“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
This fascinating video came to our attention. It appears to be two AI bots having a conversation about the Ibadi school. As regards the YouTube channel, CIISR is not affiliated or registered with any known university or college in the world. Dr. M A Mufazzal seems to be an individual not known to be attached to any reputable college or university in the world. In fact, leave the reputable aside, he is simply not known at all.
This is the video. We give our comments below.
@4:37 minutes, we were curious where the idea came from that we upheld divine predestination (qadar) in the sense of fatalism. Which was curious given that the AI bots speak about the Ibadi, avoiding binaries. We do not uphold the view of the Mutazil’i nor the Jabariyyah. We hold to the doctrine of kasb (acquisition). This is something the Ash’ari followed us on.
@6:16 this is also incorrect. We do not believe that Ali was a divinely appointed leader. A good portion of the community made shura and among them were the ansar and the muhjirin, who agreed upon him. Once that is done, it is obligatory for the others to pledge allegiance. No such thing as being divinely appointed.
This becomes abundantly clear in our article here:
The battle of Siffin and practical implications of the above verse.
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result. (Qur’an 4:59)
The battle of Siffin gives us a demonstration of how some of the companions understood the above verse. If we are to believe the historical narrative as told by Shi’i and Sunni sources.
If we are to believe the Shi’i narrative.
Ali agreed to arbitration with Muaviya on the basis that they would judge by the Qur’an. If Ali understood that he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw) he would not have submitted to arbitration. He would have been on the same page as those in his army who wanted to continue the fight. However, if he did think he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw), then he would be a hypocrite for going against what he himself believed. Or he was not sincere in submitting to the authority of the Qur’an.
If we are to believe the Sunni narrative.
If those in Muaviya’s camp believed that the Shi’i held any of the views about Ali that Imami Shi’i held, namely that he (Ali) was maʿṣūm (معصوم) and he (Ali) held ʿiṣmah (عصمة) they themselves would have never asked for arbitration as it too would have simply been a ruse. This becomes very clear that these concepts were not among the followers of Ali because Muaviya’s camp would have known this and would have never cooked up the idea of raising the Mushafs as it would have easily backfired.
@9:03 “They also believe that Ali was wrong to arbitrate.” So this is a contradiction with the AI chatbots. You cannot have a belief in a divinely appointed Imamate and then believe that same Imam is wrong in a decision he makes!
@6:34 is also a tired trope that we hear time and again. Fiqh and Itjihad are a part of Islam. It is something that has been with us in the beginning. The companions who opposed Ali were not claiming you cannot arbitrate God’s law with mortal men. That is a flawed misunderstanding. It is that you cannot make a ruling in place of where the rule is already established and clear.
None of our scholars say that human beings cannot arbitrate. The Qur’an specifically says they can in several places. It is just that humans cannot arbitrate on a matter on which Allah judged. If Allah (swt) gave his ruling on a matter, a human being cannot come along and do otherwise. This is a huge miss by this AI-generated dialogue.
This was established by the companions in their debate with Ibn Abbas (ra). And Ibn Abbas (ra) eventually understood that the people of the river were correct.
And by repeating these same tired tropes, the Sunnis have actually mocked their own Imams. With stories that make Imam Abu Hanifa look ignorant of other people’s positions.
@12:02 to miss out on the robust populations of the Ibadi in Tunisia, Zanzibar, Tanzania, Ghana is unfortunate. To skip the presence in East Africa altogether is unfortunate.
@13:09 We didn’t quite get the point the AI bots were making: “But again, like with the kharijites question, they take it to its most extreme logical conclusion.” We don’t see the connection they were trying to draw?
@13:40 we were curious as to which verse mentions Allah “sitting” on a throne?
There were other things we could have picked apart, but we did not want to be overly pedantic.
Other than that, for an AI-generated dialogue over all it is o.k. It is what you would expect from agnostic secular academics or historians discussing the matter. Although they would probably refrain from throwing in the occasional ‘eww’ as we saw from the female AI bot. The lasting thoughts were very profound, especially from an AI algorithm.
Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority,and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
“Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)
Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Reflect deeply upon the creation, but do not reflect upon the essence of the Creator. Verily, His essence cannot be known other than to believe in it.”
Source: (Musnad al-Rabī’ 742 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَلْقِ وَلا تَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَالِقِ فَإِنَّهُ لا يُدْرَكُ إِلا بِتَصْدِيقِهِ 742 مسند الربيع بن حبيب 2976 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن في صحيح الجامع)
﷽
This is a (PrimaQur’an) critique of it. So, rather than this being any robust response or engagement from our school, this is an endeavor from a team of non-specialists in philosophy.
