“That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira) for you (Oh Muhammed) what preceded of your (dhanbika) sins and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.” (Qur’an 48:2)
﷽
Title: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error?
Attribution: His Eminence Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al-Kharusi
The translation is from the following video.
Brother Badr asks: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error? Adam (as), as he says, made a mistake by eating from the tree. Moses (as) made a mistake by killing the Coptic man. Jonah (as) made a mistake by leaving his village without Allah’s permission. So how do we reconcile what we hear — that the prophets are infallible — with these mistakes?
Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al-Kharusi responds:
Questioner: What was the original question?
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error?
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding clarification of certain matters: what one finds among scholars on the issue of prophetic infallibility is that their intent in this matter pertains to sins and transgressions, not to mistakes in general.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Sometimes some scholars use the word “mistake,” but they mean sins and transgressions. This must be clear. The discussion on prophetic infallibility relates to committing sins and transgressions.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is the first point.
The second point: There is agreement among Muslim scholars — or the majority of Muslim scholars — on the issue of prophetic infallibility from sins and transgressions. Regarding anything connected to revelation and conveying the message, they are infallible and protected from error or mistake in that.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: And anything that could involve shirk (associating partners with Allah), whether apparent or hidden, they are infallible from it. Likewise, they are unanimously protected from major sins.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: These matters are points of agreement among all scholars.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Among the vast majority of scholars, any opinions to the contrary are anomalous and not given weight.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: The remaining discussion concerns minor sins. Scholars have differing views.
Some hold that minor sins could occur from prophets.
Others say minor sins could occur before prophethood but not after;
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and some deny the occurrence of minor sins from them altogether.
Questioner: Yes. May Allah’s prayers and peace be upon them all.
Shaykh al-Kharusi:These are the various positions. According to our scholars, they are free from minor sins both before and after prophethood.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: However, the view that minor sins could possibly occur from them — without persistence in them and without them being left unaddressed — is also a well-known view. Some even report that this is the position of the majority of scholars.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding minor sins without persistence and without being left unaddressed.
Questioner: Yes. So they do not persist in them, nor do they remain upon them, nor are they left unrebuked.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: And no sin or punishment results from them.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes.
As for those who hold that minor sins are impossible for prophets, both before and after prophethood, how do they interpret what is mentioned in the Book of Allah or authentically reported in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) that appears to involve a sin? They interpret it as doing what is contrary to what is better and more appropriate for the station of prophethood. This station is the highest and most perfect of stations. Therefore, something that is contrary to what is better — inconsistent with the station of prophethood — could occur from them. This is a good interpretation, as it shows proper etiquette toward the prophets of Allah (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon them all) and interprets their actions in a good and acceptable manner.
Now we come to some examples that scholars mention: what occurred from Adam (as), what happened with Moses in that incident when he struck the Coptic man and killed him —
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and what happened with Dhul-Nun (Jonah) when he fled to the laden ship —
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and some other examples. I say that each of these has an interpretation.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding Adam and his wife eating from the tree, the correct view is that that stage was not a stage of religious obligation (taklif). Yes.
This has been reported by several exegetes, and it was greatly relied upon by Imam al-Tahir ibn Ashur in Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir. He reported it, as did others before him, and they mentioned that it is the view of the majority: that stage in Adam’s preparation, training, and upbringing was not a stage of religious obligation but rather a stage of discipline.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Therefore, what occurred from him that appears to be error and disobedience was actually a violation of the discipline of training — violating what was required for his preparation and development. Ibn Ashur gave an example: like the head of a household training his children. When they disobey his command — even if the act itself is not inherently sinful or described as a sin —
Questioner: Yet it is disobedience to the head of the household’s command, a deviation from his path.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: For example, he tells them, “Do not enter this room,” and they enter.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So this falls under violation of discipline because it was not a stage of religious obligation. That was not a stage of legal responsibility.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is a good interpretation that brings together various points made about the story of Adam and his eating from the tree. Moreover, the noble Qur’an explicitly describes Adam as having forgotten — “And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred” (Qur’an 20:121) — but he forgot, and no firm resolve was found in him. So it occurred as an oversight and forgetfulness on his part, not as a deliberate intention to disobey Allah’s command.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: As for what occurred with Moses (as) — for you asked about it —
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: That was not a sin on Moses’ part but rather an error. Yes.
He intended to defend the Israelite from the Coptic man because the Coptic man was transgressing.
Questioner: He was an aggressor.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So Moses intended to push him away, and he struck him. But Allah decreed that he died from that blow.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is accidental killing. Therefore, it is not described as a sin. However, due to the station of prophethood, Moses sought forgiveness from his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself” (Qur’an 28:16). He sought forgiveness from his Lord because he did not intend that, nor did he want it to happen. It occurred from him while his intention was to forbid evil.
Questioner: But God decreed what happened.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes.
Thus, what is mentioned in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah(saw) regarding this matter is interpreted in this way.
In summary, it is important to pay attention to the following: matters related to conveying revelation, shirk (whether apparent or hidden), and major sins — the prophets are infallible in these.
Questioner: Infallible.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Infallible, peace be upon them.
As for minor sins, there is a difference of opinion, and the various views have been mentioned. As for errors — those things that are not sins and not within the scope of religious obligations — their situation in this regard is like that of all human beings: they may make a mistake in some matter that is not a sin, for which no legal obligation had been established. And Allah knows best.
Questioner: Or for which no obligation had previously existed. “May Allah pardon you — why did you give them permission?” (Qur’an 9:43) — for example.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes. This, as I said, is interpreted as doing what is contrary to what is better.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is a matter of proper etiquette. It has been said that it was left to their own judgment, and they exercised ijtihad. So the matter is clear. As for those who hold that an error occurred, they describe it as doing what is contrary to what is better. And Allah knows best.
Questioner: Yes. O my hope, O my hope.
Prima Qur’an comments.
Thus, on prophetic infallibility there are four points.
The discussion on prophetic infallibility relates to committing sins and transgressions.
Regarding anything connected to revelation and conveying the message, they are infallible and protected from error or mistake in that.
And anything that could involve shirk (associating partners with Allah), whether apparent or hidden, they are infallible from it.
As for errors — those things that are not sins and not within the scope of religious obligations — their situation in this regard is like that of all human beings: they may make a mistake in some matter that is not a sin, for which no legal obligation had been established. And Allah knows best
Likewise, they are unanimously protected from major sins.
Summary:
They are protected from making any mistakes or errors in conveying the revelation.
They do not do anything that involves shirk.
They are not protected from making errors or mistakes in personal ijtihad like all human beings.
They do not commit major sins.
An example of point 3.
Musa b. Talha reported:
I and Allah’s Messenger (saw) happened to pass by people near the date-palm trees. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What are these people doing? They said: They are grafting, i. e. they combine the male with the female (tree) and thus they yield more fruit. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: I do not find it to be of any use. The people were informed about it and they abandoned this practice. Allah’s Messenger (saw) (was later) on informed (that the yield had dwindled), whereupon he said: If there is any use of it, then they should do it, for it was just a personal opinion of mine, and do not go after my personal opinion; but when I say to you anything on behalf of Allah, then do accept it, for I do not attribute lie to Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
The discussion concerns minor sins. There are three views.
Some hold that minor sins could occur from prophets.
Others say minor sins could occur before prophethood but not after.
Some deny the occurence of minor sins from them altogether.
Shaykh al-Kharusi pauses and corrects himself.
He says: “According to our scholars, they are free from minor sins both before and after prophethood.”
Then he corrects himself: “However, the view that minor sins could possibly occur from them — without persistence in them and without them being left unaddressed — is also a well-known view. Some even report that this is the position of the majority of scholars.”
Some examples from the Qur’an.
Adam-alayhi salam
“And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he (fanasiya) forgot; and We found not in him determination.” (Qur’an 20:115)
فَنَسِيَ (fa-nasiya) = “but he forgot” (or “then he forgot”)
This word for forget or negligence is the wording used to describe the Christians who received the wrath of Allah (swt). However, notice the verse above says: ‘We found not in him determination.’ Meaning persistence in his sin.
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they (fanasu)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)
“Dhu’n-Nun” (the Man of the Whale) and “Sahib al-Hut” (the Companion of the Fish) or Jonah.
“And [mention] the man of the fish, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not decree [anything] upon him. And he called out within the darknesses, “There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the (l-ẓālimīna) wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 21:87)
“Then the fish swallowed him, while he was (mulīmun)blameworthy.” (Qur’an 37:142)
That same word is used in the Qur’an to describe the state of Pharaoh when he was cast into the sea.
“So We took him and his soldiers and cast them into the sea, and he was blameworthy.” (Qur’an 51:40)
It should be noted that Pharoah is in the barā’ah ḥaqīqah. One truly cut off from Allah (swt).
Then there is this verse where Allah (swt) addresses the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira)for you what preceded of your (dhanbika) sins and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.” (Qur’an 48:2)
When addressing Pharaoh a word from the same Arabic root is used.
“[Theirs is] like the custom of the people of Pharaoh and those before them. They denied Our signs, so Allah seized them for their (bidhunūbihim)sins. And Allah is severe in penalty.” (Qur’an 3:11)
In classical Arabic, Dhanb literally means:
A fault or shortcoming like human oversight or “leaving the better option” (tark al-awla).
A sin, crime, or offense
Also note that the verse above says: That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira)Forgiveness is only for that which needs forgiveness. Which doesn’t necessarily entail a moral sin. A guest spills a drink and stains someone’s carpet. The guest says: “Please forgive me.”
Some Muslim translators were embarassed by this because the text is a direct assault upon their contrived beliefs.
This is why as Muslims we follow the evidence. We do not follow our desires.
*Mohammed Tahir-ul-Qadri*has translated the above as:
“So that Allah forgives, for your sake, all the earlier and later sins (of all those people) of your Umma ([Community]* who struggled, fought and sacrificed by your command), and (this way) may complete His blessing on you (outwardly and inwardly) in the form of Islam’s victory and forgiveness for your Umma (Community), and may keep (your Umma) firm-footed on the straight path (through your mediation).”
* Note: We understand the people of Sufism to be lovers of Al-Haqq (The Truth) and not people who manipulate the religion.
It is rather obvious why people would interpret the text like this. Because when you have a Pir-Murid (master-disciple) culture where people are expected to pledge fealty to the Pir, then it becomes impossible for the Pir to commit even the smallest infraction or mistake.
The following lecure by Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi (h) is also very eye opening:
The methodology of the Prophets in dealing with sins. Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi.
“O humanity! Eat from what is lawful and good on the earth and do not follow Satan’s footsteps. He is truly your sworn enemy. He only incites you to commit evil and indecency, and to claim against Allah what you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:168-169)
﷽
According to Islamic teachings does Allah have attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur?
First, let it be clear that we are not aware of any sects among Muslims today who does affirm such things for Allah (swt).
However, we need to understand something.
If someone asks usdoes Allah have attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur we can answer absolutley not. We can negate these for Allah (swt). This is because of our holistic approach to the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
We have dealt with that in the following articles:
However, there is another vocal group among the Muslims who would not be able to deny that Allah (swt) has attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur.
The best they can do is to say: We have no revealed texts in regard to these attributes. We can neither affirm nor deny.
They could quote the following:
“Although they have no knowledge of this. They follow nothing but assumptions. And surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth.” (Qur’an 53:28)
The text is warning us not to speculate about that which we have no certain knowledge of. Howver, according to the appraoch of these Muslims the above text does not negate those possible attributes for Allah (swt).
Likewise, we may outright reject the idea of Allah (swt) having attributes such as teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur by quoting the following:
“To those who disbelieve in the Hereafter belong all evil qualities, whereas to Allah belong the finest attributes. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 16:60)
But to those who interpret otherwise, they would claim that there is nothing inherently evil to Allah (swt) having teeth, biceps, 66 thumbs, 17 hooves, a tail, gills, or fur.
Other examples:
Say: “Take on Allah’s colour.” And whose colour is better than Allah’s? It is Him that we serve.” (Qur’an 2:138)
The Arabic Term: The word used is Sibghah (صِبْغَةَ), which literally means dye, tint, or color.
The Meaning of “Colour of Allah”: It refers to the true faith of Islam that permeates a person’s inner and outer life, just as dye changes the color of a cloth entirely. It represents purity, sincerity, and the adoption of divine characteristics in behavior and worship.
However, some Muslims may understand from the above verse that Allah (swt) has a colour! Though accordingly, Allah (swt) has not revealed what colour he is it leaves some to wonder rather Allah (swt) is white (in a way that befits his majesty) or rather Allah (swt) is black (in a way that befits his majesty).
Those Muslims do not seem to understand or appreciate that the Qur’an and Sunnah has Majaz.
Majaz (مجاز) in Arabic has a few related meanings depending on the context, but the most common and important one — especially in language, literature, and Islamic studies — is figurative language or metaphor/trope.
“Such as took their religion to be mere amusement and play, and were deceived by the life of the world.” That day shall We forget them as (كَمَا) they forgot the meeting of this day of theirs, and as they were wont to reject Our signs.” (Qur’an 7:51)
The Arabic word كَمَا (transliterated as kamā or kama) is a very common conjunction and particle. Its primary meaning is “as”, “like”, or “just as” (indicating similarity, manner, or comparison).
We know that it is a huge error to say that Allah (swt) forgot anything.
“He replied, “That knowledge is with my Lord in a Record. My Lord neither falters nor forgets.” (Qur’an 20:52)
Another way to translate Qur’an 7:51 would be:
“Those who took this faith as mere amusement and play and were deluded by worldly life.” “Today We will ignore them just as they ignored the coming of this Day of theirs and for rejecting Our revelations.” (Qur’an 7:51)
You can see multiple translations of the above verse here:
While Allah (swt) does not forget anyone, He may leave those who are arrogant and refuse to repent, or those who commit sins against others without seeking forgiveness, to face the consequences of their actions. This can be interpreted as a form of divine abandonment.
This is why translating as ignoring makes more sense in light of the other verses of the Qur’an that clearly state that Allah (swt) is All Knowing.
It also make sense in regard to human beings. No human being really forgets that they will die or ultimately meet their fate. However, they put this issues off. Proof of this is how many people who believe in the afterlife have not even made a will?
There is Majaz in the hadith as well.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “Allah said, ‘I will declare war against him who shows hostility to a pious worshipper of Mine. And the most beloved things with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
So to say that Allah (swt) becomes something means he was not that before. This means that Allah (swt) changes based upon a believer’s particular state at any given moment.
The outward reading of the hadith leads to unacceptable positions such as: incarnation (hulul) or union (ittihad).
“Say “Each is waiting, so keep waiting! You will soon know who is on the Straight Path and is guided.” (Qur’an 20:135)
“Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to your heart by Allah’s will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe. Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the ungrateful.”(Qur’an 2:97-98)
“But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)
﷽
Note: The Angel of revelation is none other than Gabriel. Paul here is foreshadowing the coming of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) who is the culmination of the ‘Good News‘.
The Ibadi school is the earliest school to warn the people about Paul
8th century Ibāḍī theologian ʿAbd Allāh al-Fazārī writes:
“Every nation after its prophet has a Sāmirī to misguide it and a Paul to deceive it like the Sāmirī of the Jews and the Paul of the Christians, Allāh curse them.”
First, we need to remove two contentions that Christians raise against us as Muslims.
The first is to quote the following verse:
“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)
“Those who follow you” is a reference to the believers who followed Jesus in his time and then to the Muslims with the coming of the Prophet Muhammed (saw).
“O believers! Stand up for Allah, as Jesus, son of Mary, asked the disciples, “Who will stand up with me for Allah?” The disciples replied, “We will stand up for Allah.” Then a group from the Children of Israel believed while another disbelieved. We then supported the believers against their enemies, so they are apparent.” (Qur’an 61:14)
The first question to ask is: How did Allah (swt) support the believers against their enemies?
The same way he did Jesus (as).
“Indeed, We gave Moses the Book and sent after him successive messengers. And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the holy spirit. Why is it that every time a messenger comes to you ˹Israelites˺ with something you do not like, you become arrogant, rejecting some and killing others?” (Qur’an 2:87)
So Allah (swt) supported Jesus with the Angel Gabriel and with clear proof.
The second question is what does the word ẓāhirīna actually mean?
zahrina (apparent) who is it speaking about? alladhina amanu (those who believed).
What became apparent? Those who believed vs those who disbelieved.
The word actually means apparent. That those true followers of Jesus (as) it became apparent that they were upon the truth. How? By means of the clear proofs that Allah (swt) supplied them with by their Prophet and Teacher, Jesus — alayhi salam.
Not that they became dominant or victorious. This is contrary to the reality. They were killed, wiped out.
What does False or Anti-Christ mean?
Answer: “Antichristos can mean either “against Christ” or “instead of Christ” or perhaps, combining the two, ‘one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ” (Westcott)
Pseudo Christos — “one who falsely lays claim to the name and office of the Messiah”
Source: (VINES concourse dictionary of the biblical words W.E. Vine pg.13 and pg.54)
Note: The term ‘Anti‘ is sinister in that it does not necessarily mean opposed to as it means in place of.
THE ANTICHRIST WILL BE A CHRISTIAN ACCORDING TO JESUS
“For many will come in my name, saying, I am (Χριστός) Christ; and shall deceive many.” (Matthew 24:5)
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness ‘” (Matthew 7:21-23)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Do Hindus make prophecies in the name of Jesus?
Do Buddhists drive out demons in the name of Jesus?
Do Muslims do mighty deeds in the name of Jesus?
The only religion on this planet that does anything in the name of Jesus are Christians!
The Anti-Christ will come in the guise of a follower of Christ.
“For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you . They are godless men who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign Lord.”(Jude 1:4)
Was Paul historically ever Anti-Christ himself?
Answer: Yes!
“For at the very beginning I was determined that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Acts 26:9-10)
Note: “contrary to the name of Jesus” (Contra-Christ /In place of Christ/ Anti-Christ)
“On that day, a great persecution broke out against the church of Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul(Paul) began to destroy the church . Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.” (Acts 8:1-3)
“Meanwhile, Saul (Paul) was still breathing out murder threats against the Lord’s disciples.” (Acts 9:1)
“And Saul (Paul) was there, giving approval to his (Stephen’s) death.” (Acts 7:61)
Common misconceptions about Anti-Christ
Prima Qur’an Comment: Some common misconceptions about the Anti-Christ are that there is only one anti-Christ. The other misconception is that the anti-Christ will only show up at the end of time. The following text clears this up.
“Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that The ANTICHRIST is coming, even now , many antichrist have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)
Note: We can see that there will be many false Christ, and we can see that even in the time of Jesus’ disciples there were antichrist.
Paul’s Unconfirmed “Conversion”.
Question: Did Paul convert to the teachings of Jesus?
Answer: No!
The only testimony we have that Paul is a ‘disciple’ of Jesus is Paul’s own contradictory accounts in Acts chapters 9, 22 and 26.
Acts 9:7 says:
“The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”
Acts 22:9 says:
“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.”
Acts 26:14 says:
“And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul Saul why persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”
Prima Qur’an Comment: All these instances in which Paul speaks about Jesus speaking to him for the first time are obviously flat lies.
Not only that, but in Acts 22:9 it says the same people traveling with him “saw indeed the light.”
This is very strange because Paul also says in Acts 26:23
“At midday, O King, I saw in the way a light from heaven, Above the brightness of the sun, shining around me and Them which journeyed WITH me.”
Besides the above contradictions, Paul said this light was brighter than the sun and that those with him “saw indeed the light” yet read the following:
“And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened he saw no man, but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.” (Acts 9:8-9)
Prima Qur’an Comment:Now this light was “brighter than the sun” yet his companions were fine! Paul’s whole “conversion” story is a fabrication.
Establishing testimony for yourself according to Christ Jesus.
“But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witness every word may be established.” (Matthew 18:16)
Prima Qur’an Comment: According to the criteria set by Christ Jesus, Paul’s testimony of conversion is blatantly false. The only record we have of Paul’s so-called conversion is from the writer Luke. There is no testimonial from the men who traveled with Paul.
The above contradictory accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts chapters 9,22 and 26 render his account baseless!
Two important points about Paul.
1) Paul never met the historical Jesus.
2) Paul only claimed to have met Jesus in a vision of light.
Paul’s ‘vision of light’ was none other than Satan?
“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ And little wonder; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:13-14)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul transformed himself into an apostle of Christ Jesus. Because Paul’s conversion story is not confirmed and it is contradictory.
The being of light who was speaking to Paul in the vision was Satan.
Satan is the one who made the seeing blind in the instance of Paul.
Christ Jesus as a prophet of Allah never once made anyone blind! Jesus made the blind to see!
“And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of revelations, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, the MESSENGER OF SATAN, to buffet me lest I should be exalted above measure.” (2 Corinthians 12:7)
Question: What does the word messenger mean in 2 Corinthians 12:7 ?
Answer:
Angelos, “a messenger, an angel, one sent,” of Paul’s “thorn in the flesh,” “a messenger of Satan.”
Source: (VINES concourse dictionary of the biblical words W.E. Vine pg.239)
Comment: Paul keeps talking about this revelation that he is getting from this being of light he met. Yet he also interestingly lets the cat out of the bag by speaking of the ‘angel of Satan‘ sent to him.
Paul’s Gnostic Anti-Christ teachings.
Paul’s belief that we are saved through hidden Gnosis.
What is Gnosis?
Answer:
Gnosis=knowledge
Who are the Gnostics?
Answer:
The Gnostics, headed by Valentius, who lived in Rome for almost 30 years until ca.165 claimed fresh revelations and added to the scriptures. In their antimaterial scheme of things, spiritual knowledge, or gnosis, meant that the pneumatics or people of higher spirit were already saved, the psychics or people of the psyche or living soul could be redeemed, whereas the hylics or people of matter were incapable of deliverance from matter and so remained beyond or rather below redemption.
“My brothers, I could not talk to you as a spiritual people, but as fleshly people , as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now. For you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving in an ordinary human way? Whenever someone says “I belong to Paul,’ and another, “ I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?” (1 Corinthians 3:1-4)
Prima Qur’an Comment: The New American Bible had the following to say in its footnote above.
“Spiritual people…fleshly people: Paul employs two clusters of concepts and terms to distinguish what later theology will call the natural and the supernatural. The natural person is one whose existence perceptions and behavior are determined by purely natural principles. The psyche and the sarx ( flesh) a biblical term that connotes creatureliness. Such person are only infants; they remain on a purely human level(anthropo) On the other hand, they are called to be animated by a higher principle, the pneuma, God’s spirit. They are to become spiritual(pneumatikoi) and mature in their perception and behavior. The culmination of existence in the Spirit is described.”
Note: Paul, in the above passage 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 clearly expresses Gnostic belief. He also clearly shows that those he called “brothers” were not on a spiritual (pneumatik) level and therefore not saved because they were not initiated into Paul’s secret doctrines.
Irenaeus insisted on salvation being mediated through the flesh; this cohered with the missions of the Holy Spirit and the Son. “Human beings,” he wrote, are made “spiritual” not by the abolition of the flesh “but by outpouring of the Spirit: (ibid., 5.6.1). Renewal in the image of God comes about “:not by getting rid of the material body but by sharing in the Spirit.” (ibid., 5,8.1)
Paul, himself being a Gnostic, taught that the only way people would gain true salvation was if secret knowledge (gnosis) was imparted to them.
“This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.” ( 1 Corinthians 2:13 )
“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect, yet not wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught: But we speak of the wisdom of God in a mystery ,even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory.” ( 1 Corinthians 2:67 )
The apple was a gift of gnosis.
Remember that the apple Satan gave Adam and Eve was a form of hidden gnosis.
“Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the Lord God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?” The woman answered the serpent: “ We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; It is about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, “ You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.” But the serpent said to the woman: “ You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.” The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of it’s fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.” (Genesis 3: 1-7)
What is the hidden wisdom Paul wants to share with you?
“Undeniably great is the mystery of our devotion; which was manifest in the flesh, vindicated by the spirit seen by angels proclaimed to gentiles, believed throughout the whole world and received up into glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16)
The mystery and secret gnosis that Paul is talking about is his concept of a risen crucified Christ revealed in him! That this risen crucified Christ is Paul himself! For those of you unable to see this or recognize it as the truth, well, we will just borrow the words of Paul…
“My brothers, I could not talk to you as a spiritual people, but as fleshly people , as infants (babies that have little comprehension or reasoning skills )in Christ.”
Again, what Christ he is talking about is questionable.
“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son IN me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:” (Galatians 1:15-16)
Paul denied Christ Jesus as coming in the flesh.
“Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
Who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found in humanappearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11)
Note: Contrary to what others may have told you or statements written in the name of Paul, this is Paul’s concept of Jesus.
Paul claims, in true Gnostic form, Jesus was found in human likeness, not that he was human. Paul claims Jesus was found inhuman appearance, not that he was human.
“Consequently, from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer.”(2 Corinthians 5:16)
Note: Bishop Irenaeus also rejected both the Marcionite separation of the NT God the Father from the OT Creator who made all things, and the Gnostic denial of the Son of God being truly made flesh for our salvation.
PAUL’S CRYPTIC GNOSTIC CLAIM TO BEING CHRIST.
Question: Did Paul claim that he was Christ?
Answer: Yes!
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; YET NOT I, BUT CHRIST lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
Paul says it is not really “him” that you see, the “he” was crucified, and it is “not I but Christ” living in his body. He is claiming that he is essentially Christ, and for this reason he is superior to all of Christ’s disciples who opposed him at every turn.
“And my temptation which was in my flesh you despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus” ( Galatians 4:14)
Prima Qur’an Comment People received Paul as if he was Jesus Christ himself!
“Even as Christ Jesus” This is interesting as Paul is saying that people received him as a person would receive Christ Jesus himself; on that very same level.
Jesus is speaking about bearing a record of one’s self.
“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” (John 5:31)
Yet Lo, and Behold Paul says:
“I am become a fool in glorying; you have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chief apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” (2 Corinthians 12:11-12)
Note: Paul is bearing testimony of himself. Also, the very thing which Paul says makes him someone worthy of being listened to are his signs and wonders the very thing Jesus warned about in the following:
SIGNS AND WONDERS
Jesus warned about signs and wonders
“For there shall arise false Christ and false prophets, and show great signs (miracles) and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus said that when the false christ come they will deceive you by way of signs and miracles. The very thing that Paul uses as a sign of a true apostle, ” signs and wonders”.
