Tag Archives: Ibadi

February 18, 2026 · 8:30 am

In Ibadi theology, a Wali of Allah can sin. One who has true spiritual guardianship can be killed.

“O believers! Stand firm for justice as witnesses for Allah even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or close relatives. Be they rich or poor, Allah is best to ensure their interests. So do not let your desires cause you to deviate. If you distort the testimony or refuse to give it, then Allah is certainly All-Aware of what you do.” (Qur’an 4:135)

﷽ 

The position of the Ibadi school concerning the Wali of Allah. Whoever has attained the rank of wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah (true spiritual guardianship), his guardianship is never nullified under any circumstance. Therefore, there is no room for enmity against him, even if he were to commit grave sins.

However, falsehood is never accepted from him, and if he falls into one of the prescribed punishments of Allah, the punishment of Allah is carried out upon him — yet his guardianship is not revoked.

Indeed, the Messenger of Allah (saw) carried out the punishment of stoning on Māʿiz (may Allah be pleased with him), and instructed his companions to seek forgiveness for him. The same was the case with the Ghamīdī woman. Thus, wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah neither nullifies rights nor abolishes punishments.

The Ghamīdī woman & Ma’iz b. Malik al-Aslami -may Allah be pleased with them both.

‘Abdullah b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma’iz b. Malik al-Aslami came to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and said:

Allah’s Messenger, I have wronged myself; I have committed adultery and I earnestly desire that you should purify me. He turned him away. On the following day, he (Ma’iz) again came to him and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery. Allah’s Messenger (saw) turned him away for the second time, and sent him to his people saying: Do you know if there is anything wrong with his mind. They denied of any such thing in him and said: We do not know him but as a wise good man among us, so far as we can judge. He (Ma’iz) came for the third time, and he (The Blessed Prophet) sent him as he had done before. He asked about him and they informed him that there was nothing wrong with him or with his mind. When it was the fourth time, a ditch was dug for him and he (The Blessed Prophet) pronounced judgment about him and he wis stoned.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1695b)

أُرِيدُ أَنْ تُطَهِّرَنِي -I want you to purify me.

He (the narrator) said: There came to him (The Blessed Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (The Blessed Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (The Blessed Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (The Blessed Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Messenger (saw)heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (The Blessed Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1695b)

Buraida told that Ma’iz b. Malik came to the Prophet and said, “Purify me, Messenger of Allah.” He replied, “Out upon you! Go back, ask Allah’s forgiveness and turn to Him in repentance.” He said that he went back not very far, then came and said, “Purify me, Messenger of Allah,” and the Prophet said the same as he had said before. When this went on till a fourth time he asked, “For what am I to purify you?” and he replied that it was because of fornication. Allah’s Messenger then asked if the man was mad, and when he was told that he was not, he asked if he had drunk wine. A man got up and smelt his breath but noticed no smell of wine, so the Prophet asked him if he had committed fornication, and when he replied that he had, he gave orders regarding him and he was stoned to death. Two or three days later Allah’s Messenger came and said, “Ask forgiveness for Ma’iz b. Malik. He has repented to such an extent that if it were divided among a people it would be enough for them all.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/mishkat:3562)

The Key Point: After the execution of the punishment, the Blessed Prophet (saw) did not declare them to be enemies of Allah or eternal denizens of Hellfire. Instead, he spoke well of their repentance and even instructed the companions to pray for them. This prayer (ṣalāt al-janāzah) itself is an act that is only performed for Muslims.

This proves that while their sinful action demanded earthly punishment, their essential faith and status as believers (awlīyāʾ in the true sense) were not completely obliterated. Their sincere repentance preserved their wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah

The 10 sons of Yaʿqūb/Jacob -peace be upon him.

We also believe in the wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah of the ten sons of Prophet Yaʿqūb (peace be upon him) who wronged their brother, fabricated false stories to cover their crimes — their falsehood is not accepted, yet their guardianship is not revoked. It remains upon them, their father, their brother, and our Messenger (peace and blessings be upon them all).

“But My Promise is not within the reach of (zalimin) evil-doers.” (Qur’an 2:124)

What did these descendants of Prophet Ibrahim (as) get up to?

They cried, “Our father! We went racing and left Joseph with our belongings, and a wolf devoured him! But you will not believe us, no matter how truthful we are.” (Qur’an 12:17)

These Muwahid, The Ahl Bayt of Jacob (as), Sons of a Prophet lied to their father! Imagine telling your own father that his son (your own brother) was eaten by a wolf! Can you imagine the grief it would bring him?!

Allah (swt) tells us in very vivid language how severe the grief and trauma of Jacob (as). The trauma that Prophet Jacob (as) went through on account of his progeny, the progeny of the Household.

“He turned away from them, lamenting, “Alas, poor Joseph!” And his eyes turned white out of the grief he suppressed.” (Qur’an 12:84)

He replied, “O my dear son! Do not relate your vision to your brothers, or they will devise a plot against you. Surely Satan is a sworn enemy to humankind.” (Qur’an 12:5)

Jacob (as) knew among his ahl bayt were schemers!

“˹Remember˺ when they said ˹to one another˺, “Surely Joseph and his brother ˹Benjamin˺ are more beloved to our father than we, even though we are a group of so many. Indeed, our father is clearly mistaken.” (Qur’an 12:8)

Can you imagine talking about your father (a Prophet) like that?

“Kill Joseph or cast him out to some ˹distant˺ land so that our father’s attention will be only ours, then after that you may ˹repent and˺ become righteous people!” (Qur’an 12:9)

They said, “O our father! Why do you not trust us with Joseph, although we truly wish him well? (Qur’an 12:11)

The Ahl Bayt of Jacob (as) Lie #1 to their father.

“Send him out with us tomorrow so that he may enjoy himself and play. And we will really watch over him.” (Qur’an 12:12)

So he can enjoy himself, Lie #2, and they will watch over him Lie #3.

“Then they returned to their father in the evening, weeping. They cried, “Our father! We went racing and left Joseph with our belongings, and a wolf devoured him! But you will not believe us, no matter how truthful we are.” (Qur’an 12:16-17)

“And they brought his shirt, stained with false blood. He responded, “No! Your souls must have tempted you to do something ˹evil˺. So ˹I can only endure with˺ beautiful patience! It is Allah’s help that I seek to bear your claims.” (Qur’an 12:18)

Look at the extent of their manipulation! Fake tears like actors crying on que! A prop piece—his shirt stained with false blood. Gaslighting their father.

