“AndDO NOT OBEY the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend their ways” (Qur’an 26:151-152)
﷽
Abu Hamza al-Mukhtar bin ‘Awf, one of the prominent Ibadi’s of Basrah had this to say about the Umayyad rulers in general and Yazid in particular during a Friday sermon in Medina in the presence of Imam Malik ibn Anas:
“There came Yazid, a libertine in religion and unmanly in behavior, in whom was never perceived right guidance. He would eat forbidden food, and drink wine, and wear a robe worth a thousand dinars, through which you could see his flesh so that the veil of modesty was rent, an unpardonable disrobe. And Haraba the singing girl on his right, and Salama the singing girl on his left, both singing if you had taken drink away from him, he would rent his garments!
And he would turn to one of them and say, Shall I fly? Aye, he flew. To God’s damnation, and the burning Fire, and a painful torment!
He then turns to the Umayyads:
“The sons of Umayyads are a party of error, and their strength is the strength of tyrants. They take conjecture for their guide, and judge as they please, and put men to death in anger, and govern by mediation and take the law out of context and distribute the public money to those not entitled to them. For God has revealed those who are entitled, and they are eight classes of men, for He says:
“The freewill offerings are for the poor and the needy, those who work to collect them, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and slaves and debtors, and those in the way of Allah and the travelers.”
They, the Umayyads make themselves the ninth category and take it all! Such are those who rule by what Allah has not sent down.” (The World of Islam John A Williams p 218)
What Did Imam Malik Say About Abu Hamzas Khutbah? – His Eminence Shaykh Nasir al MarMuri رحمة الله تعالى.
“We have not sent down to you the Qur’an that you be distressed.” (Qur’an 20:2)
﷽
“Allah does not require any soul more than what it can bear. All good will be for its own benefit, and all evil will be to its own loss. “Our Lord! Do not punish us if we forget or make a mistake. Our Lord! Do not place a burden on us, like the one you placed on those before us. Our Lord! Do not burden us with what we cannot bear. Pardon us, forgive us, and have mercy on us. You are our Guardian. So grant us victory over the disbelieving people.” (Qur’an 2:286).
The above verse is an often misunderstood verse. It is misunderstood to mean a personal life crisis. Notice the phrase: “Do not place a burden on us, like the one you placed on those before us our Lord!”
This is a reference to the Children of Israel.
“The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah . And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 62:5)
By not observing what Allah (swt) had ordered them and forbade them and by not applying laws to context, they made the law a burden for themselves. The donkey carries books, yet it has no grasp of their contents, and it does not benefit from them. In fact, the donkey is looking forward to having that weight removed from it.
The Shariah law is meant to be the path to victory. Notice the verse above also states:
“So grant us victory over the disbelieving people.”
In Arabic, Shariah (شريعة) literally means “a path to water.”
Allah does not require any soul more than what it can bear.
This is in regard to the Shariah. There is no aspect of the sacred law that is difficult for anyone to carry out. If there becomes a difficulty or a challenge, an ease or a dispensation is introduced.
So, surely with hardship comes ease. Surely with hardship comes ease. (Qu’ran 94:5-6)
Certainly it is enough for the Creator to say something once. Yet, here there is a repetition.
This is not a redundancy. This is an example of (tikrār) for the purpose of confirmation, consolation, and emphasis. The repetition drives home the message of hope and divine assurance, making it absolutely unequivocal.
The above verse is understood by us that periods of hardship are followed by periods of ease. It is also understood in jurisprudence that difficulties create dispensations.
There are many examples in the Qur’an where a challenge or hardship may come and Allah (swt) grants an ease.
Eating something generally forbidden is an act of worship when faced with starvation.
“Ad-dararatu tubīhu al-mahzūrāt” (Necessity permits the prohibited).
“Indeed, He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:173)
Key Points:
It provides an important exception: in a situation of genuine necessity where no other food is available to preserve life, a person may consume it without sin.
It lists four primary prohibitions: carrion (dead meat), blood, pork, and meat sacrificed to idols.
“And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but what your heart intended. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:5)
Exemptions due to honest mistakes and not intentional acts.
The following verse deals with the accidental misuse of names in adoption
The key distinction is made between an honest mistake (akhta’tum) and an intentional act (ta’ammadat qulubukum).
This principle is generalized in Islamic law. For example, if someone unknowingly eats pork because they were deceived or, it was mislabeled, they are not considered to have sinned.
There was a video circulating online that showed a father playing a cruel prank on him (who embraced Islam). Only telling him after the meal that he had eaten pork. The young man committed no sin. Only the father will answer for his evil. Anyone who thinks that by deceiving a Muslim in such a way has only deceived themselves.
Exemption Under Duress (Ikrah)
The following verse was revealed about a companion, Ammar ibn Yasir, who was tortured into uttering a word of disbelief while his heart was firm in faith.
“Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief… except for one who is forced while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment.” (Qur’an 16:106)
Exemption from using water for prayers.
“O believers! Do not approach prayer while intoxicated until you are aware of what you say, nor in a state of impurity—unless you merely pass through —until you have bathed. But if you are ill, on a journey, or have relieved yourselves, or been intimate with your wives and cannot find water, then purify yourselves with clean earth, wiping your faces and hands. And Allah is Ever-Pardoning, All-Forgiving.” (Qur’an 4:43)
The first point to notice here is that Earth is something purifying for Muslims. We do not view the world as something that in and of itself is filthy.
Some other schools of jurisprudence have attacked Ibadis by saying that we don’t perform wudhu or ghusl with water when there is the presence of wells. That is not true. The situation is evaluated.
Some schools may take a literalist approach. They take the part that says, “Until you have bathed” and “cannot find water” as the priority. So, if there was a man in a caravan who was intimate with his spouse and needed to perform major ritual purity and there is the availability of a well. That school may deem it necessary for that man to wash himself with the available water. Our school would evaluate the distance or journey to the next well or wadi. How many people are in the caravan? If it is deemed that water is more necessary for drinking and preservation of life, then it is used for this purpose and not ritual washing.
Should the whole tribe or group die of dehydration, so one man can wash his private parts?
A recent fiqh ruling.
A man asked about a condition where a person takes medications in the afternoon. This medication is necessary for him to take. However, the medication makes him excessively drowsy. This individual will usually sleep through the asr and the maghrib prayers. So what are they to do?
A man asked about a condition where a person takes medications in the afternoon. This medication is necessary for him to take. However, the medication makes him excessively drowsy. This individual will usually sleep through the asr and the maghrib prayers. So what are they to do?
Notice the above verse says:
“O believers! Do not approach prayer while intoxicated until you are aware of what you say.”
“Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship.” (Qur’an 2:185)
Shaykh Rashid Al Miskiri (h) had replied to the man with the following:
“Ibn ‘Abbas reported:
The Messenger of Allah (saw) observed the noon and afternoon prayers together in Medina without being in a state of fear or in a state of journey. (Abu Zubair said: I asked Sa’id [one of the narrators] why he did that. He said: I asked Ibn ‘Abbas as you have asked me, and he replied that he [the Holy Prophet] wanted that no one among his Ummah should be put to [unnecessary] hardship.)
Thus, the man is advised to do 4 rakats of dhuhr immediately followed by 4 rakats of asr. When he wakes up, he has to perform 3 rakats of maghrib followed by 4 rakats of isha.
Delaying your prayer if you need to relieve yourself by going to the toilet.
Section on Disliked Acts in Prayer
“It is clear to you, O alert reader, that disliked acts of prayer are matters alien to its essence, and they are inconsistent with its Sunnah acts and its desirable etiquettes. They might distract one’s attention from his prayer. Thus, they should be abandoned to attain the reward despite the fact that there is no sin with the one who does any of them. Therefore, hold fast to the Sunnah and avoid heresy. The following are a number of reprehensible acts in prayer: 1 — Praying when one is resisting urine or stool. This is a disliked act because it disturbs one during prayer. Indeed, it makes one miss the greatest pillar of prayer, which is Khushū‘1. The proof was correctly ascribed to the Prophet (PBUH) when he forbade prayer while resisting the two akhbathayn, body wastes (urine and stool).2”
Source: ( pg 283 Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali (Religious Studies Supervisor at Sultan Qaboos University). This book, Al-Muatamad (The Reliable Jurisprudence on Prayer)
2 3- Khushū‘ in prayer is to have reverence, consciousness and attentiveness. – ar-Rabī‘. Ḥadīth number 301. – ar-Rabī‘. Ḥadīth number 253.
So does this mean that bodily waste is more important than prayer or our Creator? Of course not. It is simply reasonable that one will not be able to give the Creator the proper focus and respect while they need to answer the call of nature.
Exemption from fasting in Ramadan and/or paying back the missed fast.
“˹Fast a˺ prescribed number of days. But whoever of you is ill or on a journey, then ˹let them fast˺ an equal number of days ˹after Ramaḍân˺.” (Qur’an 2:184)
“So whoever is present this month, let them fast. But whoever is ill or on a journey, then ˹let them fast˺ an equal number of days ˹after Ramaḍân˺. Allah intends ease for you, not hardship, so that you may complete the prescribed period and proclaim the greatness of Allah for guiding you, and perhaps you will be grateful.” (Qur’an 2:185)
There are among us in the Muslim community those whose hearts have become hardened and are often bereft of mercy, empathy, compassion. They recite Ar Rahman and Ar Raheem before the recitation of the Qur’an again and again and yet never seem to grasp concepts like mercy and compassion.
In fact, the most often repeated verses of the Qur’an are “Then which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?” are repeated 31 times after every description of Allah’s blessings and power. Where are these verses repeated? They are found in Surah Ar-Rahman (Chapter 55), a chapter titled: The Most Merciful.
So, in reality, those who seek hardship and difficulty with religion, it is they who are having a spiritual crisis. They possibly wake up in the middle of the night in cold sweats wondering if someone somewhere is taking a dispensation that will create ease in their life.
We have seen such people and been among them. They never want to shepherd their own souls. They are too busy wanting to shepherd the souls of others and even then it is not with sincerity they only wish in the darkness of their hearts to see others fall short, to fail.
We know of Muslims afraid to eat soup in front of others in Ramadan when they are sick.
Muslim women who have menses in Ramadan are often afraid to eat in front of other people simply because of this attitude that some people have, as if Allah (swt) and his angels are not sufficient as witnesses. Authubillah min dhalik!