Jesus warning about “Signs and Wonders”
Speaking of Paul and other false Christ, Jesus said:
“For there shall arise false Christ and false prophets, and show great signs (miracles) and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
Note: This is exactly what Paul did in front of the “very elect” at the Jerusalem council!
“Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.” (Acts 15:12)
“And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brothers, Listen to me!” (Acts 15:13)
Note: Paul and Barnabas (son of the Father) were busy trying to fool the “very elect” with signs and wonders. When James (the very brother of Christ Jesus) saw what was happening, he said, “Listen to me”!
Jesus said as well,
“I come to you in my Father’s name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.” (John 5:43)
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, I kept them in your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (John 17:11)
Again, Paul bears witness of himself, even claiming that God revealed Jesus in him!
“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son IN me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:” (Galatians 1:15-16)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul once again referring to himself. Paul did not immediately consult with James, the brother of Jesus (flesh and blood), i.e. other disciples of Christ Jesus.
Paul’s gnostic teaching that God’s plan was revealed through Gnosis (secret knowledge) to him is worthy of note.
Paul and his divisions: sowing tears among the wheat.
“Beware of false prophets, which come in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)
“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tears among the wheat, and went his way.” (Matthew 13:24-25)
The Gospel of Christ Jesus vs. the Gospel of Paul.
“And there had been much disputing, Peter rose up , and said unto them, Men and brothers, you know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should heard the word of the gospel, and believe.” (Acts 15:7)
“But contra wise, when they saw that the gospel of the un circumcision was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.” (Galatians 2:7)
Prima Qur’an Comments: Here we are confronted with a major contradiction because Peter teaches that he was to go and teach to the gentiles. However, Paul teaches that he actually was to go to the uncircumcised (Gentiles), and Peter was to go to the circumcision (Jews).
Not only that, but here we can plainly see there were two gospels! So which one is true? The gospel of circumcision or the gospel of uncircumcision?
Paul continues bashing Peter…
“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I rebuked him to his face! He was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he width drew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew,live in the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compel you the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14)
Note: Paul is not shy in writing that he rebuked Peter to his face for being a hypocrite. Paul is clearly distinguished from James (The brother of Jesus) and the Jerusalem council in the above remarks!
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ” Unless you are circumcised according to the law of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Because there arose little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas (Son of the Father)with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” (Acts 15:1-2)
“And Barnabas was determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus:” (Acts 15:37-39)
The “Great Commission”
Paul’s great commission is a forgery and a lie.
Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus came only for the Jews. Jesus mission was to “seek and to save that which was lost”: namely the 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus foretold the coming of Ahmad who was to be a universal messenger.
Paul, who wanted to destroy the teachings of Christ Jesus, at first went to the Aramaic Christians, who turned away from him and his theology.
Little wonder Paul made the following comment,
“This, you know, that all those who are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Germogenes”. (2 Timothy 1:15)
The Aramaic Christians knew of Christ Jesus warning of anti-christ. The early Christian community turned away from Paul and his secret gnosis teachings. Paul, in his frustration, turned to the Greek-speaking Gentiles.
“Then Paul and Barnabaswaxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: But seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, Lo, We turn to the Gentiles.” (Acts 13:46)
Note: Paul was upset that the early Aramaic Jews were turning from his theology. So he and Barnabas (the son of the Father) ‘waxed bold’, and clearly stated that their mission now was to win over the gentiles to his theology. The Mediterranean world that Paul lived in was full of tri-theistic theologies, inundated with Greek philosophy, in particular Neoplatonic thought, and gods who incarnated for the salvation of mankind. Paul definitely had an audience.
The Gospel of Jesus was the gospel of circumcision
In Matthew 15:24 we have Jesus saying:
“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)
Luke 22:29-30 He says to his apostle:
“And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my father has appointed unto me: “That you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit in thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:29-30)
Note: What Paul did was a direct violation of the commandments of Jesus. (MATTHEW 15:22-24), and (MATTHEW 10:5-6) quoted above.
Jesus commissioned his 12 apostles:
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6)
Note: There was no admitting even a Samaritan into the kingdom, much less uncircumcised gentiles. Being with a gentile was often considered as sinful behavior.
“You worship what you know not: we know what we worship: For salvation is of the Jews.” (John 4:22)
Note: Jesus, when he tells the woman that “salvation is of the Jews”
He is insisting on the right of the Pharisaic Sanhedrin to legislate for all Israelites, including descendants of the ten northern tribes.
“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost”. (Matthew 18:11)
The Healing of the Canaanite Girl:
“And Behold, A Woman of Canaan came out of the same coast, and cried unto him, saying have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: My daughter is grievously vexed with the devil. “But He (Jesus) answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, send her away; for she cries after us.” “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:22-26)
Note: In verse 24 Jesus’ response was to his apostles.
“Then she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord Help Me.”
“But he answered and said, It is not suitable to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.”
Note: Verse 26 was Jesus’ response to the woman with the Jewish custom of referring to gentiles as “dogs” is reflected in the reaction of Jesus to the Syrophoenician woman who requested help from Jesus.
“But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not suitable to take the children’s bread and to cast it unto the dogs.” (Mark 7:26)
Note: The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation. Again Jesus says in
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under your feet, and turn again and rend you.” (Matthew 7:6)
“But contra wise, when they saw that the gospel of the un circumcision was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.” (Galatians 2:7)
Christians tell us that the parting command of Jesus to his apostles was:
Mark 16:15 & 20:
“Go you into the world and preach the Gospel to every creature…”
“And they went forth and preached everywhere…”
This is totally irreconcilable with early church history; for some ten years after Jesus, Peter is accused and condemned by the apostles and brethren because they had heard that Gentiles had also received the word of God:
Acts 11:1-19
1. “And the apostles, and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2. “And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him.”
3. “Saying, you went unto men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.”
4. “But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them saying,”
5. “I was in the city of Joppa praying: And in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descended, as it had been a great sheet, let down from the heavens by four corners; and it came even to me.”
6. “Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered and saw four footed beasts of the Earth, and wild beast, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.”
7. “And I heard a voice saying unto me, arise Peter slay and eat.”
8. “But I said, not so, Lord: For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth.”
9. “But the voice answered me again from heaven, what God has cleansed, do not call common.”
10. “And this was done three times: And all were drawn up again unto heaven.
11. “And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea to me.”
12. “And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house:”
13. “And he showed us how he had seen an Angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, send me to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;”
14. ” who shall tell thee words, whereby you and all your house shall be saved.
15. “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.”
16. “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with the Holy Ghost.”
17. “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?”
18. “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God saying, then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”
19. “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but the Jews only.”
Consider also Peter’s statement in Acts 10:28
“You know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation;…”
Prima Qur’an Comment: If Christ Jesus really gave the command above in Mark 16:16 to preach to the whole world all would have known about it.
It would not be unlawful for a Jew to be with a Gentile. Thus, to have the Jerusalem council say, “You went into men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” would be a very strange thing indeed!
Not only this but the concept that Christ Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind is also a doctrine of Paul.
If Christ Jesus’ mission was to die for the sins of all mankind as Paul and his followers teach, then the following comment would be quite strange as well:
“When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then has God also to the Gentiles, granted repentance unto life.”
Paul’s method of deception is exactly like the snake in the garden.
“But I fear, lest by any means as the serpent BEGUILED Eve, through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that comes preach another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if you receive another spirit, which you have not received, or another gospel, which you have not received, you might as well bear with him.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Here Paul is worried people will be beguiled into accepting another spirit (prophet). They will accept another Gospel. They will accept another Jesus.
It is likened to being in the very presence of God and hearing things explicitly stated by God and then turning around and doing something in place of that.
In this case, something Anti Christ because Christ teachings came from God.
Question: Could this be an analogy of what Paul did with Jesus’ teachings? By initiating Greeks into a secret doctrine concerning Christ Jesus.
Answer: Yes!
Paul beguiled the early followers of Christ Jesus.
Question: What does the word Beguile or Guile mean?
Answer: (Greek) – Dolos means Evil, cunning, treachery, deceit.
Source: (VINES concourse dictionary of the biblical words W.E.Vine pg.167 )
A Look at how the word Guile/Beguiled is used in the Bible.
“Jesus saw Nathaniel coming to him and said, Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no GUILE” (John 1:47)
“Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord, imputed not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no GUILE.” (Psalms 32:2)
“For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no GUILE.” (1 Peter 3:10)
“Now the SERPENT was more CRAFTY than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.” (Genesis 3:1)
“For our exhortation was not in deceit nor of uncleanliness, nor in GUILE” (1 Thessalonians 2:3)
Note: Paul was speaking above, yet, lo and behold, what he says now…
“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being CRAFTY, I caught you with GUILE.” (2 Corinthians 13:16)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
So this beguiling Paul was afraid people would fall into, is the same beguiling he used. Paul, who was receiving secret revelations from an unidentified ‘being of light’, was using craft to ensnare people with his theology.
Paul didn’t burden people with laws, he caught them with DOLOS (GUILE) -treachery, deceit, evil etc…
THE CHARACHTER OF PAUL.
Paul: The Scriptural distorter
“Wherefore he says, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.” (Ephesians 4:8)
“You have ascended on high, you have led captivity captive: you have received gifts for men; yes, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.”(Psalms 68:18)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul misquoted the scripture by saying that God “gave gifts to men” when it says that God has “received gifts for men”.
Paul: The thief
“I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” (2 Corinthians 11:8)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Where do all these Christian evangelists get their inspiration from when they steal money from the masses? They get it from Paul, of course!
Paul: Mocks commands of God for his own theological points.
“For it is written in the Torah, You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treaded out the corn. Does God really take care of oxen?” (1 Corinthians 9:9)
“You shall not muzzle the ox when he treaded out the corn.” (Deuteronomy 25:4)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
“A righteous man regards the life of his beast: but he that follows vain persons is void of understanding”. (Proverbs 12:10)
Paul: The Liar
“For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul was accused by others of doing “evil that good may come“. For example above he claims he ‘robbed churches’ to do people service. He also claimed that he didn’t burden anyone but caught them with guile. Paul’s concept of lying for the greater glory of God to advance his theology is anything but noble.
Paul: Calls Jesus accursed.
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” (Galatians 3:13)
“Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3)
Note: I wonder what spirit motivates Paul to say that Jesus is a curse?
Paul: The not so sure
“But if she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think I have the Spirit of God.(1 Corinthians 7:40)
Prima Qur’an Comment: If Paul was a man of God he would know.
Paul’s uncertainty is quite interesting and disturbing.
Paul: The hypocrite
“Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” (Galatians 5:2)
However, look at what Paul did in the following verses…
“Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.” (Acts 16:3)
“Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for everyone of them.” (Acts 21:26)
Paul Above the law
“Because the law works wrath: for where no law is, there is notransgression.” (Romans 4:15)
“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” (1 Corinthians 6:12)
“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” (1 Corinthians 10:23)
THE ANTICHRIST TEACHINGS OF PAUL.
Remember what the term anti/false christ means….
Antichristos can mean either “against christ” or “in place of Christ”
Christ Jesus verses Paul the false Christ: Mono Y Mono.
Question: Are we to live by faith (a feeling) or by our faith (a code set of laws)?
What Christ Jesus teaches:
“But Jesus turned him. about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.” (Matthew 9:22)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus didn’t say that faith made the woman whole. He said that her faith made her whole.
What Paul teaches:
“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is WRITTEN, The just shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:17)
Paul directly misquoted from where this was WRITTEN in Habakkuk 2:4
“Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” (Habukkuk 2:4)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus and the TNCH teach that we are to live by our faith (set code of laws).
However, Paul’s antichrist teaching is that we are to live by faith(feeling).
Question: Who is our Father according to Christ Jesus?
What Jesus teaches:
“And do not call anyone on earth ‘father’ for you have one Father, and he is in HEAVEN.” (Matthew 23:9)
What the TNCH teaches:
“Have we not all one father? Did not one God create us?” (Malachi 2:10)
What Paul teaches:
“Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” (Corinthians 4:15)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus teaches that only one should be called father and that is ‘God in heaven’. However, Paul’s Antichrist teaching is that he(Paul) is now a father!
Question: Can we eat any type of food?
What Christ Jesus teaches:
“Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by “eating food sacrificed to idols, and by committing sexual immorality.” (Revelation 2:14)
“It seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT and to US not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” (Acts 15:28-29)
What Paul teaches:
“As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean itself.” (Romans 14:14)
Note: Paul should have known better than to say, “I am fully convinced no food is unclean” when he was at the Jerusalem council when James The Brother Of Jesus gave the edict.
Comment: Christians in every country EAT BLOOD PRODUCTS and things such as ‘blood puddings‘ and pork meats. Why? Because of this anti christ teaching of Paul’s. However, there is a group of Christians called the ‘Seventh day Adventist” that are a little more sensible in the way they approach food.
Question: Can you call people fools? (Greek: Moron)
What Christ Jesus teaches:
“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother Raca is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone of you who says, ‘you fool!” will be in danger of the hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22)
What Paul teaches:
“But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” “You Fool, What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.” (1 Corinthians 15:35-36)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Apparently Paul was the fool, because if a seed does indeed die there can be no sprouts and thus no plant life.
“You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified.” (Matthew Galatians 3:1)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus taught that to call someone a fool would put them in danger of ‘hell fire‘. However, Paul’s anti christ behavior taught him to call people ‘fool’ in a most unhumble manner!
Question: Is it important for one to be circumcised?
What Christ Jesus teaches:
“Think not that I have come to destroy the laws of the Torah or what the prophets said: I am not come to destroy, but to observe. For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in on wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled, Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19)
“And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)
“And God said unto Abraham, Thou shall keep my covenant therefore, you , and your seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you, Every man child among you shall be circumcised, And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you , every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of your seed. He that is born in your house, and be that is bought with your money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an EVERLASTING COVENANT.” (Genesis 17:9-13)
What Paul teaches:
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you ,whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace.” (Galatians 5:2-4)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus observed the Torah and taught the everlasting covenant of circumcision. However, Paul’s anti christ teaching is that it will ‘profit you nothing’. Remember he said, “I Paul say unto you”
Question: Is the Law (Torah) a curse?
What Christ Jesus teaches:
“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, You shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (5:20)
“Then spoke Jesus to the multitude and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say , and do not.” (Matthew 23:1-3)
“But the people who know not the law are cursed.” (John 7:49)
What Paul teaches:
“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continue not in all things which are written in the Torah to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident : for, The Just shall live by faith.” (Galatians 3:10-11)
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree:” (Galatians 3:13)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul above mentions that the law is a curse. However’ Jesus said that EXCEPT our piety is more than that of scribes and Pharisees we will in NO CASE enter heaven. Jesus also pointed out before Paul made this statement, “” That there will be such hypocrites but it does not take away that they SIT IN MOSES SEAT, so be not like them for they SAY, AND DO NOT.
Question: Is it fine to be without works of the law?
James, the brother of Jesus says:
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? See you how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.” (James 2:21-23)
What Christ Jesus says:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of LAWLESSNESS (anomian).'” (Matthew 7:21-22)
What Paul teaches:
“But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.” (Galatians 3:11)
Priam Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus taught that we should follow the scribes and pharisees in that they have knowledge. Christ Jesus also taught that he would tell the Christians on the day of judgment to depart from him for being workers of lawlessness. James, the very brother of Jesus, also wrote that Abraham was justified by works. However, Paul’s anti Christ teaching is that this new Christ he is preaching is the Christ of grace and thus being justified by the law is not necessary.
Question: Do we need a blood sacrifice to forgive our sins?
What Christ Jesus taught
“But go you and learn what that means, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Matthew 9:13)
Jesus quotes from:
“For I desire mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”(Hosea 6:6)
“By Loving kindness and truth iniquity is atoned for.” (Proverbs 16:6)
What Paul teaches:
“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus as well as the entire TNCH taught that God desires mercy and not sacrifice that what he really wants is his people to be obedient to him with their heart and not doing outward rituals devoid of spirit.
Paul’s anti christ teaching is that, contrary to the tnch and Christ Jesus, he believes “without shedding blood there is no forgiveness.”
What he means by that is that there is no forgiveness of any sins or faults!
Question:is there anyone righteous?
What Christ Jesus taught
“But go you and learn what that means, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Matthew 9:13)
“And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” (Luke 1:6)
What Paul teaches.
“There is none righteous, no not one.” (Romans 3:10)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus taught that the righteous were on the right track. Jesus came so that the sinners could be called away from their sins. Zechariah and Elizabeth were two great examples of God-fearing righteous people before God. They obeyed “all the commands of God blameless.” However, Paul’s anti christ teaching is that everyone is a sinner and there is no one righteous, including Zechariah and Elizabeth. Paul’s anti christ theology is that everyone is doomed unless they accept his christ of grace teaching.
Question:Is everyone a sinner?
Christ Jesus taught
“And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, neither has this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” (John 9:1-3)
What Paul teaches.
“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus did not teach original sin. Christ Jesus also clearly distinguished that he came for ” sinners and not the righteous”. However, Paul’s anti christ teaching is that all have sinned.
PAUL: The founder of modern ‘Christianity’.
Question: Whose Gospel was it that Jesus would raise from the dead?
Answer: Paul’s
“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead, according to My Gospel.“(2 Timothy 2:8)
“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you unto the grace of Christ unto another gospel which is not another; but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:6-7)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul is claiming that his gospel is the only true gospel. However, we can see that his gospel radically differs from that taught by Christ Jesus.
Paul is truly anti christ in that he opposed christ teachings. Paul is also truly anti christ in that he taught things in place of what Christ Jesus came to teach.
Question: Who wrote the majority of today’s accepted New Testament?
Answer: Paul
Out of 27 books of the ‘New Testament’ Paul is said to have written the following 14!
Romans-written by Paul
1 Corinthians-written by Paul
2 Corinthians-written by Paul
Galatians- written by Paul
Ephesians-written by Paul
Philippians-written by Paul
Colossians-written by Paul
1 Thessalonians-written by Paul
2 Thessalonians-written by Paul
1 Timothy-written by Paul
2 Timothy-written by Paul
Titus-written by Paul
Philemon-written by Paul
Hebrews-writer disputed but usually said to be Paul
Question: What does Michael H. Hart in his book-“The 100” say about Paul?
Answer:
“Since there are probably roughly twice as many Christians in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammed has been ranked higher than Jesus.
There are two principal reasons for that decision.
First, Muhammed played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity.
Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity(Insofar as these differed from Judaism),
St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, it’s principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament.“
Source: (Michael H. Hart “The 100” pages 38-39)
A bold statement by Paul
“But though we,or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)
Note: The Angel of revelation is none other than Gabriel.
Question: What does the Qur’an say in response to Paul?
Answer:
“Say: Whosoever is an enemy to Gabriel- for he brings down the revelation to thy heart by Allah’s will; a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe, Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and apostles, To Gabriel and Michael-Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who are ungrateful.” (Qur’an 2:97-98)
Prima Qur’an Comment: What if God wants to send an angel from heaven to the Prophet Muhammad (saw) 700 years after the Gnostic Paul made his comments above? What if that angel came to restore the true good news of Christ?
Namely, the following:
“If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will pray the Father, and he shall give you ANOTHER comforter, that HE may abide with you forever”. (John 14:15-16)
Little wonder Paul made the following comment,
“This you know, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Germogenes.” (2 Timothy 1:15)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
This statement of Paul can not be easily overlooked. Paul is stating the very early Churches of Jesus (those speaking Aramaic) turned away from him. These early Christians knew of the prophecy of Jesus concerning the coming of Ahmed ( Muhammed)
This is why Paul turns his attention and evangelizes the Greek-speaking Romans!
“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)
“We have sent you only as a mercy for the whole world.” (Qur’an 21:107)
﷽
Face to Face with the Blessed Prophet (saw): How Oman Preserved Pure Islam Through Unbroken Transmission.
This will be a translation of the talk given by Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani (h) below:
The school of reciters: A starting point in Omani History -Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani (h).
Allah-Willing this lecture will establish a few key points.
The Islam of Oman was not a late or secondary arrival. It was taken directly, face-to-face, from the Prophet Muhammed (saw) through multiple delegations (wufud), and preserved through an unbroken, mutawatir (mass-transmitted) chain of transmission. Due to Oman’s geographical remoteness, this Islam remained pure, uncorrupted by foreign influences (Persian, Roman, Greek, Indian).
The Delegations (Wufud): The Shaykh lists at least 12 delegations from Oman to the Prophet (saw), including:
Mazin bin Ghadhub Al-Ta’i (three separate visits: pre-Hijra, 3 AH, 7 AH). The Prophet (saw) famously prayed for Oman: “O Allah, guide them and reward them… grant them chastity, sufficiency, and contentment… do not empower an outsider enemy against them.”
Delegations from Bani Nabhan, Bani Tahiyeh (including Ka’b bin Bursha’, who recognized the Prophet’s description in the Torah and Gospel), Bani Al-Haddan, Bani Thamalah, Bani Al-Farahid, Al-Atiq, Abdul Qais, Bani Rasib (Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi), and even a delegation of Omani women who met Aisha (ra).
Early Mosques and Qiblas: The existence of mosques in Oman oriented toward two qiblas (first Jerusalem, then Mecca) proves that prayer was established before the Prophet’s migration to Medina.
The School of the Reciters (Qurra’): After the Blessed Prophet’s school at Dar Al-Arqam in Mecca, the “School of the Reciters” was established in Medina. These Qurra’ (who memorized Quran, knew Sunnah, and reasons for revelation) were the elite missionaries, judges, and army leaders. Their tragic martyrdom at Bi’r Ma’unah and later at Nahrawan (alongside Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi) is highlighted.
Imam Jabir bin Zaid (18-21 AH – c. 93-103 AH): The central figure in preserving Omani Islam. A Tabi’i (Follower), he met 70 Companions who fought at Badr, traveled 40 times for Hajj to collect narrations, and copied the Blessed Prophet’s letter on sadaqat from the sons of Amr bin Hazm. He founded the school of Ahl al-Haqq wal-Istiqamah (People of Truth and Righteousness). His students included Abu Bilal Mirdas, Abdullah bin Ibadh, and Salim bin Dhakwan.
Codification (Tadwin): The lecture argues that Imam Jabir bin Zaid was the first to codify the Blessed Prophetic Sunnah, before any other school. This codification passed through Abu Ubaidah Muslim bin Abi Karimah → Al-Rabi’ bin Habib → then to Oman (Mahbub Al-Rahil in Sohar, Abu Al-Mundhir in Nizwa, Abu Ali Al-Azri in Izki).
Al-Khalil bin Ahmad Al-Farahidi (d. 175 AH / 791 CE): An Omani scholar who founded Arabic prosody (‘arud), diacritical marks, grammar (nahw), and authored the first Arabic dictionary (Kitab Al-‘Ayn), all in service of the Quran.
Reasons for Marginalization: Economic blockades, famine, migration to Africa, lack of enduring institutions (unlike Al-Azhar or Qayrawan), focus on tribal wars, and the burning of libraries by Abbasid forces (e.g., Ibn Bur). Over 12,000 Omani manuscript titles exist but lack publication and institutional support.
Lost Heritage: The repeated references to lost or unprinted manuscripts (Jami’ Abi Safrah, Musnad of Al-Rabi’, Diwan Al-Muarad, Jabir bin Zaid’s original books) point to a rich but endangered scholarly tradition.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. We praise Him, the Exalted, seek His help, His guidance, and His forgiveness for all sins, and repent to Him. We send prayers and peace upon our Master Muhammed, and upon all his family and companions. Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, sent him as a mercy to the worlds. He delivered the message, fulfilled the trust, advised the nation, removed distress, and strove in the way of his Lord until certainty came to him. We ask Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, to make us among those who listen to the saying and follow the best of it. So, peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah.
In this pleasant and blessed meeting, in a house among the houses of Allah, and in this gathering, we wish to present some of what concerns us from the history of our nation. That is the period during which the Messenger (saw) was sent, how it happened, and how our forefathers transmitted this Islam to us, and their relationship with the Messenger (saw). This is because historical references need someone to read and review them, and they need someone to study them. Also, much of what was written in the Omani biographical literature (Siyar) has not seen the light of day. Many of these Siyar still need verification, printing, and study.
Because people have not fully grasped this history, nor have they known it, if someone were to ask them: “How did Islam reach you? From whom did you take the religion? The Messenger (saw) was sent in Mecca and Medina, so how did you (in Oman) receive it? Who transmitted Islam to you from there to here?” In this phase, meaning in this context of historical understanding, we must know about the delegations that came from the people of Oman to the Messenger of Allah (saw).
And also the second point: the role of the scholars from the people of Oman in establishing the principles of Islam by establishing various schools, the codifications (mudawwanat) they wrote, the books they authored, and through which they preserved Islam. Islam remained with them in a strong context, untouched by alteration, substitution, or distortion. With Allah’s will, I will address two points.
The First Point: The delegations (Wufud) that came from the people of Oman to the Messenger of Allah (saw).
Of course, history mentions that a number of people from Oman came as delegations to the Messenger of Allah (saw). I will mention some of these delegations to make it clear to everyone that your fathers and forefathers took Islam through continuous transmission (mutawatir) from the Messenger of Allah (saw), generation after generation, group after group, so that it becomes firmly established in every person’s mind that the Islam our fathers and forefathers preserved was pure and correct, originating from the Messenger of Allah (saw).
These are the delegations that set out to the Messenger of Allah (saw) when they heard of his mission. As you know, only Mazin bin Ghadhub Al-Ta’i is studied in the school curricula, and his meeting with the Messenger (saw) is studied as if he was an individual who visited the Messenger (saw). However, in history books like the history of Ibn Kathir’s Al-Sirah Al-Nabawiyyah and books on the biographies of the Companions, it is mentioned that Mazin had three delegations.