Joseph was eaten by a wolf. Lie #4 Brought a shirt with false blood Lie #5

“Return to your father and say, ‘O our father! Your son (Benjamin)committed theft. We testify only to what we know. We could not guard against the unforeseen.” (Qur’an 12:81)

They claimed their other brother, Benjamin, was a thief and lied to their father, yet again. Lie #6

The Ahl Bayt of Jacob, the guilty among them, finally return in repentance to Allah (swt)

“They admitted, “By Allah! Allah has truly preferred you over us, and we have surely been sinful.” (Qur’an 12:91)

“They begged, “O our father! Pray for the forgiveness of our sins. We have certainly been sinful.” (Qur’an 12:97)

Satan ignited rivalry between the Ahl Bayt of Jacob (as)

“Then he raised his parents to the throne, and they all fell down in prostration to Joseph,1 who then said, “O my dear father! This is the interpretation of my old dream. My Lord has made it come true. He was truly kind to me when He freed me from prison, and brought you all from the desert after Satan had ignited rivalry between me and my siblings. Indeed my Lord is subtle in fulfilling what He wills. Surely He ˹alone˺ is the All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 12:100)

What to make of the sons of Jacob (as) Al Muwahid who lied to their father (a Prophet) because they were jealous of their brother? The sons of a prophet can conspire against their brother.

Their falsehood is not accepted, yet their guardianship is not revoked.

Analysis of the Examples Provided

  1. The Sons of Prophet Yaʿqūb (AS):
    • This example is even more striking and is particularly emphasized in Ibāḍī theology to drive the point home.
    • Their crime was immense: they attempted murder on their brother Yūsuf (AS), threw him in a well, lied to their father, and caused him immense grief. This constitutes major sins involving injustice, deception, and breaking familial ties.
    • Ibāḍī Interpretation: Despite this, the Qur’an never refers to them as disbelievers (kuffār). They are still considered among the prophets’ descendants. Prophet Yaʿqūb (AS) and Prophet Yūsuf (AS) eventually forgave them. Their story ends with forgiveness and family reconciliation.
    • This demonstrates that even such heinous sins did not irrevocably sever their essential connection to the legacy of prophethood and faith (wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah), though they were certainly held accountable for their actions in this world and were rebuked in the Qur’an.

The established principle regarding spiritual guardianship (wilayah) is that one who possesses true guardianship never loses it, regardless of sins committed — we are certain they will die repentant. Thus, we reject their wrong actions while maintaining a connection to their essential spiritual station. The converse is equally true.

An example of the converse being true: Bara’ah al-Haqiqa

The example of Abu Lahab.

May the hands of Abu Lahab perish, and he perish! Neither his wealth nor gains will benefit him. He will burn in a flaming Fire, and his wife, the carrier of kindling,around her neck will be a rope of palm-fibre. (Qur’an 111:1-5)

Some Muslims use a flawed argument about Abu Lahab to prove the truth of the Qur’an, saying: “If Abu Lahab had taken the shahādah, it would have made the Qur’an false.”

This is incorrect. The words of Allah (swt) are absolute truth, whereas Abu Lahab’s actions (if he had ever claimed faith) would have been deception. Allah (swt) has already decreed his fate. He is the very definition of one being in barā’ah ḥaqīqah (the true dissociation), being truly cut off.

If Allah (swt) did not reveal this about Abu Lahab, and he took the testification of faith, he would be in Walayah al-Dhahir – The apparent friendship. This is a matter of jurisprudence.

However, since Allah (swt) revealed his state Bara’ah al-Haqiqah – The real dissociation. This is a matter of theology.

The example of Adam -upon him be peace.

We believe in the true spiritual guardianship of our father Adam (as), while Allah explicitly states in Scripture that he disobeyed and erred, then sought forgiveness and repented. We affirm his true guardianship while disassociating from his wrong actions. Similarly:

“They said: ‘Our Lord we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers’ ” (Quran 7:23) 

“So Adam disobeyed his Lord, and lost his way. Then his Lord chose him, accepted his repentance, and guided him.” (Qur’an 20:121-122)

Thus, Adam-upon him be peace, is in true spiritual guardianship.

The Ahl Bayt of Adam (as). The household of the Prophet Adam (as)

The first murderer in human history was a descendant of a Prophet.

Cain killed his brother Abel.  Both were descendants of the Prophet Adam (as).   Yet, one was righteous and the other became the ‘first’ murderer.  Such that Allah (swt) made an example of this particular incident throughout time.

“So his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:30)

“And recite to them the story of Adam’s two sons, in truth, when they both offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], “I will surely kill you.” Said [the former], “Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him]”. (Qur’an 5:27)

Humanity is not even in its infancy and here we have two descendants of the Prophet Adam (as). One of them has the hallmark of being remembered for all time as being the first murderer. Allah (swt) said that one of them was (mutaqi) righteous, meaning the other was not.

Does the son of Adam (as) get a pass for murdering his brother simply because he is the son of a Prophet?

“Then Allah sent a crow digging in the ground, in order to show him how to bury the corpse of his brother. He cried, “Alas! Have I failed to be like this crow and bury the corpse of my brother?” So he became regretful.” (Qur’an 5:31)

The regret here is not from his action but because he was not able to cover up his action. This son of Adam is in Barā’ah. This son of a Prophet is in Barā’ah

It is from the Sunnah of the Prophet to disavow any Muslim (including a companion) when they commit a sin.

First and foremost, to disavow any Muslim when they commit a sin is from the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw). This includes the companions.

Narrated Salim’s father:

The Prophet (saw) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (saw) raised both his hands and said twice, “O Allah, I disavow before You what Khalid has done.” ‏ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَيْكَ مِمَّا صَنَعَ خَالِدٌ

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4339)

‏ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَيْكَ مِمَّا صَنَعَ خَالِدٌ- allahuma ‘iiniy ‘abra ‘iilayk mimaa sanae khalid

Core Principles of the Ibāḍī Position on Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah

The Separation of Status from Action: A person’s fundamental spiritual state (ḥāl)—their belief, inner conviction, and love for Allah—is distinct from their outward actions. A major sin is a catastrophic failure in action, but it does not automatically annihilate the foundation of faith (īmān) in the heart.

Two Types of Wilāyah: Our scholars often delineate between:

  • Wilāyat al-Ḥaqīqah (True/Essential Guardianship): This is the inner, spiritual reality of being a friend of Allah. It is based on sincere belief, knowledge of Allah (maʿrifah), and righteous intention. This state, once truly attained, is considered by us Ibāḍīs to be a permanent reality that is not nullified by subsequent sin. It is a matter of the heart’s condition, which is known only to Allah.
  • Wilāyat al-Dīn (Religious/Legal Guardianship): This is the outward, legal expression of that friendship. It governs how the community interacts with the individual. This can be nullified by public, major sin because the community must judge based on what is apparent (ẓāhir). Loss of wilāyat al-dīn means the person is no longer considered part of the community of believers in a socio-legal sense; they may be ostracized or subject to legal penalties.

If they sincerely repent, they are put back into Wilāyat al-Dīn. If they have committed an offense that comes under qisas, hadd, or ta’zir, they are dealt with accordingly.

Our examples perfectly explain the consequence of this distinction: the inner wilāyah remains, but the outer consequences of sin are not waived.