You will hear that taking an easy fatwa—legal verdicts or taking the easiest opinion is a sign of weak faith or a giving into your nafs (self/ego).
Even though, as we have seen above that time and time again that Allah (swt) has permitted ease in our faith and that he doesn’t want to impose difficulty upon us.
What these people (those who accuse others of having weak faith or taking the easy way out) is that they themselves may be having a disease of the heart.
Even in the Qur’an, where a man insults his wife by calling her ‘like the back of my mother’, such a heinous thing even then Allah (swt) gives dispensation after dispensation.
“Those who pronounce thihar (saying you are to me like the back of my mother) among you to separate from their wives-they are not their mothers. Their mothers are none but those who gave birth to them. And indeed, they are saying a dishonorable statement and a flat lie. But indeed, Allah is Pardoning and Forgiving. 1) And he who does not find a slave to set free-then 2) a fast of two months consecutively before they touch one another; and he who is unable -then 3) the feeding of sixty poor persons. That is for you to believe in Allah and His Messenger, and those are the limits set by Allah. And for the disbelievers is a painful punishment (Qur’an 58:2-4)
Cannot set a slave free? Then fast for two consecutive months.
Cannot fast for two consecutive months than feed 60 poor people.
Those are the limits set by Allah.
The Sunnah of Allah is to want ease for his servants.
As we have seen at the beginning of this blog post that Allah (swt) desires ease. This is the Sunnah of Allah (swt).
“This is the way of Allah (Sunnat Allah) with those who passed away before, and you will not find any alteration in the way of Allah (Sunnat Allah).” (Qur’an 33:62)
“Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you.” (Qur’an 5:6)
“He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty” (Qur’an 22:78)
“And Allah wants to lighten for you your difficulties” (Qur’an 4:28)
“Recite then only that which is easy for you.” (Qur’an 73:20)
“It is part of the mercy of Allah that you deal gently with them. If you were severe or hardhearted, they would have broken away from you.” (Qur’an 3:159)
So which of the favours of your Lord would you deny?
Ibadi fiqh of prayer when traveling.
You may be surprised to know that in our school the combining of the prayers is for the duration that a person is traveling from what is considered their permanent home. This even means for business or going to school overseas. So this could be for weeks, months or even years. There are some exceptions to this.
*Traveling prayer* When traveling, prayers are a little bit different. Here are some rulings regarding prayer when traveling: – The traveling distance: 12 Km – There is no time limit for these rulings as long as you are not at home. – When traveling, you pray the 4 Rak’a prayers (Duhr, Asr and Isha’) in 2 Rak’as, and this is *mandatory*. – When traveling you can join Dhuhr and Asr (2+2) and Maghrib with Isha (3+2), and when joining them you don’t need to pray the Sunan Rawatib. – Joining the (congregational) prayer is not mandatory, but they are recommended when actively traveling, and discouraged when staying at some place.
-When you find a congregation, you always follow the Imam. If he prays 4, you pray 4 When choosing an Imam, the priority is for the resident over the traveler, because otherwise he will only pray 2 in Jama’a — If a traveler prays behind a resident, he prays 4 If a resident prays behind a traveler, he prays until the Imam finishes, but then he shouldn’t do Tasleem with the Imam but continue the 3rd and 4th Rak’a and only then he does the Tasleem The 2 prayers can be joined normally, so after finishing Dhuhr, for example, a new Iqama is said and the Asr prayer starts. There are two options when joining, you can join them at the time of the first prayer (Duhr/Maghrib) or join them at the time of the second prayer (Asr/Isha’) and in both cases the prayer is the same, it’s only about the time.
When you decide to pray Jam’ Ta’khir (the time of the second prayer), you cannot return home before praying the first prayer. For example: we are traveling, and it’s the time of Maghrib, and we decide that we will join them later with Isha’ at the time of Isha’. If the Maghrib time is out, and we return home without praying it, then we commit a sin by not praying a prayer at its time. Another important issue is that we pray based on our current location and not based on where we used to be at the time of Athan, so if the time of Duhr started when you were home, but you traveled at the time of Duhr, you should pray it as a traveler, and the opposite is true, but as we said you should be careful about returning home after the time runs out. Regarding the ruling about joining the prayers, first, it’s always allowed when traveling. There are distinctions when actively traveling (on the road/ moving) and staying (in a city/visiting someone).
We would like to give some practical examples:
1. Joining Duhr with Asr in a congregation: we are traveling. It’s time for Dhuhr. We decide to pray Jam’ Taqdeem with Asr (at the time of the first prayer), we enter a mosque, we find a normal congregation, what should we do? We should pray with the normal Jama’a 4 Rak’as, when we finish, one of us stands up and recites the Iqama, then another person leads 2 Rak’as of Asr.
2. Actively traveling: We were traveling from Muscat to Nizwa to visit the fort, before slightly before Maghrib time, when we reached Samail, it was time for Maghrib. We remembered that later we would be busy in Nizwa, so it’s better for us to pray Maghrib and Isha’ now (Jam’ Taqdeem), because we don’t know when we will pray later if we decide to pray Jam’ Ta’kheer, so we finally decide to join Maghrib and Isha’ at the time of Maghrib.
3. Staying when traveling: I am from Muscat and my family is in Nizwa, so I decided to visit them on the weekend, so during the weekend I am not home, but I am not actively traveling, so I have to pray Qasr, but it’s better not to join but to pray each prayer in its time.
This can be extended for longer time frames. For example: ‘Amr went to Russia to study for 4 years. He should pray Qasr as long as he doesn’t consider his place his stable home.
=============================
Some say that Qur’an 4:101 only allows (not orders) halving the rakat when you fear for your safety during traveling. They also add that the verse says nothing about the length of the trip. So the main excuse for halving the rakat is the absence of safety.
“When you travel through the land, it is permissible for you to shorten the prayer—˹especially˺ if you fear an attack by disbelievers. Indeed, the disbelievers are your sworn enemies.” (Qur’an 4:101)
===========================
We don’t see the argument against Safar prayer. While it’s true, in the verse it says you can pray Qasr if you fear the disbeliever, but it doesn’t say don’t pray Qasr in Safar. For us, this sounds like a logical error.
If one is looking for evidence, then there are many Hadiths. Among them is when the Blessed Proohet (saw) went to “Thil Hulaifa”, which is 2 Farsakh away from Medina ≈ 12 km, he prayed Salat Safar, and told the companions I came here to teach you Salat Safar, and all the other details on this topic is taken from different texts.
=============================
Here is some of our evidence on this topic:
1- The Blessed Prophet (saw), performed Qasr in all his travels, and there is no piece of evidence that he prayed a full prayer when traveling, not even once.
The Hadith: “He used to shorten and complete his prayers, and fast and eat in his travels” is a very weak Hadith, and can’t be used as an argument, as said by Shaykh Saeed Al Qannoobi — May Allah bless us with his knowledge.-
2. The Hadith of Aisha May (ra) (The prayer was obligated two Rak’as two Rak’as in residency and travel, then the prayer was fixed in travel and increased in residency)
‘A’isha, the wife of the Messenger of Allah (saw), reported:
The prayer was prescribed as two rak’ahs, two rak’ahs both in journey and at the place of residence. The prayer while travelling remained as it was (originally prescribed), but an addition was made in the prayer (observed) at the place of residence.
*note* Most Muslims are unaware that the shortened rak’ahs were initially the default.
3. “Ibn ‘Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Upon the resident are seventeen rak’ahs, and upon the traveler are eleven rak’ahs.‘”
Source: (Musnad al-Bazzar. by Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmed al-Bazzar )
Even though this specific hadith is weak, the numbers it mentions (17 for resident, 11 for traveler) arefactually correct and are established through the consistent, practical Sunnah (Fi’l) of theBlessed Prophet (saw) and the consensus of the Muslims.
We know the number of rak’ahs not from a single statement, but from the Blessed Prophet’s continuous, witnessed actions:
For the Resident:
Fajr: 2 Rak’ahs
Dhuhr: 4 Rak’ahs
Asr: 4 Rak’ahs
Maghrib: 3 Rak’ahs
Isha: 4 Rak’ahs
Total:17 Rak’ahs for the obligatory prayers.
For the Traveler: The traveler shortens the four-rak’ah prayers (Dhuhr, Asr, Isha) to two rak’ahs each.
Fajr: 2 Rak’ahs (cannot be shortened)
Dhuhr: 2 Rak’ahs (shortened from 4)
Asr: 2 Rak’ahs (shortened from 4)
Maghrib: 3 Rak’ahs (cannot be shortened)
Isha: 2 Rak’ahs (shortened from 4)
Total:11 Rak’ahs for the obligatory prayers.
Both of these two Hadiths are narrated by Imam Rabi’ May Allah have mercy on him.
Allah does not require any soul more than what it can bear
The Shariah law is neither a curse nor a burden.
However, ignorance of Shariah law is both a curse and a burden.
Dear seeker of truth do not make your ignorance a curse nor a burden. Seek knowledge.
Jabir said:
We set out on a journey. One of our people was hurt by a stone, that injured his head. He then had a sexual dream. He asked his fellow travelers: Do you find a concession for me to perform tayammum? They said: We do not find any concession for you while you can use water. He took a bath and died. When we came to the Prophet (saw), the incident was reported to him. He said: They killed him, may Allah kill them! Could they not ask when they did not know? The cure for ignorance is inquiry. It was enough for him to perform tayammum and to pour some drops of water or bind a bandage over the wound (the narrator Musa was doubtful); then he should have wiped over it and washed the rest of his body.
“That is Allah—your True Lord. So what is beyond the truth except falsehood? How can you then be turned away?” (Qur’an 10:32)
﷽
The Conditions of Takfeer/Excommunication in the Ibadi School by Shaykh, Dr Scholar Abdullah bin Saeed bin Abdullah Al Ma’mari May Allah protect him and continue to benefit us from him.
One of the principles established by Ahl al-Istiqama.
The evidence with clear-cut authenticity and clear meaning in theology is taken as definitive, absolute, certain and must be believed.
Whoever opposes this meaning in theology and rejects it is a Mushrik. We seek refuge in Allah from such people.
That is for those who reject it outright without interpretation.
The one who rejects it by means of interpretation is a fasiq.
In both cases, such people are misguided. Because this evidence can only have one meaning. Rejecting it is unacceptable. This rejection only comes from desire.
Allah (swt) says: “So what is beyond the truth except falsehood?” (Qur’an 10:32)
Whoever opposes clear-cut evidence in terms of authenticity and meaning should not receive sweet words from us.