It is mentioned in the book Subul Al-Huda wal-Rashad that a narration from Mazin bin Ghadhub says: “We arrived to the Messenger of Allah (saw) in Mecca Al-Mukarramah.” This narration indicates that Mazin met the Messenger (saw) in Mecca before his migration to Medina. He said: “We found Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (RA), and he guided us to the Messenger of Allah (saw.” This indicates that there was a meeting between the people of Oman and the Messenger (saw). This view is supported by the fact that when Prophet Ibrahim (AS) built Mecca, he supplicated to his Lord: “My Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House, our Lord, that they may establish prayer. So make hearts among the people incline toward them…” Thus, visitors to the Sacred House have come since the time of Prophet Ibrahim, so there were necessarily people from the tribes of Oman and the land of Oman who came to Mecca. This is evidence that they met the Messenger before his migration to Medina.
A second piece of evidence supporting this view is the existence of some mosques in Oman oriented towards the two Qiblas, such as one with us in Ibra, one mentioned in Nizwa, or some other mosques. This also indicates that they established prayer… What? Before the Messenger’s (saw) migration to Medina, and therefore they used to face Al-Aqsa Mosque.
The third piece of evidence is found in some graves indicating that, before Islam, they used to bury their dead facing Al-Aqsa Mosque, not facing the Qibla of the Kaaba. All these pieces of evidence support the view that the people of Oman met the Messenger (saw) in Mecca before his migration to Medina.
The second matter: After the migration, it is also narrated that Mazin came to the Messenger (saw). This is mentioned in the books of Companions’ biographies (those who met the Messenger). Mazin met the Messenger a second time in the third year of the Hijra. The books of Companions’ biographies detail this journey: he set out to the Messenger (saw). Of course, as you know, in that past time, it was not possible for a person to travel alone from these remote, distant areas to Medina due to the distance and the danger of the road. Therefore, they would travel in a caravan, a group, or a delegation. Also, as was the custom of the Arabs when meeting with rulers and princes, one would not go alone but rather in a delegation or a caravan with his group and family. So, they set out in a delegation.
It is also mentioned that among the delegation with Mazin bin Ghadhub in the sixth year was his student and servant, Abu Al-Kathir Salih bin Al-Mutawakkil. They arrived to the Messenger of Allah (saw) in Medina, stood before him, and recited verses found in history books and Companions’ biography books, saying: “To you, O Messenger of Allah, my mount wearily travels, crossing deserts from Oman to Al-Arj, so that you may intercede for me, O best of those who tread the earth, and my Lord forgives me, and I return with success.”
Out of love, honor, and reverence for the Messenger of Allah (saw), he recited the poem. It is narrated that the Messenger (saw asked him, “Who is this who is with you?” – referring to his young servant. He said, “This is my servant, Abu Al-Kathir Salih bin Mutawakkil.” The Messenger (saw) said, “Take good care of him,” so Mazin set him free in the presence of the Messenger (saw), out of love, reverence, and honor for the Messenger of Allah (saw).
As you know, when Mazin bin Ghadhub went out the first time he met him, and now the second time with those from Oman, what were they carrying? They were the nation (Ummah), wanting to save the nation from the ignorance (Jahiliyyah) they were upon. Mazin said to the Messenger (saw): “Supplicate to Allah for the people of Oman.” The Messenger (saw) said: “O Allah, guide them and reward them.” Mazin said, “More, O Messenger of Allah.” He said: “O Allah, grant them chastity, sufficiency, and contentment with what You have given them.” Mazin said, “More, O Messenger of Allah. The sea splashes next to us, so supplicate to Allah regarding our sea produce, our footwear (khuff), and our livestock (dhalf).” He (saw) said: “O Allah, increase the good from their sea for them, and bless them in their footwear and livestock.” Mazin said, “More, O Messenger of Allah.” The Messenger (saw) said: “O Allah, do not empower an outsider enemy against them. Say ‘Ameen,’ O Mazin.” So he said ‘Ameen,’ and then the supplication is answered.
Of course, after that, Mazin requested supplication for himself. The rest of the narration or story is known to you. In it, Mazin said upon returning to Oman, as mentioned in Ibn Kathir’s Al-Sirah Al-Nabawiyyah: “Then my people rebuked me, blamed me, and treated me harshly. They ordered their poet to satirize me. I said, ‘If I satirize them, I satirize myself.’ So I withdrew to one side, built a mosque, and stayed there…” The mosque upon his return in the sixth year after (meeting) the Messenger. He established the mosque and raised the call ‘Hayya ‘ala as-Salah’ (come to prayer) in it, and established the congregation. At that time, in Mecca, the Adhan had not been raised, nor was prayer established. So the Adhan was raised and prayer was established in Oman before Mecca, because Mecca was conquered in the eighth year of the Hijra, while Mazin established the mosque and raised the call to prayer there from the sixth year.
He says: “Then my people said… This mosque, no one in need would come and supplicate to Allah except that Allah answered him, nor would a sick person come and supplicate to Allah except that He cured him. He says: Then my people blamed themselves and came to me saying, ‘Yours is your religion, and you are the one in charge of our affairs, so return to us.’ So I returned to them.” Then he says: “Then Allah guided a people from Oman, and they entered Islam.” He says: “And in the following year, i.e., the seventh year of the Hijra, those whose souls yearned (for the Prophet) also came, accompanied by people from Oman, when he had told them about the Messenger’s (saw) conduct. They went to the Messenger of Allah (saw), and the Messenger (saw) gave them glad tidings, saying: ‘O pure one from the pure ones, O most generous from the most generous ones, Allah has guided a people from Oman, and they have entered Islam. Allah has made Oman prosperous and increased profits and abundant goodness from the land and sea.’ The Messenger (saw) said: ‘My religion is the religion of Islam, and Allah will increase the people of Oman in Islam. So blessed (Tuba) is he who believes in me and sees me, and blessed is he who believes in me but does not see me, and blessed, and then blessed is he who believes in me but does not see me, nor sees the one who saw me.'”
So here are three delegations with Mazin: before Mecca, the third year, and the seventh year.
Likewise, it is also mentioned – and you know that Mazin bin Ghadhub is from Bani Tayy, from As-Sa’di, from Sa’d Tayy in Samail – that there was another delegation. Perhaps it was with Mazin, before, or after – Allah knows best – but history does not mention it. They were from Bani Nabhan of Tayy, led by Khalid bin Sadus bin Asma’ Al-Nabhani, accompanied by Yazid bin Jabir bin Asma’ Al-Nabhani. They came to the Messenger of Allah (saw), embraced Islam, and took Islam directly from him.
So, how many delegations now? Four delegations. Also, in the sixth year when the Messenger concluded the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and in the seventh year he began writing to the leaders and kings of the world. The Messenger (saw) sent a letter to Kisra Shiroweih, the king of Persia. When the letter reached the Persian king, he tore it up. He wrote to his governor… so Allah empowered his son Shiroweih over him, who killed his father Kisra and Shiroweih and seized control of the Persian lands. Then Shiroweih wrote to some of his governors in Oman, called the Marzaban, saying: “Select for me a man, Arab-Persian (i.e., fluent in both languages), and send him to investigate the matter of this man (Muhammed).” So he selected Ka’b bin Bursha’ Al-Tahi from Bani Tahiyeh of the desert… So they formed a delegation – as you know, one cannot travel alone – and they came to the Messenger of Allah (saw). This was the first delegation from Bani Tahiyeh.
Ka’b bin Bursha’ Al-Tahi had read the scriptures of the People of the Book, the Torah and the Gospel, leaving nothing, and recognized what was in them. He knew the descriptions of the promised Prophet who would be sent at the end of time. When he arrived in Medina, he threw down his riding stick (signifying travel gear) before the Messenger (saw), sat with him, and began to learn from him, asking him about Islam and what he calls to. The Messenger (saw) clarified for him. He found those descriptions mentioned in the books of the People of the Book applied to the Messenger (saw). The proof was established for him, he entered Islam, and brought those with him into the religion. He returned to Oman and informed the Marzaban there of the truth of the Messenger’s (saw) prophethood. The Marzaban said, “Give me time until I return to Persia.” Ka’b began to inform the people of the truth of the Messenger’s (saw) prophethood, of the evidence and proofs he saw, and that the descriptions in the Torah and Gospel applied to the Messenger (saw). The souls of the people of Oman, the people of Sohar (Ka’b was sent from Sohar), yearned for the meeting with the Messenger (saw).
It is narrated that the Messenger, in the sixth year of the Hijra, sent Abu Zaid Al-Ansari (whose name was Thabit bin Qais bin…) to the people of Oman to call them to Islam. He sent Abu Zaid Al-Ansari in the sixth year, and he remained until the eighth year when Amr bin Al-Aas came, calling them to Islam and managing their affairs.
Also, after the return of the delegation of Bani Tahiyeh, the Messenger (saw) sent Al-Ala’ bin Al-Hadrami as governor over Oman and Bahrain. At that time, Bahrain was part of Oman. He sent him as governor over Oman and Bahrain. When Al-Ala’ Al-Hadrami arrived – and the Messenger (saw) had written a letter for him, a letter that exists in the Omani Sirah, printed but without verification, in the book Al-Muntakhab by the Ministry of Heritage – it is the Sirah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) by Al-Ala’ bin Al-Hadrami, which is the oldest Sirah. So the people of Oman formed a delegation led by Asad bin Yabraḥ Al-Tahi. They came to the Messenger of Allah (saw), met him, and took Islam directly from him, face to face. The Messenger taught them directly, and they took it by word and deed. They stayed with him, studied under him, and were honored by his companionship. When they wanted to return, they said, “O Messenger of Allah, send with us someone to teach us the matters of our religion.” Mukharrib Al-Abd (whose name was Mudrik bin Khowt) stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allah, send me with them, for they have a favor upon me. They captured me on the day of Janoub and then freed me as a favor.” So the Messenger (saw) sent them with him to Oman.
How many delegations now? Mazin’s three, the delegation of Bani Abban is four, the delegation of Ka’b bin Bursha’ Al-Tahi is five, and the delegation of Asad bin Yabraḥ Al-Tahi is six. All of them were from the desert region. So, six delegations.
When they came to Oman, Islam began to spread, and they themselves spread Islam. It is said that the Azd of Oman formed a delegation led by Salamah bin Iyadh Al-Azdi. They came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) – these delegations are mentioned in Ibn Sa’d’s Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra – they met with him, learned from him, and took Islam directly from him, face to face. Then, when they wanted to return, they said, “O Messenger of Allah, supplicate to Allah to unite us.” The Messenger (saw) said: “O Allah, unite us.” So they returned to Oman, Islam spread among the people of Oman, and began to spread among the tribes.
Then the people of Oman formed two more delegations: the delegation of Bani Al-Haddan and the delegation of Bani Thamalah. As you know, there are mountains called the Haddan mountains, belonging to Bani Shams, Ma’awil bin Shams, and Tahi bin Shams, all from the Azd of Oman. The author of Al-Tabaqat says that they had already entered Islam in Oman (meaning they were Muslims when they left Oman, but they wanted to be honored by the company of the Messenger). The delegation of Bani Al-Haddan was led by Musalliyah bin Hazzan Al-Haddani, and the head of the delegation of Bani Thamalah was Abdullah bin Illas Al-Thamali. They came to the Messenger (saw), stayed with him, sat by his side, and sought blessings from his company. The Messenger (saw) wrote a letter for them when they wanted to return to Oman, which included: “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, from Muhammed, the Messenger of Allah (saw), to the dwellers of the coasts and the valleys of Sohar…” It is a letter regarding charity (Sadaqat), also found in Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, written by Thabit bin Qais bin Shammas, witnessed by Sa’d bin Ubadah and Muhammed bin Maslamah. They came to Oman, established themselves, and Islam spread throughout Oman, and they began teaching the people.
How many delegations now? With Allah’s will: Mazin’s two (or three), Bani Abban is four, the two Bani Tahiyeh delegations are six, the Azd of Oman delegation is seven, Al-Haddan delegation is eight, Bani Thamalah delegation is nine. Also, the delegation of Bani Al-Farahid.
Ibn Duraid, who is from Sohar and a famous scholar of the Arabic language, author of Al-Jamharah and Al-Ishtiqaq, lived in the third century (AH). He met Imam Al-Salt bin Malik in Nizwa and stayed with him. Ibn Duraid said: “I went out to Nizwa during days of rain and fertility. Imam Al-Salt bin Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said to me, ‘Listen to us tomorrow, insha’Allah. We will pray two rak’ahs and supplicate to Allah to remove the rain from us,’ due to the heavy rainfall that had damaged houses. So he sat with him. In the morning, Imam Al-Salt prayed two rak’ahs and supplicated to Allah to place it on the mountains, hills, and tree growths – meaning he supplicated to Allah to lighten the rain for them. Ibn Duraid said: ‘The first one from the people of Oman to come to the Messenger of Allah (saw) was my grandfather Hammam bin Jarw bin Wasi’ Al-Farahidi, along with some people from his tribe.’ He said ‘with some people from his tribe,’ indicating it was a delegation, but it’s not specified whether it was before or after these other delegations. He said ‘the first,’ so perhaps it is among the earliest delegations that came to the Messenger (saw), perhaps even in Mecca – and Allah knows best. Because his phrasing is ‘The first from the people of Oman to come to the Messenger of Allah (saw) was my grandfather Hammam… with some people from his tribe.’ So it wasn’t just one individual, but they stayed with him, learned from him, and returned to Oman.
So, how many delegations now? Ten. The eleventh delegation is the delegation of Al-Atiq, led by Abu Safrah Sarif bin Dhalim from Sohar and also Dibba. He came to the Messenger (saw) wearing a yellow turban dragging behind him by a forearm’s length, with dignity and awe. The Messenger (saw) asked, “Who are you?” He said, “My name is Sarif bin Dhalim” (in one narration, ‘Sariq bin Dhalim’). The Messenger (saw) said… in a narration, ‘Ibn Al-Halqan, Ibn Al-Julanda, Ibn Al-Mustakbir, who seizes every ship by force’… narrations vary. The Messenger said, “Leave ‘Sarif’ or ‘Sariq’ and ‘Dhalim’ (names implying theft and injustice); you are Abu Safrah.” He said, “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah, truly, truly. Allah blessed me with 18 children, and the last of them was a daughter, so I named her Safrah.” They stayed with him. However, it is mentioned that this delegation might have been after the eighth or ninth year of the Hijra.
So, delegations so far: 11.
The delegation of Abdul Qais: The author of Al-Tahdheeb (in the biography of the Companions) said that the delegation of Bani Abdul Qais came to the Messenger (saw). Their leader or chief was Al-Mundhir bin Al-Harith bin Abdul Qais. He was from Oman. He came to the Messenger (saw) and sat with him, wearing his best clothes. When they sat with the Messenger (saw) and he looked at them, he said: “There are two qualities in you that Allah and His Messenger love: forbearance (Hilm) and deliberation (Anah).” The author of Al-Tahdheeb said he was from Oman.
So, delegations now: 12.
The delegation of Bani Rasib, led by Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi. Sheikh Salim bin Hamud (Al-Siyabi) mentions in his book that he came as a delegation to the Messenger (saw) with his group and people from Oman. He stayed with the Messenger (saw), and his companionship was established. It is also mentioned in his biography that afterwards, perhaps they participated in the conquests during the time of Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA). When Umar (RA) wrote to his governor in Oman, Uthman bin Abi Al-Aas Al-Thaqafi, to advance to fight the Persians, crossing the sea, and after they were victorious, Al-Khattab gave them a part of Basra. They settled there. Later, when Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas needed help during the conquest of Persia, he wrote a letter to Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA) requesting assistance, so Umar wrote to Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi to come to him. He was the right-hand man in the conquests of Iraq. He participated twice: with the people of Oman and in the conquest of Iraq.
Also, the delegation of the women of Oman. As you know, women also used to go for Hajj. In Lawahaq Al-Musnad, Abu Sufyan (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Azwar (the best I met from Oman) told me that some women from Oman entered upon Aisha (RA) during the days of Hajj… They entered upon Aisha (RA), and she asked them, ‘Who are you?’ They said, ‘From the people of Oman.’ She said, ‘I heard my beloved (saw) say: “Many people from Oman will come to my Basin (Hawd).”‘”
These are some of the delegations mentioned. See, even the women of Oman – from where did we take Islam? From the very heart of the Messenger’s (saw) house. We met the Mothers of the Believers and learned from Aisha (RA). Also, when the Messenger (saw) passed away to the Highest Companion, the news reached Oman. The people of Oman formed a delegation led by Abdul Janda, the ruler of Oman, accompanied by Amr bin Al-Aas. Seventy people from Oman went out with him. They came to Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (RA), expressed their condolences regarding the Messenger (saw), and pledged allegiance to his Caliphate. They accompanied Amr bin Al-Aas and said, “This is a trust that the Messenger (saw) sent to us, and we return your trust to you.” So, see, 70 people from Oman stayed with Abu Bakr, with Al-Khattab, and with the senior Companions. They sat among them and took Islam directly from them, meeting the senior Companions.
Also, during the time of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (RA), the issue of the Dibba incident occurred. Khalaf bin Ziyad Al-Bahrani (a scholar from Oman around the 2nd century AH) wrote a letter (Sirah) explaining that when the Zakat collector came to Dibba to a woman there, he was supposed to take a mature (Musinnah) sheep, but she gave him a young one (Saghirah). He forcibly took a mature sheep from her. She sought help from her people. Hudhayfah bin Mihsan Al-Ghalfani thought she and her people had apostatized, so he surrounded them, captured them, and took them to Medina. The people of Dibba formed a delegation of three: Al-Hadid, Al-Hamhami… They came to Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA), explained the issue to him, clarified it, and met with senior Companions. Al-Khattab (RA) returned their wealth and offspring to them and gave each of them 300 dirhams.
The conclusion is that the people of Oman – your forefathers and fathers – had a meeting with the Messenger of Allah (saw). They took Islam directly from the Messenger (saw), face to face. They also took it through continuous transmission (mutawatir), meaning group from group, not individual from individual. Therefore, transmitted knowledge is the most authentic form of transmission – group from group, making it impossible for them to agree on a lie. They preserved it from the time of the Messenger (saw) in their lands. They were far from other civilizations. Because of this, when they preserved it, Roman, Persian, Greek, or Indian ideas did not mix with it. Thus, they preserved it correctly and purely. Consequently, the people of Oman did not have unusual religious rituals like others, because they were not influenced by other civilizations. They were far away and preserved Islam correctly as they transmitted it from the Messenger (saw). So, this removes any doubt: we took it directly from the Messenger.
This is the first path.
The Second Path: The matter of codification (Tadwin) and the precise control of codification. (But time is short, the lesson would be long and people might get bored).
The second phase is the phase of codification. After the Messenger (saw) began his call, every individual entering Islam had to learn the matters of the religion, especially those related to creed and faith in Allah. The Messenger established the first school for them: Dar Al-Arqam bin Abi Al-Arqam. He began to instill Islam and the foundations of the religion in them. In summary, the Messenger instilled in the souls of the Companions that Islam is a complete, integrated reality that does not accept partition, half-solutions, equality (with falsehood), or compromises. The Messenger alone was the ideal model and practical application of Islam. As you know, wealth and status were offered to the Messenger – did he agree? He was asked to compromise on the matter of Islam when they gathered with his uncle Abu Talib. He said his famous statement: “O uncle, by Allah, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left to leave this matter, I would not leave it until Allah makes it victorious.” A firm creed with no compromise, and it affected the Companions.
Similarly, in the second situation when Utbah bin Rabi’ah came to him and said, “Muhammed, if you want wealth by this matter, we will gather wealth for you; if you want leadership or sovereignty, we will make you our master,” etc. The Messenger recited the beginning of Surah Fussilat to him, and Utbah saw no sign of compromise from him. Then they came with half-solutions, saying, “Alright, you worship your god one day, and we will worship our god one day.” Then Allah revealed: “Say, O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship…” Finally, they said, “Keep your religion, but stop criticizing our gods.” The Messenger said: “Say, ‘It is not for me to change it on my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me. Indeed, I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous Day.'” He told them all: Islam is a complete, integrated creed that does not accept partition. If part collapses, the whole collapses.
This creed selected the men who led this nation. Allah tested them. An example of a test: the boycott of Banu Hashim lasted three years. But the Messenger instilled the creed, and it bore fruit; they did not compromise their faith or creed, despite the hardship and suffering during that boycott. Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (RA) said: “I went out one day to relieve myself. I heard a crunching under my feet. It was a camel hide. I took it, washed it, burned it, ground it, and subsisted on it for three days.”
In short, the school of Al-Arqam produced in the Companions the correct creed that the Messenger (saw) instilled. They never compromised their religion and sacrificed themselves for Islam. Later, when the Islamic call spread and the number of Muslims increased, and the harm from Quraysh intensified, the Messenger (saw) permitted them to migrate first to Abyssinia, but it was far. Then, after Allah blessed him with the second pledge of Aqabah from the people of Medina, who promised him victory, he permitted the weak Muslims to migrate to Medina. When they migrated, the Companions who graduated from the school of Al-Arqam established a school called the School of the Reciters (Qurra’). At that time, terms like exegetes, jurists, hadith scholars didn’t exist. Anyone who memorized the Quran or part of it, studied under the Messenger, preserved the Sunnah, and knew the reasons for revelation was called a Reciter (Qari’).
They built a school in Medina called the School of the Qurra’. The Companions would migrate to it and stay. These Qurra’ would go out in the morning, gather firewood, sell it, and bring food to the Qurra’. Every new convert to Islam would come to that school and sit there, and they would teach him the Quran and prayer matters. This school remained a beacon until the Messenger came to Medina and beyond. The Messenger relied on the graduates of this school for calling to Islam (Da’wah). He would send those who were proficient, had memorized the Quran, knew the Sunnah, and knew the reasons for revelation. Many Muslims in Medina, but he didn’t send just anyone. An example is the story of the companions of Ar-Raji’ when the delegations of Adal and Qarah came to the Messenger. They said, “Send with us those who will teach us the matters of our religion.” He sent with them seven or ten of the Qurra’. Also, when Al-Amir (Amr bin Malik) came to the Messenger and asked him to send a group to the people of Najd. The Messenger said, “I fear for them.” He said, “I guarantee their safety.” It is said he sent 40 or 70 of the Qurra’. He used the Qurra’ for Da’wah. They were the ones who led the army, presided over judgments, and upon them revolved the affairs of Islam and the Muslims. But the people of Najd betrayed them and killed them at Bi’r Ma’unah. This is called the Expedition of the Qurra’ or the Expedition of Bi’r Ma’unah.
The school remained in Medina, and then after the Messenger, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (RA) relied on the Qurra’. In the battle of Al-Yamamah, the Companions said: “When the heat of battle intensified, we would seek refuge with the Qurra’,” as they stood firm on the battlefield because they sought death more than life and loved martyrdom. Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA) came to Abu Bakr and said, “O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah, preserve the memorizers of the Quran, for nearly 70 of the Qurra’ were killed in Al-Yamamah.” Abu Bakr ordered the Qurra’ to review the noble Mushaf written during the time of the Messenger and teach the people, so that the Qurra’ would not all be killed in battle, as they were the ones who stood firm.
Then came the era of Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA). He relied on them, brought them close in his gatherings, they were his army leaders and callers to Islam. So, during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, the state was strong by relying on the scholars, the Qurra’. Then came the time of Uthman (RA). In the early years, he relied on them, but in later years, he brought his relatives closer, and the state began to show weakness. A rebellion occurred in Medina against Uthman, leading to his assassination. Then Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) assumed power, and the Qurra’ gathered around him. Some Muslims rebelled against him in the Battle of the Camel, and he defeated them. Then Muawiyah staged a military coup against Ali bin Abi Talib at Siffin. The Qurra’ gathered with him and fought with him, until victory was near for Ali, were it not for the trickery of Amr bin Al-Aas. What happened, happened.
When the Qurra’ advised Ali bin Abi Talib not to accept arbitration and that Muawiyah was a transgressor, and that he should fight them, but Ali did not listen to their opinion. The Qurra’ withdrew themselves. When the arbitration occurred and Ali was removed from the Caliphate, they said to him: “You have removed yourself from the Caliphate.” So they withdrew from him. Those people who withdrew were called the “Muhakkamah” (those who declare ‘Judgment belongs to Allah’). This Muhakkamah pledged allegiance to Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi as their imam. They considered Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi as the fifth of the Rightly Guided Caliphs after Ali bin Abi Talib. Then what happened between Ali and the Muhakkamah at the Battle of Nahrawan occurred. Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi was killed, along with many of the Qurra’ and those who remained with him. Among them were Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Hudayr, his brother Urwah bin Udiyyah, and others.
Those who remained gathered around Jabir bin Zaid (may Allah have mercy on him). Discussions took place among them. Imam Jabir bin Zaid established his school. When was that? Imam Jabir bin Zaid was born in 18 AH (or 21 AH). He abandoned fighting and that affair and returned to Da’wah. He began to establish this school, meaning he codified and wrote it down. Imam Jabir bin Zaid (may Allah have mercy on him) began to collect authentic narrations from the Companions from the Messenger of Allah (saw). Abu (?) Jabir bin Zaid traveled from Basra to Medina and Mecca in 40 journeys, during 40 Hajj seasons, to meet as many Companions as possible, ask them about the Messenger (saw), the situations they experienced with him, the events they witnessed, what they heard from the Messenger, and what he told them. It is narrated that Imam Jabir said: “I met 70 of the Badriyyun (those who fought at Badr) and took from their knowledge.” (He meant Abdullah bin Abbas was considered young on the day of Badr…). Imam Jabir bin Zaid would codify what he heard from those narrations. He said, “I met a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw),” and “A number of Companions narrated to me,” indicating the many he met. It was said to him, “The Messenger (saw) wrote a letter on Sadaqat to Amr bin Hazm Al-Ansari when he sent him as governor over Yemen.” So he traveled specifically from Basra to Medina, went to the house of Amr bin Hazm Al-Ansari, knocked on the door of his sons, and asked them to show him the letter the Messenger (saw) had written to their father. They gave him the letter, he saw it, and he copied it. It is said he wrote it down and transmitted it. Imam Jabir was extremely keen on transmitting these narrations.