The arguments contained here are by no means original from us either. However, this article is sprinkled with our thoughts and conclusions when looking at this particular approach to theology.
For those not formally trained traditionally or academically in theology or philosophy, it is also by no means a deep dive. These are very elementary critiques that we think would appear before any seasoned mind.
Apophatic theology is another name for theology by way of negation. From the Greek ἀπόφημι (apóphemi) ‘to say no’. This is to say that God is known by negating concepts that might apply to him using the insufficiency of human language and rational concepts to describe God.
Ultimately, it is the theology of making no affirmative or positive attributes or assertions of any kind about God. That God is so completely unknowable that we can only engage in conversation about the divine by means of negation. What God is not.
Hopefully, one might appreciate the irony in such an approach, in that both negative and positive statements about God are both equal propositions about divine nature. One is put forward in the positive and the other in the negative. For apophatic theologians, ultimately they must take on the mantle of mysterions and appreciate the complete mystery, otherness and unknowability of God rather than say what could lead to misleading theological concepts about God.
One of our colleagues has said before in this article about an encounter they had while giving a guided tour of a Masjid where a man from California just out of nowhere blurted out the statement: “There is no truth, nothing is true!”
So they turned to the man and said: “Is that true?”
It entails a logical contradiction. It is a logical contradiction because we can be certain that we do not know anything for certain. Which in turn renders our uncertainty very uncertain itself!
Rather, one states that a triangle has three sides or one states that it does not have three sides. Both statements, rather positive or negative, are still both propositions.
” That you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
So you could approach this statement: “and that you say about Allah that which you do not know,” from two angles.
Both angles do not support apophatic theology at all.
The first approach may seem clever. That would be to question: “What is it that we actually know about Allah?” They would affirm: “We do not know anything about Allah.” The proponents of apophatic theology would begin with negations.
What is it that we actually know about Allah? Which entails the opposite of an Apophatic theological approach.
What we say about Allah that which we do not know itself entails there are things that we do know about Allah.
You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.
How can we say in any consistent and meaningful way what God is not like unless we have a model or conception of what God is like?
What is a hamburger not like?
How could one provide an answer to this question unless he/she has some idea of what a hamburger is like?
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing” (Qur’an 42:11)
This verse poses a number of problems for proponents of apophatic theology.
The verse does not negate Allah (swt) being a ‘shay’. It simply states that there is no shay like unto him.
The verse in context then affirms that Allah (swt) is the Hearing the Seeing. Thus, it immediately supplies us with two affirmations about Him.
So even if we give ta’wil interpretations to Hearing, Seeing and Him, they would be interpretations that would tell us something about Allah (swt).
This immediately shows that apophatic theology is inherently contradictory. In saying that God is unknowable or inexpressible, we have already described God’s nature that it is unknowable and inexpressible, thus asserting propositions about God.
Just as they would when trying to exegete the above text of the Qur’an.
In fact, apophatic theology is not something that can be derived from revelation as one of the purposes of revelation is to tell us the will of God.
Apophatic theology cannot affirm a will for God. Therefore, apophatic theology is an exercise in philosophy(not a belief in revealed revelation).
It relies upon using the very limitations of 3D carbon-based lifeforms, existing in the space/time continuum equipped only with their very limited abilities of perception and reason — via a 3D carbon-based lifeform -via from the vantage point of existing in the space/time continuum.
In apophatic or negative theology, we cannot know or affirm that Allah is Love. We do not know or cannot affirm that Allah is Loving.
We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Muhammed (saw).
We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Ali ibn Abu Talib.
We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves the Ahl Bayt.
At best, we could still advance propositions: Allah is not hateful. Allah does not hate.
Allah does not hate Muhammed (saw).
Allah does not hate Ali.
Allah does not hate the Ahl Bayt.
Because just as Allah (swt) does not love Muhammed (saw) or love Ali or love the Ahl Bayt, he does not hate any of them either.
The greatest mysterions are those who can give no definite propositional answers about God at all!
In fact, in negative theology, God may not be simple at all. Because to state that God is simple is a positive statement.
God is possibly more complex and more complicated than anything we could imagine. Hence, the very premise of apophatic theology could, in a very real sense, be self-defeating.
Ultimately, it is a belief in an unknown ‘other’ that one cannot explicate. Rendering itself more complicated than the Trinitarian Athanasian creed by far!
Because this concept (which is what it is at this point) is completely unknowable, it gets to the point of asking rather or not if it is even God we are talking about.
We could, for all intents and purposes, talk about God-1.
In other words, the philosophers could have beguiled themselves into believing in an entity that is God in every aspect except the most important, ‘the unknowability’. Surely this itself presents a conundrum.
We simply would not have a basis for knowing at all.