Again, this is only if it has a clear-cut meaning, is authentic, and it comes from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Our beloved teacher and respected Shaykh Al-Qanoobi (h) has said: “Evidence does not become clear-cut unless it goes through certain conditions.”
There are four conditions in our school which must be fulfilled.
1) The first is that it must be authentically transmitted from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
2) The second is that it has a clear-cut authenticity.
3) The third is that the meaning has to be clear.
4) It has to be agreed as being tawatur.
Point 4 has a caveat.
By Tawatur/Mutawattir. That is to say, mass transmitted in practice without additions, accretions or innovations. Alternatively, mass transmitted by disassociated chains of transmission such that it is not possible for them to have conspired upon a falsehood.
For the person who says it is mutawatir. They should take it as part of their creed.
The one who takes a matter disputed as mutawatir by right cannot call another who disagrees as a fasiq. That is because the one who does so takes those hadith as ahad only.
For instance, the belief in Al-Siraat and some say the punishment of the grave.
Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) says:
The evidence regarding the punishment of the grave is mutawatir.
That was his position and he did not call other scholars from the school as fasiqs.
Example: Our luminous scholar Shaykh Imam Nasir bin Abi Nabhan (r) didn’t believe in the punishment of the grave. That is because he didn’t believe the narrations were mutawatir (clear-cut and mass transmitted).
Rather, Shaykh Nabhan (r) saw them as ahad.
Going back to the general principle of the school. No evidence should be accepted in theology unless it is clear-cut with a clear meaning.
However, Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) and other scholars said it is clear-cut with a clear meaning and so they and their followers have to believe it. It is a point of creed.
This is done without calling Fasiq either side due to this difference of opinion.
This is an important principle mentioned by Shaykh Al Qanubi (h) in some of his books.
“And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.”(Qur’an 21:26)
“But the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination.” (Qur’an 5:18)
﷽
“They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!” Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son (like-kind) for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a (like-kind) son.” (Qur’an 19:88-92)
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
THE BIBLE’S POSITION
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him will not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 King James Version)
What does begotten mean? (According to the English language)
Answer: Begotten is a past participle of beget.
Beget begot, begotten: To become the father of: sire
Sire 1: Father 2: The male parent of an animal (as a horse or dog) sired, siring, PRO-CREATE
Source:(The Merriam Webster’s Dictionary For Large Print Users)
Beget – give birth to
Source: (Webster’s Dictionary)
It is indeed blasphemous to ascribe offspring to the Almighty Allah. It is also insulting to the human intellect of any rational person. All Christians of every sect believe Jesus is the ‘Son of God’.
Allah declares that ascribing a son or any offspring to him is a thing most blasphemous.
We as human beings have children to pro-create our species, and to ensure that humanity survives. We will all die; therefore it is a necessity that sons and daughters take our place.
However, Allah is Ever-Living and needs no such means for survival.
Christians will object and say this is a misrepresentation of their beliefs. Yet, they will claim we know it means ‘Sired by God’, but that is not what we believe!
What does begotten mean? (According to the Greek language)
Their own dictionaries describe Christ Jesus as God’s ‘offspring’ and ‘stock’.
We will now walk through the development of this all-important Christian concept. We will show conclusively how an innocuous expression ‘Son of God‘ became Jesus ‘The Son of God’ in the very theologically loaded sense that it is today.
This very belief latter transforms into ‘God the Son’ the second member of the ever infamous Tri-theistic Trinity of the Athanasian Creed.
SONS BY THE TONS
As Sheikh Ahmed Deedat used to say:
The terms ‘Son of God’ and ‘children of God’ are often used throughout the Bible.
EXAMPLES:
“You are children of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1)
“He shall build a house for my name, and he shall be my son, and I will be his father.” (I Chronicles 22:10)
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6)
“I have said, you are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6-7)
“...For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9)
“Have we not one father?” “Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9)
“For unto which of the angels, said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him A FATHER, and he shall be tome A SON?” (Hebrews 1:5)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
In none of the above quotations are the terms ‘children of God’ or ‘Son of God’ understood to be non-allegorical. So why in the case of Jesus is he understood to be the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
If you will pay special attention to the last quotation of Hebrews 1:5 you will see that Jesus is ‘A’ Son and God is ‘A’ Father unto him. It does not say Jesus is ‘THE’ Son and God is ‘THE’ father of Jesus.
The reason why Jesus is ‘a’ son and God is ‘a’ father has to do with adoptionist theology.
Jesus a righteous man or ‘son of God’?
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:54)
“The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”(Luke 23:47)
So we can see that Matthew and Luke report the centurion saying two different things? So is this a contradiction or an acceptable allegory? We would say that this is not a contradiction it is an acceptable allegory. That ‘son of God’ simply meant a righteous servant, one near to God.
Son of God or Slave of God?
“And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.“(Qur’an 21:26)
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 King James Version)
“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 New King James Version)
Notice that the King James Version calls Jesus “his Son”,Whereas the New King James Version calls Jesus “His Servant” and whenever you see that word “servant” in the New Testament, it means slave.
WHAT IS ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY?
Adoptinonist theology:
Adoptionist refers to a person who believes that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism, while adoptionism is the theological doctrine that Jesus was born a mere mortal and was later adopted as the Son of God.
What are the text used in the Bible to support this view held by early Christians?
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of Adam.” (2 Samuel 7:14)
Prima Qur’an comments:
I am not currently his father but I will be.
He is not currently my son but he will be.
I will be to him ‘a’ father. Not ‘the’ father.
He will be to me ‘a’ son. Not ‘the’ son.
If he goes astray he will be chastened.
Here we have a concept of God appointing someone to be his son, or we may say a righteous servant.
This is also stated in Psalms 2:2 and Psalms 2:7 in a reference to King David.
“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” (Psalms 2:2)
“I will declare the decree: the Lord has said unto me, You are my Son; This day have I begotten you.” (Psalms 2:7)
Note: It has this day I have begotten you. It is being said to King David while he is alive and a grown adult. David was appointed by adoption to be the ‘son of God’.
A THEOLOGY TAKES SHAPE
We will now show how ‘Son of God’ in New Testament theology takes a total and complete departure from how ‘Son of God’ was used in the Old Testament.
Now I will give you the proof text which shows how Jesus went from being the adopted ‘Son of God’ to the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY BEHIND THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying, YOU ARE my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)
Note: The voice from heaven addressed Jesus. The Greek for YOU is su (SU).
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying, “THIS IS my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mathew 3:17)
Note: The voice from heaven talks about Jesus. The Greek for THIS IS outos (HOUTOS).
Question: Why the change in voice?
Why would one writer deliberately alter the wording of the text?
Answer: The theology!
Mark’s theology held that Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at baptism, much like David’s coronation in 2 Samuel 7:14
Matthew’s theology held that Jesus was already the ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.
So Jesus does not need to know who he is. Thus, the voice is changed from “You are my son” to an announcement to the ignorant crowd: “This is my son.”
The Qur’an and the Gospel of Luke reject Matthew’s claim.
Note: Look at the Gospel of Luke and Qur’an say in response to Matthew’s claim about Jesus being the ‘son of God’ based upon the virgin birth.
“And they had no child because Elizabeth was barren, and they were now well stricken in years.” (Luke 1:7)
“And Zacharias said unto the angel, how shall I know this? I am an old man, and wife is well stricken in years. And the angel answered said to him, “I am Gabriel who stands in the presence of God; I am sent to speak unto you and to show you glad tidings.” (Luke 1:18-19)
(His prayer was answered): “O Zakariya!” We give you good news of a son: His name shall be Yahya: on none by that name have We conferred distinction before.” He said: “O my Lord”! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren, and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?” He said: “So (it will be) your Lord says, ‘that is easy for Me: I did indeed create you before when you had been nothing!‘” (Qur’an 19:7-9)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Allah asks Zechariah to reflect upon the fact that he was created indeed before he was nothing
“Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.” He said: ” I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son. She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?” He said: “So (it will be): Your Lord says, ‘that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: It is a matter (so) decreed.” (Qur’an 19:16-21)
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
Prima Qur’an Comment: All glory to be to Allah! Allah explains things in a very simple manner for Christians. Allah says that Adam was made from dust(nothingness) and he was simply willed into being. Thus, as Allah (swt) made Adam from nothingness, likewise Christ Jesus, as the word of Allah, is the created word of Allah. Just as all of Allah’s words are created. Jesus, as the kalim of Allah, was created from nothingness.
THE CREATION OF 5 TYPES OF HUMAN BEINGS:
1) Adam was made without a man or a woman and not divine!
2) Eve made without a woman and not divine!
3) Jesus made without a man and not divine!
4) Isaac and John made while their parents were old, infertile, and not divine!
5) The rest of humanity is made of man and woman and not divine!
THE LUKE FACTOR…
Luke’s version of the baptism of Jesus:
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, YOU ARE my beloved Son; in you, I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)
Note:
1) Luke has the story of the virgin birth
2) Luke has Jesus addressed ‘you are’.
“A few MSS [“D”, “o”, “b”] and Patristic citations representing the “Western” text, have, instead of (You are my beloved Son, in you, I am well pleased), the words of Psalms 2:7, You are my son this day have I begotten you.
“Numerous expositors (e.g. W. Mason, Zahn, Klostermann, Harnack, Moffat, Streeter) accept this variant reading as the original. The majority then explain the alteration of the text from the fact that copyists regarded these words as a contradiction to the reality of the virgin birth.”
Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke by Norval Geldenhuys p. 148]
Prima Qur’an Comment: If we take the above evidence, then the baptism of Jesus (according to Luke) would look like this:
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, “You are my son, this day have I begotten you”. (Luke 3:22)
This would mean that Jesus became the ‘son of God’ at his baptism as an adult in the same way David became the ‘son of God’ as an adult.
Let’s continue…
“More important still is the fact that the heavenly voice which greeted Jesus at his baptism hailed him in the opening words of the decree of Psalms 2:7 ‘You are my Son’ Mark 1:11”
“Indeed, the “Western” text of Luke 3:22 represents the fuller wording from Psalms 2:7 which is quoted here by the author of Hebrews 1:5”
“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son. “This day have I begotten you?” (Hebrews 1:5)
“The words were evidently in widespread use as a testimonial in the apostolic age, as Acts 13:33 bears witness, and not only these words but the other parts of psalms were given a messianic interpretation, as may be seen from the quotation and explanation of its first two verses in Acts 4:25.
Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews FF. Bruce]
“God has fulfilled the same unto us, their children, in that he has raised Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalms, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.” (Acts 13:33)
“Why does the heathen rage, and people imagine a vain thing? “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his ANOINTED.” (Psalms 2:1-2)
“Who, by the mouth of your SERVANT David, has said, Why DID the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his CHRIST.” (Acts 4:25-26)
Note: Some important points need to be made.
David was called ANOINTED (Christ). Also, Luke says David was a SERVANT (Slave) of God. This also means Jesus is like David: He is Anointed, meaning appointed by God. Jesus is also the Servant (slave) of God!
Let’s continue…
“Likewise, certain early manuscripts of Luke quote all of Psalms 2:7: Luke 3:22 in Codex Bezae, and certain old Latin Manuscripts used by Justin, Clement, Origen, and Augustine read, “You are my Son this day have I begotten you.”
But interestingly, Luke also used Psalms 2:7, in a speech composed for Paul.
In Paul’s theology, Jesus was “DECLARED to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4)
“Luke apparently knew of this Pauline teaching for he has Paul quoting Psalms 2:7 as a speech uttered to Jesus at his resurrection, and not his baptism! Acts 13:32-33
“For Luke and Paul Psalms 2:7 is a RESURRECTION prophecy and not a BAPTISM prophecy.”
LUKE: He sees the water Jesus is baptized in as ‘the grave’. When Jesus comes out of the water, it is his ‘resurrection.’ The water is symbolic: of ‘being washed by the blood’ of Jesus.
MARK: believed Jesus to be the adopted ‘Son of God’. In the same way, David was the adopted ‘Son of God’, Thus Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at his baptism.
MATTHEW: believed Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.
LUKE AND PAUL: believe Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on his resurrection from the dead.
Note: Paul said Jesus was ‘Declared’ to be the ‘Son of God’ not that HE WAS the ‘Son of God’
Source: Romans 1:3
What do Christians mean: Jesus is the ‘Son of God’?
Examination time!
We have already seen what begotten means. Not only this but every modern translation of the Bible does away with the term ‘begotten‘?
Why?
Answer:
1) Because David was called, ‘the begotten Son of God’: in Psalms (2:7). You cannot have Jesus be the ‘only-begotten’ when David is already begotten.
2)Hebrews 11:17
“By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promise offered up his only-begotten son.”
a) This is a flat contradiction because Ishmael was begotten before Isaac was.
b) Or this is not to be understood as allegorical.
We know this is not understood literally. Isaac is not the only-begotten son; just as Jesus is not the non-allegorical ‘son of God’.
Question: Is Jesus ‘eternally begotten’ by the father?
Answer: No!
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son?” This day have I begotten you?”
Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus cannot be ‘eternally begotten’ by the father when this passage clearly states ‘This day’ have I begotten you. Indeed, one would wonder what day that is.
Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son.
For example, to me, it is very clear that Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son based upon the following:
“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”
When the Church decided upon the doctrine of Tri-theism they had to make Jesus co-equal and co-eternal with the father in so doing the doctrine of adoption created huge problems for them. Not only this but if Jesus was indeed begotten ‘this day’ he would not be co-eternal. This is why the Church called Jesus ‘eternally begotten’.
There is no Greek text to support the idea that Jesus is ‘eternally begotten‘ That is why to meet the strong arguments of Bishop Arius his fellow Christians could only respond with two things:
1. Violence.
2. Use an oxymoron ‘eternally begotten‘.
The Greek text is monogenes
How do other Bibles translate John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son (or the unique son of God), that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have life eternal.” [The Living Bible]John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” [New International Version] John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [Revised Standard Version] John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [The New American Bible] John 3:16
Note: All of the above translations say something like ‘Only Son’ or ‘Unique Son’.
a) Either this is a flat contradiction because, as shown from Hebrews 1:5 Jesus is ‘A’ Son not ‘Thee’ Son of God.
b) Or this is to be understood as allegorical!
We know this is not to be taken nonallegorically. Jesus is not the only son because, as already proven, God has many ‘sons’.
As far as the ‘Unique Son’ is concerned, every ‘Son of God’ is unique! So, once again, Christians are at a loss to explain how Jesus is the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
Remember that Jesus never once claimed to be the ‘only son’ of God!
Christians started to see the problem with John 3:16 translations. In a classic debate between Christian televangelist Jimmy Swaggart and Muslim debater Ahmed Deedat, Swaggart anticipated a possible question of Deedat by saying the following:
@ 8:53 minutes “Now I want to start this off tonight by quoting a passage of scripture that Mr. Deedat and myself disagree somewhat over. But which is one of if not the dearest passage in the word of God to the world of Christendom. Found in St. John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only unique Son (Fooled you there Mr. Deedat), his only unique son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
The Christians should repent to Allah for every ascribing a non-allegorical son to him. Glory be to Allah who has not adopted a son or daughter! It can be seen how Jesus was called the ‘Son of God’ in the same way that previous people were called ‘Sons of God’.
However, this concept slowly evolved from being the adopted son of God into Jesus being the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ and eventually led to him being ‘eternally begotten God’
May Allah bring the people out of the great darkness into the light. May Allah guide us to the truth!
“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)
“That is Allah , your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things.” (Qur’an 6:102)
﷽
In many circles of knowledge this question had been debated. The debate centered around the Pen, the Throne, and Water.
The creation of the Throne.
The following narrations are often cited:
Narrated `Imran bin Hussain:
While I was with the Prophet (saw) , some people from Bani Tamim came to him. The Prophet (saw) said, “O Bani Tamim! Accept the good news!” They said, “You have given us the good news; now give us (something).” (After a while) some Yemenites entered, and he said to them, “O the people of Yemen! Accept the good news, as Bani Tamim have refused it. ” They said, “We accept it, for we have come to you to learn the Religion. So we ask you what the beginning of this universe was.” The Prophet (saw) said “There was Allah and nothing else before Him and His Throne was over the water, and He then created the Heavens and the Earth and wrote everything in the Book.” Then a man came to me and said, ‘O `Imran! Follow your she-camel for it has run away!” So I set out seeking it, and behold, it was beyond the mirage! By Allah, I wished that it (my she-camel) had gone but that I had not left (the gathering). “
I went to the Prophet (saw) and tied my she-camel at the gate. The people of Bani Tamim came to the Prophet (saw) who said “O Bani Tamim! Accept the good tidings.” They said twice, ‘You have given us the good tidings, now give us something” Then some Yemenites came to him and he said, “Accept the good tidings, O people of Yemem, for Bani Tamim refused them.” They said, “We accept it, O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! We have come to ask you about this matter (i.e. the start of creations).” He said, “First of all, there was nothing but Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the Heavens and the Earth.” Then a man shouted, “O Ibn Husain! Your she-camel has gone away!” So, I went away and could not see the she-camel because of the mirage. By Allah, I wished I had left that she-camel (but not that gathering).
The above hadith supply the following information.
There was nothing.
The throne was over the water
Allah wrote everything in a book.
Created the heavens and the earth.
The Qur’an is cited:
““And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth in six Days and His Throne was on the water, that He might try you, which of you is the best in deeds” (Qur’an 11:7)
When reading the above verse one may get the impression that the Heaven and Earth were created first and then the water and then the Throne. This is not true.
The above verse only list facts:
Heaven was created.
Earth was created.
Water was present.
The throne was on the water.
The above verse does not present an order.
The creation of the pen.
Abdul-Wahid bin Sulaim narrated:
“I arrived in Makkah and met ‘Ata bin Abi Rabah. I said to him: ‘O Abu Muhammed! The people of Al-Basrah speak about Al-Qadar.’ He said: ‘O my son! Do you recite the Quran?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then recite Az-Zukhruf to me.'” He said: ‘So I recited: Ha Mim. By the manifest Book. Verily, We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic that you may be able to understand. And verily, it is in the Mother of Book with Us, indeed exalted, full of wisdom. Then he said: ‘Do you know what Mother of Books is?’ I said: ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said:’It is a book that Allah wrote before He created the Heavens, and before He created the earth. In it, it is (written): Fir’awn is among the inhabitants of the Fire, and in it is: Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!’Ata said: ‘I met Al-Walid the son of ‘Ubadah bin As-Samit the Companion of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and asked him:’What was your father’s admonition when he died?” He said:”He called me and said: ‘O my son ! Have Taqwa of Allah, and know that you will never have Taqwa of Allah until you believe in Allah, and you believe in Al-Qadar- all of it-its good and its bad. If you die upon other than this you shall enter the Fire. Indeed I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. So He said: ‘Write.’ It said : ‘What shall I write?’ He said : ‘Write Al-Qadar, what it is , and what shall be, until the end.'”
The above hadith supply the following information.
The very first of Allah created was the Pen.
None of the information that has been supplied mentions anything about spatiality.
So this leaves us with some points of discussion.
If spatiality is not a creation but something that co-exist with Allah. Then who or what creates spatiality? How do we square this with the belief that Allah creates all things?
If spatiality is a creation and the first thing that was created before spatiality was either the Pen or the Throne. This means that the Pen or the Throne existed prior to spatiality.
If created things such as the Pen or the Throne can exist without spatiality how much more the Lord of the Pen and the Lord of the throne?
أنا متوقف تماما عن البحث عن أول مخلوق، وأقطع بلا أدى الشك أن كل مفتقر لغيره مسبوق بما يفتقره وعليه فالمكان والموقع سابقان على ما زعموا أنه أول مخلوق، وعليه لا شك ولا ريب أن خلق الفضاء سابق على خلق كرسي وقلم ولوح وعرش لأنها أجسام مفتقرة لمواقعها.
فقول الوهابية السلفية لا يمكن الايمان به إلا بتعطيل العقل وكل معتقد باطل أساسه تعطيل العقل.
وإن قالوا بأن تلك الأشياء غنية عن المكان والمواقع فقد أوجبوا على أنفسهم القول أن الله فقير للموقع والمكان بسؤالهم أين الله؟ وباعتقادهم أنهم سيرونه بأعينهم فتكون تلك الأشياء غنية والله فقير فما أبشع من قول باطل.
وإن قالوا بافتقارها للمكان والموقع فقد ألزموا أن المكان مخلوق قبلها.
والله الموفق.
We are fully certain without any doubt that everything in need of something else is necessarily preceded by that which it depends on. Accordingly, space and location must have existed before what they claim to be the first creation. Thus, there is no doubt that the creation of the void (space) preceded the creation of the Throne, the Pen, the Tablet, and the Chair, since these are bodies dependent on their locations.