Imam Jabir was not alone; with him were Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Hudayr, Abdullah bin Ibadh, Salim bin Dhakwan Al-Hilali, and Salim bin Hatti. Imam Jabir bin Zaid began to codify the narrations with those with him.
Firstly, the school of Imam Jabir bin Zaid and his followers was called the School of the People of Truth and Righteousness (Ahl al-Haqq wal-Istiqamah). The founders were some Companions, like Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi, Zaid bin Husn Al-Ta’i, and other Companions – the Qurra’ who were martyred at Nahrawan. The Followers (Tabi’un) met the senior Companions. Imam Jabir bin Zaid met all the Companions. He met the leaders who participated with Ali bin Abi Talib during the days of turmoil: the Day of the House (siege of Uthman), the Day of the Camel, the Day of Siffin, the Day of Nahrawan, the Day of Nakhlah. He met all of them and asked them in detail. He asked the Companions about these events. It is said that Imam Jabir bin Zaid and Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Hudayr (may Allah have mercy on him) entered upon Aisha (RA) – who was one of the Prophet’s wives well-acquainted with events – sat with her, and asked her in detail about the life of the Messenger (saw), what she heard, about the events, including the era of Abu Bakr, the events of Umar, the Day of Uthman, and the Battle of the Camel (in which she participated). She repented and sought Allah’s forgiveness. Imam Jabir and Abu Bilal had vast knowledge of the complex political events.
So, the summary: Firstly, the school of Imam Jabir bin Zaid met the Companions who met the Messenger (saw), so their transmission was correct and firmly established from the Messenger (saw). Secondly, they met the leaders who participated in those complex political events and battles, starting from the Day of the House, the Day of the Camel, Siffin, Nahrawan, Nakhlah. They met the leaders and knew who was correct and who was in error, so their understanding of the events was clear. Thirdly, they were residents of Basra, Iraq, and most of these events occurred in Iraq – they were present. So, they had a wide understanding of these matters. For example, Abdullah bin Ibadh wrote a letter (still extant, needing explanation and commentary) in which he says he met Uthman, Ali bin Abi Talib, and Muawiyah, and knew these events in detail. It is one of the oldest Siyar. Also, there is a Sirah by Salim bin Dhakwan Al-Hilali, a contemporary of Imam Jabir bin Zaid. The manuscript still exists, not yet printed, needing verification. There is also a Sirah by Salim bin Hilal, I don’t know if it exists or not. These Siyar were written in the first half of the first century AH or shortly after. They are codifications proving they were correct and on the right path because they witnessed the events, knew those who participated in them, met their leaders, took it directly from the correct sources, had full detail, and codified it. Therefore, their beliefs and narrations are truthful. It is not narrated that they fabricated a single narration attributed to the Messenger (saw).
Then, after Imam Jabir bin Zaid came Abu Ubaidah Muslim bin Abi Karimah, who further clarified and expanded the school. Then after Abu Ubaidah came Al-Rabi’ bin Habib. Then the school divided: to Oman, to Yemen, and to North Africa. In Oman, during the time of Imam Al-Rabi’ bin Habib, he came to Oman and settled there. He had students of knowledge (or bearers of knowledge) with him. Mahbub Al-Rahil established a school in Sohar. Scholars from the Al-Rahili family and others emerged from Sohar. Upon this school revolved the learning of this family and scholars, as you read in Omani history: the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th centuries AH. Also, Abu Al-Mundhir Bashir bin Al-Mundhir was in Nizwa, established a school, built a mosque (later the Great Mosque), and was given the title ‘Sheikh’ in Omani heritage. He established his school, which continued. Also, Abu Ali Musa bin Ali Al-Azri in Izki. These schools branched from the school of Al-Rabi’. So, the chain connects: Al-Rabi’ from Abu Ubaidah, Abu Ubaidah from Jabir, Jabir from the senior Companions from the Prophet (saw). It is said that the books written by Imam Jabir bin Zaid were transmitted to Oman with Mahbub Al-Rahil, then Muhammed bin Mahbub carried them to Mecca. From Mecca, the people of the Maghrib (North Africa) copied them. But, by Allah, the books of Imam Jabir bin Zaid are still lost. What remains is what the students of Al-Rabi’ recorded from Abu Ubaidah or from some sheikhs from Imam Jabir bin Zaid. These were collected by Maghribi scholars in a book called Al-Diwan Al-Muarad ‘ala Al-Ashyakh (The Anthology Presented to the Sheikhs), consisting of 22 books. It is a compilation authored by scholars of Ahl al-Haqq wal-Istiqamah in the first and second centuries AH.
Among them is the Jami’ Abi Safrah, which are narrations of Al-Rabi’ from Dhamam from Jabir bin Zaid from the Companions. The second book is the Musnad of Imam Al-Rabi’, which are narrations of Al-Rabi’ from Abu Ubaidah from Jabir bin Zaid. The difference is that the narrations of Al-Rabi’ from Dhamam are one type, and his narrations from Abu Ubaidah are another. This book also contains the Book of Marriage (Nikah al-Shighar) by Imam Jabir bin Zaid, as well as the Fatwas of Al-Rabi’, narrations of his fatwas, his effects (Athar), letters from scholars of Basra, letters from scholars of Medina, Mecca, Mosul, and Kufa. This book is still a manuscript, not printed. May Allah provide someone to review it, publish it, and bring it to light. This is a very brief summary of the codification of this period.
Thus, we realize fully that the Companions codified it before others. The arrangement of the Noble Quran – the arrangement of the surahs (Alif-Lam-Mim, Al-Baqarah, An-Nisa’, Aal-Imran) – this arrangement according to the narration of Imam Jabir bin Zaid was written down. The first to codify the Prophetic Sunnah was Imam Jabir bin Zaid. Al-Khalil bin Ahmad Al-Farahidi (may Allah have mercy on him), who was from Oman, was the one who established the science of Arabic prosody (Al-Farahidi), the science of diacritical points (dotting), as writing was without dots. He established the vowel marks (fatha, damma, kasra, shadda). He established the dictionary (lexicon) – his first dictionary is Kitab Al-Ayn. He established the science of grammar (Nahw). All of this was in service of the Quran. The people of Oman were the foremost in serving the Noble Quran.
…Does anyone have a question about the topic? Discussions, comments, or a point not understood? Please, go ahead.
(The speaker continues)
The arrangement of the Mushafs (written copies of the Quran)… Al-Aswad. It is said – and Allah knows best – that some books mention this point. I have found references to it. But it is also said regarding Al-Khalil bin Ahmad, though they do not make explicit the favor of the people of Oman. I even found that Al-Khalil bin Ahmad Al-Farahidi (may Allah have mercy on him) used to make this supplication: “My Lord, forgive me and grant me knowledge that no one after me will need, for You are the Bestower.” He always made this supplication, so Allah opened for him the science of the Arabic language; he was the one who founded and established its principles.
Excellent.
Glory be to You, O Allah, and with Your praise.
Questioner: Shaykh, the reasons for marginalizing this history – ancient and modern Omani history – are there reasons that have led to its marginalization among many of the people, in their books or in their Siyar?
Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani: There are many reasons. The people of Oman themselves neglected it. A period came upon the people of Oman during the days of economic blockade, famine, and drought. They were preoccupied with earning a living. They migrated, and many went to Africa. At that time, so much history was lost because no one studied it or taught it. Also, the neglect of history, lack of reading, lack of study, and no institutions existed for them. For example, if we look at Egypt, they have Al-Azhar, which codified that jurisprudence and took charge of education, teaching, and instruction. It has been like a university since the time of the Fatimids. In the Maghrib (North Africa), the University of Qayrawan also played this role. In Iraq, Karbala and Najaf Al-Ashraf have their own Hawzas (religious seminaries), strong institutions supported by funds, and there are those who take on (the role). All of them have students of knowledge. As for us, we have absolutely nothing. Add to that our love for tribal histories and wars, and so on. It was all lost. And none of our Imams tried, except Imam Al-Arab bin Sultan (may Allah have mercy on him), who built Jabrin Fort as the first university for students of knowledge. But later, due to division and disagreement, it was lost, and no one followed up after that. The hope now is that history is being investigated, the Siyar are being printed, reviewed, and so on.
Questioner: Shaykh, are there existing (manuscripts) or effects of our companions?
Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani: In Rustaq? In Nizwa? We mean great libraries. But due to war… due to the Abbasid wars and the (campaigns) of (the Abbasid general) Ibn Bur? They burned these libraries. Our companions truly had large libraries… However, some of them are in the forts. But they were burned. Some remain in the private collections of individuals. For example, in Oman, more than 12,000 titles of manuscripts, documents, and Siyar have been discovered. The Omani Siyar contain more than 300 Sirah (singular of Siyar), which need verification and review – they exist. Many manuscripts exist now, but there is no institution to print them, publish them, review them, nor anyone to support them. Nor are there people to buy them. Even if someone prints the books, no one buys from him. So all circumstances pressure the reality, preventing publication. We truly call upon the Omani people and the scholars to do something, even a small thing, so that people can access it.
Questioner: (Insha’Allah, we will write, Mr. Shaykh Ahmad?) I understand.
Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani: Insha’Allah.
Questioner: Alright.
Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani: Excellent. Glory be to You, O Allah, and with Your praise. I bear witness that there is no god but You. I seek Your forgiveness and repent to You. O Allah, make this gathering of ours a blessed gathering, and make our dispersal after it a protected dispersal. Do not let there be among us or with us any wretched or deprived person. O Allah, make us doers of good with knowledge and avoiders of indecency. Remove from us the injustice of the oppressors. And may Allah send prayers and peace upon our Master Muhammed, and upon his family and all his companions.
Complete Translation: Interview with Shaykh Sassi Ben Yahyaten (Ibadi Scholar from Tunisia)
We have translated from the interview found here:
If there are any errors or mistakes from the translation that we overlooked, kindly reach out to us.
Interviewer (voiceover): He is the most famous Ibadi Shaykh in Tunisia. On the rare occasions he attends a media meeting, today’s guest is Shaykh Sassi Ben Yahya Bek.
Interviewer (onscreen): Allah bless you. Thank you, Saad. May Allah give you health. Welcome to Jerba.
Interviewer: May Allah give you life. Today is a very special occasion. Many people do not know the Ibadi school. So, in the first segment, we will talk about the origin of this school and what it means. Most people know that Islam has Sunnis and Shiites. Are the Ibadis part of the Sunnis, part of the Shiites, or a completely different branch? What is Ibadism and who are the Ibadis?
Shaykh Sassi: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the most honorable of messengers. Thank you for the question. Ibadism is an Islamic school that arose in the first century AH. Its founder is Jabir bin Zaid al-Azdi al-Omani, one of the great Successors (Tabi’un). It is not Sunni in the political sense of Sunnism, nor is it Shiite. Rather, it is a school that follows the Sunnah and the Noble Qur’an. One of the Orientalists called it ‘the third voice of Islam.’
Shaykh Sassi: The third voice of Islam, or the third path.
Shaykh Sassi: The third path of Islam. So it was established in the first century because Jabir bin Zaid died in 93 AH. It relies, like most Islamic schools, on the Qur’an as the first source, on the Sunnah as the second source, and on everything related… besides the Qur’an and Sunnah, it relies on opinion (ra’y), analogy (qiyas), and ijtihad, etc., expressed through ‘ra’y’. Why ‘ra’y’? To give value to human thought and human opinion in understanding the Qur’an and understanding the Sunnah. That is in terms of principle. What are the distinguishing features of the Ibadi school?
Shaykh Sassi: The features that distinguish the Ibadi school in creed, jurisprudence, biography (sira), or history – we call it ‘siyar’ (plural) – and I’ll give you an example: political thought and governance. Regarding creed: Ibadi creed is distinguished by combining confession by the heart, utterance by the tongue, and action by the limbs. In creed, action is part of faith. This is what is mentioned in all verses of the Noble Qur’an; it does not separate faith from action. Some Muslims say that faith is sufficient and action comes in second place. But we establish a strong link between faith and action. The faith of a believer cannot be complete unless he applies what he believes in in all aspects of life. What results from that? I will mention the features, but we must also note criticisms. What results from that is that a Muslim must be upright in his life. ‘Guide us to the straight path’ we repeat many times. Upright, and he does not commit major sins. This does not mean the Muslim becomes an angel. But if he commits a major sin, he must repent from it, hasten to repent to Allah, especially regarding the rights of other people. The rights of Allah are easy; perhaps repentance from them is easier, because Allah forgives all sins for those who repent and believe.
Interviewer: We will address this point of repentance. Give me the other features quickly.
Shaykh Sassi: Quickly, because whoever does not repent will be eternally in Hell. We will come to that point. The second point: jurisprudence is linked to creed. The third point: political thought. We do not have political Islam, we have political thought. If the great human principles mentioned in the Noble Qur’an are available, such as justice, equality, consultation (shura), and the rotation of political positions, then we accept this as political thought. Regarding ‘siyar’ (biographies/history), our ‘siyar’ are characterized by… meaning the application of all this in society, a literal application. Therefore, Ibadi societies are characterized by trust and honesty, as is known, for example, in Jerba, Tunisia. Then the status of women: the status given to women by Islam. They have their own opinion and stance in politics, in the selection of judges. If a woman is wronged… In the engineering of the Jerbian mosques, in the prayer niche (mihrab), there are two speakers (qawatan), right and left. If a woman is wronged by anyone, husband, brother, or father, she comes between the Adhan and the Iqamah, speaks through that speaker (a loudspeaker) and says, ‘I am so-and-so, daughter of so-and-so, wronged by such-and-such person.’ Then one of the ‘Azzabah adopts her case. If it is easy, it is resolved. If not, he adopts it, and the prayer is not held until someone adopts her case, defends her, and restores her right.
Interviewer: One of the ‘Azzabah. Explain to people what ‘Azzabah is. It is an ancient political system.
Shaykh Sassi: Yes. After the fall of the Rustamid state in 296 AH, the Ibadis in North Africa refrained from forming or establishing a state. After that, they thought of a social system that would bring together Ibadi communities. This system was called ‘Al-Halaqah’ or ‘Al-Azzabah’. It includes 12 or more members, headed by a person called the ‘Shaykh of the Azzabah’, who acted as a just imam governing the Ibadi community in all of North Africa.
Interviewer: We want to understand the name ‘Ibadi’. For example, the Shiites are the ‘party of Ali’ (Shi’at Ali), the Sunnis are the ‘Sunnah of the Prophet’. What about the Ibadis? What is the origin of this word?
Shaykh Sassi: Thank you. Ibadism is attributed to Abdullah bin Ibadh al-Murri al-Tamimi. He was a student of Jabir bin Zaid. He emerged in the political field because he defended Ibadism. He even had correspondence with Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan – these letters exist. He belonged to the large tribe of Banu Tamim, which the Umayyad state feared. So he emerged as a defender, but he has no jurisprudential opinions in Ibadi books. During the time of Jabir bin Zaid and until the second century, Ibadis were called the ‘Community of the People of the Call’ (Jama’at Ahl al-Da’wa) or the ‘Community of Muslims’ (Jama’at al-Muslimeen). What does Imam al-Salimi say? ‘Our opponents named us that, but we are satisfied with it, and its origin is that so-and-so was our lawyer and passed away, but this person has no remaining issue in the school.’ Others named us Ibadis. Why did they name us Ibadis? Because Jabir bin Zaid is disputed, and Ibadi was associated with the Kharijites because Abdullah bin Ibadh was with Ibn al-Azraq, then separated from him when they disagreed on fundamental matters regarding the relationship with other Muslims.
Interviewer: Are the Ibadis closer to Sunnis or Shiites? I don’t draw closer to this or that.
Shaykh Sassi: At the same distance from both sides.
Interviewer: No, we are an independent school, because ‘Ahl al-Sunnah’ is a political term.
Shaykh Sassi: ‘Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah’?
Interviewer: ‘Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah’ dates to 41 AH when the agreement took place between Mu’awiyah and Hasan bin Ali. That year was called the ‘Year of the Community’ (Am al-Jama’ah), an agreement between Ahl al-Sunnah and the Umayyad state. Thus ‘Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah’ was formed. We follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah, the Sunnah of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. We are equally distant from all Islamic sects and schools.
Shaykh Sassi: Through my research to prepare this episode, I found an accusation being promoted as historical information: that the origin of the Ibadis is from the Kharijites. These Kharijites are divided into Azariqah, Sufriyyah, Ibadis… colors. What is the extent of the connection between the Ibadis of Tunisia, especially the Ibadis of the world today, and that group of Ibadis from the Kharijites? They are originally… Allah has purified our hands from that blood, so let us purify our tongues from it. The Great Fitna (Civil Strife) – we leave it asleep. Leave it asleep. But we will clarify a historical point: this accusation is stuck to us to fight us.
Interviewer: ‘Al-Khuruj’ (seceding/rebelling) has two meanings: political secession or secession from religion. If it is political secession, we are honored by it, because our predecessors seceded from the most oppressive state, the Umayyad state. The revolutions that occurred in 2010-2011 in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria – if so, all of these are Kharijites. Hussein bin Ali was a Khariji because he seceded against the Umayyad state. But more dangerous than this is that they stick this accusation to us, that we have seceded from Islam. These are our books, these are our beliefs, this is our conduct. Read them objectively, and you will find that we are the closest and most adherent people to the Qur’an and the pure Muhammedan Sunnah.
Interviewer: But do you support or deny the existence of a historical connection between the two groups: Ibadis of today and Ibadis of that time?
Shaykh Sassi: Of course, we call those early groups ‘Al-Muhakkimah’. Others call them Kharijites – a secession that was only political. As for sticking the accusation of seceding from the true religion, some groups among Al-Muhakkimah exaggerated in religion, were aggressive, and killed… but I challenge anyone, and I have said this in historical conferences, give me one established example where the hands of the Ibadis were stained with the blood of others, whether Muslims or non-Muslims. Just one example. The sanctity of a human being, Muslim or non-Muslim, is a great sanctity that God has made sacred. A drop of blood that we are never allowed to shed. Absolutely. The sanctity of a Muslim: his body, his blood, his wealth, his honor. And the sanctity of every human being must be respected.
Interviewer: There are many shared creedal points between you. For example, considering one who commits a major sin (fā’il al-kabīrah) a disbeliever or eternally in Hell. The disobedient Muslim will be eternally in Hell. Explain this point to us.
Shaykh Sassi:There is a term ‘kufr’ here. There are two terms: kufr of blessings (kufr ni’mah) and kufr of polytheism (kufr shirk). Kufr shirk – we distance ourselves from it; we do not accuse any Muslim of kufr shirk. But kufr ni’mah is committed by one who commits a major sin, whether Ibadi or non-Ibadi.Shaykh al-Salimi says: ‘We do not demand from the worshipper beyond his two testimonies of faith with belief. Whoever comes with the two phrases (the Shahada) – we say he is our brother, and we fulfill his rights.’ Whoever comes with the two phrases, ‘I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah’ – he is our brother in Islam. He has rights upon us as we have rights upon him. We do not declare anyone a disbeliever, we do not declare anyone an innovator, we do not ostracize anyone. Whoever says ‘There is no god but God, Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah’ is a brother in Islam, in addition to human brotherhood.
Interviewer: But here, you exclude him from Paradise?
Shaykh Sassi: We are not the ones who exclude. Read the Qur’an, and I challenge anyone to bring a clear Qur’anic verse indicating the exit of one who enters it (Hell).
Interviewer: So you rely on the Qur’an?
Shaykh Sassi: Of course.
Interviewer: But those who rely on hadith… there are hadiths indicating this and that. But the Qur’an… any hadith that contradicts the Qur’an is not accepted, as Shaykh Muhammed al-Ghazali said.
Interviewer: Let me interact with you a bit.
Interviewer: When we studied… Tunisia is known to be Sunni Maliki. But when we studied as children, we didn’t know what Maliki or Ibadi was. We studied in Islamic education that no matter what you do or what your sin is… you will be in the fire of Hell for a period of time… then you complete the required period in the fire… then you are purified from sins and go to Paradise.
Shaykh Sassi: Yes.
Interviewer: Why is this wrong?
Shaykh Sassi: Look at all the Qur’anic verses: ‘abiding therein forever’ (khalidina fiha abada). ‘Whenever they desire to get out of it, they will be returned to it.’ All Qur’anic verses.
Interviewer: Possibly this verse includes Pharaoh?
Shaykh Sassi: We will explain to you. A Muslim who commits a major sin, persists in it, refuses repentance, and refuses to seek forgiveness… as if, Allah forbid… as if he is arrogant towards Allah Almighty. What do you expect from him? A person who refuses repentance? Eternity in Hell? Committing a major sin is not the end of the world. Committing a major sin must be followed by repentance.
‘Repentance is only accepted by Allah from those who do evil in ignorance, then repent soon after.’ (Qur’an 4:17)
Interviewer: What if he seeks forgiveness, but was not given the opportunity to repent before he dies or passes away?
Shaykh Sassi:That’s why Allah Almighty says: ‘Race towards forgiveness from your Lord.’ (Qur’an 3:133) The Muslim must race. I emphasized in the first instance, especially the rights of other people. This idea has had a very positive impact on Ibadi societies. Look at Ibadi societies: we are very careful regarding the rights of others, we do not transgress. There might be some who transgress, but the general idea is that whoever commits a major sin repents soon after, seeks forgiveness from Allah Almighty, and finds Allah Accepting of Repentance, Merciful. If a Muslim persists in his action, does not seek forgiveness, does not do any good deed, does not apply anything of Islam throughout his life… what is the difference between this person and someone who merely utters the Shahada with his tongue? The tongue alone means nothing and bears no fruit. It must produce fruits in society: trust, honesty, uprightness, good conduct.
Interviewer: But the problem with this principle is that it places two types or categories of people far apart from each other, but with the same outcome: the disbeliever and the disobedient Muslim. These two meet the same eternal fate.
Shaykh Sassi: Paradise has degrees, and Hell has degrees. Give me the difference between a person who says ‘There is no god but Allah, Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah’… Look at what is happening now. Muslims are killing each other. One Muslim kills saying ‘Allahu Akbar’, and the other kills saying ‘Allahu Akbar’. What is the result? The result of negligence regarding these principles. He says: ‘Whoever says “There is no god but Allah” enters Paradise.’ Why the Qur’an? Why this commitment? Why did you come from Sfax to here seeking reward, seeking to spread thought, and perhaps tolerance? Why do I commit to the Qur’an, get up early in winter, perform ghusl, make ablution with cold water, pray, and deprive myself of many of the pleasures of this worldly life, as long as whoever says ‘There is no god but Allah’ enters Paradise, even if he steals or commits adultery? And the other returns three times… There’s a hadith from Abu Dharr that they narrate, but we do not acknowledge it because it contradicts the Qur’an. So what is the difference between me and a person who does not believe in Allah but performs deeds better than mine?
Interviewer: Okay.
Shaykh Sassi: You believe in this creed. This difference, even in creed, in this worldly life, should not spoil the friendship. You believe that the Muslim who commits a major sin… the Qur’an names him ‘Fasiq’ (rebellious/disobedient)… he will go to Hell, I will go to Paradise. You are free, and I am free in my creed. I do not declare you a disbeliever, and you do not declare me a disbeliever. These are matters of the Hereafter; we leave them for the Hereafter. You believe what you wish, and I believe what I wish. We remain brothers. I treat you as a believing Muslim. Whoever kills a believer intentionally… if you are a Muslim, I deal with you on this basis: I respect you, you respect me, and I do not pass judgment on you.
Shaykh Sassi: Because who knows? Perhaps your end is better than my end, even though they believe this creed. So in this world, we do not judge one another.
Interviewer: Last question on this specific point: you say that the committer of a major sin is in Hell forever if he dies without repentance. Okay. Does this not limit the vastness of Allah’s mercy, which precedes His wrath? And does it not contradict His saying: ‘and He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills’? (Qur’an 4:48) Are you restricting Allah’s mercy to repentance only?
Shaykh Sassi: Allah’s mercy is conditional in the Qur’an. ‘and He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.’ Here, ‘for whom He wills’ – does it refer only to Allah?
Shaykh Sassi: No, there are different readings of the Qur’an.
Shaykh Sassi: It means man wills, and then Allah Almighty wills. When He commands you or commands me: ‘Race towards forgiveness from your Lord’ – we must race. Forgiveness requires us to repent. The Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and what will make you know? The Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to repent and seek forgiveness 70 times a day, and he did not commit major or minor sins.
Shaykh Sassi: So Allah’s mercy is what made us Muslims. Allah’s mercy is what made us apply the Qur’an. Allah’s mercy is what drives us to repent, as Allah commanded repentance: ‘Repent to Allah.’ How many verses in the Qur’an command repentance? Why do we differentiate? We apply the verse that commands prayer, and we apply the verse that commands reading (‘Iqra’)… an obligation, a duty. We left it and took other things. ‘Repent to Allah.’ A verse containing a command, and a command indicates obligation, unless there is evidence to divert it from obligation. ‘Race towards forgiveness from your Lord’ – a verse containing a command, and a command obligates racing. Not just repentance. When we gather all these verses, we must repent. Every son of Adam makes mistakes, and the best of those who make mistakes are the repentant. That is the difference.
Interviewer: Good. There is a point I want you to answer quickly. Through my research, I found an accusation that my mind did not accept. They say that there is a group among the Ibadis who hold a harsh stance against Imam Ali, to the point of cursing him and considering him not among the people of Paradise, but rather among the people of Hell. My mind did not accept this information, so I wanted you to clarify right from wrong in this story.
Shaykh Sassi: Regarding Imam Ali – we say ‘May Allah honor his face’. When we say ‘May Allah honor his face’, what does that mean? Allah honored him.
Shaykh Sassi: You… would you name your son after someone you disbelieve in?
Shaykh Sassi: Of course not.
Interviewer: Is the name ‘Ali’ common among you?
Shaykh Sassi: Of course. Is it reasonable that we name our sons with a name that we reject, disbelieve in, and ostracize? Is this acceptable?
Interviewer: No.