We could simply be talking about a being or entity that is beyond our capacity to fathom but would still not necessitate that entity being God/Allah.
That is because, ultimately, in negative theology, God cannot be perceived and is not perceivable.
We cannot say anything in relation to God and space/time. We cannot really say anything in relation to God and God’s relation to any creation. Because we would not have the slightest clue what a relationship would be like.
Allah is nothing? Allah is something? Allah is everything? Which is correct?
Which of the statements has textual support from the Qur’an?
“Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)
The above text clearly states in response to the question of what thing has most weight in testimony that Allah (swt) is that thing which has most weight in testimony.
There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is no-thing.
There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is everything. This too would be defeated by logic as there would not be a creator-created distinction.
Apophatic theology leads to bizarre, contradictory conclusions about the attributes of God.
We cannot say that God Creates Perfection.
We cannot say that God Creates Perfection because we cannot say that God Creates at all.
There are also problems with affirmation of negatives to Allah/God.
So when we don’t say that Allah is Hate or Allah is Love. We can only say that Allah does not Hate and Allah does not Love.
But can we affirm the negatives for the following?
Does God have power and control over himself? Is this something to affirm or negate?
Does God have autonomy?
Does God have sovereignty?
Because the moment we assert negative prepositions for these questions, we are now introducing another force besides God.
If you say that the Divine Essence is not autonomous or not sovereign, then this necessitates another actor.
So, logic dictates that we must assert that the Divine Essence has the positive attributes of Autonomy and Sovereignty at the very least; or we are now redirecting our conversation and our interest away from this supposed ‘God’ to that force that God submits to.
Another conundrum of this philosophical discourse is that if this God has the qualities of essence, the very fact there is conversation concerning it makes it among the categories of things that conversation is being held concerning. Even if the conversation is philosophical or speculative in nature.
In other words, another defeat for apophatic theology is that God is being discussed, even if it is only in the sense of negation. Thus, we are affirming a positive about God. That positive being that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.
We can only discuss subjects that have come to our consciousness. Even if those subjects are abstract concepts like time, infinity and nothingness.
We are using language to describe, negate or affirm the concept just as we would use language to negative or affirm any other thing.
So apophatic theology is helpless to deny that God is beyond the realm of pontification, reflection or discussion, or it would render its own position vain. This is because apophatic theologians themselves discuss, pontificate and muse over what is not God.
Apophatic Theology and Proving Negatives.
Apophatic theologians think they can make negative assertions about God without having to prove those negative assertions.
This gets into the debate we have with atheists, where (the uneducated among them) state one cannot prove a negative.
For one thing, a real actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law.
For example: the very statement: “you cannot prove a negative” is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true!
Here is another negative we can prove via mathematics.
So, when making negative statements about God. God is not like this and God is not like that. What is the contrast?
Remember the earlier question:
What is a hamburger not like?
You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.
This would lead us to some intrusive and counter-intuitive conclusions. Such as the bizarre perspective that perhaps the one who has never ever thought about God is the closest to the truth concerning God.
Here we are not talking about the Atheist who has made a propositional stance against God. Here we are talking about such a hypothetical person that has never considered God at all.
Recall that even apophatic theologians are among those who believe that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.
Apophatic Theology Is Hostile Towards Certain aspects of Mysticism and Sufism in particular.
Those aspects of mysticism and Sufism that Apophatic Theology is a virulent enemy of the idea of Fan’a (annihilation of the self in the divine) or having a direct experience with the Divine. This is not possible and the aspirant, according to apophatic theology, is in a state of grand disillusionment. How would they objectively know that they have arrived? That arrival could be a veil itself and, in the face of apophatic theology, it most certainly is.
The argument from the Qur’an is that God must be something.
“Or were they created by no-thing (ghayri shayin), or are they ˹their own˺ creators?” (Qur’an 52:35)
A no-thing would be a non-shay. Non-existence. Unless one wants to argue that the Qur’an is utilizing a spacious argument. May Allah protect us from the Shaitan!
Why would the argument be used that they were created from nothing if the first creation was created from nothing?
Thus, logically, a true negative theology would entail that we cannot say anything about God, which ultimately you will see is the conclusion that many of them end up reaching, by stating that God does not exist (has existence).
Maybe their perspective is similar to the Ein-Sof of Kabbalist philosophy. Maybe they reduce the perceivably complex to the least complex. A name which is still a composite consisting of letters; such that to escape even that multiplicity in the naming of the nothing they chose ע
Even then, that is problematic.
The Christian tradition has the following:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:23)
If God is unlike anything that we can understand or relate to at all, then how could one justify any response to God? Prayer, worship, obeying his commands and shunning that which is prohibited?
“Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you.” (Qur’an 2:143)
Again, these are some of our initial thoughts on the subject.
The Claim: Apophaticism states that no positive predicate can be applied to God. God is beyond all human categories and language.
The Contradiction: To claim that “God is beyond all predicates” is itself a predicate. To say “God is unknowable” is to claim a piece of knowledge about God (namely, that He possesses the property of being unknowable). The statement “No statement about God is true” must, if true, apply to itself, rendering it false.
In essence, the apophatic approach attempts to use language to assert the failure of all language, which is a logical paradox. It tries to climb a ladder of negation and then kick it away, but the act of kicking it away is still a use of the ladder.
God, beyond being, must have the quality of being able to give or ground being.
As the philosopher Anthony Kenny quipped, “The God of the apophatic theologian and the God of the atheist seem to share a remarkable similarity.”
Meaningful negation logically depends on some prior understanding of what is being negated.
This leads to an infinite regress of negation: to negate a concept, you must use another concept, which you must then also negate, ad infinitum. This process can never logically conclude, as every step requires a conceptual framework that the theory itself claims is invalid.
The Unjustified Starting Assumption The entire apophatic edifice is built on one key premise: that the human mind is utterly incapable of forming any true concepts about a transcendent God.
This is an epistemological claim presented as an absolute truth. However, it is not logically proven within the system; it is merely asserted.
A critic can ask: How do you know that human concepts are entirely inadequate? To know this would require having access to God’s nature to compare it to our concepts, which is precisely what the apophatic theologian claims is impossible.
Therefore, the foundational premise of apophaticism is both unproven and, by its own standards, unknowable.
Self-Referential Problem
If we say “God is ineffable” or “God cannot be described,” we are still making a positive assertion about God.
This seems self-contradictory: the claim “God cannot be spoken of” is itself a way of speaking about God.
Epistemic Vacuity
If all positive descriptions are denied, what content remains to distinguish God from nothingness?
A purely negative theology risks collapsing into nihilism: saying “God is not this, not that” could equally describe a void or absence.
This makes it hard to explain how believers know they are actually speaking of God rather than simply of “not-X”.
Dependence on Positive Knowledge
Negation requires a prior positive reference. To say “God is not finite,” one must know what “finite” means and apply it meaningfully.
Thus, negation parasitically depends on the very affirmations it claims to reject.
Pure apophaticism may be logically impossible without at least some cataphatic (positive) foundation.
Oh Allah, if anything that was penned by us was in error, we turn ourselves over to your Mercy. You, the knower of intentions.
“Those to whom we gave the Book know it as they know their children, but a group of them knowingly hide the truth”- Qur’an 2:146
﷽
“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)
Pope John Paul Kissing the Qur’an.
“In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” -POPE PAUL VI
“You are the best nation that ever existed among humanity. You command people to good and prohibit them from evil, and you believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book accepted the faith (Islam), it would certainly have been better for them. Some of them have faith, but most of them are evil doers.” (Qur’an 3:110)
In the future all such articles concerning Christianity will go under the heading Jews and Christians here:
First and foremost any Muslim engaging with Christians should understand that those whom identify as Christians have a wide range of different beliefs. We have seen too often Muslims engage with Christians and assume their beliefs. This is akin to a Christian thinking that an Ayatollah from Iran or a Shaykh from Saudi Arabia speaks on behalf of all Muslims.
For example even our dear brother Paul Williams (whom we consider to be one of the more read Muslims on Christianity and Christian theology in general, made a post on his X (Twitter) timeline that show cases a massive blunder in regard to what is called: ‘Christianity.’
That being said: Blogging Theology is still the best YouTube channel in English that one will find in my opinion.
For example the Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe that we bear the sin of Adam rather we bear the consequences of that sin. It is a nuanced position.
Another massive and influential Protestant denomination, the Church of Christ (called Campbellites) by their opponents do not hold that infants are sinless and incapable of making free will decisions to sin.
There are key but major doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodox and Church of Christ (Campbellites) on this matter as well. With Eastern Orthodox believing original sin corrupts human nature this leads to a deposition towards sin. Whereas the Church of Christ (called Campbellites) They reject original sin altogether, believing that each individual is responsible for their own sins. Adam’s sin affects himself and not future generations.
So brother Paul’s statement paints a very broad brush of Christianity, one which we as Muslims would not want done with us.
Not all Christians believe in a Trinity, and those that do have greatly different takes on it, some viewing others as heretical. They do not all agree on the nature of Christ Jesus, rather or not he has one nature, two natures, they do not even agree on a set number of New Testament books. They have New Testament canons that range from 22 books, 27 books and even 35 books!