Therefore, the saying of the Wahhabi Salafis cannot be believed in except by suspending the intellect — and every false belief is founded on disabling the intellect.
And if they say that those things are independent of space and location, then they obligate themselves to say that Allah is in need of location and place by asking, “Where is Allah?” and by believing that they will see Him with their eyes. This would make those created things independent while making Allah needy — and what could be more abominable than such a false claim?
And if they say that those things do indeed require space and location, then they are compelled to accept that space was created before them.
“And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them.” (Qur’an 4:159)
﷽
The misunderstanding of the verse is used as evidence for them to believe in some ‘Second Coming’ of Jesus (as).
You may look at all the various ways the verse has been translated into English here:
In this article we will focus on the justifications and proofs as they are given by the respected Mufti Zameel Ur Rahman. That is because what he statesis the majority view on the matter.
MUFTI ZAMEEL UR RAHMANS UNDERSTANDING OF QUR’AN 4:159
Let us examine what Mufti Zameel Ur Rahman has put forward:
“These verses then state that the Jews will believe in him before he dies. That is, before ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) dies (after he defeats the Dajjāl), the Jews that are remaining on the earth will all believe in him as the Messiah/Masīḥ about whom they were foretold. This is the dominant interpretation of the concluding verse that reads: “There will be none from the people of the scripture [i.e. Jews] but will believe in him before his death.” This has been recorded authentically from Abū Hurayrah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) (see below).”
“Al-Ṭabarī transmits through two chains from Sufyān al-Thawrī from Abū Ḥaṣīn from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said “before his death” means “before the death of ‘Īsā ibn Maryam”. (Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, Maktabah Hajr, 7:664) This is an authentic chain.”
“He also narrates with an authentic chain to the Tābi‘ī, Abū Mālik Ghazwān al-Ghifārī (ca. 25 – 100 H), that he said of this verse: “That is, upon the descent of ‘Īsā ibn Maryam – none from the people of the scripture will remain but will believe in him.” (ibid. 7:665) He also transmits with an authentic chain to the eminent Tābi‘ī, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (21 – 110 H), that he said: “Before the death of ‘Īsā. By Allāh! He is now alive in the presence of Allāh; but when he comes down, they will all believe in him.” (ibid.)”
“This is also transmitted from the mufassir of the Tābi‘īn, Qatādah ibn Di‘āmah. Al-Ṭabarī also transmits authentically from ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam (d. 182), a mufassir from the Tab‘ Tābi‘īn, that he said of this verse: “When ‘Īsā ibn Maryam descends and then kills the Dajjāl, no Jew will remain on the earth but will believe in him.” (ibid. 7:666)”
“Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī explains that this is the most correct explanation. (ibid. 7:672) He explains that thus the meaning of the verse is: “[There is none from the people of the book] but will believe in ‘Īsā before the death of ‘Īsā – and that is about a specific [group] of the people of the book; those intended are the people of one particular time from them, not people of all times, who came after ‘Īsā; and that this will occur after his descent.” (ibid. 7:674)”
“Similarly, Ibn Kathīr says after mentioning this interpretation: “This opinion is the truth,” (Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, Maktabah Awlād al-Shaykh, 4:342), and further states: “There is no doubt that what Ibn Jarīr said [giving preference to this interpretation] is what is correct, as that is what was intended from the context of the verses.” (ibid. 4:344) As Ibn Kathīr mentions, it is clear from the context that this is what is meant. The verses are talking about the Jews’ claim to have executed ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām). Allāh says they did not kill or execute him but Allāh raised him up to Himself. Furthermore, not one of them will remain but will believe in ‘Īsā before his actual death. Hence, these verses clearly demonstrate that ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) was not killed, but was taken up alive into the sky, and further indicate that he will return and the Jews who remain (after he kills the Dajjāl) will believe in him.”
Notice that Mufti says,
“These verses then state that the Jews will believe in him before he dies. That is, before ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) dies (after he defeats the Dajjāl).”
However, that is not what the verse says, and he knows this! If he was simply reading the traditions into the commentary, that is one thing, but forcing them into the text is altogether dishonest!
“This is the dominant interpretation.” Well, Mufti, on what basis do you say this is the ‘dominant interpretation’ ? Can you tell us the total amount of tafsir literature you studied on this matter to conclude this? Also, if this is the ‘dominant interpretation’, it is by your own admission not necessarily the only one!
Truth vs. Popularity: The truth is not a matter of democratic opinion but of sound evidence from the Quran itself.
Next, Mufti seems to quote from a disparate number of tafsir commentaries (albeit selectively). So let’s keep count, shall we?
Tafsir #1, Ibn Kathir
Tafsir #2, Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari
Tafsir #3, Qatada ibn Di’amah
Looking at the Tafsir of Qatada Ibn Di’amah.
Qatada Ibn Dia’ama has two traditions — disconnected from unknown sources about (Qur’an 4:157-158)
“And it was related to us that the prophet of God, Jesus son of Mary, said to his disciples: ‘Who of you will have my likeness [shibh/shabah] cast upon him and thereby be killed? One of the disciples said, ‘I, Oh prophet of God!’ ‘Thus that man was killed and God protected [mana’a] His prophet as HE RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF.
Concerning his statement: “AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM AND THEY DID NOT CRUCIFY HIM, BUT IT APPEARED SO TO THEM. Qatada said: ‘The likeness of Jesus was cast upon one of his disciples, and he was killed. Jesus had appeared before them and said: “Whoever of you will have my likeness cast upon him will have paradise.” And one said: “Upon me!”
Prima Qur’an comments:
Qatada Ibn Dia’ama has two traditions from disconnected unknown sources.
This information is from Israʼiliyyat material.
There is a 700 year gap in the chain of transmission!
Also notice how there is no attempt to identify or name the substitute.
Looking at the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari
Al-Tabari cites eleven traditions all going back to Wahb ibn Munabbih concerning (Qur’an 4:157-158)
Here is the verdict of Al-Tabari:
“Or the affair was according to what ‘Abd al-Samad related (that is the second tradition) from Wahb ibn Munabbih, that is, that the people who were with ‘Isa in the house scattered from the house before the Jews came upon him. ‘Isa remained, and his LIKENESS was cast upon one of his companions, who still remained with him in the house. And ‘Isa was RAISED UP, and one who was changed in the LIKENESS of ‘Isa was killed. And his companions through that the one CRUCIFIEDwas ‘Isa, because of what they saw happens to the one who was made to look like him. And the truth of the matter was hidden from them, because his being RAISED UP and the changing of the one who was killed into his LIKENESS happened after the SCATTERING of his friends. and [because] they [had] heard ‘Isa that night announce his death, and mourn because he thought that death was approaching him. And they related what happened as true, but the affair with God was really quite different from what they related. And those disciples who related this do not deserve to be called liars.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, vol 9, p 374)
Remember that Al-Tabari is getting his information from Wahb ibn Munabbih, so maybe we spend just a little bit of time on him.
Remember that Mufti Zameel ur Rahman had the following to say about Mufti Abu Layth on the matter:
“Recently, an individual has been promoting the misguided belief that the Prophet ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) will not return, claiming that this is an idea that has mistakenly been imported into Islām and the teachings of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) from Christianity.”
Well, let us see if Mufti Zameer ur Rahman would be humble enough to apologize to Mufti Abu Layth concerning Wahb ibn Munabbih:
“It is not known clearly if he converted to Islam from Judaism or that his father is a convert from Judaism. There are various reports.” “He was known for reporting Isra’ilyyat material. -well known.” “He required a reputation from trustworthy to audacious liar.”
Source: (Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Khallikān (d. 1282 CE) and his work Wafayāt al-aʿyān wa-anbāʾ abnāʾ al-zamān (وفيات الأعيان وأنباء أبناء الزمان,) The Obituaries of Eminent Men and the History of the Contemporaries p. 673)
Ibn Khallikān was a renowned Shafi’i jurist, judge (qāḍī), and historian of the 13th century. He is celebrated for his scholarly rigor and intellectual integrity.
Ibn Ishaq used his work for the beginnings of Christianity but did not take from him as a source for the Prophet (saw) biography!
Ibn Khaldun didn’t have a high opinion, mentioning that he frequently told flat lies.
Source: (“Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits,” xx.part 1, p. 461; De Slane, Ibn Ḥallikan, iii. 673, note 2 | Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Roi et autres bibliothèques.
For the English readers: (Notices and Extracts from the Manuscripts of the King’s Library and Other Libraries. The Citation (xx.part 1, p. 461): This refers to Volume 20, Part 1, page 461. The article claims that on this page, there is a discussion about Wahb ibn Munabbih that references Ibn Khaldun’s low opinion of him.
Companions and scholars like Abdullah ibn Mas’ud warned people not to learn Tafsir from the ‘Ahl Kittab’ and his argument was that they may use it to interpolate their own biblical beliefs, teachings and history replacing the Islamic belief and preaching.
Source: (Dr. Muhammed Husayn al-Dhahabi and his monumental work Al-Tafsīr wa al-Mufassirūn (التفسير والمفسرون, Quranic Exegesis and Its Exegetes Volume 1)
Why Dr. Dhahabi’s scholarship is important.
al-Dhahabi provides a powerful, mainstream Sunni scholarly critique of the very sources that underpin the traditional narrative about Jesus’ death. The reference serves several key argumentative purposes:
Historical Validation of the Problem: Al-Dhahabi meticulously documents how these foreign narratives entered Islamic scholarship. This was primarily through early converts from Judaism and Christianity (like Ka’b al-Aḥbār, Wahb ibn Munabbih, and Abdullah ibn Salam) who, while well-intentioned, began to fill in the gaps in Quranic stories with details from their own traditions. This gives historical credence to the warning from the Companion Abdullah ibn Mas’ud that the article also references.
al-Dhahabi, argues that the classical commentaries on verses like 4:157-159 are contaminated with unreliable material. Al-Dhahabi’s work is essentially a scholarly condemnation of the uncritical acceptance of Isrā’īliyyāt.