Shaykh Sassi: Enough. I’ll tell you who disbelieved in Ali – it’s not the Ibadis. The Ibadis defended Ali. Was Mu’awiyah, or whoever established the practice, cursed Ali from the pulpits? During the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, an Ibadi delegation went to Umar bin Abdul Aziz asking him to remove and abandon this evil practice. This exists in sources from the year 99 AH. So who defended Ali? The Ibadis and others. I’ll add something: if anyone among us curses Imam Ali, he bears his responsibility alone. Look at our books; all of them narrate from Imam Ali. The Musnad of Al-Rabi’ bin Habib contains hadiths narrated from Ali. Would we narrate from a person we consider a disbeliever?
Interviewer: Enough. Let’s go back to the beginning.
Shaykh Sassi: Go ahead.
Interviewer: The Ibadi school, yes. Its prominent figures? When did it begin? For example, the Maliki school has Malik bin Anas, the Hanafi has Abu Hanifa al-Nu’man. Tell me about the Ibadi school: its figures and when it began.
Shaykh Sassi: The Ibadi school’s symbol, founder, and imam is Jabir bin Zaid al-Azdi al-Omani. He was born in 18 or 23 AH according to narrations, and died in 93 AH. He was one of the great Successors (Tabi’un) and studied under great Companions like Abdullah bin Abbas, Ibn Umar, Jabir bin Abdullah, Umm Aisha (may Allah be pleased with them all). Ibn Abbas has many sayings about Jabir bin Zaid: ‘If you meant Jabir bin Zaid, his knowledge would suffice you.’ I cannot mention all the characteristics of Jabir bin Zaid. He was the founder, established the rules, and founded the Ibadi school. After him came his student, Abu Ubaida Muslim bin Abi Karima in Basra, who died in 145 AH. Then after him, his student Al-Rabi’ bin Habib, who compiled the hadiths. Abu Ubaida Muslim bin Abi Karima had a school in Basra. He used to teach his students in a passageway, in a cellar, for fear of the Umayyad state. Students of knowledge came to him from the West and from Oman. Five from the Maghreb: Abd al-Rahman bin Rustam, Abu al-Khattab Abd al-Ala ibn al-Samh al-Ma’afiri from Yemen. Dawud al-Qibli, al-Ghadamisi, and Asim al-Sidrati joined them. They were called the ‘Carriers of Knowledge’, not the ‘Carriers of Weapons’. We are carriers of knowledge, not carriers of weapons. I emphasize this point. As I told you before, praise be to Allah, our hands have not been stained with the killing of any person, Muslim or otherwise. The Muslim, if he is a carrier of knowledge, not a carrier of weapons…
Interviewer: A carrier of thought, not…
Shaykh Sassi: Thought, yes.
Interviewer: The Sunni school, for example, is based on the Qur’an and Sunnah. What is the Ibadis’ view and creed regarding the Noble Qur’an? What are the sources and approved commentaries (tafasir) according to you?
Shaykh Sassi: The Noble Qur’an is the book revealed by God Almighty, preserved, ‘Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it.’ (Qur’an 41:42) ‘Indeed, it is We who sent down the Remembrance (the Qur’an), and indeed, We will be its guardian.’ (Qur’an 15:9) We do not say that it has been added to or decreased from, as found in other sources. The two Mu’awwidhatin (Surahs Al-Falaq and An-Nas) are part of the Qur’an, etc. Is it established with you that the Qur’an is complete and perfect?
Interviewer: Complete and perfect?
Shaykh Sassi: Complete and perfect. Evidence from the verse. Our school is also distinguished by the belief that the Qur’an was compiled during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not pass on to the Highest Companion except while the Qur’an was being recited and compiled in a single codex (mushaf).
Interviewer: Compiled in a single codex (mushaf)?
Shaykh Sassi: Yes.
Interviewer: But the well-known narration is that our master Uthman bin Affan was the one who compiled it.
Shaykh Sassi: That is the well-known narration among Ahl al-Sunnah. Among the Shiites, it is Ali who compiled the Qur’an.
Interviewer: What do the Ibadis believe regarding this point?
Shaykh Sassi: That the Qur’an was compiled during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, complete, recited, between the covers of a book. In the commentaries (tafasir), you find ‘Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud’, ‘Mushaf of Aisha’, ‘Mushaf of Zaid’, etc. Many mus’hafs. What does mus’haf mean? It means a book compiled between two covers, starting with Al-Fatihah and ending with An-Nas. This idea and this creed removed the Qur’an from all the accusations directed at it by non-Muslims, especially that the Qur’an is incomplete, or that there were verses only found with one person or two. In the modern era, starting around 1990-1995, what is called ‘le Coran de pierres’ (the Qur’an of stones) appeared – verses found written on stones and rocks along caravan routes from Medina to Damascus and Yemen. These verses were collected, and they accused the Qur’an of being incomplete. Why? Because we say that the Messenger of Allah, may God bless him and grant him peace, left the Qur’an scattered on palm fronds, shoulder blades, etc. If the Messenger did not compile his Qur’an, his holy book, what did he do? Then during Ramadan, Gabriel (peace be upon him) would come and the Messenger would review the Qur’an with him. In the year he died, he reviewed it twice, called ‘the last review’. So he reviewed the Qur’an as it is today, with the order of surahs. Some say – I think As-Suyuti says – that the Companions were the ones who arranged the surahs. There’s a narration that Umar bin al-Khattab, when a person came with two verses from the end of Surah At-Tawbah, said: ‘If it were three verses, I would have made it a separate surah.’ With all respect to the Companions, do we believe that they would act with the Qur’an in such a way? Allah Almighty says: ‘Indeed, it is We who sent down the Remembrance, and indeed, We will be its guardian.’
Interviewer: Regarding the Companions acting with the Qur’an, there is a well-known narration about a well-known figure, the brother of our master Uthman bin Affan. When the Messenger narrated the revelation that came to him, this Companion would write it down, but he would write it with modification. When the Messenger noticed that, he took a stance against him. This narration is known. Do you believe it or deny it?
Shaykh Sassi: We do not believe all narrations that offend the Messenger. It might be authentic, but this supports our position: if the Messenger had not compiled the Qur’an, such narrations and such writings would have crept into the Qur’an.
Interviewer: Just as Isra’iliyyat crept in?
Shaykh Sassi: Isra’iliyyat. We do not accept Isra’iliyyat at all. Our creed is free from Isra’iliyyat.
Interviewer: The Ibadi creed, or the Islamic creed in general?
Shaykh Sassi: Our creed is the Islamic creed. We are Muslims before being Ibadis. We are Muslims following an Ibadi methodology.
Interviewer: Okay. The Sunni refers to Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim. The Shiite refers to Al-Kulayni, for example. To whom does the Ibadi refer? What are their references, and how reliable are they?
Shaykh Sassi: We refer to the Musnad, the authentic Musnad of Al-Rabi’ bin Habib. Al-Rabi’ bin Habib is the student of Abu Ubaida Muslim bin Abi Karima, from the second century AH. It contains about 1050 hadiths. 90% or more of these hadiths are narrated in other authentic books (Sihah), sometimes with different wording. We take hadiths from others, like Bukhari and Muslim, if they match the Qur’an. Any hadith that contradicts the Qur’an, textually or in spirit, we do not accept.
Shaykh Sassi: Regarding the hadith in Sahih al-Rabi’: ‘Whatever comes to you from me, compare it to the Book of Allah. If it agrees with it, then it is from me; otherwise, it is not.’ So the correct criterion is this hadith. This is the opinion of many contemporary scholars, for example, Shaykh Muhammed al-Ghazali. This is Musnad al-Rabi’. There is also the Mudawwanah of Abu Ghanim al-Khurasani, also from the second century, which contains jurisprudence and hadiths that do not contradict the hadiths of Al-Rabi’ bin Habib.
Interviewer: Good. Let’s talk now about jurisprudence (fiqh). Jurisprudentially, which school is closest to you: Maliki, Hanbali, Shafi’i, Ja’fari? What are the most prominent points of difference?
Shaykh Sassi: In reality, in jurisprudence, you find much closeness and similarity between most Islamic schools. There are some points of disagreement, but they do not spoil the friendship.
Interviewer: For example?
Shaykh Sassi: For example, things that Tunisians notice: the Ibadi does not raise his hands at the initial takbir (Takbirat al-Ihram).
Interviewer: The Maliki raises his hands at the initial takbir, then lets them hang (sadl). We agree with the Maliki school on letting the arms hang (sadl). We do not fold them (qabd). We stand, we do not raise our hands at the initial takbir. We say ‘Allahu Akbar’ and that’s enough. Do you rely on hadiths for this?
Shaykh Sassi: Of course, we rely on hadiths in Al-Rabi’ bin Habib. ‘Pray as you have seen me pray.’ Jabir bin Zaid was the closest imam of the schools to the Companions. He died in 93 AH. He said: ‘I met 70 Badris (Companions who fought at Badr), and I absorbed the knowledge they had, like the sea…’ meaning Abdullah bin Abbas. So he was close to narrating from them. Let me give you another issue, for example, regarding fasting (sawm). In fasting, one of the conditions for the validity of fasting is ritual purity (taharah).
Interviewer: A Muslim cannot fast while in a state of major ritual impurity (junub)? Is that reasonable?
Shaykh Sassi: Other Islamic schools do not say that.
Interviewer: Meaning before dawn, he has intercourse?
Sheikh Sassi: No, excuse me. Even among the Maliki brothers, they permit fasting for a person who wakes up junub. Research the Maliki school. You wake up junub… investigate the issue.
Interviewer: By Allah, I didn’t know that.
Shaykh Sassi: You will find it. Is it reasonable for a Muslim to wake up junub during Ramadan?
Interviewer: What I know is that you perform ghusl and…
Shaykh Sassi: Before… if, for example, sleep overcomes you.
Interviewer: Sleep should not overcome you because you must take precautions, right or not? But with precautions, you set your alarm for 4 a.m., but the alarm rings and you don’t wake up.
Shaykh Sassi: This is being overcome. But if you insist and say, ‘No, I’ll wake up at 8 a.m. or after sunrise’… They rely on a hadith narrated by Aisha and Umm Salamah that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, would wake up junub and not perform ghusl. Is it reasonable that the Messenger…
Interviewer: Hadiths that offend…
Shaykh Sassi: Allah bless you. That’s what I wanted. This is a very important point of disagreement.
Interviewer: Ramadan, and the state of fasting in general, is a state of spiritual and physical purification.
Shaykh Sassi: And physical.
Interviewer: So reason aligns with the idea that we must perform ghusl and…
Shaykh Sassi: May Allah have mercy on your parents. You came up with this on your own, with an open mind. All people who do not have a preconceived mindset carrying a preconceived notion, the Ibadis accept our thought. Evidence is your own dignity.
Interviewer: Great. What are the jurisprudential rulings that distinguish the Ibadis?
Shaykh Sassi: There aren’t major jurisprudential rulings. I gave you an example regarding prayer (salah). Prayer, in all schools, is based on purity of body, purity of clothing, purity of place. Prayer consists of four rak’ahs for Dhuhr, Asr, and Isha, and three rak’ahs for Maghrib. We agree on all that. There is a small detail we differ on: in our silent prayers, we only recite Al-Fatihah.
Interviewer: Do you rely on a hadith for that?
Shaykh Sassi: Of course.
Shaykh Sassi: Dhuhr is four silent rak’ahs; we only recite Al-Fatihah. Asr is four silent rak’ahs; we only recite Al-Fatihah. The third rak’ah of Maghrib is silent; we recite Al-Fatihah. The last two rak’ahs of Isha are silent; we recite Al-Fatihah only. We recite Al-Fatihah with a Surah in the loud prayers, and the Sunnah and voluntary prayers (nawafil) are all loud.
Shaykh Sassi: For example, in the chapter on prayer: The Shiites combine prayers; this is permissible. The Sunnis do not combine prayers. What is the Ibadis’ stance on this?
Shaykh Sassi: It is permissible to combine two prayers for reasons, for example, travel.
Shaykh Sassi: Compelling reasons, sort of.
Shaykh Sassi: Compelling reasons. Give you an example now: a surgeon enters the operating room. Do we force him to come out to pray Dhuhr and leave…?
Shaykh Sassi: His work doesn’t permit that.
Shaykh Sassi: It doesn’t permit that. The traffic policeman… should he leave traffic and go pray in the nearby mosque? He is not permitted to do that. In this case, the student starts school at a specific time. He is permitted to combine Dhuhr and Asr, as early or late combination, in exceptional circumstances. But a person who is comfortable at home is not permitted to combine.
Interviewer: Shaykh Sassi.
Shaykh Sassi: Yes.
Interviewer: What is your creed regarding Allah?
Shaykh Sassi: Our creed regarding Allah is absolute transcendence (tanzih). It relies on a methodology: there are clear verses (muhkamat) in the Noble Qur’an and there are ambiguous verses (mutashabihat). We refer the ambiguous to the clear. ‘There is nothing like unto Him.’ (Qur’an 42:11) When you encounter ‘the Hand of Allah is above their hands’, it means the power of Allah is above their power. We interpret verses that could imply likening Allah to humans or anthropomorphism. We do not anthropomorphize Allah at all. We absolve Him with absolute transcendence, as commanded in the Noble Qur’an.
Interviewer:You have a principle of negating the vision (of God). You deny that humans can see their Creator on the Day of Resurrection and consider it intellectually impossible. From which aspect do you believe this principle? Always and forever from the aspect of transcendence?
Shaykh Sassi: Because when you see something, you perceive its characteristics, and it must be limited. Can a human see something infinite? Impossible. Furthermore, the issue of the vision of Allah is disputed: will Allah be seen at the standing (Mahshar) or in Paradise? Will all people see Him, or only the believers in Paradise? When a debate occurs between us and our brothers, in the end they say: ‘Allah Almighty will create another sense in us, besides sight, and then enable us to see Allah.’ We, to transcend Allah Almighty, say He will never be seen. ‘You will not see Me’ (Qur’an 7:143) He said to Moses. Al-Zamakhshari negates vision in this world and negates it in the Hereafter. Those who rely on the verse: ‘Some faces that Day will be shining, looking at their Lord.’ (Qur’an 75:22-23) ‘Looking’ (Nazirah) here… the verse is about the Mahshar. ‘Looking’ from ‘Nazar’ (waiting/expecting). They are waiting for Alla’s mercy and His admission to Paradise. We interpret these verses from the aspect of transcending Allah Almighty regarding vision. A final note: this issue is a matter of the Hereafter and does not spoil our relationship. I want to focus on this point: it does not spoil. If you believe that you will see Him, you will see Allah in Paradise. I strive to go to Paradise.
Shaykh Sassi: And I strive to go to Paradise.
Interviewer: Consider it an incentive.
Shaykh Sassi: Perhaps. But this issue, like the issue of the creation of the Qur’an, should not cause a rift between Muslims. Leave it aside.
Interviewer: Has it been established with you that any of the prophets actually saw God?
Shaykh Sassi: It has not been established. When this hadith or idea was narrated, I went to Lady Aisha (for her opinion). She said: ‘O man, my hair stood on end! Muhammed, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not see his Lord.’ Because some say that our Messenger saw his Lord during the Mi’raj (Ascension).
Interviewer: And most Islamic schools negate this.
Shaykh Sassi: Negate this.
Interviewer: Negate this. Okay. Let’s return to the Qur’anic verse you mentioned. Your principle that humans cannot see their Lord on the Day of Resurrection, they say this contradicts divine power and denies the verse: ‘Some faces that Day will be shining, looking at their Lord.’ So they interpret it as ‘waiting’ not ‘seeing’. Do you have definitive evidence that ‘looking at their Lord’ means ‘waiting’ and not ‘seeing’? The verse indicates… ‘to their Lord looking’ (li rabbiha nadhirah) is at the Mahshar, not in Paradise. ‘Some faces that Day will be shining, laughing, rejoicing, and some faces that Day will have upon them dust, covered with darkness. Those are the disbelievers, the wicked.’ When we take the Qur’anic verses and gather them, you will see that they indicate one thing: the expectation (nazar) of the Muslim who awaits the mercy of God Almighty. The other (darkness) for the faces of the disbelievers who have despaired of the mercy of God Almighty.
Interviewer: On the issue of prophetic infallibility (‘isma), do you believe in it?
Shaykh Sassi: Yes.
Interviewer: From major and minor sins?
Shaykh Sassi: Of course.
Shaykh Sassi: Good. His infallibility from major and minor sins, except for mistakes that any human can make. Because the Messenger of Allah is human, and to indicate his humanity… For example, regarding the pollination of palm trees in Medina. They used to pollinate the palms. He said to them: ‘Would that you had left the palms as they are?’ So they left the pollination, and the palm crop did not do well, producing poor dates. They told him, and he said: ‘You know your worldly affairs better.’ Similarly, when he dismounted at a location during the Battle of Badr, Al-Hubab bin Al-Mundhir came and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, is this a place where Allah has alighted you, or is it opinion, battle, and strategy?’ He said: ‘It is opinion, battle, and strategy.’ He said: ‘Then let us move.’ These are human matters. We do not even consider them minor sins, just human mistakes.
Interviewer: There is a controversial issue raised recently. We studied in Sunni schools the story of ‘He frowned and turned away’ (‘Abasa wa tawalla) which was revealed concerning the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he was preoccupied with the elite of Quraysh. The Shiite periphery says that ‘He frowned and turned away’ does not touch the infallibility of the Prophet and could not have been revealed concerning him. Rather, they interpret this verse as having been revealed concerning the Companion Uthman bin Affan (may Allah be pleased with him). What is the Ibadis’ interpretation of this issue?
Shaykh Sassi: The Ibadis’ interpretation is that it was revealed concerning the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. And as I told you, it does not diminish the value of the Messenger. He made an effort (ijtihad) to bring the elite of Quraysh disbelievers to Islam. He said… this was an effort on his part. This was a gain for us – he gained a Muslim. He could wait for the others, the Quraysh elite, perhaps to call them or attract them to Islam. The Shiite brothers who interpret that verse… this interpretation is their right, because he frowned and turned away… It is their right to interpret, and it is our right to interpret.
Interviewer: Regarding the Companions.
Shaykh Sassi: Yes.
Interviewer: Do you believe in the principle of the justice of all Companions? Give me yes or no.
Shaykh Sassi: No.
Interviewer: Because if you said yes, my question would be: do you believe in it absolutely?
Shaykh Sassi: That’s why I said no. We believe in the justice of the Companions before the Fitna (Great Strife). After the Fitna, the Companions became divided. The Companions who fought each other at the Battle of the Camel – they were Companions and not Companions.
Interviewer: Yes.
Shaykh Sassi: At Siffin – Companions and not Companions.
Interviewer: You said after the Great Fitna. Let’s go back to before the Fitna. It is said in some narrations that there were Companions during the time of the Messenger but were hypocrites. Other narrations say that there were Companions who plotted to overthrow our Messenger, even during some battles. Do you support these narrations or deny them?
Shaykh Sassi: Each narration must be considered individually. We do not generalize. There is truth to this, but we do not generalize, and we cannot dig into these matters. This is correct. The position is that the Companions are just, with exceptions.
Interviewer: With exceptions. Your position starts after the Fitna.
Shaykh Sassi: After the Fitna.
Interviewer: My question is about before the Fitna.
Shaykh Sassi: Before the Fitna, there were hypocrites mentioned in the Noble Qur’an.
Interviewer: But we do not search for who the hypocrite is unless he displays…
Shaykh Sassi: It doesn’t matter if they existed or not. The Qur’an is clear.
Interviewer: Only.
Shaykh Sassi: The Qur’an is clear. We cannot contradict the Qur’an, but it did not name them.
Interviewer: It did not name them, to preserve the unity of the nation.
Shaykh Sassi: Of course, of course. The Qur’an did not name them. We do not dig into these matters.
Interviewer: Good. So you do not seek Allah’s pleasure for all Companions. There are Companions you seek Allah’s pleasure for, and there are Companions you have a stance towards.
Shaykh Sassi: Yes.
Interviewer: Do we name them or not name them?
Shaykh Sassi: For example, Mu’awiyah.
Interviewer: Okay. Mu’awiyah. Many schools have a stance… Ahl al-Sunnah…
Shaykh Sassi: Even books… they refer to Ahl al-Sunnah books. Our books, praise be to Allah, are free from these things, because our predecessors saw that extra things neither advance nor delay a matter. So we should build on the positive that advances us and does not delay us.
Interviewer: What is your stance on the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Al-Khulafa’ al-Rashidun)?
Shaykh Sassi: The Rightly Guided Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar – by agreement. Uthman: he remained in the caliphate for 12 years. The first six years were according to the Rightly Guided Caliphate. In the last six years, his closeness to the Umayyads affected him, so his rule deviated from what his predecessors were upon. Even Sayyid Qutb mentions this in ‘Social Justice’, and Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledges this, but he blames the Umayyad environment, saying he grew old and aged, so it was easy to influence him.
Interviewer: So I understand from your words that the beginning of the decline of Islamic civilization started with the infiltration or dominance of the Umayyads.
Shaykh Sassi: Of course, of course.
Shaykh Sassi:And therefore Uthman was killed. Then comes Ali, our master Ali, who they recognized, then Talhah, Al-Zubayr, and our mother Aisha rose against him at the Battle of the Camel. Then Mu’awiyah comes to overthrow him.
Interviewer: Wait, wait. You just said something important. You said Talhah, Al-Zubayr, and Lady Aisha ‘rose against him’ (thara ‘alayh). The Sunnis say that Lady Aisha came out for reform. You said ‘rose against him’.
Shaykh Sassi: No, no, no. She did not come out for reform. Sources… historical book sources of Ahl al-Sunnah say that.
Interviewer: More than that, there was a Sunni Shaykh who appeared with me on the channel and said Lady Aisha came out to support our master Ali.
Shaykh Sassi: No, no, no. The source… if he has a source we haven’t seen, and researchers haven’t seen…
Shaykh Sassi: He hasn’t seen it. Enough. Because we say regarding her: Lady Aisha repented. She repented from that. Enough. Whoever repents, Allah accepts his repentance. When her camel was hamstrung, Imam Ali sent her back, honored and respected, to Medina.
Interviewer: The caliphate of our master Ali – what is your stance on it?
Shaykh Sassi: A legitimate caliphate, legitimate.
Interviewer: My question is not about its legitimacy, but your assessment of its duration, your assessment when the caliphate was established.
Interviewer: When… he was not permitted to rule.
Shaykh Sassi: Our master (Ali) was not permitted to rule. Talhah, Al-Zubayr, and then Mu’awiyah rose against him. He remained a short period and was not permitted to apply the rule.
Interviewer: And he was assassinated…
Shaykh Sassi: He was assassinated. Assassination is normally attributed to the Kharijites. But Hisham Ja’it, in ‘Al-Fitna’, and other historians prove that the hand extended for the assassination of Ali was a plot from Mu’awiyah. Clear. Read Ibn al-Athir, read other history books, you will find a very fabricated narration about how three people agreed secretly, then their secret came out, and they set up this theatrical scene. He said: ‘Sa’id bin Uthman was struck on his backside, so he could no longer father children. Amr ibn al-As was struck, and he didn’t go out for the Fajr prayer…’ All these are fabrications.
Interviewer: What is your stance on the wives of the Messenger Muhammed, may Allah bless him and grant him peace?
Shaykh Sassi: The wives of the Messenger are our mothers, the Mothers of the Believers.
Interviewer: Do you have a specific classification, or are they all on the same level?
Shaykh Sassi: We have no classification. We classify neither the Companions nor the Mothers of the Believers.
Interviewer: None has preference over another?
Shaykh Sassi: That knowledge is with Allah.
Interviewer: According to your reading?
Shaykh Sassi: According to our reading, they are all equal. We respect all of them.
Shaykh Sassi: When we say ‘our mothers’…
Interviewer: Respect…
Shaykh Sassi: Yes. We do not prefer one over another except… that is with Allah Almighty.
Interviewer: What is the Ibadis’ stance on Sahih al-Bukhari?
Shaykh Sassi:Sahih al-Bukhari is a book like other books, a human book. It contains right and wrong. Even Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in ‘Fath al-Bari’, his commentary on Bukhari, rejects or contradicts some hadiths. Al-Albani criticizes some hadiths in Bukhari. Our principle: any hadith that matches the Qur’an, we consider it authentic. Any hadith that contradicts the Qur’an, we do not accept it.
Interviewer: What are the most important hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim that contradict your beliefs?
Shaykh Sassi: I don’t want to go into these details. But there are hadiths, for example, the story of Gabriel… the Angel of Death went to take the soul of Moses (peace be upon him). You know this hadith. It is not intellectually acceptable. Or the hadith that says Moses (peace be upon him) was bathing; the Children of Israel used to bathe naked, and Moses did not accept that. We absolve him of that. He went to a river, put his clothes on a stone, and the stone fled with his clothes… We accept that? No. Any hadith that diminishes the value of any prophet or any messenger, we do not accept it.
Interviewer: Ahl al-Sunnah accept this hadith; rather, they defend it.
Shaykkh Sassi: They are free to do so.
Interviewer: Are there other examples in Bukhari and Muslim that contradict your creed?
Shaykh Sassi: These contradict the Qur’an. Al-Razi mentions in his Tafsir the hadith that says: ‘Abraham (peace be upon him) lied, he only lied three times.’ Al-Razi says, narrating: He said to the narrator: ‘Do you accuse Abraham of lying?’ They said: ‘We would rather accuse Abraham of lying than accuse the narrator of lying.’ This is in Tafsir al-Razi, ‘Al-Tafsir al-Kabir’. Is it reasonable that a Prophet lied three times, and they don’t accuse the narrator, they accuse Abraham?
Shaykh Sassi: It is found in Tafsir al-Kabir by Al-Razi.
Shaykh Sassi: This means we absolve the prophets with a human absolvement. There is a difference between absolving the Lord Almighty and absolving the prophets. Human absolvement. The prophets are perfect people. They did not commit major sins. Even minor mistakes, we cannot call them ‘minor’ out of respect for the prophets.
Interviewer: Good. What is your stance on Abu Hurairah? I heard you in some videos saying things that some classify as dangerous about him. I want to hear from you: what is your stance on Abu Hurairah?