To find out more on this please see our article here:

Kufr An-Ni’mah & Kufr Ash-Shirk: According to the Qur’an and Sunnah

Ibadi positon Contrast with Other Schools

This position places classical Ibāḍīsm in a unique middle ground between other schools:

  • Vs. Khawārij: The Khawārij held that any major sin makes a person a disbeliever (kāfir), nullifying any form of wilāyah and making them eternally damned. The Ibāḍīs vehemently reject this, as shown by our text.
  • Vs. Murjiʾah: The Murjiʾah held that sin does not harm faith at all; a person’s faith remains complete regardless of their actions. We, the Ibāḍīs reject this, insisting that sins have real consequences and that outward wilāyah is lost.

A person’s essential spiritual identity as a friend of Allah (wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah), once truly established through sincere faith, is a resilient reality that is not erased by sin. However, this inner state does not provide immunity from divine law or its consequences in the world. The community must uphold justice (execute punishments, reject falsehood) while maintaining a principled optimism about the depth of Allah’s mercy and the potential for a sinner’s heart to still be oriented toward Him.

Understanding Qur’an 49:9

First, regarding the noble verse: ‘If two groups of believers fight each other…’ (Quran 49:9) –
Note here that before identifying which party is the aggressor, Allah says “from the believers” and not “two believing groups”, commanding reconciliation because mistakes may occur. As stated: ‘It is not for a believer to kill another believer except by mistake.’ (Qur’an 4:92) 

Through reconciliation, the aggressor party becomes known and must repent to remain within the circle of faith. If they persist in their aggression, then fighting them becomes obligatory – this being one of Allah’s prescribed limits (hudud), like the punishments for theft, slander, adultery, brigandage, and alcohol consumption. Whoever violates these divine limits must face the prescribed punishment, even if they possess true spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah).

This is why Ammar (ra) fought against the Mother of the Believers, Aisha (ra), in the Battle of the Camel while still affirming her status.

The example of Aisha-may Allah be pleased with her.

The amr of Allah belonged with Ali. Ayesha (ra) opposed him and later repented. We also know this because she (Ayesha) — may Allah be pleased with her is in real spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah).

Narrated Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Aasadi:

“When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and Hasan bin `Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. Al-Hasan bin `Ali was at the top of the pulpit and `Ammar was below Al-Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard `Ammar saying, “`Aisha has moved to Al-Busra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him (Allah) or her (`Aisha).”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7100)

So even though Aisha (ra) is acknowledged by Ammar bin Yasir (ra) to be the ‘wife of the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter‘, he was not about to leave the commands of Allah (swt).

Whoever violates these divine limits must face the prescribed punishment, even if they possess true spiritual guardianship (wilayat al-haqiqah).

Allah makes known the status of the wives of the Blessed Prophet (saw) when he states:

“The Prophet has a stronger affinity to the believers than they do themselves. And his wives are their mothers.” (Qur’an 33:6)

Yet, Allah (swt) also informs us:

“O wives of the Prophet! If any of you were to commit a blatant misconduct, the punishment would be doubled for her. And that is easy for Allah.” (Qur’an 33:30)

We affirm the true guardianship of Aisha (ra) while disassociating from her wrong action in fighting against the Imam of the Muslims.

Summary of the battle of the camel and the actions of Aisha -May Allah be pleased with her.

Quranic Mandate: Qur’an 49:9 provides a clear command: if two groups of believers fight, Muslims must seek reconciliation. If one group is clearly the aggressor (baghat), the community must fight that oppressive group until it returns to the “command of Allah” (amr Allah).

Historical Application: In the conflict between Imam ʿAlī and the group led by ʿĀ’ishah (ra), Talḥah, and Al-Zubayr, we posit that the amr Allah (the legitimate command and authority) was with ʿAlī. Therefore, the group that took up arms against him was, in that specific instance, the oppressing party (al-bāghiyah).

Theological Principle: This is where we link it to the previous concept. Even though ʿĀ’ishah (ra) holds the rank of wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah (“the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter”), this spiritual status does not grant immunity from the consequences of worldly actions that violate divine law and order.

Consequence: Therefore, it became obligatory to oppose her military action and fight to bring that group back to obedience, exactly as ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir (ra) stated. The punishment for this political transgression was the worldly consequence of battle.

Status Preserved: Following the event, ʿĀ’ishah (ra) repented and was deeply remorseful, which is a key point. Her repentance and her esteemed status indicate that her wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah was not nullified by this error in political judgment and action.

Analysis and Further Context:

The ḥadīth we cited is crucial. ʿAmmār (ra) perfectly encapsulates the dilemma and its solution:

  1. Acknowledgment of Status: He begins by unequivocally affirming ʿĀ’ishah’s (ra) unparalleled status and virtue. This establishes the principle of wilāyat al-ḥaqīqah.
  2. Primacy of Obedience to Allah: He immediately follows by stating that this status is not the ultimate factor in deciding political allegiance. The test from Allah is whether Muslims will obey Allah by obeying the legitimate authority He has placed, or obey a person, no matter how esteemed, in opposition to that authority.

The example of Fatima-May Allah be pleased with her.

Narrated `Aisha: Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6787)

Now, does one need to hate Fatima (ra) in order to administer the justice of Allah? How do people reason? Does anyone think that Adam (as) did not love both his sons? Even though one is a murderer?

The core question is about reconciling love/respect for individuals with the obligation to uphold Allah’s laws.

Does one need to hate Fatima (ra) to administer the justice of Allah?

Absolutely not. In fact, the opposite is true. One must love and respect her so much that they will uphold the command of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (saw) even upon her.

The hadith we cited is one of the most powerful illustrations of the principle of blind justice in Islam. The Blessed Prophet’s (saw) statement is the ultimate expression of his commitment to divine justice.

  • Love for Allah and His Law Supersedes Personal Love: The Prophet’s (saw) love for his daughter was immense. But his love for Allah and His commandments was greater. By declaring he would punish her, he was teaching that no personal relationship, no matter how cherished, can stand between a Muslim and the fulfillment of Allah’s law.
  • Administering Justice is an Act of Worship: The judge who would carry out the ruling is not doing it out of personal hatred for the criminal. He is doing it as an act of obedience to Allah, fulfilling a trust (amanah) placed upon him. Carrying out a hadd punishment on a beloved individual would be one of the most difficult tests of faith, precisely because it requires separating personal feelings from divine obligation.
  • True Love is to Want What is Right for Someone: From a spiritual perspective, allowing a beloved person to escape punishment for a crime corrupts their soul and increases their burden of sin in the Hereafter. Enforcing the law, as difficult as it is, serves as a purification for the offender and a deterrent for society. In this sense, administering justice is a form of tough love that seeks the ultimate good of the individual and the community.

Therefore, the reasoning is: We love and honor Fatima (ra) because, first and foremost, she is a righteous believer and second, because she is the daughter of the Prophet (saw). And because we love and honor him, we would uphold his command and his Sunnah without exception, even if it were to apply to her.