“And with those who say, We are Christians (nasara), We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.” (Qur’an 5:14)
The above verse acknowledges that there are whole factions under the umbrella terminology ‘Nasara’ . That these factions clash with one another. Therefore, it is foolhardy to think that the term ‘Nasara’ is a blanket term to refer to all those who call themselves Christians. It can refer to those who were faithful before the breaking of the covenant as well as those who came after.
Some Christians object to certain verses of the Qur’an saying: This is not what we believe. They seem to have forgotten that one person’s orthodoxy is another person’s heterodoxy. This is what the Qur’an acknowledges. There can only be hatred and enmity between those who have sharp and irreconcilable differences among them.
We hope that the students and researchers of comparative religion find the following articles helpful!
GENESIS CHAPTER 3 SEPARATES ISLAM AND CHRISTIAINITY
Christian Dominionism: The Violent take it by force.
Subordinationism.
Gregory Palamas and his errors on Islam.
May Allah (swt) guide the sincere Christians to Islam. May Allah (swt) guide them so that they may find peace in this life and the life to come. May Allah (swt) guide the sincere Christians to Islam and save them from the punishment of the hellfire.
“If two parties of the believers happen to fight, make peace between them. But then, if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the one that transgresses until it reverts to Allah’s command. And if it does revert, make peace between them with justice, and be equitable for Allah loves the equitable.” (Qur’an 49:9)
﷽
We felt thatthis post would be beneficial concerning an exchange that an Ex 12 Shi’a sister had with a teacher from the Ibadi school.
These are her questions and may Allah (swt) guide her to the truth.
Salaam Shaykh, I understand your point of view that the arbitration had dire and terrible consequences. I completely agree it was a terrible decision.
But I still don’t see how it violated the 49:9 ayah.
Because returning to the command of Allah (swt) could be accepting arbitration. As 4:59 says, when two parties differ, we must return it to Allah (swt) and the Messenger, i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah.
And Mua’wiya signed an agreement saying he would accept the judgement according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. Whereas before Siffin, he was saying he would not accept any kind of arbitration. Even if he was lying when he signed the agreement, we must accept if someone verbally makes an oath. And Imam Ali included a clause in the agreement that said if the result of the arbitration is not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah, then we return to fighting.
Which is exactly what he did. After the announcement of the result, which was not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah, he went back to fighting Mua’wiya.
He asked the Muhakimma to rejoin his army, but they refused, saying he must repent first. But Imam Ali refused because he said the arbitration was not a sin, it was a bad political decision that he was forced to take because of the shura of his own army. He had warned against it, and now the result was bad. He was doing the best to fix it by returning to fighting.
And I don’t understand why the Muhakimma didn’t rejoin him because they also wanted to fight Mua’wiya.
This is the response of one of one of our teachers to the questions put forward by the sister:
Because the people of Nahrawan knew from the beginning that arbitration is wrong and is not helped by legal evidence.
This is because the followers cannot challenge the ruler in authority but can only advise him.
And they know that the people of Sham did not ask for arbitration in order to follow the Qur’an and submit to the truth, but rather to gain time. That is why they did not raise the Qur’an in arrows except when the circle of war was about to turn on them.
Rather, Imam Ali himself said that at the beginning.
Where he said, by Allah, they raised it only by deception, cunning and intrigue.
Then, if we go back to the principle of shura in Islam and the principle of appointing a caliph, how could Mu’awiyareject the authority of the caliph?
If the people rejected the authority of the caliph, what would be the situation in this nation?
And the companions who were among the people of the Levant knew the intentions of Mu’awiya and the Umayyads.
How is that?
Because they know that Mu’awiya is a tramp according to the text of the hadith of the Prophet, may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him, and he and his group did not accept Islam until the conquest of Mecca.
And they converted to Islam, and they composed of their hearts.
Likewise, among them is the expulsion of the Messenger of Allah, Al-Hakam bin Al-Aas, as well as the saying of the Prophet, (saw), Allah does not satisfy his stomach.
Where he did not respond to the call of the Prophet (saw) and other events that they know about this sect, including the hadith of the group of unjust, which is that:
Ammar will be killed by the transgressor faction.
As we know, he was killed before arbitration.
All of this evidence was strongly present among the loyal believers of the people of Nahrawan.
There is no doubt that sincere believers see the light of Allah.
And all the events that followed this confirmed the sincerity and strength of the view of the people of Nahrawan.
Therefore, we will see that their position was different from Imam Ali from the beginning.
And they didn’t want to follow up on his mistake.
Nevertheless, we will find some people who are confused about the papers in this time, mistaking the people of Nahrawan and not describing them as being guided in their view and mujtahid.
However, they describe Mu’awiya and Imam Ali as diligent and mujtahid !!!