Shaykh Sassi: When we criticize a statement, we do not criticize the person. Abu Hurairah as a person is respected. But what is attributed to him – approximately 7000 hadiths – and he only became Muslim in the eighth year of the Hijra. The eighth year. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) and the senior Companions – Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) – only narrated a few hadiths. Abu Hurairah narrated both the insignificant and the significant, and his narrations contain many Isra’iliyyat. This means it is a criticism of the Companion’s statement, not of the Companion himself.
Interviewer: You told me that our Islam is free from Isra’iliyyat, then you tell me that Abu Hurairah was among those who introduced the door of Isra’iliyyat into Islam.
Shaykh Sassi: Yes, yes. Many hadiths… Allah Almighty created the universe in six days, then rested on the seventh… anthropomorphism of Allah Almighty. Many he narrated from some Jews who entered Islam. I emphasize, our criticism of Abu Hurairah is not a criticism of his person.
Shaykh Sassi: It is a criticism of what was narrated from him. And perhaps…
Interviewer: But he is one of the narrators of hadith, so he must be viewed with a critical scholarly eye in some cases.
Shaykh Sassi: Only critical, just critical. We view him with a critical scholarly eye. We do not attack the person. Ahl al-Sunnah venerate Abu Hurairah to the point of believing that he strangled a jinn. Do you acknowledge this narration or not?
Interviewer: No, no, no.
Shaykh Sassi: Because there is a breaking of the barrier between the human and the other.
Shaykh Sassi:No, no, we do not acknowledge this. We venerate all Companions who have not been proven to have committed heinous acts.
Shaykh Sassi: On the other hand, the Shiite sect says that if Abu Hurairah narrated to us, we would not believe him, because he used to narrate from people who disbelieved, not only from the Messenger.
Shaykh Sassi: We separate two things. In our book, Musnad al-Rabi’ bin Habib, which is our hadith book, he narrates from Abu Hurairah.
Shaykh Sassi: But he does not narrate everything from Abu Hurairah. So there is respect… we respect people, but respecting a person does not negate criticizing his statements.
Interviewer: Shaykh Sassi, let’s go back to history a bit, especially in Tunisia. Tunisia is known for being Sunni Maliki. When did the Ibadi school appear in Tunisia?
Shaykh Sassi: The Ibadi school in Tunisia appeared before the Maliki school.
Interviewer: Good, okay.
Shaykh Sassi: The Ibadi school appeared in Tunisia from 125 AH.
Interviewer: Documented that it appeared before the Maliki school? Reliable sources?
Shaykh Sassi: Yes, documented, reliable. Year 125 AH.
Interviewer: And the Maliki school appeared… with the Aghlabid state.
Shaykh Sassi: It appeared with the Aghlabid state. All of southern Tunisia was Ibadi. All of southern Tunisia, even the Sahel. We have texts proving that. Ibadis were in Mount Waslat.
Interviewer: So why did it recede?
Shaykh Sassi: It receded because the Ibadis were fought, a great and fierce fight.
Interviewer: By the Aghlabid state?
Shaykh Sassi: No, not just the Aghlabids. There was a balance of power between the Aghlabid state and the Rustamid state. The Rustamid state in Tiaret, Algeria, and the Aghlabid state in Kairouan. All of southern Tunisia was under the control of the Rustamid state.
Interviewer: Okay, why did it recede?
Shaykh Sassi: When the Fatimids (the Ubaydid state) came, they eliminated the Aghlabid state and eliminated the Rustamid state in Tiaret. North Africa became Fatimid. This is known. They fought the Ibadi school just as they fought the Sunni Maliki school. The Ibadis revolted against the Fatimid state. Abu Yazid Makhlad bin Kaydad, nicknamed ‘Sahib al-Himar’ (the Man on the Donkey), nearly eliminated the mightiest empire in the Islamic Maghreb.
Interviewer: This is the ‘Sahib al-Himar’ revolution.
Shaykh Sassi: Sahib al-Himar – why was he called that? Because this person was close to the soldiers with him. The soldiers rode splendid horses, and he rode a donkey, to tell them: ‘Pay attention, I will not flee from the battle. Even if you flee on your splendid, fast horses, I ride a donkey, I will be the last.’ This was the first revolution, around 330-335 AH. Then a second revolution led by a Shaykh named Abu Khazr Yaghla bin Zaltaf al-Wisyani. Why did these revolutions occur? They occurred to fight the oppression of the Fatimid state. When oppression became severe and its pressure intensified on the Ibadis, they revolted. They revolted, but the revolution did not succeed. The second revolution did not succeed. The fight against the Ibadis continued, trying to eliminate them. And indeed, Ibadis began to shrink little by little. They became confined to the mountain peaks… destroyed in southern Tunisia: Beni Khash and Tin Al-Haliyah? And in the Nafusa mountains in Libya, and on the island of Jerba. After that, when the Hafsid state came, they also tried to eliminate the Ibadis by all means. Therefore, they strongly enforced the Maliki school in Jerba and fought the Ibadis strongly there. If you want to expand on this, read the book ‘Ibadis on the Island of Jerba in the Modern Era’ by Muhammed al-Marami; it shows this from the archives. Then the Ottoman state came and eliminated what remained on Jerba.
Interviewer: Who are the symbols of Ibadism in Tunisia and their scholars?
Shaykh Sassi: Contemporary?
Interviewer: From historical to now.
Shaykh Sassi: Historical to now. There is the family of Abu Maswar, the family of Abu Sitta, the family of Al-Shammakhi, the family of Al-Misbahi. All these are scholars, thinkers. From the present era, for example, Shaykh Sulayman al-Jadawi, the famous journalist during the colonial era, who fought colonialism with his journalistic writings. Shaykh Muhammed Fadil bin Ashour mentioned him in his writings. Also, we have Shaykh Salem bin Ya’qub, the historian of the island, who died around 1990. Now we have Shaykh Dr. Farhat al-Ja’biri, who was a professor at the Faculty of Arts. He had great merit, thanks to Allah Almighty, in defining Ibadism and introducing Ibadi studies to the Faculty of Arts on April 9th, etc. He has many students now.
Interviewer: How many Ibadis are there today in Tunisia?
Shaykh Sassi: In Jerba, perhaps around… we don’t have statistics because…
Interviewer: According to estimates, between…
Shaykh Sassi: According to estimates, perhaps between 50 and 70 thousand.
Interviewer: A respectable number. When I visited the island of Jerba, I noticed unique architecture in your mosques. For example, the minaret: the higher it goes, the narrower it gets. Simple architecture. What is the wisdom behind this?
Shaykh Sassi: The wisdom is that all our mosques are simple, because the Mosque of the Messenger of Allah was simple. You will find no ornamentation in our mosques. The greatness of our mosques lies in their simplicity. We have types of mosques in Jerba: coastal mosques called ‘fortress mosques’ (masajid qila’), especially on the northeast coast of the island. Why? Because the island was subjected to Crusader attacks from the 6th century AH to the 10th century. Crusader attacks came by sea. There are guard mosques on the beach, small mosques where the people of Jerba stay to guard the coasts. When an overwhelming attacking force comes to the island during the day, they light a fire that produces smoke. This smoke is seen from those tall minarets – always guarding. When they see the smoke, they light a fire on the mosque for smoke, the message is sent, reaching every part of the island very quickly. The people of Jerba prepare to defend their island. At night, smoke is not visible; they light a fire that produces a flame. That flame is seen, and the news spreads. These are fortress mosques: Mosque of Miradjan in Mazraya, Mosque of Lakayn in Ghizan, Mosque of Tajdid in Fatu, and the Great Mosque you visited in Mallitah. In all these, the news spreads in less than the time of sight, because it is seen and transmitted by vision. They prepare to meet their enemy. Indeed, the people of Jerba defended their island alone. Aid did not come from the Hafsid state except sometimes after the island was occupied. The people of Jerba would attack the Spaniards, Italians, and Genoese and liberate their island. Were it not for their defense of Jerba, Jerba would now be like Lampedusa or Sicily. There are other mosques: schools, universities spread in every neighborhood of the island.
Interviewer: But the unique architecture… the minaret that narrows as it goes up… what is it?
Shaykh Sassi: That is architecture, a matter of architectural ijtihad. The architecture that narrows as it goes up when the minaret is tall… like in Tajdid.
Interviewer: But when the minaret is built on the roof of the mosque, it is usually square-shaped.
Interviewer:continuing): I noticed a unique creedal issue among the Ibadis. A group of you, or most of you, believe in the Isra’ (Night Journey) only, without the Mi’raj (Ascension). You rely on the fact that the Noble Qur’an mentions only the Isra’, not the Mi’raj. What is your stance on the event of the Isra’ and Mi’raj?
Shaykh Sassi: It’s not only the Ibadis; this is a point of disagreement found among many Muslims. To understand the Qur’an and interpret it… Among Ibadis, some say the Isra’ – no one denies it because it is clear in the Noble Qur’an. Regarding the Mi’raj, some interpret the verses of Surat An-Najm with a different interpretation. Some affirm the Mi’raj. They say the Mi’raj has not been proven, perhaps only in spirit. What is proven is the Isra’. It is not considered a core creedal issue by us, because it is a secondary issue, depending on the interpretation of the Noble Qur’an. Those who affirm the Mi’raj rely on certain verses, and those who do not affirm it rely on the interpretation of the verses. It does not spoil the creed at all.
Interviewer You personally do not believe in the Mi’raj? You said…
Shaykh Sassi: No, not all Ibadis disbelieve in the Mi’raj. There are Ibadis who believe in the Mi’raj.
Interviewer: There is no Ibadi consensus?
Shaykh Sassi: There is some difference of opinion.
Interviewer: You, as Shaykh Sassi Ben Yahya, do you believe in the Mi’raj or not?
Shaykh Sassi:I do not believe in the Mi’raj. I only believe in the Isra’.
Interviewer: Why? What is your interpretation?
Shaykh Sassi: Because the other verses that challenge the Messenger to ascend to heaven… Allah denies that. There are verses… as I told you, it’s not a fundamental creedal issue, only a secondary creedal issue.
Interviewer: Sheikh Sassi.
Shaykh Sassi: Shaykh Al-Khalili, for example, believes in the Mi’raj. I respect him, he is my Shaykh, and I venerate him.
Interviewer: Why does this stereotypical view exist? Why are the Ibadis viewed as Kharijites? Where did this come from?
Shaykh Sassi: All those who rely on books of sects and history books that do not scrutinize say that. No matter what we do, we cannot remove this mentality from them. Because if the concept of Kharijites is a political concept, then it should include everyone who revolted, starting from the Battle of the Camel, then Mu’awiyah, then Hussein, and so on. And everyone who revolted against their rulers in the modern era – they are Kharijites. But if it means seceding from the religion, we absolutely reject that, without reservation.
Interviewer: What is your stance on the early Kharijite groups that included Ibadis, Azariqah, and Sufriyyah? What is your stance on them?
Shaykh Sassi: Al-Muhakkimah were one group. Then, after killings occurred among them, and many were killed, there was a reaction to the killing, which caused extremism. This extremism… when Ibn al-Azraq, Abdullah bin Ibadh, and others wanted to leave Basra, they agreed on the secession. Abdullah bin Ibadh heard the recitation of the Qur’an being recited in mosques and hermitages. He said: ‘I will not secede from these people, for they are Muslims.’ He separated from those who would be Kharijites. The Kharijites went out attacking people and killing innocents. We are innocent of all that.
Interviewer: In my research, I found a historical accusation I don’t want to believe, so I will ask you about it. It is said that the Ibadis venerate and sanctify Abdul Rahman ibn Muljam, who killed Imam Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). What is your response?
Shaykh Sassi: You will not find in any reliable, respected book the sanctification of Abdul Rahman ibn Muljam.
Interviewer: What is the stance of Ibadis…
Shaykh Sassi: and Abdul Rahman ibn Muljam is not Ibadi. They say he was Sufri.
Interviewer: So, what is your stance on this figure?
Shaykh Sassi: We do not attack or sanctify any person in our books. If the accusations of murder are proven, he will be held accountable for it. We do not exonerate anyone. Conversely, you will not find cursing of any person in our books.
Interviewer: So, the murder is not proven in your narrations?
Shaykh Sassi: The murder is proven. But who killed? Who incited? Who planned? This is found in Hisham Ja’it and found in other books that explain it.
Interviewer: Is it permissible in the Ibadi school to pray behind a Sunni imam?
Shaykh Sassi: You came to Jerba. You must visit the mosques of Jerba – Ibadi and Maliki. You will find the rows mixed between Ibadis and Malikis. No difference in that.
Interviewer: There are no fanatical groups?
Shaykh Sassi: No, no, no. I don’t deny, perhaps there is a fanatic in this school just as there is a fanatic in the other school. But the predominant characteristic in Jerba, and we Ibadis are merchants spread throughout all of the Tunisian republic. We have no mosques in Sfax, Gafsa, Kairouan, Benzart, or El Kef. Our merchants pray in those mosques – the five daily prayers and Friday prayer – and they find no objection.
Interviewer: Possibly out of necessity?
Shaykh Sassi: He can pray at his home.
Interviewer: The reward is in the congregational mosque?
Shaykh Sassi: No, if the reward… it does not come from necessity; reward only comes with choice.
Interviewer: Beautiful. You have previously explained to me the specifics of prayer among Ibadis. But what are the specifics of your ablution (wudu), prayer, and call to prayer (adhan)?
Shaykh Sassi: There is no difference in ablution. Perhaps they accuse us of being strict regarding purity. This is an honor for us. For example, istibra’ (cleansing oneself thoroughly) from urine. People nowadays use toilet paper, whether available in the toilet or not. We, before toilet paper existed, must perform istibra’ from urine, then make ablution. Relying on what? The hadith narrated in Bukhari when the Messenger passed by a grave in Medina and said: ‘I came across two graves. He said: They are being punished, and they are not being punished for a major sin. As for one, he used not to clean himself thoroughly from urine. As for the other, he used to walk with slander (namimah).’ We maintain purity – purity of the body and purity of clothing – it is essential. This is the concern of all Muslims. We do not accuse any Muslim of not being thorough in purity.
Interviewer: This narration you mentioned, that the Messenger passed by some graves and heard…
Shaykh Sassi: No, not ‘heard’. Allah knows how he knew.
Interviewer: I didn’t say heard. He said ‘they are being punished’. My question is: Do the Ibadis believe in the principle of the punishment of the grave (Adhab al-Qabr)? Yes or no?
Shaykh Sassi: Thank you. This is also a point of disagreement among Ibadis, because it is not an issue we focus on. We focus on the major, fundamental issues that result in behavior for the Muslim. Whether we believe the punishment of the grave exists or not neither advances nor delays the matter. Among Ibadis, some believe in it and some do not. In this, you see the freedom of thought and reasoning among Ibadis. However, could it advance or delay? Because a person who has many, many major sins… we say it’s among the seventh impossible things that he will be in Hell. But on the other hand, there are people who have died but are very close to entering Paradise. We know that when a person dies, his deeds cease except for three. Those three, if they continue, he can enter Paradise. Therefore, the page of a person’s record is not folded until the Day of Resurrection comes and that person’s deed truly ends. So how does Allah judge His servant before closing his book? For this reason, this idea negates punishment in the grave.
Interviewer: I want to understand the position…
Shaykh Sassi: Because the Hereafter is the abode of recompense. The person in the grave is perhaps in the barzakh (intermediate realm) between this world and the Hereafter. Allah Almighty has not brought any verse in the Qur’an indicating punishment in the barzakh.
Interviewer: What is your interpretation of the issue of the punishment of the grave? Do you believe in it or not?
Shaykh Sassi: I do not believe in it. But there are among the Ibadis who believe in it, for example, Jabir bin Zaid believed in it.
Shaykh Sassi: So it is not enough for a person to be burned in the fire of Hell in the Hereafter, he also suffers in his grave before the deeds have even concluded? They rely on the verse about Pharaoh: ‘The Fire, they are exposed to it morning and evening’ (Qur’an 40:46). They understood the meaning of the verse. Among us, some see that punishment… what is the punishment? Is it physical punishment or spiritual punishment? Is the body punished or the soul? Therefore, it is an unseen matter (ghaybiyyah) that is best left aside.
Interviewer: What I understood from the Ibadis is that they do not like to delve into unseen matters.
Shaykh Sassi: In unseen matters, of course, for which there is no explicit text in the Qur’an.
Interviewer: Okay, Shaykh Sassi. The Ibadis go through stages, according to what I studied. You go through stages of ‘Duhur’ (Manifestation), ‘Difa” (Defense), ‘Shira” (Purchase/Sacrifice), ‘Kitman’ (Concealment)… These are all new words to me. Explain to people what Duhur, Difa’, Shira’, and Kitman mean. This characterizes Ibadi thought.
Shaykh Sassi: This is based on the biography (Sirah) of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Duhur (Manifestation) is when governance is in the hands of Muslims, and they apply Islam completely, like the Messenger in Medina who established his state, and like the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The Ibadis add the Rustamid state. Manifestation means Islam is apparent, all its rulings are applied. If Muslims cannot achieve that, and the Manifestation period ends… what comes next? Kitman (Concealment) comes. Kitman is not ‘discretion’, it is not Taqiyya, it is not dissimulation as the French explain it. Kitman is when Muslims do not control the state. The Muslim cannot fully establish the rulings of Islam. He is in a state of Kitman; he suffices with personal obligations: prayer, fasting, zakat, hajj, etc. Here, the rulings of Islam are not applied, for example. I don’t want to focus too much on Hudud (penal laws) because Hudud are a part of the details. But Islam as a whole… we are currently in the period of Kitman. We pray, fast, give zakat, perform hajj. The rest of the matters are left to the state. The state applies them or not; it is free, and we do not interfere. This is Kitman. Al-Shira’ (Purchase/Sacrifice) is when oppression becomes widespread in society, and a type of awareness arises among a group of people, and they revolt against the oppressive ruler. They revolt if the revolution has a high chance of success. Revolution against oppression, provided that there is no aggression against property or innocent people. Usually, the revolution is from the outside, meaning they leave the capital or the country, as occurred in Tunisia in 2011. We call this Shira’ only, but with the condition that there is no aggression against property or people. This is a very essential and necessary condition. Al-Difa’ (Defense) is when the enemy attacks, the community organizes its ranks. For example, in all these matters, the state is involved. But in the past, when, for example, the Hafsid state existed, and the enemy came to attack Jerba, and the Hafsid state was in Tunis, 600 km away, for armies to come from Tunis… done. Jerba… the people of Jerba organized their ranks and chose a person they called ‘Imam of Defense’, because organization requires someone to lead. If the people of Jerba are victorious over the attackers, they either choose or elect this person for Duhur if Duhur is possible, otherwise they remain in a state of Kitman. As I told you from the beginning, after the fall of the Rustamid state, the Ibadis refrained from establishing a state, so they definitively moved to the period of Kitman. Are matters clear? Good, good, good.
Interviewer: Because some understood Kitman as Taqiyya (dissimulation).
Shaykh Sassi: We do not have Taqiyya. And Taqiyya is in speech, not in actions. Taqiyya is in speech, not in actions.
Interviewer: Actions are more important.
Shaykh Sassi: No, actions are more important, but especially actions that lead to committing sins. For example, actions like drinking alcohol – not permissible, even with Taqiyya. Not permissible.
Interviewer: Correct, correct.
Shaykh Sassi: But to say, for example… ‘except one who is forced while his heart is firm in faith’ (Qur’an 16:106) – this verse is clear. When we… we hope to reach this. But if someone goes to another country, a non-Muslim state, and they torture Muslims and say: ‘Disbelieve in my Lord, or we will kill you’ – it is permissible for you to do so in speech, not in action.
Interviewer: Clear. Do you recognize the legitimacy of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates?
Shaykh Sassi: We do not recognize them, nor do we consider them caliphates. Rather, they were oppressive kingship (mulkan ‘adudan).
Interviewer: What does ‘adudan’ mean?
Shaykh Sassi: Kingship meaning seized by force and inherited by force. And this is established in your sources?
Shaykh Sassi: This is established in Sunni sources before our sources. We rely on reliable history books. Mu’awiyah seized power. He made a peace treaty with Al-Hasan on the condition that he would rule justly, and then after him, rule would be by consultation (shura) among Muslims. But he did not do that. He appointed his son Yazid. All sources know who Yazid was in terms of deviation. Then, when the Abbasid state came, they took revenge on the Umayyads and did even more than them.
Interviewer: And did even more than them.
Shaykh Sassi: More than them, of course. History proves that. It is all written in history.
Interviewer: Since you do not recognize these caliphates, does this make you believe that the rule or the Islamic nation at that time was in clear misguidance?
Shaykh Sassi: There is a difference between the nation and the rulers. The history of rule was a history of oppression and tyranny. As for the nation, it still had good in it. Evidence is the emergence of prominent figures in the nation who emerged with their courageous positions, even if only with words, to fight Umayyad tyranny.
Interviewer: According to your Ibadi sources, who was the legitimate imam who should have been the ruler of the Islamic nation in those times?
Shaykh Sassi: The legitimate imam was Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah honor his face) and his son Al-Hasan, according to the peace treaty. After Al-Hasan, the Rustamid state was established in the Maghreb as a legitimate state that applied the Shura. As for the Umayyads and Abbasids, we do not recognize them. There is a famous saying among our scholars: “Two men (Abu Bakr and Umar) and a caliphate (the Rustamid)” meaning the first two caliphs are recognized, then the legitimate caliphate moved to the Rustamids.
Interviewer (final closing statement): Shaykh Sassi, thank you for this comprehensive explanation.
Shaykh Sassi: Thank you. Allah bless you. This is our school: following the Qur’an and Sunnah, based on justice, consultation, and the purification of hearts. We are Muslims first, and we extend our hands to all who seek truth and brotherhood. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
“Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided” (Qur’an 16:125)
“Do they feel secure from Allah’s plan? None can feel secure from Allah’s plan except the people who are losers.” (Qur’an 7:99)
﷽
Our colleague recalls the first time they encountered this sentiment from an individual from another school. “Look! This Ibadi scholar says that Non Ibadis are going to hell!” They claimed they had the Arabic text, the book, the quote of the author, the whole package.
It turns out that the statement was that Non Ibadis are guilty of kufr ni’ama (ungrateful of blessings). However, this same nomenclature is used by Ibadis, who commits major sins as well.
So we find these claims incredulous and extremely insincere. Contrary to popular belief, takfir is not a known way with us (those who follow the Ibadi school).
Anyone who says the shahadatayn is a Muslim by default. Just to be clear, this means the Ahmadis, Sunnis (including the Salafis, Sufis, Deobandis, Dhahiri, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Hanafi schools), The Shi’i (including the Ismaili, Zaydi, Ithnā ʿAshariyyah). This is the default position with us. All of them are afforded what is afforded a Muslim brother or sister.
That is because it is common knowledge that when you meet any individual you deal with them on the basis of their dhahir (their apparent). People’s beliefs are not known unless they divulge them. When they do, one of their rights upon us is that we correct their errors.
It is important to know that we are not Ibadis who follow Islam. Rather, we are Muslims who follow the Ibadi school. If we put our sectarian label first, how can our commitment ever be to the truth?
In fact, in our experience, we have known of Ithnā ʿAshariyyah Shi’i, who left the beliefs of his sect behind but retrained the fiqh (jurisprudence of their prayer). Possibly he did not see the need to reinvent the wheel. The same can be said of a Nizari Ismaili who kept the label because he wanted the social contacts that came with the affiliation, but he no longer believed in their creed. Or the Sunni who doesn’t believe the Qur’an is uncreated or that he will see Allah in the hereafter.
So who knows best the inward state and condition of any individual at any given time?
So all we have are labels and dealing with the dhahir (the apparent).
Who is truer than Allah (swt) who says:
“You cannot guide whoever you please: it is Allah who guides whom He will. He best knows those who would accept guidance.” (Qur’an 28:56)
The simple fact that all schools of traditional Islam (even pseudo-Islamic groups) have exclusivist statements.
We have said it before, and we will say it again: Every Muslim is some other Muslims non-Muslim.
It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said:
“The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The main body.”
In a recent irony, someone from another school brought up that view among some Ibadi scholars that followers of other schools are in kufr ni’ama (ungrateful of blessings). Then this same person claimed that his school was saved, and he quoted the hadith of the 73 groups.
Imagine the irony of the thinking involved here: “Did you know that your school has exclusivist views and, therefore, it is flawed. However, my school has exclusivist views and it is correct.”
Like, really, what was the thought process here? “Look! Your school has scholars who have this view and others who do not. Yet, come and join my school, where there is unanimity that everyone else but us goes to hell. That is because they are the people of innovation.”
We advised concerning dealing with people like him the following:
“Ask him about the 73 sects hadith, are we Ibadi that magical saved group or are we on Pan Am Flight 72 with an express ticket to hell?”
“If we are on Pan Am Flight 72, ask him how long we are in hell for? If he says, 17 minutes, 100 years, a billion, reply: “See you in heaven big guy!” If he says “forever”, then put your hand on your hip and say it in your best Southern Mississippi accent and say: “Darling, look at you over here kicking up a fuss!”
For those who do not understand our sense of humor, the question is very straightforward.
It is to ask this individual how they understand the ultimate destiny of the other 72 sects — aka Pan Am Flight 72? If the rest of us (Ibadi and others) go to hell, what is the duration?
a) If it is only for a little while, then as per instructions to reply to him: “See you in heaven big guy!”
b) If it is forever well, then our second reply is equally relevant: “Darling, look at you over here kicking up a fuss!” Meaning to say: Then why is it a big deal if we have exclusivist views which you, yourself and your school hold onto? This also means they believe that Muslims burn in hell forever.
c) A way out of the dilemma presented by a and b is to make takfir of the other 72 groups. Which expells them from Islam altogther; andn makes the group or individuals takfiris. If that is not exculusivist we don’t know what is.
EXCLUSIVIST VIEWS ARE NOT SOMETHING NOVEL TO THE IBADI SCHOOL.
Recall what what we said above:
The simple fact is that all schools of traditional Islam (even pseudo-Islamic groups) have these types of exclusivist statements.
The Qadiani sect, which is considered pseudo-Islamic due to its belief in another Prophet after Muhammed (saw) has a similar position to some in the Ibadi school on the concept of kufr ni’ama (though they do not use this terminology). Their moto is : Love for All, Hate for None. However, all Muslims who do not accept their views are Kafir.