People who struggle with this concept often conflate two separate domains:

  1. The Legal Domain (Justice – Haqq Allah/ Haqq al-‘Ibad): This is the realm of objective, applied law. Here, relationships, status, and personal feelings are irrelevant. The law must be applied equally to the prince and the pauper.
  2. The Emotional/Spiritual Domain (Love/Hate): This is the realm of personal feeling and spiritual assessment (wilayah).

The error is to believe that these two domains must be connected—that administering a punishment requires personal hatred, or that loving someone requires being lenient with them regarding Allah’s laws.

The Islamic reasoning, as demonstrated by the prophets, is that these domains are separate and must be kept separate. A judge can deeply love his own son while convicting him of a crime. A parent can love a child while disciplining them. The action is condemned, but the person is still loved.

The example of Ibrahim (as) and his son (as). A Wali of Allah proceeds to kill another Wali of Allah.

If we are to ask is Ibrahim (as) a wali of Allah? The answer would be yes.

If we are to ask the son of Ibrahim (as) a wali of Allah? The answer would be yes.

Yet this did not stop Ibrahim (as) to kill another wali of Allah (his son) because it was an ‘amr (command) of Allah.

“Then when the boy reached the age to work with him, Abraham said, “O my dear son! I have seen in a dream that I sacrifice you. So tell me what you think.” He replied, “O my dear father! Do as you are commanded. Allah willing, you will find me steadfast.” (Qur’an 37:102)

If someone were to say that Ibrahim (as) knew that his son would be spared, then this would hardly be a test of faith or obedience. The point here is that one wali of Allah was asked to kill another wali of Allah in order to show his obedience.

This is when the son of Ibrahim (as) is not known to us to have done any violations that would require the forfeiture of his life.

How much more for those who commit violations that require such a forfeiture?

And can it be said that Ibrahim (as) in carrying out such an act had hatred for his son? 

We seek protection in Allah from that! Of course not! His obedience to Allah (swt) was foremost. 

We judge by the apparent-the dhahir.

‘Abdullah bin ‘Utbah bin Mas’ud reported:

I heard ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab (ra) reported saying: “In the lifetime of Messenger of Allah (saw) some people were called to account through Revelation. Now Revelation has discontinued and we shall judge you by your apparent acts. Whoever displays to us good, we shall grant him peace and security, and treat him as a near one. We have nothing to do with his insight. Allah will call him to account for that. But whosoever shows evil to us, we shall not grant him security nor shall we believe him, even if he professed that his intention is good.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:395)

Synthesis with the Concept of Wilayat al-Haqiqah

This brings us full circle to the initial principle of wilayat al-haqiqah:

A person’s spiritual status (wilayat al-haqiqah) does not invalidate their worldly responsibilities or protect them from the consequences of their actions. Likewise, our love and respect for an individual (their spiritual status) does not invalidate the need for justice.

  • Fatima (ra) is revered and loved, but had she stolen, the law would apply.
  • The Sons of Ya’qub (as) were among the chosen family of prophets, but their crime against Yusuf (as) had consequences and they were rebuked in the Qur’an.
  • Cain was the son of a prophet, but he was punished for murder.

In conclusion: Islamic justice is not built on the emotion of hatred but on the principle of objective, divine command. True faith is demonstrated when one can uphold the law of Allah without being swayed by personal love or personal hatred. The greatest examples of this are the Prophets themselves, who administered justice and taught truth, all while maintaining love and compassion in their hearts for their people, even for those who wronged them.

This is why Imam Abu Sa’id al-Kudmi (May Allah have mercy on him) said: ‘We accept no falsehood from the blessed, nor reject any truth from the wretched.’

If you want to learn more about this all too important concept in Islam we recommend the following article:

Walayah & Bara’ah & Wuqoof or Association & Shunning and Pausing in the Ibadi school

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 17, 2026 · 10:54 am

Ramadan Mubarak From Prima Qur’an.

“Behold, We revealed this (Qur’an) on the Night of Power.” (Qur’an 97:1)

﷽ 

May Allah bless us and grant us forgiveness, mercy, guidance, closeness to Allah (swt) and overflowing love for his Messenger (saw).🌹❤️ We, at Prima-Qur’an are thankful you all are here.

Welcome to all the newcomers!!

May Allah continue to bless and guide you and us. Remember all the oppressed wherever they are in this world. Please keep us in your du’a this month. Please forgive our shortcomings. From our ❤️ ‘s to your heart ❤️‘s

Our du’a for you this Ramadan is that Allah (swt) grants you many openings
and many beautiful resolutions to any and all challenges you may be facing. 

We can only du’a that Allah is pleased with us all, considers us among the obedient slaves; that we are all spoken well of by Allah swt’s Angels and we all are protected and comforted by them; that our loved one be blessed ameen 

{space for Nurul, Haider, ‘Abdullah to share their thoughts}

*The Grace of Ramadan*

Ramadan as Allah said is the month of the Qur’an, and Allah exalted commanded the believer to fast during this month, but contrary to what most people believe, fasting is not about abstaining from eating and drinking only, but fasting is abstaining from everything that Allah forbids, The Blessed Prophet (saw) said: “Backbiting breaks the fast and Wudu'”, and said: “No fasting except by abstaining from the prohibitions of Allah” and based on this we conclude that the importance of Ramadan is not just in abstaining from food and drink, but Ramadan is an entire school in patience and purification, the prophet peace be upon him said signifying the grace of Ramadan: “Who ever fasts Ramadan with faith and hope of retribution, his former sins will be forgiven, and if you knew the virtues of Ramadan you will wish it lasted a year”.

———————

*Ignorance of the religion*

Ignorance is not an excuse in the religion after obligation

Obligation in this context is directing the commands and prohibitions to the creature by his creator, and it has three conditions:

1- Intellect

2- Puberty

3- Establishing the argument

The argument is the proof, if someone meets the conditions then he is not excused for his ignorance, in addition to these conditions, there is “the absence of deterrent”, meaning: to be able to do what Allah commanded you to do, as Allah says: “Allah does not require of any soul more than what it can afford”.

Another aspect of this topic is the importance of seeking knowledge in Islam, Allah says: ” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Are those who know equal to those who do not know?” None will be mindful ˹of this˺ except people of reason.” and the prophet peace be upon him said: “whoever Allah wants his goodness will give him knowledge in the religion” and said: “whoever purses a path seeking knowledge, Allah will make his path to paradise easier”.

———————

*Breaking the fast intentionally and unintentionally*

1- If someone unintentionally breaks his fast by forgetting and eating for example, he should continue his fasting and he doesn’t have to redo that day later

2- If someone intentionally breaks his fast by eating, drinking, having intimacy…etc, he has to redo that day after Ramadan and has to perform Kafarah Mughalladah, which is to free a slave or fast two months, and if he can’t then to feed 60 poor people.

May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

February 16, 2026 · 4:38 am

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

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

﷽ 

This is written to show that the practice of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is that dogs are pure in Islam, and this is the way of many Muslims all over the world until today. It is possible that outsiders of Islam have the perspective that the view that dogs are ritually unclean is due to the fact that one of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence (The Hanafi school) is also the most prevalanet Islamic school. This is also the position of other Islamic schools.

