is eternal and uncreated? On what consistent basis is the claim made?
We are quite certain that Christians are going to be asking themselves why should I leave Christianity, which holds (even in the lesser Arian Christology) that Christ Jesus is a word emanating from the divine nature but sharing the divine nature only to embrace a faith that tells me that Christ Jesus is a word emanating from the divine being but not separate from the divine being?
“His are the creation and the command.” (Qur’an 7:54)
This is answered by the context itself:
Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He covers the night with the day, [another night] chasing it rapidly; and [He created] the sun, the moon, and the stars, subjected by His command. Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds. (Qur’an 7:54)
The most that this verse tells us is that, just as Allah (swt) is alone in bringing the universe out of non-being (into being), in the same way, He is alone in the management of it. He has no partner in its creation and in its management. None other than Him has anything of the creation and management. Rather, to HIM alone belong the creation and the command. The meaning here, clearly, is management. And there is nothing in that which even remotely points either to the eternity of the Qur’an or to its contingency.
Examples:
“Maintain with care the [obligatory] prayers and [in particular] the middle prayer and stand before Allah, devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 2:238)
The middle prayer is not (separated) out of the genus of prayers, the guarding of which has been commanded.
“Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael – then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. (Qur’an 2:98)
No one says that Gabriel and Michael are separated out of the genus of angels. The difference between them is relative.
“Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded.” (Qur’an 16:90)
No intelligent person will argue about justice being the doing of good, and the doing of good being justice.
The command (amr) of Allah (swt) has been mentioned jointly with what denotes its creation in many places.
“And [remember, O Muhammed], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah,” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.” (Qur’an 33:37)
“[Remember] when you were on the near side of the valley, and they were on the farther side, and the caravan was lower [in position] than you. If you had made an appointment [to meet], you would have missed the appointment. But [it was] so that Allah might accomplish a matter already destined – that those who perished [through disbelief] would perish upon evidence and those who lived [in faith] would live upon evidence; and indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 8:42)
“There is not to be upon the Prophet any discomfort concerning that which Allah has imposed upon him. [This is] the established way of Allah with those [prophets] who have passed on before. And ever is the command of Allah a destiny decreed.” (Qur’an 33:38)
“He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count.” (Qur’an 32:5)
“Indeed, all things We created with predestination And Our command is but one, like a glance of the eye.” (Qur’an 54:49-50)
“Do the disbelievers await [anything] except that the angels should come to them or there comes the command of your Lord? Thus did those do before them. And Allah wronged them not, but they had been wronging themselves.” (Qur’an 16:33)
All of those examples should be more than sufficient to show our response!
May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the Muslim ummah. May Allah (swt) open the heart of Joshua and bring him to the right way.
If you would like to see more articles on the discussion of the Qur’an, is it created or uncreated? You may wish to see the following:
“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.”
Prima Quran 