The above stance is very clear who those will be going to heaven. The title Muslim for other sects is futile when it comes to the day of judgment. This, however, is actually a very moderate position.
The above belief you will findamong 12er Shi’i and Imami Shi’i in general, that whoever does not recognize the Imam of the time dies the death of a kafir (unbeliever).
This would mean that different Imami Shi’i groups would takfir each other after splits or schisms.
A concerned member of the Ismaili sect sent us the following concerning the refutation of the Nizari Ismaili (he himself) being a Mustaali Ismaili. He wrote to us of his concern that Nizar, in their view, was a shyster and a fraud.
“Hey brother , I’ll send a reply to the first question later on. Concerning the Nizari-Mustaali split and how to know who is the actual Imam. The primary evidence for any Imam is the Nass from the previous Imam, we as Fatimid Ismailis can demonstrate that Imam Mustaali is the true Imam through the following points :
1-His Nass from his father Imam Mustansir as mentioned in our sources you can find it in Al-Sijillat Al-Mustansariya and Uyun Al-Akhbar. Our Nizari friends fail in providing Nizars Nass.
2- The big Dais of Imam Mustansir in Yemen one of them the Sayyida Arwa Alsulaihi who was the Imams Hujjah (a hujjah is someone very close to the Imam and knows his secrets in a nutshell) all recognized Mustaali as Imam even those in Egypt recognized his Imamate.
3- The family of the Fatimids also recognized Mutaalis Imamate including all his brothers and even Nizars close sister witnessed that Nizar was never an Imam.
4- Nizars fishy behavior makes it even more doubtful that his claims in Imamate were Genuine. e.g Al-Maqrizi mentions in his book that when Mustaali became Imam-Khalifa Nizar refused to accept his Imamate and claimed that he has a Nass from his father, he was given time to go and bring his alleged Nass to the Fatimid officials but instead he secretly escaped to Alexandria and caused a civil war.
“IF he was indeed an Imam and has a Nass why didn’t he show it to the Fatimids and their officials? That would be strong evidence for his case, instead he ran away not demonstrating any evidence for his claim. This behavior shows that his claims were not true and he just wanted the power and prestige of being a Caliph for his own good.“
We wish the brother would do some introspection. Because, by his own admission, this statement itself is enough to show that not everyone who is a descendant of Ali is an upright individual.
Among the Zaydi Shi’i we have, for example, the following:
Watch and listen to what he says, citing what came in the book “Al-Ahkam” by Yahya al-Rassi, who brought Zaydism to Yemen. “Islam is not complete except by the guardianship of Ali. The imamate of Ali is one of the pillars of Islam. No one escapes the punishment of the Merciful, nor is the name of faith fulfilled for him, until he believes in the guardianship of Ali with certainty of certainty.”
For us, we do not find this to be a creedal issue or even one of its branches. For Zaydi, this is obviously not the case.
Making Takfir upon other groups or sects is not a known way with us.
Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah (The People of the Sunnah and the Group). The name itself implies that ‘They’ are the only people following the Sunnah: as if Shi’i or Ibadis do not eat with their right hands, wear beards etc.
Does Imam Malik get hard core on the Ibadis?
What does the text attributed to Imam Malik say?
And DO NOT pray behind the Ibadis-Neither should their dead be prayed over nor should they’re deceased be followed to the burial. Nor, should their sick be visited. It is more beloved to me that one should leave the home/city/country where the Ibadis are.
The Ibadis/ Hururis, and all people of desire: I believe they should repent; either they repent or they are to be killed.
What is important to note about the above image is that only the green part of the text is attributed to Imam Malik. All the red parts indicate that the rest of the page belongs to Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam. So, even if not authentically attributed to Malik there were certainly people who held such views and wanted to attribute them to Malik.
The vast majority of their scholars uphold the validity of the hadith of the 73 groups (though they have dissenting views). Those that uphold that hadith believe that every other group (Ibadis, Shi’i, Mu’tazilah etc….are on that Pan Am Flight 72, meaning we are all bound for hellfire.
However, it doesn’t stop there.
And among them are major divisions.
Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah (The People of the Sunnah and the Group)
Salafi/Athari — very often believe that followers of the other schools of aqidah (creed), Ashari/Maturidi, are going to hell and vice versa. (Though there are dissenting views).
There is the Deobandi and Barelvis split. With many among them considering the other to be outright kafir (and for them that means outside the fold of Islam).
If you think for one moment that those loveable hugable Sufis are all above the board when it comes to politics, mud slinging and even violence. Well, let us hold up a mirror and show you a person who has never been affiliated with a Sufi Tariqa.
Lots of rivalry and fighting (often leading to violence among them.
The “Battle of the Book Seven” (Internal Mevlevi Conflict) A fascinating example of rivalry within a single order is the controversy over Rumi’s Mathnawī in the 17th century. This dispute shows how doctrinal interpretation could split a community and draw in outside authorities.
The Spark: The renowned Mevlevi shaykh Ismāʿīl Rusūkhī Anqarawī wrote a commentary on what he claimed was the “Book Seven” of Rumi’s Mathnawī. The problem was that the vast majority of Mevlevis believed Rumi’s masterpiece consisted of only six books and considered the seventh text apocryphal.
The Rivalry: This created a bitter internal rift within the Mevlevi order. Anqarawī and his followers were pitted against other Mevlevi shaykhs who saw his work as an illegitimate innovation.
THE HADITH OF THE 73 SECTS ANALYZED & NEUTRALIZED BY THE IBADIS
From what we know (and we admit our collective ignorance of the other schools in this regard), from what we know is that we are the first among the schools of Islamto interpret the hadith of the 73 groups under a lens and either reject it, or interpret it in a more ecumenical fashion.
We are not aware of any school of Islam that has preceded us in this. If you, the reader, find information to the contrary, feel free to correct us.
The above book is: Kitab al Wada’ Al Mukhtasar Fi Usul Al -Fiqh Abu Zakariyah Yahya B. Abil Khayer Al Jannawiny. Commentary by: Shaykh Ibrahim At-Fayyish.
The comment is concerning Muslims being divided into 73 sects. All will be in loss, except one, and they will all claim that their group is the one that is correct.
In the comments under the line: He states: “It is better to bring the sayings or the view of Shamsu-Deen Abu Ya’aqub Yusuf B. Ibrahim al-Warijilani (May Allah have abundant mercy on him) (d. 570 ah)
Shaykh Shamsu-Deen says: “Whoever worshiped Allah, that which came to him from Islam and that one was ‘wara in his din (that means that person was pious). He was not eating haram. This person had ‘wara (self vigilance against the haram). This one does not say, ‘I am right, and he is wrong’ This one will escape and be on the path to safety. This applies to everyone who follows Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of his Prophet (saw) up to what has reached that individual from his madhab (his school) and this one has not said bad things by his tongue to the Muslims. That would be enough for him because this is what has reached him of his religion by his striving and sincere efforts and ability. The group that escapes is the one that follows the Prophet (saw) and his companions (the pious among them).”
When you look at the time in which the venerable Shaykh al-Warijilani (r) lived, his view would be quite progressive by today’s standards.
Next we have this intelligent insight into the hadith by the Ibadi master Shaykh Ali Yahya Muammar (r). This is a very short, concise and insightful read.
We are in agreement with the assessment of this master, Shaykh Ali Yahya Muammar (r)
““The hadith states that each of these sects will claim that it is saved. The claim of every sect that is alone is the saved one is only natural: only a madman would insist on following a sect that will perish. The members of each of the sects have tried hard to prove that they follow the truth and are on the right path, the one followed by the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace and his companions, and that all others have strayed from the way of God, in both doctrine and conduct.”
We would also like to bring your attention to the understanding of the hadith of the 73 groups by Shaykh Hatim Abdis-Salam (May continue to bless him).
The following video is titled: PARADISE IS FOR WHO? (Shaykh Dr. Majid Al Kindi. The general custodian of the Iftaa office in Oman. A very knowledgeable scholar with two PhDs.
The following is a translation of the respected Shaykh
“That is Paradise, which We give as inheritance to those of Our servants who were fearing (of Allah).”
“And not for the one who was an ibadi, nor a hanafi, nor a shafi’, nor a maliki and not for other than them from every group, whether it being from a school of theology or a school of jurisprudence, (but) for the one who was God-fearing (God conscious).”
“That which we have affection for and desire, is that people leave all of these labels and commit to that which Allah the Almighty has labelled us when He said,
“And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [It is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you “Muslims” before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give zakah and hold fast to Allah . He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.”
This is what we want.
And the Imam (May Allah have mercy on him), when he was asked about the school (ie. al-Ibadiyyah) and its naming, he (May Allah have mercy on him) replied by saying, “We don’t have any school except Islam.”
So, we don’t take the individual’s understanding as Islam or the Shariah of Allah. It is instead ideas that people have come with and call to.”
THERE ARE NO SECTS AT THE GATES OF HELL.
Even though Shaykh Dawud Al BuSinan (h) is of our school, he is giving us a clear and sobering reminder!
So where does your aqidah lead you to? Does it lead you to cause fasad; have pride, disobey Allah; sin more and fear him less? Make light of his promises and punishments and that of his blessed Prophets (upon them all be peace). Does it encourage you to do good and speak good. There is no gate in heaven called: “Ibadiyyah gate.” There is most likely someone who follows our school, and they are the worst sinner than any of the other groups and Allah (swt) knows best!
Shaykh Khalfan ibn Muhammad Al Esry (may Allah have Mercy on him), a prominent Omani scholar, and a member of the state council
SECTARIANISM IS CAUSING DIVISION: OUR MISSION A UNIFIED UMMAH — By Shaykh Khalfan ibn Muhammed Al Esry (May Allah have mercy on him) He is a prominent Omani scholar, and he was a former member of the Omani state council (before he passed away)
IF IBADIS ARE NOT GOING TO CHUCK EVERYONE IN HELL THAN WHY FOLLOW THE SCHOOL?
In an interesting and unfortunate turn of events that once happened in our English WhatsApp group, a brother objected: “Well, if we are not sure if they are all going to hell, then what is the point?” What he means is what is the point of propagating this school of thought?
We feel there is a huge misunderstanding here. How can we be deciders of who goes to heaven or hell when we are not certain about ourselves? How can we be deniers of who goes to paradise when we are not guarantors of paradise ourselves?
In fact, this very much sets us apart from those schools that believe they will all go to heaven (even after a brief sojourn in hell). We have no such position.
For many of us, we follow this school because it is the most sensible and honest about what happened in the past. We discuss it and move on. We are not fiaxted with the past.
We find this school most cohesive and cogent in its theological positions and that gives me peace of mind and peace of heart. We find this school to be a school frozen in time, as if we can see and live the very Islam of the companions. May Allah be pleased with them. We find this school holding fast to the Qur’an and being fervent in calling to the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Though we have our hardline views, we are also welcoming and willing and ever ready to work with other schools of Islam. We marry Sunni and Shi’i. Our scholars read the works and writings of all other schools of Islam because we recognize and believe what Allah (swt) says:
“He gives wisdom to whom He chooses, and whoever is given wisdom is blessed abundantly. But only insightful people bear this in mind.” (Qur’an 2:269)
Knowledge is not an exclusive to the Ibadi school.
We are probably the only school in Islam in which our scholars have given legal verdicts given the permissibility to pray behind the Imams of other schools. Nor do we issue fatawa saying to kill other Muslims who have different aqidah.
WE HAVE NOT DONE A GOOD JOB OF CLARIFYING THESE POINTS TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE OUR SCHOOL
Observe:
So recently this website received the following comment:
So, we head on over to Shaykh Wikipedia and what do we see? We see impossible feats of mathematics!
“Ibadism is currently the second-largest Muslim denomination in Oman with over a third of its population being adherents.”
“Ibadis still form the majority of the contemporary Omani population and the royal family of Oman are Ibadi.”
Prima Qur’an has a question for Shaykh Wikipedia. How are we the second-largest denomination and yet still form the majority of the population? Your math is not mathing.
However, it looks like the real source of the misunderstanding with Shaykh Wikipedia was from Ms. Valerie Hoffmans book: Source: The Essentials of Ibadi Islam:-Valerie J. Hoffman.(pg. 30)
“Although one must treat non-Ibadi Muslims with the courtesy that all monotheists deserve, according to classical Ibadi doctrine, neither they nor sinning Ibadis will be allowed into paradise. They are doomed to hellfire.”-Valerie Hoffman
This is extremely reckless and can be the cause of real-life physical attack upon those in our community. For example, it has NEVER been the position of the Ibadi school that sinning Ibadi or sinning non-Ibadi Muslims are doomed to hellfire. The position has ALWAYS been that Ibadi’s who repent are subject to the mercy of Allah. Second, as regards non-Ibadi, at the very least a person needs to be: mukallāf—someone pubescent and sane. Next, the clear evidence has to be presented to the individual, and we take as evidence the following:
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32). That judgement can only be passed on non-Ibadi on the basis of masail al-din and not masail al-ra’y.
If she bothered to look into the position of the school in regard to the theological position as regards those who Islam may not have reached (isolated islands etc.) she would have appreciated it as much.
Again, personally, we find it a bit of a disrespect. Here you are being welcomed in a country by its people. They open up their libraries and manuscripts to you. The claim is that you are exposing the Western world to Ibadhism. Yet, you leave comments like the above which could have been clarified. It is certainly not helpful. In regard to one passing comment, it is actually dangerous in today’s hyper-sectarian world not to clarify the position of the school or at the very least pass over the matter.
One thing you will get from Prima Qur’an is full disclosure, transparency and the fact that we believe in laying the cards on the table.
THE “HARD LINE POSITION” AMONG IBADI SCHOLARS CONCERNING NON IBADI MUSLIMS.
So remember what we said about the term: “Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah”. Well, in general we call ourselves as: Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness). So the very name can imply that others are not people of truth or straightness. Just as the term Ahl Sunnah can imply that others are not following the Sunnah.
If you watch this video on YouTube, do take note of the comments below. The updated comments in the black text are provided by our sincere brother. The brother that is doing his level best to provide all of you with unfiltered information. May Allah (swt) reward him for his sincere efforts! We will provide those comments below:
This is an important video by the late Qadi, Shaykh Salim bin Khalfan al Rashidi(May Allah have mercy on him) where he talks about who will go to heaven and refutes the common notion put forth by people that Ibadis believe only they will go to heaven.(May Allah make this video open our hearts and ease us all and make us amongst the people of Jannah, Ameen. * I think that I need to make this clear to not misunderstand the qadi. Basically, for us Ibadis, all those who disagree with us on anything of aqeeda/belief/whatever you call it, is in Bara’ah. Because in Aqeeda there can only be one absolute truth, unlike fiqh issues where khilaf is possible. But does that mean we say they’ll go to hellfire? No (as they may have repented). Go to Jannah? No. Rather, their judgment is up to Allah (swt). And when someone says it’s not only Ibadis that’ll enter Jannah, then that’s true, as the name is not necessary rather the belief is.* This translation was done by the Ahlul Haqq wal Istiqamah English group, link to our discord is below.
Prima Qur’an comments: May Allah (swt) bless this brother.
So, basically, this is the so-called “hardline view.” We have already mentioned that every sect, or school in Islam has exclusivist views. This is nothing novel to the Ibadi school.
So this line of thinking is that Non-Ibadi Muslims are in a state of “Kufr Ni’ama” — recall the perspective of the Qadiani sect above. That they are still Muslims but because they have rejected the truth. Rejecting the truth = being in a state of sin.
The evidence must be presented.
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
So we can see in the first verse the first condition. “How then are you turned away?”
The proof must come to them by proof it can be : from (messengers, scholars, TV, Internet), whichever way by invitation. Even reading this blog.
You have to present the evidence. You cannot be turned away from something not presented to you. We are 100% supportive of this position, not because this is due to our desires, it is because it is self-evident. If one sees the truths and strengths and evidence of this school, acknowledges it and turns away, they are without doubt in ‘kufr ni’ama’ and if they die in that state, then the apparent with us is that they will meet a terrible ending. As do all who reject the truth. However, in the end, ultimately, Allah is the judge.
“And those who argue about God after having answered His call, their argument has no basis whatsoever with their Lord. Anger enfolds them, and a severe punishment awaits them.” (Qur’an 42:16)
2. Being Baligh, Mukallak or Muhallaq!
“And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and under the wall was a treasure that belonged to them, and their father had been a righteous man. So your Lord willed that these children should come of age and retrieve their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord. I did not do it ˹all˺ on my own. This is the explanation of what you could not bear patiently.” (Qur’an 18:82)
“Test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then, if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them.” (Qur’an 4:6)
It is clear that for one to be able to be entrusted to receive their property and or wealth, they must be both physically and mentally capable to care for it. If this is for the dunya — which is dust and perishing, how much more for the hereafter which is forever and enduring?
Baligh, Mukallak or Muhallaq, one who has reached puberty and mentally matured. That is when they come under Taklif responsibility. Considering that out of 1.8 billion Muslims with an explosion in youth population, how many countless millions who are not of the Ibadi school and at any given time and are not baligh, mukallak or muhallaq!
3. Masa’il Ad-Din & Masa’il Al-Ra’y What the differences must be concerning:
As mentioned above: “Because in Aqeeda there can only be one absolute truth, unlike fiqh issues where khilaf is possible.“
Masa’il Ad-Din: Matters that are proven from the clear nass (text) on aqeeda — the Ahl Khilaf (People of the opposition, those who oppose our school) should not disagree with us on matters of aqeeda, or they would be in “Kufr Ni’ama.”
Masa’il Al-Ra’y: Matters that pertain to (usul al fiqh), if it is a clear text, then there is no room for ijtihad; however, if it is not a clear text, the ijtihad is in the text itself.
4. The different categories of Ahl Khilaf.
A) Muqallids: Understanding that the majority of the people of all schools (including the Ibadi school) are Muqallid—That means one who practices Taqlid. They follow qualified scholars according to their school without knowing the evidence (dalil, burhan, and hujat).
B) Scholars of the different schools.
Further divided into two:
B1) Scholars who have received the evidence, understood the evidence,acknowledge the evidence. Or they knowingly reject the evidence= “Kufr Ni’ama” (Judgement is based upon the dhahir in this case, we are correct) — We judge according to the apparent.
B2) Scholars that are not catching the evidence are not comprehending the evidence. (From the outward we perceive they are rejecting the truth) (Judgement is based upon the dhahir in this case, we are in error) — We judge according to the apparent.
5. A clear delivery of the truth.
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Quran 64:12)
The Blessed Messenger (saw) is said to have delivered the message clearly. So how about non-Messenger humans that use our own styles and methods to speak and demonstrate and use of reasoning which may or may not be flawed?
“˹Say to the believers, O Prophet,˺ “Whatever you may differ about, its judgment rests with Allah. That is Allah—my Lord. In Him I put my trust, and to Him I ˹always˺ turn.” (Qur’an 42:10)
5. Factor of Time. The time needed to comprehend and implement the truth of any particular subject.
For example, a new individual just embraces Islam. The upcoming time for prayer is coming. Is this person excused from the prayer? No they are not. However, they do not know the dalil, burhan, and hujat concerning the prayer. How much time is needed for someone to know the akham — meaning what is wajib (obligatory), mustahabb (recommended), muharram (outright forbidden), makruh (disliked), halal (permissible).
And this is only for prayer. How much more time is needed to establish certainty in other disciplines, like aqeeda.
TOP SCHOLARS OF THE IBADI SCHOOL HAVE SIGNED THE AMMAN MESSAGE.
Ibadi Muslims signed the Amman accords.
The Grand Mufti and Assistant Grand Mufti both signed.
Top scholars of our school have signed the Amman Message. Shaykh Ahmad bin Hamad Al -Khalili (h) the Mufti of the Sultanate of Oman.
Shaykh Dr. Kahlan bin Nahban Al-Kharusi (h) The Jurisprudential Advisor in the Office for the Issuance of Fatwas.
The Muslims can continue to compete and vie with one other for influence over the Ummah of Muhammed (saw).
So respectful engagement is absolutely key to having meaningful discussion. We have Husn al-Dhan, that Muslims from other sects are generally brought up with good parenting. This is the default thinking in regard to them. However, when a Muslim from another sect starts to hurl abuse and insults, we shut down. The dialogue stops immediately. Is this because we wish to retreat? No. Because at that moment the thinking among us is that your parents brought you up with good mannerisms. Mannerism that you are now ignoring. Which means you must not respect your parents. If you do not respect your parents, how can you respect us or even the conversation?
“So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you ˹of the truth˺ regarding your differences.” (Qur’an 5:48)
However, it is also incumbent upon us to work together when ever and however we can for the betterment of the communities and countries that each of us live in. Social cohesion is a prerequisite to convey the truth. For, after all, who can convey the truth among the piercing sounds of gunfire and the terrified screams of little children?
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“And from the people, there are those who will purchase a baseless narratives with which to mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge, and to make it a mockery. These will have a humiliating retribution.” (Qur’an 31:6)
﷽
“The Myth of the Mahdi” Is among the clearest evidence of the falsehood of the hadiths about the Mahdi and the falsehood of the appearance of his character at the end of time, and that it is a purely Hashimite fabrication.
Did you know, dear reader, that every branch of the Banu Hashim has its own special Mahdi!? The Abbasids—branch of Al-Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim: They claimed that the Mahdi is the caliph Muhammed ibn Abdullah, Abu Ja’far al-Mansur.
The Alawites—branch of Ali ibn Abi Talib ibn Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim: The Hasanids—branch of Al-Hasan ibn Ali: They claimed that the Mahdi is Muhammed ibn Abdullah, known as Al-Nafs al-Zakiyya.
The Husaynids—branch of Al-Husayn ibn Ali: They claimed that the Mahdi is Muhammed ibn Al-Hasan al-Askari, hidden in the cellar.
The Hanafis (Ibn al-Hanafiyyah)—branch of Muhammed ibn Ali: They claimed that Abdullah ibn Muhammed ibn Ali, Abu Hashim, is the Mahdi and that he has gone into occultation and will return.
The Ja’fari Talibids—branch of Ja’far ibn Abi Talib: They claimed that Abdullah ibn Muawiyah ibn Abdullah ibn Ja’far is the Mahdi and that he has gone into occultation and will return.
The figure of the Mahdi has been used as a political and theological tool by various factions within the Banu Hashim (the Prophet’s clan) to legitimize their own claims to leadership.
Let’s break down the evidence we’ve presented.
The Political Utility of the Mahdi
Our central argument—that the Mahdi is a “Hashimite priestly fabrication”—aligns with the scholarly view that messianic figures often emerge in times of political crisis or succession disputes. In early Islam, the idea of a restorer of justice (the Mahdi) was particularly useful for:
Legitimizing a new caliph: Claiming that a ruler is the Mahdi gave him divine sanction.
Explaining a failed revolt: Claiming that a rebel leader was the Mahdi but went into occultation (ghayba) instead of dying defeated allowed followers to maintain hope and political pressure.
Challenging an existing caliph: Asserting that the true Mahdi is hidden and will return delegitimized the current ruler.
Examples: A Survey of Hashimite Mahdis
We’ve listed several factions, each with its own Mahdi. Let’s verify and expand slightly:
Branch of Banu Hashim
Claimed Mahdi
Key Detail
Abbasids
Muhammed ibn Abdullah (Abu Ja’far al-Mansur, the second Abbasid caliph)
He was proclaimed Mahdi by some early Abbasid propagandists to rally support against the Umayyads. Later Abbasid caliphs like al-Mahdi (r. 775–785) even took the title.
Hasanids
Muhammed ibn Abdullah al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (“The Pure Soul”)
He led a major revolt against the Abbasids in 762 CE. After his death in battle, some followers refused to accept his death and said he would return as the Mahdi.
Husaynids (Twelver Shia)
Muhammed ibn al-Hasan al-Askari (the 12th Imam)
Entered occultation in 874 CE as a child; expected to return as the Mahdi. This became the mainstream Twelver doctrine. The “cellar” (sardab) in Samarra is a pilgrimage site.
Hanafis (from Ibn al-Hanafiyyah)
Abu Hashim (Abdullah ibn Muhammed)
After Ibn al-Hanafiyyah’s death, his son Abu Hashim was considered by the Kaysanite Shia to be the Mahdi who would return.
Ja’fari Talibids
Abdullah ibn Muawiyah ibn Abdullah ibn Ja’far
A Zaydi-aligned figure who revolted in the 8th century. His followers claimed he was the Mahdi and had gone into occultation.
The Problem This Poses for Traditional Understandings.
If the Mahdi were a genuine, unambiguous prophecy from the Blessed Prophet Muhammad (saw), you would expect:
One consistent figure across all Hashimite branches.
Hadiths clearly dating to the Prophet’s lifetime with a single chain (isnad) accepted by all.
No need for post-facto “occultations” to explain historical failures.
Instead, what we see is:
Multiple, contradictory Mahdis emerging after political defeats (e.g., after the deaths of al-Nafs al-Zakiyya, Abu Hashim, and al-Askari).
Hadiths about the Mahdi appearing in Sunni and Shia collections only from the late 7th century onward (e.g., in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, d. 855 CE), not in the earliest surviving hadith works like the Musnad Al-Imam Ar-Rabee’ (Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih), the Muwatta of Malik (d. 795 CE), Bukhari and Muslim– showing the tradition developed over time.
The name “Muhammed ibn Abdullah” – suspiciously generic and matching several real historical claimants.
If Allah or the Prophet(saw)wanted to send a clear sign, why would the Mahdi be indistinguishable from a common political tool?
Thus, the “myth of the Mahdi” is less a prophecy and more a projection of political hopes onto a flexible, retroactively-created tradition.
You may be interested in reading the following article:
What happens is that people who have more knowledge than ordinary people will come to them with a list and try and overwhelm them with a mountain of evidence. But a pile of dust, even if it reaches the sky, is still but a pile of dust.