This blog entry will attempt to show the validity of those of us who hold that dogs are pure. By using the primary and secondary sources of Islam. It will also show the inconsistency of the views opposed to this understanding, as well as common objections to this view, usually by citing oral traditions.

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

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

It has been attributed to the Prophet Muhammed (saw)

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

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

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

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

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

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:174)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This narration is reported by Imam Muslim in his Sahih 89/279 as well as by An-Nasaa’i hadith number 66

Source: Taken from “The Mercy in the Difference of the Four Sunni Schools of Islamic Law” translated by ‘A’ishah Bewley, printed by Dar-al-taqwa. Page 4

    May we turn our attention to the hadith again, which seems to bring a lot of misunderstanding in relation to dogs in Islam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And similar to what was alluded to in Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd, this only applies to containers which contain water. Containers which contain other useful contents are not to be discarded and washed.

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

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

    Here is something that we would like to ask people.

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

    Not many, which is exactly our point!

    People are trying to make the halal (permissible) into the haram (forbidden). Now you want to make the whole of the contents and the dish unusable?

    Case in point: The Shaf’i School of jurisprudence.

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

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

    MALIKI SCHOLAR IBN AL LABBAD’S REFUTATION OF IMAM SHAF’I

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

    The following is titled:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source: (“Setting the Record Straight: Ibn al-Labbād’s Refutation of al-Shāfiʿī” (published in the Journal of Islamic Studies), Sherman A. Jackson analyzes the critiques leveled by the 10th-century Maliki jurist Muhammad b. Idrīs al-Labbād (d. 333/944) against Imam al-Shāfiʿī)

    This is an intra-Sunni critique. A scholar of the Maliki School of jurisprudence giving a rebuttal to the founding jurist of one of Sunni Islam’s most prominent schools of jurisprudence.

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

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

    So first let us take a look at what the Qur’an itself says concerning dogs.

    There are three places where the Qur’an mentions dogs.

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

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

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

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

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


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

    THE AHADITH AND DOGS

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

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

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3321)

    Of course, this means that the woman was sincere in repenting for her sins and this action, coupled with her repenting of her sins, became a source of mercy for her.

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

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

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2466)

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

    The Blessed Prophet (saw) is reported to have said, “A man saw a dog eating mud because of the severity of thirst. So, that man took a shoe and filled it with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him enter Paradise.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:173)

    And narrated Hamza bin ‘Abdullah: My father said. “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, the dogs used to urinate and pass through the mosque (come and go), nevertheless they used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog.)”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:174)

    KEEPING DOGS AS PETS

    The Blessed Prophet is reported to have said, “Angels do not enter a house which has either a dog or a picture in it.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3322)

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

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3227)

    Prima Qur’an Comment: This is not a command not to keep dogs but simply that they should have seperate areas from where people reside.

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

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/54/13)

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

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1574a)

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

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1575a)

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

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5480)

    Prima Qur’an Comment: The above hadith mentions that the dog should have a utility. Thus, it has been argued by some scholars that seeing eye dogs that help blind people are utility dogs. Dogs that guard the home and property from would-be attackers and thieves are utility dogs. Animals can also generate soothing effects that relieve high blood pressure in people.

    IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO KEEP A DOG TO GUARD HOUSES?

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

    Source: (Sharh Muslim, 10/236)

    Prima Qur’an Comments:

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

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

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

    The former United States of America (under the Zionist occupation) has one of the highest percentages of gun ownership out of any populace on earth. Think of how many people have access to guns in the family. Many people may agree that it is more safe to have a dog securing the parameters of the house, protecting and guarding the family than it is to own a gun.

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

    Even if a person said it was their intention to keep a dog simply for the purpose of entertainment, the traditionalist may consider that person to be negligent.

    Today, in the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, West Africa, Oman and places where the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is practiced and maintained with vigilance, we find that people keep dogs as pets.

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

    You can also find a hadith that has been narrated that includes the phrase (except the angel of death) which should raise an eyebrow. Most likely, if angels never entered an abode where a dog was present, this would mean the angel of death and thus a person could be guaranteed eternal life on the basis of keeping a dog as a pet!

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

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

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

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

    DIDN’T THE BLESSED PROPHET MUHAMMED (SAW) ORDER DOGS TO BE KILLED?

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

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/54/13)

    Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered dogs to be killed.

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/54/14)

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

    Why?

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

    He is taking the whole of the practice as it was orally mass transmitted and practiced by the people of his city in Madinah.

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

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

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

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

    The vast majority of Muslims, YouTube Preachers, and even those who have taken ‘alim courses are not very well grounded in Islamic jurisprudence. Also, when it comes to Hadith transmission, it was never meant to be understood in isolation as it is being done today.

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

    If the Muslims insist on taking hadith (one from one) in isolation over the practice (mass transmitted tradition), then we will continue to be a source of embarrassment and rage.

    We leave you with the following story in which an old blind man was denied entry on a bus because of the ignorance of us Muslims.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-38745910

    If you enjoyed the above article you may be interested in reading the following:

    https://primaquran.com/2020/09/12/dastardly-bowl-licking-dogs-and-the-thought-process-of-some-muslim/

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

    May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah! May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah!

    4 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    February 13, 2026 · 7:00 pm

    Are Ibadis intolerant of other schools? A picture is worth a thousand words.

    “And hold firmly together to the rope of Allah and do not be divided. Remember Allah’s favour upon you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts, so you—by His grace—became brothers. And you were at the brink of a fiery pit and He saved you from it. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so that you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.” (Qur’an 3:103)

    ﷽ 

    As they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

    Like any school of Islam of course we believe that our school is upon haqq. Yet our scholars study and take from the works of the great scholars across all schools. That is because we firmly believe on this verse:

    “He gives wisdom to whom He chooses, and whoever is given wisdom is blessed abundantly. But only insightful people bear this in mind.” (Qur’an 2:269)

    We want more cooperation and harmony among the Muslim Ummah. We want Muslims to work together to solve the challenges confronting this Ummah.

    ونحن لا نطالب العباد

    فوق شهادتيهم اعتقاداً

    فمن اتى بالجملتين قلنا

    إخواننا وبالحقوق قمنا

    إلا إذا ما نقضوا المقالا

    أو أحدثوا في دينهم ضلالا

    قمنا نبين الصواب لهم

    ونحسبن ذاك من حقهم

    And we do not obligate over servants[of Allah] over their shahada any belief. Whoever came with the two testimonies we say our brothers and we treat them with their rights, unless they break the religion; or they created in their religion an error. Than we will show the truth to them, and we will consider this their right.

    Source: (From the poem كشف الحقيقة لمن جهل الطريقة for Imam Noor Al-Deen Al-Salemi) -May Allah have abundant mercy on him.