This is only due to the mixing of standards and the lack of steadfastness and equality in principles.
Prima Qur’an comments: We are quite seasoned at answering such questions. There are always some presumptions in such questions as well as gaps in the data, as you, the reader, will soon see.
Now her first line of questions are very typical of Shi’a and Sunnis, so nothing new here. But here is what you, the astute reader, will soon glean from this exchange.
The sister states:
“But I still don’t see how it violated the 49:9 ayah.”
“Because returning to the command of Allah (swt) could be accepting arbitration. As 4:59 says when two parties differ we must return it to Allah (swt) and the Messenger i.e. the Qur’an and Sunnah.”
So let us take a look at the two verses that are quoted:
“If two parties of the believers happen to fight, make peace between them. But then, if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the one that transgresses until it reverts to Allah’s command. And if it does revert, make peace between them with justice, and be equitable for Allah loves the equitable.” (Qur’an 49:9)
“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.” (Qur’an 4:59)
So far the sister’s logic seems sound right?
But here is where the objection crumbles.
So now we have the Qur’an in front of us. What is/are the verse(s) that give the solution to the conundrum?
This is where we get radio silence, not only from our respected sister (who has a 12er Shi’i background), but our Sunni friends also get their tires stuck in the mud over this question.
To add to the problem of this. If Ali and/or Mu’awiya did not think that the solution was in the Qur’an or Sunnah, it would mean that either or both of them were being pretentious. Not a good trademark for a leader.
Secondly, all Muslims believe that the Qur’an and Sunnah are the solution to all our problems. So why the wait? Like why not just solve the problem right then and there. Quote the relevant verses and be done with it?
Those sahaba, the Muhakkima they would agree. After all:
“So the judgement is with Allah.” (Qur’an 40:12)
So what do the Shi’i and Sunnis give us when we ask: What is that judgement from the Qur’an and Sunnah?
It usually looks and sounds something like this:
That is correct dear readers. Static noise.
So what became of arbitration? Intrigue, betrayal, the sword. Hussein and Karbala.
The Sunni/Shi’i narrative has something in common in that they both make Ali & Mu’awiya like people who do not have a clue.
So what about those sahaba (May Allah be pleased with them all) the Muhakkima. Do we get static from them? No!
“If two parties of the believers happen to fight, make peace between them. But then, if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the one that transgresses until it reverts to Allah’s command. And if it does revert, make peace between them with justice, and be equitable for Allah loves the equitable.” (Qur’an 49:9)
The verse is clear. You fight UNTIL it reverts to Allah’s command. Not fight until you both decide to take a hiatus trying to figure out what the command of Allah is!
“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.” (Qur’an 4:59)
Mu’awiya should have recognized Ali as the commander of the faithful, gave the oath of allegiance. He should have waited for Ali’s verdict. If he felt the verdict was unjust, then he would bring up his grievances.
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.
So, on the one hand, we have Shi’i & Sunnis who claim that Ali & Mu’awiya wanted to settle the matter through the Qur’an & Sunnah. However, they are not prepared to flesh out for us exactly what that entails.
On the other hand, you have the sahaba (May Allah be pleased with them all) the Muhakkima with penetrating insights who have already seen the signals (as the teacher mentioned in his reply). They knew the verdict of Allah (swt) in Qur’an (Qur’an 49:9) and were not interested in playing any more games of cat and mouse.
Dear Ummah, May Allah (swt) open your eyes wide to what has happened.
You mean to tell us that Mu’awiya and Ali went to war over a matter that is unclear? Ali rallied people to fight fellow Muslims over matters that are unclear, and still needed to be discussed and deliberated upon. Mu’awiya did the same? Human life is so cheap?
The idea that the arbitration was to make matters clear that were not clear before is an absolute joke! It is an insult to the intelligence of thinking people.
Here is another point. Ali and Mu’awiya are human beings. They can make ijtihad and their ijtihad can be wrong. Only the body of the Ummah that think that Ali cannot make errors in judgement will find this difficult to agree with.
Then we have people ascribing to Imam Ali some of the most incredulous statements.
For example: Here is an excerpt from Khaled Abou El Fadl who co-authored a book with Joshua Cohen. By Allah, we have possibly never read a more insulting portrayal of Imam Ali’s intelligence than we have from this excerpt.
It is not even so much about what is said about the so-called “khawarij”. It is the injustice done to Imam Ali here! To think that he would use such infantile “arguments” is just beyond incredulous!
Then we get hadith that are either put in the mouth of Ali, and worse still put in the mouth of the Prophet (saw). In this hadith we get Ali disparaging a black man, who happens to be companion of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
‘Ali said:
Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (saw) believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said. When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is an outwitting. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement.