So let us take a look again at what Al-Tabari believed:
“Or the affair was according to what ‘Abd al-Samad related (that is the second tradition) from Wahb ibn Munabbih, that is, that the people who were with ‘Isa in the house scattered from the house before the Jews came upon him. ‘Isa remained, and his LIKENESS was cast upon one of his companions, who still remained with him in the house. And ‘Isa was RAISED UP, and one who was changed in the LIKENESS of ‘Isa was killed. And his companions through that the one CRUCIFIED was ‘Isa, because of what they saw happens to the one who was made to look like him.And the truth of the matter was hidden from them, because his being RAISED UP and the changing of the one who was killed into his LIKENESS happened after the SCATTERING of his friends. and [because] they [had] heard ‘Isa that night announce his death, and mourn because he thought that death was approaching him. And they related what happened as true, but the affair with God was really quite different from what they related. And those disciples who related this do not deserve to be called liars.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, vol 9, p 374)
Prima Qur’an comments:
So, basically, in this narrative, Allah (swt) didn’t fool the non-believers, but he actually fooled the believing disciples of Jesus into believing that He (Jesus) was killed—when he wasn’t?!? Also, the 12 disciples couldn’t use logic, deduction and simple basic math and say, (Well, you know Jesus is gone and so is ….such and such disciple) Hey, maybe Jesus didn’t die?! Maybe so-and-so took his place! Notice the obfuscation especially with the quote from Qatada Ibn Dia’ama? We don’t get to know who this legendary disciple is? Who is this masked man? Oh well, you can hear them saying, ‘it doesn’t matter his reward is with his Lord’.
Looking at the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir
So what is the view of Ibn Kathir concerning Qur’an 4:157-158?
“They disobeyed Jesus and tried to harm him in every possible way, until God led His prophet away from them-Jesus and Mary traveled extensively to avoid such persecution. Ultimately, the Jews notified the King of Syria that there was a man in the holy house was was charming and subverting the people. The king wrote to his deputy in Jerusalem to be on guard against this. Moreover, the deputy was instructed to crucify the culprit (Jesus) and place thorns on his head to stop him from harming the flock. The deputy obeyed the order and led a group of Jews to where Jesus was staying with his twelve or thirteen followers. When Jesus was aware that they were after him, he asked for a volunteer to take his place. One stepped forward and was taken by the Jews and crucified, while Jesus was himself raised through the roof of the house. The Jews then announced that they had crucified Jesus and boasted about it. In their ignorance and lack of intellect ,a number of Christians accepted this claim. The fact that the other disciples had seen Jesus raised was ignored. Everyone else though that the Jews had crucified Jesus.”
Source: (Ibn Kathir, ‘Umdat al-tafsir, ed Ahmad Muhammed Shakir, 5 vols located in: vol 4 pp.28-34)
Prima Qur’an comments :
So notice how Ibn Kathir’s commentary is totally different from Al-Tabari on very key points. Again, obfuscation is a common theme. We don’t know if Jesus had 12 or 13 disciples. The brave unsung hero disciple who just jumped at the chance to be killed (we have no idea who he is). However, unlike Al-Tabari, who was ready to accept on face value the claim of Jesus’ disciples — although they were apparently fooled by Allah (swt), Ibn Kathir isn’t ready to pen that on the disciples. Instead, he simply offers that the Christians were ignorant and lacked intellect, so they accepted that Jesus died. The fact that ‘other disciples’ saw what went down was just simply ignored.
Summary of the Tafsir Sources:
The three tafsir sources that Mufti Zameer ur Rahman are all ultimately reliant upon anonymous, disconnected chains and sources that are traceable to the very sources (Ahl Kitab) that Ibn Masud warned us about!
How can Mufti Zameer ur Rahman (and anyone else who holds his position) claim with confidence that they know what (Qur’an 4:157-159) is talking about? This so-called ‘unified tradition’ holds disparate and conflicting perspectives that are frankly all over the place.
The testimony of Ibn Masud (ra)
Al-Barqānī informed me, saying: Abū Bakr al-Ismāʿīlī narrated to us, saying: I heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥāfiẓ, and he was asked about tafsīr (Qur’an exegesis): From where should a person begin it? He replied: From the Book of Allah, the Exalted. If that is difficult for him, then he should rely upon the transmitted reports (al-athar). If that is difficult for him, then he should resort to reasoning (al-naẓar). Then he said: It is necessary that above all of this he gives precedence to the Book of Allah. Then he said: I heard Abū al-ʿAbbās Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq al-Thaqafī say: I heard ʿAbdān ibn Aḥmad say: I heard ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak say: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd used to say: ‘Transmit the Qur’an (faithfully), and do not follow the People of the Book, for indeed they relate to you the most false of narrations, and they burden you with their falsehoods.”
Source: ( Imam Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi Work: Al-Jāmi‘ li-Akhlāq al-Rāwī wa Ādāb al-Sāmi‘ (الجامع لأخلاق الراوي وآداب السامع) – A Compendium of the Ethics of the Narrator and the Etiquette of the Listener. Volume 1, Page 289 )
Chapter: The Qurra from among the Companions of the Prophet (saws)
Narrated Masriq:
`Abdullah bin `Amr mentioned `Abdullah bin Masud and said, “I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur’an from four: `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu`adh and Ubai bin Ka`b.’ “
“Waki’ narrated to us, from Sufyan, from Abu Hasin, from Abu Wa’il, from Abdullah (ibn Mas’ud), who said:
‘When the People of the Book narrate to you, do not believe them nor disbelieve them. Rather, say: “We believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you.”‘”
Source: (Al-Musannaf by Ibn Abi Shaybah, Dar al-Taj, Riyadh (1st ed., 1409 AH), Volume 6, Page 101, Hadith Number 29990.)
The testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Messenger (saw) said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.’ “
Conclusion: In the Ibadi school we will take the firm testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw). We will take the advice of one of the best people to learn the Qur’an from, Ibn Masud (ra). What we will not do is take the testimony of a person who is narrating Israʼiliyyat with a 700-year gap in the chain of transmission. What we will do is disobey the Blessed Prophet (saw) by taking this material from the people of the book as if they inform us about our religion!
You find that the Sunni and the Shi’i get themselves into a huge exegetical mess over this. They somehow imagine that Qur’an4:157 is speaking about something the Romans are claimed to have done to Jesus!
Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness)The Ibadi school and Quran 4:159
How does the Ibadi school understand Qur’an 4:159?
“And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them.” (Qur’an 4:159)
The death mentioned here could refer either to the death of Jesus (as) or to the death of each and every Jew. The text lends itself to both meanings.
It is important to note that from the (Qur’an 4:153-to 4:159) the entire theme is directed towards Jews.
None among the Jews that Jesus preached to but that it is a prerequisite for them to believe in him before their death.
Jesus is a witness against those who witnessed his preaching and rejected him.
If the people died believing in Jesus, then he would be a witness for them, not against them.
This is confirmed by: “I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when you caused me to die, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. (Qur’an 5:117)
Who else would he be a witness against?
What is so special about those particular Jews who are alive when Jesus (as) supposedly returns is that they get to witness and see Jesus (as) whereas the Jews who have lived for the last 2000 years simply died upon batil (falsehood)?
If we believe in the interpretation that Mufti Zameer ur Rahman gives (and those like him) they need to answer the following questions:
Why would Jesus be a witness against them if they all died believing in him?
Wouldn’t Jesus be a witness against those who did not believe in him?
If you interpret it, none must believe in him, but before their death, surely thousands of Jews and Christians died without believing Jesus was a prophet.
How can this apply to Christians if they already believe in him?
How do you answer that if it meant to believe in him as a prophet before his alleged return, then he wouldn’t need to be a witness against them anyway.
Prove grammatically that Qur’an 4:159 is a break in theme from 4:153 onwards and refers to some future eschatological event.
Prove grammatically and thematically that the verse in question includes Christians.
Further Proofs:
“And when Allah will say: O Jesus son of Mary! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah, he will say: Glory be to You, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, You would indeed have known it; You know what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in your mind, surely you are the great Knower of the unseen things. I did not say anything to them except what you commanded me with: That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die (Arabic: Tawafaytani), you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.” (Qur’an 5:116-117)
There are several things to take from the above passage:
1) This dialogue takes place on the Day of Judgment, where Prophet Jesus suggests that he has no knowledge of what has happened since his demise on Earth and after his ministry ended. “I was a witness over them as long as I was among them.”
2) From the discussion, it is clear that Prophet Jesus only came to Earth once, acting as a witness over his people. If indeed there was a ‘second coming‘ before the Day of Judgment, he would have full knowledge of what had happened since his first departure. After all, he abolished the Jizya and forced the Christians to convert to Islam. This conversation with Allah (swt) would make little to no sense.
3) Imagine if the ahadiths that are put in the mouth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) were true for a moment. So now Jesus (as) comes back and everyone becomes a Muslim. The Dajjal is defeated. Jesus (as) gets married. Then Allah (swt) causes Jesus (as) to die.
Then we have Jesus (as) saying after he dies to Allah (swt): “I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die, you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.”
A rather bizarre understanding, it seems.
Especially if we take the following text into consideration: “And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159)
It is clear to all whom Allah has lifted the veils that Qur’an 5:116-117 is talking about Jesus (as) earthly life and ministry.
The very presence of Jesus creates a bizarre redundant time paradox if we are to believe the Sunni position.
Think about it.
Look at the verse again: Imagine that Allah is saying this to Jesus, who came down from the skies, fought the Dajjal, got married and died.
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
If Jesus is alive in the heavens, why is he not aware of this already?
Why is he not aware that Allah has already cleared him of falsehood by the Qur’an?
Even if he wasn’t aware after 2000 plus years, then surely he would have access to the Qur’an when he came back to Earth? Would he not be aware of the text that had already cleared him? Can you imagine Jesus (as) attending the tarweeh prayers in Ramadan and hearing Qur’an 5:116-117 being recited?
Whereas if we understand the text (Qur’an 3:55) as a revelation from Allah [swt] to his Prophet Jesus (as) it at the time of his death, it comes across as very comforting and reassuring. That Allah [swt] is the cause of your death, and you will return to your lord as the statement: “Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.” That he [Jesus] will be cleared of false accusations. That his followers will be superior over the detractors on the day of judgment.