    Sheikh Ahmad bin Hamad Al-Khalili أحمد بن حمد الخليلي‎‎
    Sheikh Ahmad bin Hamad Al-Khalili أحمد بن حمد الخليلي‎‎

    A special prayer meet was organised at Markazu Saquafathi Sunniyya for Sultan Qaboos Bin Said. Grand Mufti of India مفتي جمهورية الهند led the prayer and he requested all believers in India to pray for Sultan Qaboos Bin Said at Mosques and Madrasas.

     

    Under the leadership of Umar bin Abdul-Aziz the Ibadi school sent a group of six great scholars, J’afer bin A’Simak, Abu AlHur Ali bin AlHusain Al’Anbri, AlHattat bin Kateb, AlHabab bin Kulaib, Abu Suyan Qanber AlBasri, and Salim bin Thakwan among other unnamed scholars,(May Allah have his mercy upon them all)

    Non-Ibadi historians mentioned these delegates to Umar bin Abdul-Aziz though they said with their usual insinuation: “The Khawarij sent him a delegation”. However, they did not mention what happened between them and the Caliph Umar and his acceptance of all their suggestions about spreading justice and purging the country of the Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali from the pulpit. The Ibadi delegation said to Umar, “Muslims are cursing from pulpits in mosques, so this evil tradition must be changed”. Thus, Umar replaced it with the words of Allah: 

    “Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that you remember”, (Qur’an 16: 90)

    May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

    May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

    You may also be interested in reading the following:

    https://primaquran.com/2024/04/29/do-only-ibadis-go-to-heaven/

    3 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    February 6, 2026 · 4:07 am

    Ramadan Series and Fiqh of Eid

    Ramadan Series

    “Is there any reward for goodness except goodness?
     (Qur’an 55:60)

    ﷽ 

    First we would like to share the video by brother Hatim for Ramadan day 29. As people know Muslims use the lunar calendar. Thus, Ramadan is 29 or 30 days.

    *Eid prayer and Sunan of Eid*
    Firstly we send our greetings and congratulations for finishing this dense educational spiritual course which is Ramadan, now that it’s done we as Muslims should be happy in these blessed days of Eid, and a good quote we found: “Eid is exiting Ramadan not existing Islam”

    Thus, we should always keep on remembering Allah and following the Sunnah of his Blessed Prophet (saw).

    There are Sunnan and etiquettes we should follow for Eid:
    – To give the obligatory Zakat Al fitr, which we mentioned its rulings prior
    – Ghusl, brushing, and using perfumes and being in your best form
    – Eating before going to prayer
    – Walking to the Eid prayer location while changing the path when going and returning
    – To perform the prayer outside the city in an outdoor prayer hall
    – Saying the Takbir when going to pray
    – Exchanging congratulations for the worship in ramadan and for Eid
    – Visiting family
    – Giving charity, bringing joy to kids, and Halal playing and singing

    Some rulings related to Eid:
    – It’s not allowed to fast Eid
    – You should pray before Eid prayer or after, except if you did the Eid prayer in a mosque so you pray two Rak’as before sitting
    – Greetings should be after prayer not before
    – The outdoor prayer hall takes the ruling of a mosque
    – All people can pray Eid prayer including women and children

    How to perform Eid prayer:
    – The time of the Eid prayer is the time of Duha, so after Sunrise, it should be delayed a bit so that people can give their Zakat Al Fitr

    – The Eid prayer is two Rak’as and from the Sunnah is reading Al A’la first then Surat Al Ghashiyah in the second Rak’a

    – No Adhan or Iqamah for Eid prayer

    – When performing Eid prayer there are more Takbirs than normal prayers, even though scholars differ in their number but they are all correct by Allah’s will, here are some forms:
    – 13 more Takbirs: 5 after Takbir Al Ihram, 5 after reciting in the second Rak’a and 3 after standing from the second Ruku’ (this is the most common in Oman)
    – 13 more Takbirs: 6 after Takbir Al Ihram and 7 after reciting in the second Rak’a (Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili’s choice)
    – 12 more Takbirs: 7 after Takbir Al Ihram, 5 after standing for the second Rak’a (Shaykh Saeed Al Qannoobi’s choice)

    – After the prayer, the Imam should stand and give a Khutbah(speech) that starts with thanking Allah while increasing Takbirs to give them advice for their religion and to remind them about Zakat Al Fitr

    And when Allah spoke about Ramadan he said: (so that you may complete the prescribed period and proclaim the greatness of Allah for guiding you, and perhaps you will be grateful)

    After finishing Ramadan

    On the topic of Tazkiyah:
    Alhamdulillah we mentioned the topics from the book (towards a longer life of faith) by Shaykh Naser Bin Said Al Azri

    On the topic of Aqeeda:
    We went through more than half the concept in the book (Explanation of Ghayat Al Murad poem) by Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalil

    On the topic of Fiqh:
    we mentioned around 29 different issues and topics related to prayer, fasting, Zakah and different types of worship.

    insha’Allah we will continue the Aqeeda section until we finish the book.

    May Allah accept this, and grant us sincerety in seeking knowledge.

    🌹

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah. May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

    January 31, 2026 · 5:26 am

    A critique of Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology

    Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)

    “Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)

    Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Reflect deeply upon the creation, but do not reflect upon the essence of the Creator. Verily, His essence cannot be known other than to believe in it.”

    Source: (Musnad al-Rabī’ 742 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَلْقِ وَلا تَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَالِقِ فَإِنَّهُ لا يُدْرَكُ إِلا بِتَصْدِيقِهِ 742 مسند الربيع بن حبيب 2976 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن في صحيح الجامع)

    ﷽ 

    This is a (PrimaQur’an) critique of it. So, rather than this being any robust response or engagement from our school, this is an endeavor from a team of non-specialists in philosophy.

    The arguments contained here are by no means original from us either. However, this article is sprinkled with our thoughts and conclusions when looking at this particular approach to theology.

    For those not formally trained traditionally or academically in theology or philosophy, it is also by no means a deep dive. These are very elementary critiques that we think would appear before any seasoned mind.

    Apophatic theology is another name for theology by way of negation. From the Greek ἀπόφημι (apóphemi) ‘to say no’. This is to say that God is known by negating concepts that might apply to him using the insufficiency of human language and rational concepts to describe God.

    Ultimately, it is the theology of making no affirmative or positive attributes or assertions of any kind about God. That God is so completely unknowable that we can only engage in conversation about the divine by means of negation. What God is not.

    Hopefully, one might appreciate the irony in such an approach, in that both negative and positive statements about God are both equal propositions about divine nature. One is put forward in the positive and the other in the negative. For apophatic theologians, ultimately they must take on the mantle of mysterions and appreciate the complete mystery, otherness and unknowability of God rather than say what could lead to misleading theological concepts about God.

    One of our colleagues has said before in this article about an encounter they had while giving a guided tour of a Masjid where a man from California just out of nowhere blurted out the statement: “There is no truth, nothing is true!”

    So they turned to the man and said: “Is that true?”

    It entails a logical contradiction. It is a logical contradiction because we can be certain that we do not know anything for certain. Which in turn renders our uncertainty very uncertain itself!