Very odd way to preface a statement. As if something that follows might be incredulous.
“Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (saw) believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said.”
Very interesting admission:
“When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is an outwitting.”
Those sahaba who opposed Ali’s decision for arbitration neither came at ‘the end of the age’ nor where they youth.
“There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought.”
But wait, there is more! We have another version of this hadith:
When Haruria (the Khawarij) set out and as he was with ‘Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) they said, “There is no command but that of Allah.” Upon this ‘Ali said: The statement is true but it is intentionally applied (to support) a wrong (cause). The Messenger of Allah (saw) described their characteristics and I found these characteristics in them. They state the truth with their tongue, but it does not go beyond this part of their bodies (and the narrator pointed towards his throat). The most hateful among the creation of Allah is one black man among them (Khawarij). One of his hand is like the teat of a goat or the nipple of the breast. When ‘Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) killed them, he said: Search (for his dead body). They searched for him, but they did not find it (his dead body). Upon this he said: Go (and search for him). By Allah, neither I have spoken a lie nor has the lie been spoken to me. ‘Ali said this twice and thrice. They then found him (the dead body) in a rain. They brought (his dead) body till they placed it before him (Hadrat ‘Ali). ‘Ubaidullah said: And, I was present at (that place) when this happened and when ‘Ali said about them. A person narrated to me from Ibn Hanain that he said: I saw that black man.
Dear reader, as we are not sure which hadith you will be directed to, we would advise you to type into Google: “Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1066.” Thus, you will have your choice of hadith to analyze.
The statement is true, but it is intentionally applied (to support) a wrong (cause). Another version in English reads: “A word of truth by which is intended falsehood.“
Is Ali saying that his cause is wrong? Because, that is exactly what those sahaba meant. As mentioned above. It is not an ambiguous matter like the Sunni/Shi’i have made it out to be. The verse in the Qur’an is clear.
2. They state the truth with their tongue, but it does not go beyond this part of their bodies (and the narrator pointed towards his throat)
So why is it they say the truth and it does not go past the throat? Or is that they recite the Qur’an, and it does not go past their throat?
3. That Ali ibn Abu Talib gets to be on record for all posterity for saying: “The most hateful among the creation of Allah is one black man among them (Khawarij). ”
Surely the following is description enough: “One of his hand is like the teat of a goat or the nipple of the breast.” ?
Which, by the way, the above hadith we can and have absolutely ripped the chains apart. However, what has gone on concerning the matn (the text) itself should be sufficient. Insh’Allah.
So let us continue with what this ex 12er Shi’i sister states:
“And Mua’wiya signed an agreement saying he would accept the judgement according to the Qur’an and Sunnah. Whereas before Siffin, he was saying he would not accept any kind of arbitration. Even if he was lying when he signed the agreement, we must accept if someone verbally makes an oath. And Imam Ali included a clause in the agreement that said if the result of the arbitration is not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah then we return to fighting.”
“Which is exactly what he did. After the announcement of the result, which was not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah, he went back to fighting Mua’wiya.”
So here are some things that this sister could ponder. As stated above, what is this big mystery? What is this big secret evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah that has been hidden from us for the last 1300 plus years?
“And Mua’wiya signed an agreement saying he would accept the judgement according to the Qur’an and Sunnah.”
“”Which is exactly what he did. After the announcement of the result, which was not in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah, he went back to fighting Mua’wiya.”
This is what we have asked Shi’i time and time again. Over and over and over again ad nauseam. What is from the Qur’an and Sunnah that Mu’awiya went against? What is the evidence the process that Ali was quoting from there that supported him? What is this 1300 year big secret?
The sister continues:
“He asked the Muhakimma to rejoin his army but they refused, saying he must repent first. But Imam Ali refused because he said the arbitration was not a sin, it was a bad political decision that he was forced to take because of the shura of his own army. He had warned against it, and now the result was bad, he was doing the best to fix by returning to fighting.”
“And I don’t understand why the Muhakimma didn’t rejoin him because they also wanted to fight Mua’wiya.”
Let us pick this a part bit by bit.
“He asked the Muhakimma to rejoin his army, but they refused, saying he must repent first.”
Response: Let us say, for the sake of argument, that Ali didn’t think he needed to repent. If he was a judicious leader and wanted these sahaba to rejoin him, why not simply repent for the sake of repentance?
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah’s Messenger (saw) saying,” By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day.”
Another point on this. Whatever one may think about the hadith of Thaqalayn, Ghadir Khum, etc. it is abundantly clear that those sahaba had no idea, clue or concept of Ali being beyond approach. In fact, the matter is very similar to the following:
Narrated Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Aasadi:
“When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and Hasan bin `Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. Al-Hasan bin `Ali was at the top of the pulpit and `Ammar was below Al-Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard `Ammar saying, “`Aisha has moved to Al-Busra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him (Allah) or her (`Aisha).”