Sunni Muslims begin to take a new approach to Qur’an 4:159
Jesus bin Maryam will come down to them. Their leader will step backwards so that Jesus can come forward and lead the people in prayer, but Jesus will place his hand between his shoulders and say to him: “Go forward and pray, for the Iqamah was given for you.” Then their leader will lead them in prayer. When he has finished, Jesus (as), will say: “Open the gate.” So they will open it and behind it will be Dajjal with seventy thousand Jews, each of them carrying an adorned sword and wearing a greenish cloak. When Dajjal looks at him, he will start to melt as salt melts in water. He will run away, and Jesus (as), will say: “I have only one blow for you, which you will not be able to escape!” He will catch up with him at the eastern gate of Ludd, and will kill him. Then Allah will defeat the Jews, and there will be nothing left that Allah has created which the Jews will be able to hide behind, except that Allah will cause it to speak – no stone, no tree, no wall, no animal – except for Al-Gharqad (the box-thorn), for it is one of their trees, and will not speak – except that it will say: “O Muslim slave of Allah, here is a Jews, come and kill him!“
In our discussion with respected Dr. Shaykh Shadee El Masry (and a recent clash he had with the Ahmadi religion) We were curious as to the way Dr. Shadee translated Qur’an 4:159
We never did get an answer to which Arabic word(s) he used to translate the text into ‘Hardly’. Do you, the reader, the truth seeker, see what is happening here? We Love Dr. Shaykh Shadee Elmasry and if you are in his community, Allah-willing, you are in good hands. However, sometimes people will be tenacious in defending the indefensible.
The Jews and Christians will be at each other’s throat until the day of judgement
“Every one of the People of the Book will definitely believe in him before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159) If you were to take the standard Sunni misunderstanding this would flatly contradict the following:
“And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. ” (Qur’an 5:64)
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
So the above verses do not give one the impression that Jesus (as) is going to come back and sing kumbaya with the Jews and the Christians.
We would not be surprised if some really desperate (clutching at straws) interpretation came that argued. Yes, Jesus (as) will bring the Jews and & Christians together, but they will still have animosity and hatred among them!!
Which begs the question: Why is he coming back?
Those of the Jews and Christians who see the truth and embrace insh’Allah are upon the path of safety. Those of the Jews and Christians who see the truth and reject it will be in hellfire.
“Indeed, that is My Path—perfectly straight. So follow it and do not follow other ways, for they will lead you away from His Way. This is what He has commanded you, so perhaps you will be conscious ˹of Allah˺” Qur’an 6:153)
“O mankind! Surely has come to you a convincing proof from your Lord, and We (have) sent down to you a clear light.” (Qur’an 4:174)
Our final point. We finish where we began.
“This is the dominant interpretation.” Well, Mufti, on what basis do you say this is the ‘dominant interpretation’ ? Can you tell us the total amount of tafsir literature you studied on this matter to conclude this? Also, if this is the ‘dominant interpretation’, it is by your own admission not necessarily the only one!
Truth vs. Popularity: The truth is not a matter of democratic opinion but of sound evidence from the Quran itself.
So dear respected readers which understanding of Qur’an4:159 do you accept as being more cogent?
The Sunni position.
The position of Mufti Zameer ur Rahman, Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah and the mufassirun — whom rely upon hearsay and disconnected chains coming often from anonymous sources.
A position that allows for whispering, speculation, doubt and uncertainty?
A position that ignores the advice of one of the four we are to learn the Qur’an from—none other than Ibn Masud (ra)?
A position that structures a belief that goes against the Sunnah? “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them.”
The Ibadi position.
A position that takes the sincere council of one of the four we are to learn the Qur’an from—none other than Ibn Masud (ra)?
A position that does not go against the clear Sunnah. A position where we do not disbelieve them but we certainly do not build a belief based upon their reports.
A position that ask if it is reasonable to accept a 700 year gap in the chain of transmission as admissible evidence.
A position that is primarily reliant upon Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an).
A position that allows the Qur’an to be interpreted by the use of other passages in the Qur’an, the use of grammar, context and theme?
A position that provides certainty and conviction?
“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
﷽
This text also has to be one of the most used and abused texts of the whole of the Qur’an. It is used to assert the so-called “2nd coming” of Christ Jesus. The fact that this is the ‘go to’ verse when anyone is trying to assert that the Qur’an affirms the “2nd coming” of Christ Jesus shows you just how weak their argument is.
Such people are better off using the ahadith to argue their position.
Let us start off with a major problem and contradiction with this understanding.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
That the Prophet (saw) said: “There are three, for which, when they appear, a soul will not benefit by its faith, if it did not believe before the Signs: Ad-Dajjal, the Beast, and the rising of the sun from its setting place” – or “from the west.”
The majority of Sunni Muslims believe that Jesus (as) is coming a second time. Those who believe that he is coming afterthe Dajjal. Remember, according to the above hadith and many like it faith does not benefit a person anymore!
“Do they wait for anything except that the angels should come to them or your Lord should come or that there come some of the signs of your Lord? The Day that some of the signs of your Lord will come no soul will benefit from its faith as long as it had not believed before or had earned through its faith some good. Say, “Wait. Indeed, we [also] are waiting.” (Qur’an 6:158)
It is very clear that when these signs happen, the faith and belief of those who came before will be rejected. Part of being a believer is to believe in the unseen.
“Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We have provided for them.” (Qur’an 2:3)
Those signs spoken of in Qur’an 6:158 will be so clear that after their appearance will neither avail the unbeliever to repent of his unbelief nor the disobedient to forsake his disobedience. So what would the point of Jesus (as) coming back and converting people to Islam (either by sword or by choice) when their belief counts for nothing any way?
Note how the text is being translated from the Qur’an corpus.
Muhammed Asad, Abdl Haleem & Mohamed Shafi translations have the “it” as the passage referring to the Qur’an.
Shabir Ahmed has ‘it’ as a reference to the Qur’an, but unlike Muhammed Asad and Abdul Haleem and Mohamed Shafi, he has the Qur’an talking about an “oncoming Revolution” rather than “the hour”.
Yusuf Ali’s Saudi version just goes all in!
“And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of).”
Prima Qur’an comments: So, according to that translation, not only is it Jesus, but he is a Sign as well!
Safi Kasas has Jesus in brackets but, unlike Yusuf Ali, he puts the [a sign] in brackets as well.
Abdul Hye goes all in with the second coming. “And he (Jesus) is a KNOWN SIGN.”
Dr. Munir Munshey gets carried away with: “In fact he, (and his fatherless birth) is a sign”
Then we have the Mustafa Khattab translation, really overselling it with their translation,
“And his ˹second˺ coming is truly a sign for the Hour. So have no doubt about it, and follow me. This is the Straight Path.”
Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilah (another Saudi translation) have it as: “And he (Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) shall be a known sign.”
Dr. Mohammed Tahir ul Qadri takes a que from his Salafi opponents and follows their lead with: “And surely (when) he, (Isa[Jesus], descends from heaven), he will be a sign…”
Ali Unai just goes on a tangent: “Surely he (Jesus) (brought into the world without a father, and granted such miracles as reviving the dead) is a means to knowledge of the Last Hour.”
Hamid S. Aziz is more neutral, non-committal in translation:
“And most surely it is (the above events or the Quran or he, Jesus) is a sign of the knowledge of coming of the Hour (of Resurrection and Judgment). Therefore have no doubt about it and follow Me: this is the Straight Way.”
Muhammad Taqi Usmani has it as: (‘Isa)
Syed Vickar Ahamed has it as: “And (Isa)
Farook Malik has it as: He (Jesus)
Maududi has it as: “Verily he [i.e, Jesus)
Rashad Khalifa has a bizarre translation: “He is to serve as a marker for knowing the end of the world, so you can no longer harbor any doubt about it.”
The Monotheist group — taking a que from their former mentor and master, Rashad Khalifa, has it as “He” and this becomes “a lesson for the Hour”
Are those who think the verse is a reference to Jesus justified?
Well, if you look at the surrounding context of the verse, the immediate context is about Jesus.
The verses before:
“Jesus was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel.And if We willed, We could have made [instead] of you angels succeeding [one another] on the earth.” (Qur’an 43:59-60)
As well as the text after.
“And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, “I have come to you with wisdom and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me.” (Qur’an 43:63)
So this could be a reason why some have considered 43:61 to be about Jesus.
However, as you will see when we see the over-arching theme of Qur’an 43 as well as whom the immediate audience is, that justification will quickly disappear.
What about Arabic grammar?
A closer look at the Arabic text. “wa-innahu”, this is the 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun. We have third-person pronouns in English as well. We have object pronouns—me, you, him, her, it.
Secondly, the word “biha” is a 3rd person feminine singular personal pronoun. So this further clarifies how “wa-innahu” should be understood.
“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
So, to support their claim, they would have to go against Arabic grammar!
What is the overarching theme of Qur’an 43?
Do not just look at the verses immediately before or after. Read all the verses before and after.
Verses 43:2-5 are references concerning the Qur’an.
43:14 is a reference concerning the resurrection.
43:21 is a reference to the Qur’an.
43:31 is a reference to the Qur’an.
43:35 is a reference to the hereafter.
43:43-44 are both references to the Qur’an.
Yes, Allah spoke about Jesus (as) in the past tense. Just as Allah spoke about Moses (as) in the past tense. Allah spoke about Abraham (as) in the past tense.
Not only this but think about this.Who is the immediate audience of the Qur’an 43:61?
The immediate audience is the pagan Quresh. How is some “2nd coming” of Jesus supposed to be an argument for the oneness of Allah (swt), or the truth of the resurrection to that immediate audience?
What is more sensible?
Understanding A)
“And indeed, he (Jesus) surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it(second coming of Jesus), and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
How are you asking a group of pagan idolater Quresh to not be in doubt concerning it to believe in some second coming of Jesus (as) that they will never witness?
In what universe does this make sense?
Understanding B)
“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
Or, are a group of pagan idolater Quresh being asked to believe in the Qur’an (it) with arguments about the hereafter and resurrection that they can ponder and believe in during their own lifetime?
Which of the two understandings of the verse above is more sensible?
Not only this, we still have to contend with the fact that, as per our other articles, Jesus(as) has died. That Muhammed (saw) is the last and final Prophet. The text of the Qur’an should be in harmony with one another. The supposition that the Qur’an supports the idea that Jesus (as)is not based upon solid evidence.
“O you who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance and afterwards regret what you have done.” (Qur’an 49:6)
﷽
A recently started YouTube Channel called: Make Hijrah (which otherwise seemingly had good objectives) looks to promote sectarian strife in Muslim countries.
Now, in fairness and because Allah (swt) calls us to be just and to do justice there was an excellent interview here:
Also, to all Omani brothers reading this please note that the brother above, (brother Mustafa) has absolutely nothing to do with the sectarianism that the Make Hijrah channel promotes.