    Rather, one states that a triangle has three sides or one states that it does not have three sides. Both statements, rather positive or negative, are still both propositions.

    ” That you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)

    So you could approach this statement: “and that you say about Allah that which you do not know,” from two angles.

    Both angles do not support apophatic theology at all.

    The first approach may seem clever. That would be to question: “What is it that we actually know about Allah?” They would affirm: “We do not know anything about Allah.” The proponents of apophatic theology would begin with negations.

    What is it that we actually know about Allah? Which entails the opposite of an Apophatic theological approach.

    What we say about Allah that which we do not know itself entails there are things that we do know about Allah.

    You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.

    How can we say in any consistent and meaningful way what God is not like unless we have a model or conception of what God is like?

    What is a hamburger not like?

    How could one provide an answer to this question unless he/she has some idea of what a hamburger is like?

    “Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” (Qur’an 42:11)

    This verse poses a number of problems for proponents of apophatic theology.

    The verse does not negate Allah (swt) being a ‘shay’. It simply states that there is no shay like unto him.

    The verse in context then affirms that Allah (swt) is the Hearing the Seeing. Thus, it immediately supplies us with two affirmations about Him.

    So even if we give ta’wil interpretations to Hearing, Seeing and Him, they would be interpretations that would tell us something about Allah (swt).

    This immediately shows that apophatic theology is inherently contradictory. In saying that God is unknowable or inexpressible, we have already described God’s nature that it is unknowable and inexpressible, thus asserting propositions about God.

    Just as they would when trying to exegete the above text of the Qur’an.

    In fact, apophatic theology is not something that can be derived from revelation as one of the purposes of revelation is to tell us the will of God.

    Apophatic theology cannot affirm a will for God. Therefore, apophatic theology is an exercise in philosophy(not a belief in revealed revelation).

    It relies upon using the very limitations of 3D carbon-based lifeforms, existing in the space/time continuum equipped only with their very limited abilities of perception and reason — via a 3D carbon-based lifeform -via from the vantage point of existing in the space/time continuum.

    In apophatic or negative theology, we cannot know or affirm that Allah is Love. We do not know or cannot affirm that Allah is Loving.

    We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Muhammed (saw).

    We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Ali ibn Abu Talib.

    We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves the Ahl Bayt.

    At best, we could still advance propositions: Allah is not hateful. Allah does not hate.

    Allah does not hate Muhammed (saw).

    Allah does not hate Ali.

    Allah does not hate the Ahl Bayt.

    Because just as Allah (swt) does not love Muhammed (saw) or love Ali or love the Ahl Bayt, he does not hate any of them either.

    The greatest mysterions are those who can give no definite propositional answers about God at all!

    In fact, in negative theology, God may not be simple at all. Because to state that God is simple is a positive statement.

    God is possibly more complex and more complicated than anything we could imagine. Hence, the very premise of apophatic theology could, in a very real sense, be self-defeating.

    Ultimately, it is a belief in an unknown ‘other’ that one cannot explicate. Rendering itself more complicated than the Trinitarian Athanasian creed by far!

    Because this concept (which is what it is at this point) is completely unknowable, it gets to the point of asking rather or not if it is even God we are talking about.

    We could, for all intents and purposes, talk about God-1.

    In other words, the philosophers could have beguiled themselves into believing in an entity that is God in every aspect except the most important, ‘the unknowability’. Surely this itself presents a conundrum.

    We simply would not have a basis for knowing at all.

    We could simply be talking about a being or entity that is beyond our capacity to fathom but would still not necessitate that entity being God/Allah.

    That is because, ultimately, in negative theology, God cannot be perceived and is not perceivable.

    We cannot say anything in relation to God and space/time. We cannot really say anything in relation to God and God’s relation to any creation. Because we would not have the slightest clue what a relationship would be like.

    Allah is nothing? Allah is something? Allah is everything? Which is correct?

    Which of the statements has textual support from the Qur’an?

    “Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)

    The above text clearly states in response to the question of what thing has most weight in testimony that Allah (swt) is that thing which has most weight in testimony.

    There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is no-thing.

    There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is everything. This too would be defeated by logic as there would not be a creator-created distinction.

    Apophatic theology leads to bizarre, contradictory conclusions about the attributes of God.

    We cannot say that God Creates Perfection.

    We cannot say that God Creates Perfection because we cannot say that God Creates at all.

    There are also problems with affirmation of negatives to Allah/God.

    So when we don’t say that Allah is Hate or Allah is Love. We can only say that Allah does not Hate and Allah does not Love.

    But can we affirm the negatives for the following?

    Does God have power and control over himself? Is this something to affirm or negate?

    Does God have autonomy?

    Does God have sovereignty?

    Because the moment we assert negative prepositions for these questions, we are now introducing another force besides God.

    If you say that the Divine Essence is not autonomous or not sovereign, then this necessitates another actor.

    So, logic dictates that we must assert that the Divine Essence has the positive attributes of Autonomy and Sovereignty at the very least; or we are now redirecting our conversation and our interest away from this supposed ‘God’ to that force that God submits to.

    Another conundrum of this philosophical discourse is that if this God has the qualities of essence, the very fact there is conversation concerning it makes it among the categories of things that conversation is being held concerning. Even if the conversation is philosophical or speculative in nature.

    In other words, another defeat for apophatic theology is that God is being discussed, even if it is only in the sense of negation. Thus, we are affirming a positive about God. That positive being that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.

    We can only discuss subjects that have come to our consciousness. Even if those subjects are abstract concepts like time, infinity and nothingness.

    We are using language to describe, negate or affirm the concept just as we would use language to negative or affirm any other thing.

    So apophatic theology is helpless to deny that God is beyond the realm of pontification, reflection or discussion, or it would render its own position vain. This is because apophatic theologians themselves discuss, pontificate and muse over what is not God.

    Apophatic Theology and Proving Negatives.

    Apophatic theologians think they can make negative assertions about God without having to prove those negative assertions.

    This gets into the debate we have with atheists, where (the uneducated among them) state one cannot prove a negative.

    For one thing, a real actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
    This law states that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law.

    For example: the very statement: “you cannot prove a negative” is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true!

    Here is another negative we can prove via mathematics.

    There is no rational number whose square is 2. 

    https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/1092/University/Maths/Is-there-any-rational-number-whose-square-is-2/

    Thank you, Andrei S!

    So, when making negative statements about God. God is not like this and God is not like that. What is the contrast?

    Remember the earlier question:

    What is a hamburger not like?

    You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.

    This would lead us to some intrusive and counter-intuitive conclusions. Such as the bizarre perspective that perhaps the one who has never ever thought about God is the closest to the truth concerning God.

    Here we are not talking about the Atheist who has made a propositional stance against God. Here we are talking about such a hypothetical person that has never considered God at all.

    Recall that even apophatic theologians are among those who believe that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.

    Apophatic Theology Is Hostile Towards Certain aspects of Mysticism and Sufism in particular.