So even though Aisha (ra) is acknowledged by Ammar bin Yasir (ra) to be the ‘wife of the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter,‘ he was not about to leave the dhahir (the apparent) evidence. Which is that Ali was/is/and forever will be the rightful 4th Imam of the Muslims.
So why are we expected to go hard on a woman, the mother of the believers, (ra)? But when it comes to a man, do we take the cautious approach? Doesn’t seem very consistent or chivalrous at all.
So, just like those sahaba abandoned Aisha (ra) in favour of the apparent. In a similar sense, sahaba abandoned the ijtihad of Ali in favour of the Qur’an. It is abundantly clear, as is the admission by this sister of those people asking Ali to repent, that this idea that Ali was infallible, beyond reproach, should never be questioned.
Nope! Get that out of here!
In fact, Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed Al Miqbal -May Allah bless and protect him. He explains about the position of Ali very clearly.
@50 seconds he says:
“Rather, they looked upon the events and clashes with what occurred in Siffin, and they built upon it a judgement. And it’s a godly judgement. And they see that Ali is alike to the people, alike to the human kind; For him it is that to others, and to him is that to others. And he is obligated by what they’re obligated.”
“So, if he falls on that which obliges deviance, he is considered a deviant. So, if he does tafseeq, he is considered a fasiq/ Kufs he is takfeered.”
“And this is the madhab of the sahaba which you narrate. The companions who had insulted him killed and cursed him. Was it out of a whim?”
“Or by a religious obligation? Without a doubt, the madhab of the sahaba (and you claim you follow the salaf, you say that you’re Salafiyah) this is the madhab of the salaf.”
“That whoever falls on kufr is takfeered, whoever falls on that which obligates cursing is cursed, whoever falls on that which obligates criticism is criticized.”
“This is the madhab of the Salaf, rather the madhab of the Qur’an and the Honest Prophet (saw). This is the madhab that we adopt.”
Narrated `Aisha:
Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict the legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”
So let us imagine a scenario where Fatima (ra) did steal, and she did get caught. Would one necessarily have to have hatred in his/her heart towards Fatima (ra) when executing the punishment? That means that every judge or Qadi would need to hate the person they pass a sentence on?
Of course not!
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah revealed the Verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” Allah’s Messenger (saw) got up and said, “O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Bani `Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah’s Messenger (saw)! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammed! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment.”
“And I don’t understand why the Muhakimma didn’t rejoin him because they also wanted to fight Mua’wiya.”
There is a saying. Once bitten twice shy. These sahaba fought and died for Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib. They bled and watched as companions and colleagues and friends died, some of them possibly maimed for life. Ali had his chance at victory and squandered it. How can it be imagined that these same people would rejoin Ali only for him to find himself in another situation with Mua’wiya and have a bitter repeat of that affair? Thanks but no, thanks!
Besides this they have already elected an Imam.
Why is it that Mu’awiyais culpable for his mistakes as a leader and Ali is not?
Remember, that the Shaykh, in his response to the sister, quoted that signals that let those sahaba, the Muhakimma, to see that Mu’awiya is definitely upon injustice.
Recall that the Shaykh said:
“Where he did not respond to the call of the Prophet (saw) and other events that they know about this sect, including the hadith of the group of unjust, which is that:
“Ammar will be killed by the transgressive faction.”
Narrated `Ikrima:
“That Ibn `Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
Yet, surprisingly, he has misinterpreted it by saying: “His killers were those who held weapons and killed him.” Which he means to say not Mu’awiya!!! He says again: “The word “killer”, if loosely or absolutely used, means the one that has killed: not the one that has issued the order (of killing).”
Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 3, p. 133. Ibn Al-Athir Al-Kamil Vol. 2, p. 705)
This bizarre philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah indicates that if he were to live in the present age, he would – of course – agree with the claim that presidents are not responsible for the crime of the illegal, haphazard bloodshed committed by their armies in different Muslim and non-Muslim countries, but rather their troops are the ones responsible for that!
This is bizarre reasoning. Of course, Mu’awiya is responsible for the actions of his soldiers just as Ali is responsible for the decisions that he makes. You can’t keep looking to shift the blame on others. It further makes Ali look weak and indecisive.
Also, now that history has passed, accordingly it was said that Mu’awiya and Amr ibn al-Aas used a ruse to deceive Ali and his army. Is that something to be proud of, brothers? The founders of the Ummayad dynasty used deception against fellow Muslims like this? Your history portrays them as scheming and conniving! Are you proud of this?
Prima Quran 