Also, I do want to bring attention to a Sunni Muslim brother that has an excellent website about moving to Muscat.
He is absolutely worth it to follow on X (Elon’s echo-chamber)
His X account is: https://x.com/movetomuscat and he has a website here: https://movetomuscat.com/ His name is Anwar. He has shown nothing but respect and love to Oman and the Omani people and I have only ever seen him speak respectfully about Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h).
Please follow the brother below. Anwar@Move to Muscat. He is a respectful person and respects Oman’s diversity.
Dear readers by Allah (swt) in whose power is my life, there was an Omani brother that was going to do an interview with Make Hijrah YouTube channel about coming to Oman and living in Oman. However, this Make Hijrah channel flat out asked the brother, ‘Are you Ibadi’ to which he replied ‘yes’ and that was an issue for them!
What does being an Ibadi have to do with an interview about people coming to live in Oman?
So, instead the Make Hijra channel decided to make this blunder of a video:
So the title has: “Is There a DARK SIDE to Moving to Oman.” And most likely Jr. (the one on the left) chose the thumbnail of someone in prayer standing with their arms at the side. Once again the Salafis showcase their deficiency in fiqh and over all ignorance of the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
These are not the 90s. These must be the only Salafis I have encountered that didn’t the memo that they were so thoroughly refuted on the issue of hand placement in prayer that one must have been living in an isolated village in Papua New Guinea that didn’t get the memo.
Listen to Shaykh Assim Al Hakeem explain here:
@ 1:51 “These are fiqhi differences, whether you put your hand here (on the chest) you put your hand here (below the navel)you don’t put your hands at all in salat.“
You would expect with a title like: “Is There a DARK SIDE to Moving to Oman.” that these individuals might speak about hidden cost of living, or maybe there is bribery in the country, or perhaps there is a red light district that people do not know about. Maybe there is human trafficking going on.
Or maybe they had something controversial like Avicii’s death in Oman was not truly a suicide. They could have brought anything, but noooo, they had to focus on sectarianism.
Here it is:
“Is There a DARK SIDE to Moving to Oman.”
Jr speaks @3:15 “It then spread in Oman following the remnants of the Khawarijduring the Umayyad period.”
Senior speaks @3:20 “If you really want to know if the Ibadi are from the Khawarijor not it would require examining their statements from their original sources approved books and the words of their contemporary scholars. This is not for the average person. For common people and beginner students it’d be better to consult a person of knowledge you trust on this issue.”
Senior @4:24 “If you decided you want to move to Oman you can completely avoid that issueby just going to the south of the country and living among the Sunnis and in the Sunni cities.”
Jr speaks up @14:02 “Not one dude on the corner of the road praying like with his (out/down?)” This solicits laughter from Senior.
Jr. chimes in again @14:11 “It just wasn’t there like regular joint.”
So really the question for Jr. and Senior is as follows:
What is the issue in praying with the Ibadi or even behind an Ibadi Imam?
Let us say for the sake of argument that Ibadi are Khawarij or their descendants. Are Jr. and Senior more knowledgeable then the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw)?
They can feel free to consult the sources:
However, from the video it does not seem that Jr. and Senior are fluent in reading and writing Arabic. This means they make Taqlid to the Salafi school and make Taqlid to it’s scholars as they have neither the tools or the means to go to the sources directly.
The translation of the above Arabic text states:
“And what indicates that the Companions did not consider the Khawarij to be disbelievers is that they used to pray behind them. Abdullah ibn Umar -RA- and others[companions] used to pray behind Najda al-Haruri. They also used to engage in debates with them, as the Muslim would debate with a Muslim, as Abdullah ibn Abbas debated with Najda al-Haruri when he was sent to him to ask about certain issues, and his hadith is in Al-Bukhari. Likewise, Nafi’ ibn Al-Azraq debated on famous issues. Nafi’ used to debate on matters in the Quran, as any two Muslims would debate among themselves”
Source: (The Path of the Prophetic Sunnah-In Refutation of the Shiite Qadariyyah Doctrine By Ibn Taymiyya Abu Al Abbas Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim.-Edited by Dr. Muhammed Rashad Salim Volume 5)
2. They (Jr & Senior mentioned that after eating camel meat the topic switched to jurisprudence (fiqh). So that is fiqh what about aqidah which to Salafis is the number one issue.
So my question for Jr & Senior is on what consistent basis can one pray behind an Ash’ari Shafi’i (whom they believe are deviant in aqidah but not pray behind an Ibadi) ???
Unless of course when they (Jr & Senior) say Sunni what they really mean is: “Their Salafi sect.”
So this should certainly alarm the Sunni Muslims in Oman (and indeed it has from the comments) because that means that ultimately these people would not just separate from the Ibadi but from the dominant Sunni Muslims as well!
Unfortunately all the Make Hijrah did was get the attention of the Omani government and immigration to look closer at their channel and scrutinized their intentions.
I would encourage the readers to listen to the interview between two Omanis, Sunni & Ibadi who speak about the video. Oman FM is listened all across Oman.
Listen to Religious Tolerance & Islamic Values – Shaykh Hatim Al Abdissalaam by Oman FM (English) on #SoundCloud
The only part where I would personally disagree with brother Shaykh Hatim on is where he said that in Oman they do not speak of these things or discuss them. Everyone’s upbringing is different in Oman. What Shaykh Hatim experiences is not the experience of another Omani.
What Shaykh Hatim may be speaking to is his own experience growing up and/or his own household and their particular priorities, and outlook.
There are Omani youth, 14 years of age that are very well acquainted with the conflicts that arose among the companions, and the history of the Ibadi school. This is widely discussed -because it is a right of a people to not be ignorant nor blur about their history.
That being said, they are also taught by the Mufti, May Allah (swt) continue to bless us by him, that we as Muslims need to live together in tolerance and respect for each other. This is certainly instilled in them as well.
In Oman all Muslims live together and they do not want the ghettoization of their country! So for those who want to come and live in Oman, you have something to contribute and you can live there in peace and coexistence Oman will welcome you with open arms.
However, anyone who wants to go to Oman and spread fitna or sectarianism and has that mindset, Oman does not want you, Oman certainly does not need you and the people of Oman are free from you nor are you welcomed!
“Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemple for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.” (Qur’an 33:21)
﷽
Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported:
We came to the Prophet (saw) while we were young men, and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them, and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them.” Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.
One of the most contentious issues among Muslims, more often than not, has to do with the way the Blessed Messenger (saw) did his prayers. This video below is well worth the listen. It is done by someone who follows the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, the Sunni denomination of Islam.
What he is explaining is that it is impossible to find a ‘Sahih’ hadith for every single act that is done in the prayer. He then argues that this is why for some Muslims in the Sunni denomination they decide to follow a school of jurisprudence.
The truth of the matter is that the prayer was established by the Blessed Messenger (saw). It is a mass transmitted sunnah. The hadith are written records for those who need to furnish proofs for things that were found to be objectionable. Things that stood out as different needed to have proof or evidence, more so than something people picked up as mass practice from those who preceded them and from those who preceded them.
The hadith in book form is a documented sunnah. Sometimes the documented sunnah captures the living sunnah and other times it does not. A proof of this is that the schools of jurisprudence believe that certain acts of the Blessed Prophet (saw) were either abrogated or abandoned altogether.
Kindly see our article here where we expand upon how the sunnah is received.
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)
ALLAH LAUGHS AT THE DESPAIR OF HIS SLAVES?
Waki’ bin Hudus narrated that his paternal uncle Abu Razin said:
“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Allah laughs at the despair of His slaves although He soon changes it.’ I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, does the Lord laugh?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘We shall never be deprived of good by a Lord Who laughs.'”
“The Messenger of Allah said: Allah chuckles at the despair of His slaves although He soon changes it.’ I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, does the Lord chuckle?’ ‘He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘We shall never be deprived of good by a Lord Who chuckles.”
Now if we take this hadith alone it is challenging to suggest that chuckling/laughing can be interpreted as Mercy. Because, even the companion ask, ‘Does Allah chuckle?’ and it would be difficult to imagine the companion asking, ‘Does the Lord show Mercy’. I mean we recite the Qur’an as bismillah ir rahman ir raheem. Most Merciful and Most Compassionate.
However, this is a lone narrator report. We in Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqamah (The Ibadi School) we do not make lone narrator reports as a basis for our faith. What we do is look at other ahadith where these idioms are used to show if there is other meanings.
If we are to take this lone narrator report at the apparent meaning as the Salafi -Athari suggest than it means that Allah (swt) is laughing, chuckling etc at the despair and pain that humanity undergoes.
It takes a depraved human being and a twisted imagination to suggest that Allah (swt) would have a hearty chuckle at the despair and misery of humanity.
Children being sexually abused by their parents.
People starting to death in this world.
You going to say that Allah (swt) is laughing/chuckling at this?!
Furthermore does this laughing and chuckling produce a sound such that we can say that it is uncreated? Such that one can imagine an eternal chuckling and laughing at the despair, torture and pain of a creation that has yet to be created?
We wonder why people are Atheist?
Either the people who invent such falsehoods have a very low estimation of the Divine, or the Creator they worship is more horribly morbid than the darkest corner of human imagination could fathom.
However, because this hadith is graded as ‘Hasan’ those who take the lone narrator reports will insist,
We believe that Allah chuckles/laughs …with the disclaimer (in a way that befits his majesty!
“It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Allah chuckles at the two men both of whom will enter Paradise (though) one of them kills the other. They said: Messenger of Allah, how is it? He said: One of them fights in the way of Allah, the Almighty, and Exalted. and dies a martyr. Then Allah turns in mercy to the murderer who embraces Islam, fights in the way of Allah, the Almighty, and Exalted, and dies a martyr.” (‘Sahih’ Muslim Kitab Al-Imara hadith number 4658)
If we understand the mention about Allah (swt) chuckling as his act of Mercy than this is not a problem. It is an idiom or an expression.
However, if as some in the Muslim community do (ever ready to kick every one else out of Islam), insist that we have to take this at the apparent meaning it is very dark.
These kinds of hadiths are reminiscent of the stuff attributed to Allah (swt) in the Bible.
“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (Exodus 32:14)
“The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” (Genesis 6:6)
So we would take the two hadith and combine them and our understanding would be the laughing/chuckling as an idiom or expression of Allah’s mercy that is soon to follow any act of despair, as long as the people put their tawakkul (trust) in Allah (swt).
“Say, “O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.” (Qur’an 39:53)
Prima Quran 