    Those aspects of mysticism and Sufism that Apophatic Theology is a virulent enemy of the idea of Fan’a (annihilation of the self in the divine) or having a direct experience with the Divine. This is not possible and the aspirant, according to apophatic theology, is in a state of grand disillusionment. How would they objectively know that they have arrived? That arrival could be a veil itself and, in the face of apophatic theology, it most certainly is.

    The argument from the Qur’an is that God must be something.

    “Or were they created by no-thing (ghayri shayin), or are they ˹their own˺ creators?” (Qur’an 52:35)

    A no-thing would be a non-shay. Non-existence. Unless one wants to argue that the Qur’an is utilizing a spacious argument. May Allah protect us from the Shaitan!

    Why would the argument be used that they were created from nothing if the first creation was created from nothing?

    Thus, logically, a true negative theology would entail that we cannot say anything about God, which ultimately you will see is the conclusion that many of them end up reaching, by stating that God does not exist (has existence).

    Maybe their perspective is similar to the Ein-Sof of Kabbalist philosophy. Maybe they reduce the perceivably complex to the least complex. A name which is still a composite consisting of letters; such that to escape even that multiplicity in the naming of the nothing they chose ע

    Even then, that is problematic.

    The Christian tradition has the following:

    “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

    “For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:23)

    If God is unlike anything that we can understand or relate to at all, then how could one justify any response to God? Prayer, worship, obeying his commands and shunning that which is prohibited?

    “Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you.” (Qur’an 2:143)

    Again, these are some of our initial thoughts on the subject.

    The Claim: Apophaticism states that no positive predicate can be applied to God. God is beyond all human categories and language.

    The Contradiction: To claim that “God is beyond all predicates” is itself a predicate. To say “God is unknowable” is to claim a piece of knowledge about God (namely, that He possesses the property of being unknowable). The statement “No statement about God is true” must, if true, apply to itself, rendering it false.

    In essence, the apophatic approach attempts to use language to assert the failure of all language, which is a logical paradox. It tries to climb a ladder of negation and then kick it away, but the act of kicking it away is still a use of the ladder.

    God, beyond being, must have the quality of being able to give or ground being.

    As the philosopher Anthony Kenny quipped, “The God of the apophatic theologian and the God of the atheist seem to share a remarkable similarity.”

    Meaningful negation logically depends on some prior understanding of what is being negated.

    This leads to an infinite regress of negation: to negate a concept, you must use another concept, which you must then also negate, ad infinitum. This process can never logically conclude, as every step requires a conceptual framework that the theory itself claims is invalid.

    The Unjustified Starting Assumption
    The entire apophatic edifice is built on one key premise: that the human mind is utterly incapable of forming any true concepts about a transcendent God.

    This is an epistemological claim presented as an absolute truth. However, it is not logically proven within the system; it is merely asserted.

    A critic can ask: How do you know that human concepts are entirely inadequate? To know this would require having access to God’s nature to compare it to our concepts, which is precisely what the apophatic theologian claims is impossible.

    Therefore, the foundational premise of apophaticism is both unproven and, by its own standards, unknowable.

    Self-Referential Problem

    If we say “God is ineffable” or “God cannot be described,” we are still making a positive assertion about God.

    This seems self-contradictory: the claim “God cannot be spoken of” is itself a way of speaking about God.

    Epistemic Vacuity

    If all positive descriptions are denied, what content remains to distinguish God from nothingness?

    A purely negative theology risks collapsing into nihilism: saying “God is not this, not that” could equally describe a void or absence.

    This makes it hard to explain how believers know they are actually speaking of God rather than simply of “not-X”.

    Dependence on Positive Knowledge

    Negation requires a prior positive reference. To say “God is not finite,” one must know what “finite” means and apply it meaningfully.

    Thus, negation parasitically depends on the very affirmations it claims to reject.

    Pure apophaticism may be logically impossible without at least some cataphatic (positive) foundation.

    Oh Allah, if anything that was penned by us was in error, we turn ourselves over to your Mercy. You, the knower of intentions.

    With Allah (swt) is success.

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

    January 3, 2026 · 6:22 am

    The appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children according to the Bible.

    “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)

    Chabad.org translation.

    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)

    Sefaria.org translation.

    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)

    The word little in Hebrew is qatan.

    Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6996.htm)

    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.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    November 6, 2025 · 2:12 am

    Is the Qur’an clear?

    “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.

    Spect-Prism-sm

    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.

    Proof from the Qur’an: The punishment of hellfire is ever lasting.

    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).

    Spect-Prism-sm

    “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)

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    6 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

    November 5, 2025 · 5:32 am

    Who can understand the mutashabih verses? Analysis of Quran 3:7

    “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.

    The importance of punctuation.

    So to try and bring as many of you along as we can, we would encourage you to use the following resource: https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/7/default.htm

    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)

    1. In this context, the purified (mataharuna) are indeed the angels and this refers to the Tablet in paradise.
    2. That when it comes to the believers, there is an adaab (mannerism) in how we handle the sacred text.
    3. 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?

      1. Punctuation marks or (Rumuz al-Awqaf) were added by the scholars after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
      2. Diacritical marks (Tashkeel) to distinguish words or grammatical structures were added by scholars after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

      Rumuz al-Awqaf (Punctuation Marks)

      The following is from http://www.as-sidq.org/durusulQuran/articles/mariful.html#Rumuz

      May Allah (swt) bless them for their work.

      From the above source we find:

      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:

      1. Causing damage to the boat fa-aradttu (I intended)
      2. 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.
      3. 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.

      1. 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.
      2. The difference in understanding of Qur’an 3:7 has to do with the Rumuz al-Awqaf (punctuation marks).
      3. The dispute is not over the muh’kam but rather over who understands the mutashabi.
      4. As the Blessed Prophet (saw) understood the whole of the Qur’an, it is not possible to render the reading as only Allah knows.
      5. The people firmly rooted in knowledge are those who base their understanding upon the muh’kam.
      6. The people whose hearts are given to perversity and deviation go straight to mutashabi.
      7. 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.
      8. With reflection and understanding that which is mutashabi can become muh’kam.

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

      May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

      May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

      Leave a comment

      Filed under Uncategorized

      Tagged as , , , , , , ,

      October 21, 2025 · 2:13 am

      Critique of the argument that Muhammed wrote the Qur’an.

      “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:

      1. 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.”
      2. 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.

      1. That this verse does not generally address the gift of literacy, which is a blessing from Allah (swt).
      2. That Muhammed (saw) is the one being addressed here.  After all, the verse does say, taught man (plural)…
      3. . 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…

      http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/29/48/default.htm

      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

      That word is nowhere being used for writing.

      See the following: http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qwl#(69:44:2)

      sayings is l-aqawili

      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.”

      None of them dare to translate as written.

      https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/69/44/

      “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’an and 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.   

      quran-t

      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)

      May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

      May Allah Guide the Ummah.

      5 Comments

      Filed under Uncategorized

      Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,