For example:
Names of the Imams who recorded the hadiths and reports concerning the Mahdi in their books:
Abu Dawud in his Sunan
Al-Tirmidhi in his Jami’
Ibn Majah in his Sunan
Ibn Abi Shaybah in Al-Musannaf
Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) in his Musnad
Al-Harith ibn Abi Usamah in his Musnad
Al-Bazzar in his Musnad
Ibn Hibban in his Sahih
Al-Hafiz Abu Nu’aym in Kitab al-Mahdi and in Al-Hilyah
Al-Tabari in Al-Kabir, Al-Awsat, and Al-Saghir
Al-Daraqutni in Al-Afrad
Abu Ya’la al-Mawsili in his Musnad
Al-Barudi in Ma’rifat al-Sahabah
Al-Khatib in Talkhis al-Mutashabih and in Al-Muttafaq wal-Muftariq
Ibn ‘Asakir in his Tarikh
Ibn Mandah in Tarikh Asbahan
Tamam al-Razi in his Fawa’id
Ibn Jarir in Tahdhib al-Athar
Abu Bakr ibn al-Muqri’ in his Mu’jam
Abu ‘Amr al-Dani in his Sunan
It all looks very impressive at first. Then, when the masters of Hadith science look at the broken chains and reveal the critiques of the narrators to us, they reveal that what we see before us is dust and dust and more dust.
Implications for the current geopolitical situation of Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah.
The followers of Muhammed ibn al-Hasan are becoming disillusioned. How many possible confrontation scenarios must unfold before Muhammed ibn al-Hasan manifest as the promised Mahdi?
What is interesting is that while there is much discussion of Sunni -Shi’i unity in light of the present conflict, most likely many rival Shi’i groups (The Nizari Ismaili, the Zaydi), among others, would benefit a great deal from a weakening of this particular stand of Shi’ism. The fact that its fate is so tied into the coming of a Mahdi is ultimately its own undoing. Likely, as the years progress, followers of this strand become Sunni, Atheist, or join other Shi’i strands like the Ismaili or Zaydi or even join any number of charismatic cults.
Concluding thoughts.
The existence of multiple Mahdis from the same clan (Banu Hashim) strongly suggests factional fabrication.
The timing (after deaths or defeats) is textbook myth-making.
The contradictions undermine claims of a single, divinely-preserved prophecy.
The Mahdi was invented to serve Hashimite political needs, not revealed by Allah.
“And so, for the breaking of their pledge, and their refusal to acknowledge Allah’s signs, and their slaying of prophets against all right, and their boast, “Our hearts are already full of knowledge”- not so, but Allah has sealed their hearts as a result of their denial of the truth, and now they believe in but few things.” (Qur’an 4:155)
﷽
“And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a terrible slander.”
“And for their saying: “We have killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah!” They did not kill him, nor did they impale him, but it appeared to them so. Those who dispute are in doubt of him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture; they certainly did not kill him.”
“Rather, Allah exalted him in his presence. Allah is Almighty, the Wise.” (Qur’an 4:155-158)
It is important to understand that the whole context of these verses is in reference to Jews. The Qur’an asserts they, their and them all in reference to Jews. There is absolutely no reference to Romans.
The Qur’an asserts that the Jews mocked Jesus, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary the messenger of Allah!’
This is similar to the mocking recorded here:
“And they said, Prophecy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” (Matthew 26:68)
As well as:
“In the same way the chief kohen and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “But he can’t save himself. Let this Messiah, this King of Israel, come down from the cross, that we may see and believe.” (Mark 15:31-32)
It is important to note that the Qur’an in the above passages does not categorically deny the death of Christ Jesus. The Qur’an refutes that Jews were responsible for it.
“They did not kill him” (It means in any way conceivable)
This statement is also asserted here:
“And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) you when you did show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic.'” (Qur’an 5:110)
Qur’an 4:157 is not a reference to the supposed “Crucifixion” either in support or denial. The Qur’an simply does not mention the event known as the ‘Crucifixion’. The Qur’an is simply ambivalent about it.
Also of importance to note is that the Qur’an 4:157 does not interact with the supposed historical event called the “Crucifixion”. There is no mention of the Romans anywhere in the Qur’an 4:157. It does not even interact with Christian historical beliefs at all!
The only place that Allah (swt) mentions Romans is the following text:
“The Romans have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:2)
Some people just see Romans where there are no Romans!
Is Qur’an 4:157 an Anti-Semitic Anti-Jewish Text of the Qur’an?
First, the Qur’an cannot be anti-Semitic, because the Arabs themselves are a Semitic people.
Allah informs us in regard to the children of Israel:
“Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating.” (Qur’an 3:113)
As regards to the clam of Qur’an 4:157 let’s examine the text closely
This is important because most Muslims see Qur’an 4:157 as relating to the so-called “Crucifixion”. They also somehow see Romans in the text! Those Muslims make Jews culpable in the death of Jesus.
Because they somehow, for some ungodly reason, think that the text has to do with Romans crucifying Jesus, they have to make sense of the following:
“BUT IT APPEARED TO THEM SO.“
It is important that the following views all posit cross, crucifixion and Roman involvement in Qur’an 4:157.
View one: Mistaken identity. Allah made someone look like Jesus, and presumably he was killed. Jews are still culpable. They just got the wrong guy. Jews kill “stealth” Jesus.
Second view: Swoon theory. Jews attempted murder via Roman proxy. Jesus was crucified but, he was not crucified to death.
Third view: The Jews didn’t kill Jesus the Romans did! Jews are culpable though, as they hand Jesus over to Roman authorities. The Jews, via Roman proxy, did indeed kill Jesus’ body but not his soul. People like Todd Lawson hold this view.
Prima-Qur’an comments:
Notice that “but it appeared to them so” is in reference to the double denial. Whereas the three views above connect itonly to “they did not (ṣalabūhu) him”.
However, the “but it appeared to them so” is in reference to any and all accusations. It is obvious that all the accusations cannot be synchronous, unless it is to be interpreted as a denial of a death (like stoning) and a post-mortem event (like impaling). Which means that(salabuhu) is not a death act.
Please see our article under the discussion of Qur’an 5:33
The three above views believe somehow there was only one particular event and the people were contemporaneous to said event.
Jews did not kill Jesus at all. They are not culpable, they did not kill the body and they did not use the Romans as proxies. The Qur’an does not affirm any of this.
Anti-Semitic. Anti-Jewish Text of the New Testament?
Note this statement by Paul:
“For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone.” Source: (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)
This one statement, ‘The Jews who killed the Lord Jesus’, has been the bedrock of Christian hatred of Jews for centuries. They were called ‘Christ Killers’ and guilty of committing deicide. Upon this statement, Jews were put in ghettos.
The Protestant Reformer Martin Luther wrote a book: “The Jews and their Lies.”
Some of Martin Luther’s comments were:
That the Jews were: “venomous beasts, vipers, disgusting scum, canders, devils incarnate.”
He also stated: “Their private houses must be destroyed and devastated, they could be lodged in stables. Let the magistrates burn their synagogues and let whatever escapes be covered with sand and mud. Let them be forced to work, and if this avails nothing, we will be compelled to expel them like dogs in order not to expose ourselves to incurring divine wrath and eternal damnation from the Jews and their lies.”
At one point he wrote: “...we are at fault in not slaying them...”
There can be no doubt that such sentiment was influential among Christians who did what they did to Jews during World War 2.
Prior to that, history tells us that:
“On 31 March 1492,Ferdinand 2 of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, the rulers of Spain in 1492, declared that all Jews in their territories should either convert to Christianity or leave the country.”
It is very important that we give you just an overview of why the Qur’an clears Jews of this false charge; as well as the theological, social and political impact that such a belief had among Christians towards Jews.
The Qur’an refutes the idea that Jews did either of two things:
“They did not kill him, nor did they impale him.”
They did not kill him: (Which is a very general meaning. They did not kill him at all)
Nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him.
The Qur’an is interacting with information in circulation among Jews concerning any notion they had about him killing him or playing a part in him being impaled in reference to the idea circulating from oral traditions that Jesus was stoned to death and his body was impaled.
One such report in circulation could be:
Other writings assert that Jesus was killed AND THAN displayed in a tree.
“The mishna teaches that a crier goes out before the condemned man. This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, but from the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve.”
This is, of course, from the Jewish rabbinical literature. It asserts that Jesus was stoned to death for sorcery, idol worship and leading the Jewish people astray — all charges of which Allah clears Christ Jesus from.
By the way, the above text is taken from the Jewish Sanhedrin. Many times we have noted that Christian apologists will cut the passage up and not mention anything about stoning. Some people can be very slippery.
Remember that according to the Gospel of John, Jews say to Pilate:
“Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” “But we have no right to execute anyone,” they objected.” (John 18:31)
However, this itself is flatly contradicted by the following:
“Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council.” (Acts 6:11-12)
” The Jews and religious leaders listened to Stephen. Then they became angry and began to grind their teeth at him. He was filled with the Holy Spirit. As he looked up to heaven, he saw the shining-greatness of God and Jesus standing at the right side of God. He said, “See! I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right side of God!” They cried out with loud voices. They put their hands over their ears and they all pushed on him. Then they took him out of the city and threw stones at him. The men who were throwing the stones laid their coats down in front of a young man named Saul. While they threw stones at Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” After that he fell on his knees and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he died.” (Acts 7:54-60)
In fact, several times the Gospel accounts tell us that Jews tried to stone Jesus.
“At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.” (John 8:59)
“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him..” (John 10:31)
Those Jews certainly don’t sound like people who would say, ” But wehave no right to execute anyone, “
“And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree.” (Acts 10:39)
Jesus was put to death first and than hanged on a tree.
“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew and hanged on a tree.” (Acts 5:30)
Jesus was put to death first and then hanged on a tree.
By the way, some translations see the problem with the above text, and they cover this up by saying: “Hung him on the tree and killed him.” or ‘Killed him by hanging him on the tree.”
Again very slippery.
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangs on a TREE.” (Galatians 3:13)
(This is the text that will eventually come back to haunt the Christians.)
Note: The above-mentioned verse is found here:
“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not listen to them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place; And they will say to the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city should stone him with stones, that he will die: so that you put evil away from among you; and all Israel will hear, and fear.”
“If a man guilty of a sin worthy of death, and is put to death AND his corpse hung on a tree, it shall not remain on the tree overnight. You shall bury it the same day, otherwise, since God’s curse rest on him who hangs on a tree, you will defile the land which the Lord, your God is giving you as an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-23)
The Hebrew root ת.ל.ה/י can mean hang. But in the context of corpses, it means “impale,” and thus עץ here means not “tree” or “gallows” but “stake.”
You will notice this as well when you look at disparate translations of the text.
‘Hung on a tree‘ or ‘impaled on a tree.’
In any case, the hanging or impaling was not the means used to execute the criminal; he was first put to death by the ordinary means, stoning, and his corpse was then exposed on high as a salutary warning for others.” Source: (New American Bible pg. 180 commentary on Deuteronomy 21)
So what is the objective of Qur’an 4:157-158 ?
a) It repudiates the claims of those Jews who claimed that they killed him in any way shape or form. In this case, the ‘they didn’t kill him’ would be a reference to stoning.
b) It repudiates the claims of those Jews who claimed the impailed Jesus. The text clearly mentions salabu-impailed. Jesus died by being impailed. The text of Qur’an 4:157 is a reference to what Jews claimed about Jesus.
c) In connection to this, it repudiates the claim that Jesus became a curse or accursed. (Deuteronomy 21:18-23)
All of this can be seen by the following:
“Rather, Allah exalted him in his presence. Allah is Almighty, the Wise.” Source: (Qur’an 4:158)
Whereas the New Testament claims:
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangs on a TREE.” (Galatians 3:13)
Question? Did Jesus commit a sin worthy of death?
“And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and you hang him on a TREE: his body shall not remain all night upon the TREE, but you shall in any wise bury him that day; that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God gives thee for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 21:22-23)
If the answer is yes, then Jesus is not an unblemished sacrifice! If the answer is no, then Jesus is obviously not accursed as he is not guilty of sin and thus never lifted anyone from any law! Allah obviously knows who is guilty and who is not.
Merely being displayed in the tree does not mean one is accursed. You have to have committed a sin worthy of death.
Paul said above in Galatians 3:13 that Jesus became a curse for us.
“Therefore, I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3)
If no one speaking ‘by the Spirit of God’ calls Jesus accursed, we wonder what spirit motivated Paul to make such a statement?
Accursed has reference to the state of one’s heart. This is not something to attribute to a messenger of Allah.
“When you do read the Qur’an, seek Allah’s protection from Satan the l-rajimi.” (Qur’an 16:98)
l-rajimi means the rejected, accursed or stoned. This verse is also a rejection of the claims of Christians that Jesus became a curse, or those Jews who claim that Jesus was stoned, or the overall claim by those who never accepted him as being rejected.
Satan is the raijim not Jesus!
All three claims in one are refuted.
This is why Christians believe that Jesus said:
“And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46)
The Qur’an also repudiates the claim that Jesus was ever forsaken by Allah. Both before, during, and after the death of Jesus.
BEFORE HIS DEATH
“Behold,” the angels told Mary, “Allah has given you the glad news of the coming birth of a son whom He calls His Word, whose name will be Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be a man of honor in this life and the life to come, and who will be one of the ones nearest to Allah.” (Qur’an 3:45)
Can it be argued that there ever was a time in which Jesus was not ‘near to Allah‘?
During his death. If we assume the Roman imperium impaled Jesus, the following could have been revealed to him as reassurance and solace:
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will exalt you in my presence 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)
This is also what is meant by:
“The Day when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit.” (Qur’an 5:110)
This is why we know that if Jesus actually cried out while being impaled, it is an acknowledgment of him willing to die in holy armed struggle against the Roman imperium.
“And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Ali, lemana, shabakthani! Which means, My God, my God, for this is my purpose! “
Source: (Mark 15: 34 George M Lamsa translation)
AFTER HIS DEATH
“Rather, Allah exalted him in his presence. Allah is Almighty, the Wise.” (Qur’an 4:158)
” And how I prevented the children of Israel from harming you when you came to them with all evidence of the truth.” (Qur’an 5:116)
“I did not say anything to them except what you commanded me with: That worship Allah, my Lord, and your Lord.” (Qur’an 5:116)
THE CHRISTIAN DILEMA. REVISITING GALATIANS 3:13
Temporal Mismatch (Ante-mortem vs. Post-mortem)
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 explicitly describes a two-step process:
The man is put to death (executed by legal means, typically stoning).
Then his corpse is hung on a tree.
The hanging is not the means of execution. It is an additional act of post-mortem shaming.
In Roman crucifixion (or impalement), the person dies on the tree. The tree/cross is the instrument of death, not a display after death. Paul applies “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” to a living person dying on the tree. That is a category error according to the original legal context.
The Curse Attaches to a Convicted Criminal, Not the Method Alone
Deuteronomy 21:22 says the man was put to death for a capital offense — a sin worthy of death. The curse is not magical or mechanical. It is juridical: God’s law says a executed criminal’s displayed corpse brings a defilement if left overnight.
Paul, however, treats the phrase “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” as if hanging itself imparts a curse, regardless of the person’s innocence or guilt. He then claims Jesus became that curse for us, even though Jesus was (in Christian belief) innocent.
But the Torah text assumes guilt. An innocent person would never be executed, let alone hung. So Paul inverts the logic: an innocent person takes on a curse meant for the guilty by undergoing a death resembling the post-mortem display.
This is massively devastating to Christianity.
The Qur’anic Critique.
The Qur’an implicitly rejects this entire move in *Q 4:157-158* by:
Denying Jewish claims to have killed or impaled Jesus.
Affirming God exalted Jesus to Himself — no curse, no humiliation.
Rejecting the idea that any prophet of God could be in a state of divine curse or abandonment.
From a Qur’anic perspective, Paul’s error is not exegetical sloppiness but theological overreach — applying a law about executed criminals to an innocent messenger of Allah, and then turning that into a doctrine of vicarious atonement.
The writer of Galatians misapplies Deuteronomy 21:22-23 by:
Ignoring the post-mortem context and treating it as ante-mortem.
Ignoring the requirement of a prior capital crime.
Using the verse to claim Jesus became a “curse” — something the Qur’an explicitly denies.
The Dilemma Restated
Premise 1 (from Torah, Deuteronomy 21:22-23): The “curse of God” applies only to a person who has committed a sin worthy of death, who is executed, and whose corpse is then displayed on a tree.
Premise 2 (from Christian theology): Jesus died by hanging on a tree (cross), and Galatians 3:13 says he became a curse for us.
Question: Did Jesus commit a sin worthy of death?
A: Yes, Jesus committed a sin worthy of death.
If yes, then:
Jesus was a legitimate criminal under Torah law.
He was not innocent.
He cannot be an “unblemished” or sinless sacrifice (contradicting 1 Peter 1:19, Hebrews 9:14).
His death was his own just punishment, not a vicarious atonement for others.
Christianity collapses because the entire sacrificial logic requires a sinless victim.
Conclusion: Christianity is false.
B: No, Jesus did not commit any sin worthy of death.
If no, then:
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 does not apply to him.
The “curse” in that verse has no legal or theological standing over an innocent person.
Paul’s application of the curse to Jesus in Galatians 3:13 is invalid — he is quoting a verse that has nothing to do with an innocent man.
Jesus did not “become a curse” for anyone.
He therefore did not redeem anyone from the curse of the law, because there is no mechanism by which an innocent person’s undeserved death transfers to the guilty under Torah.
Conclusion: Paul made an exegetical and theological error. Jesus remains innocent, but Pauline atonement theology is unfounded.
Why This Dilemma Is Fatal to Pauline Christianity?
Christian theology wants both:
Jesus is absolutely sinless (no sin worthy of death).
Jesus became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13 quoting Deuteronomy 21).
But the Torah text does not allow an innocent person to be “cursed” in that juridical sense. The curse is not magical or transferable — it is a legal declaration attached to a guilty, executed criminal’s corpse.
Paul’s move is to sever the curse from guilt and reattach it to the method of death alone. That is not exegesis; it is creative theology. But it violates the plain meaning of the Hebrew text.
The Qur’anic Resolution
The Qur’an simply rejects the premise that Jesus was ever in a state of curse or humiliation before God:
“Rather, Allah exalted him in His presence. Allah is Almighty, the Wise.” (Qur’an 4:158)
And:
“They did not kill him, nor did they impale him, but it appeared to them so.” (Qur’an 4:157)
From the Qur’anic perspective:
Jesus committed no sin.
He was not accursed.
He was not abandoned by God (contra Matthew 27:46).
Therefore, Galatians 3:13 is a false attribution to God’s law.
Allah knows who is guilty and who is innocent. An innocent man does not become cursed, and no prophet is made a curse for others.
Possible Christian Responses (And Why They Fail)
Christian Response
Why It Fails
“Jesus became a curse representatively, not because he was guilty.”
Deuteronomy 21 does not recognize representative curse. The curse is on the actual criminal.
“The curse is on the manner of death, not the person’s sin.”
The text says “cursed by God is everyone who hangs” — but that “everyone” is already defined as an executed criminal. You cannot separate the curse from guilt.
“Paul is doing midrash, not literal exegesis.”
Then it is not a proof text. If you abandon literal meaning, you abandon legal force.
“Jesus bore the curse for us as a substitution.”
Substitution requires the substitute to be legally eligible to bear the curse. Torah never allows an innocent substitute to be cursed in place of the guilty.
None of these responses resolve the core logical contradiction we have identified.
THE LESSON FOR MUSLIMS IN THE DEATH OF JESUS AS A MARTYR.
This is based on speculation.
It is likely that Jesus died as a martyr in an armed struggle against the authority of the Roman imperium.
“And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, Rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those after them who have not yet joined them – that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.” (Qur’an 3:169-170)
Allow me to share with you a very interesting text from the Qur’an.
The Injil or Gospel is mentioned 12 times in 12 verses of the Qur’an. In one of those verses we have the following:
“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.” (Qur’an 9:111)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Out of all the teachings that Allah could inform us about concerning what Jesus taught in the Injil, why did Allah mention the teaching concerning martyrdom? Why would Jesus teach about ‘killing and being killed’ if he was simply a pacifist?
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew10:28)
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more.” (Luke 12:4)
This is exactly what Allah [swt] would have revealed to Jesus if indeed the Romans impaled Christ Jesus.
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will exalt you in my presence 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)
Jesus received good tidings about those that would come after him and have not joined him yet. While the people were perceiving that Jesus had a horrible ending, the death of Jesus was a tranquil experience, and Jesus was told that he would be cleared of the falsehoods said concerning him.
“It is Allah Who takes away the souls at the time of their death, and those that die not during their sleep. He keeps those for which He has ordained death and sends the rest for a term appointed. Verily, in this are signs for a people who think deeply” (Qur’an 39:42)
“And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, “They are dead.” Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not.(Qur’an 2:154)
“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties in exchange for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. It is a true promise binding upon Him in the Torah and the GOSPEL and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.” (Qur’an 9:111)
Look at this astonishing verse above. That the idea of fighting in the cause of Allah [swt] killing and being killed is established in the Qur’an, the Torah and the GOSPEL.
Rather than Christ Jesus being seen as some theological projection onto Judaism, a very different picture emerges. We have a Christ Jesus who was a Jewish prophet, a Muslim, a Messenger of Allah [swt], and a figure ultimately wanted dead by the Roman authorities.
Instead, what emerges is a picture of a Messenger of Allah [swt] who was defiant to the very end. He challenged the religious authorities of his time and challenged the government of his time, ultimately leading to his trial and his death. In the face of this death, Jesus became triumphant and became a symbol of martyrdom.
Jesus had spent most of his life calling the children of Israel to Allah and correcting the learned on points where they were in error. Jesus’ teachings on martyrdom were a threat to the Roman government. Jesus and a group of pious Jews who were sick and tired of the Roman Imperium most likely led a violent revolt against the Romans. Jesus and some of his people were charged with sedition and impailed.
Jesus didn’t die with relative dignity hanging from the cross. He died, suspended on one single stake penetrating his body: he was impaled. There were no nails in his hands or feet. He did not die on a cross-shaped execution tool († or T). Just a sharp stake shoved right into his body upon which he was suspended – that is the most logical and plausible form of execution of Jesus by far…
Furthermore, one of the alleged witnesses, St. Mark, tells us that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus — “All his disciples forsook him and fled“- (Mark 14:50).
The Roman spectacle of impalement was meant to be as savage and tortuously cruel as possible because it had to accomplish two things.
To act as a visual deterrent to crime and, in the case of Jesus — uprising against an oppressive regime.
To provide a theater of gore to satisfy the bloodlust of those who came to watch. The spike was the centerpiece of this typically gruesome Roman conception. That is why they didn’t just kill Jesus with a sword and be done with it.
Most likely the Romans introduced the tip of the spike into the victim’s back side and continued hammering it, pushing it far enough to where it passed under the pelvic bone so it would support the body on the impale.
The two thieves, if they were real, (most likely really guilty of sedition), get the same treatment. When the impale device was upright, it kept the victim’s body from being torn loose by his own weight and sliding off. That was its practical use.
But there was also a kind of diabolical sideshow, something to further attract the viewer interest in the impalement process. With the spike thrust under the pelvic bone, but not yet coming out of the body, a man could use the leverage of his arms and his legs to project his body outward, curving it away from the impale and thus preventing the spike from penetrating any further up into the bowels. But as one’s arms gave out, one’s body would slowly sink down on the spike, causing the spike to penetrate further along through one’s maze of intestines.
Eventually, after the leg strength also gave out, all leverage was lost and the body, of its own weight, would slump/slide back against the vertical beam, driving the spike slightly upwards through the body’s maze of vital organs until it pierced the stomach lining from the inside out, spewing blood and guts all over the ground.
Mercifully, death usually followed in a short time thereafter. When it came to devising fiendish methods of torture and death, the Romans were absolutely without equal. They left no sadistic, bloodthirsty detail behind.
It is also reasonable that Jesus hastened his own death by forcing his body down on the spike, an extremely awesome and heroic achievement! It indicates that Jesus had no fear of death. We imagine Jesus looking on at the Romans, with a certain look in his eye as if to say, “Go ahead, make my day!” Whereas the two thieves, if they were real, (most likely rebels) used all their strength to cling to life as long as possible. Hence, the breaking of the legs!
During his death: When the Romans impaled Jesus, it is possible the following was revealed to him as reassurance:
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will exalt you in my presence 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)
This is also what is meant by:
“The Day when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit.” (Qur’an 5:110)
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE BODY OF JESUS?
This would be an obvious question from Christian. One that they may find suspect.
The Christian version:
“Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.” (Luke 3:23)
We are told that God incarnate was on the earth for 30-something years, not really doing much of anything. Only 3 years of his life were truly important. He died on the double cross, rose from the dead and ascended bodily up into heaven.
A possible Muslim version
During the impalement, Allah (swt)took the soul of Jesus, leaving behind his body, as he does with everyone else. His body was either given over to his followers or they stole it at night for a more proper burial.
“While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.” (Matthew 28:11-15)
Even though we have not even a shred of evidence outside the New Testament accounts that this was a Jewish polemic directed towards Christianity, we believe it to be plausible. Namely, the disciples took the corpse of Jesus and buried it in a place they found suitable.
The life of Jesus can be likened to a 3-hour Blu-ray in which, in the Christian version, the first 2 hours and 30 minutes are missing (30 years) and in the Islamic version [that we find plausible] the last 15 minutes are missing (last few days).
Whatwe mean by this is that the last 15 minutes are so important to Christian theology that they are obviously not going to be agreeable to what we believe.
Muslims don’t have to lose any sleep over where the bodies of prophets are buried. In the end Allah (swt) knows best.
For reasons why we do not find the supposed crucifixion historical kindly see our article here:
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had already passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Qur’an 5:75)
“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)
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although the mushrik make dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
The following is a translation from the talk by Shaykh Mustafa al Adawi. Any mistakes or flaws in the translation belong to us.
What is the truth about the awaited Mahdi?
“The awaited Mahdi, as they call him, is ultimately a righteous man who will be an imam, establishing justice among the people. This is the extent of his role according to the established evidence from the Messenger of Allah, (saw). Most of these narrations do not explicitly mention the Mahdi. Rather, they state that before long, his name will appear, coinciding with mine and his father’s name, and he will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been oppressed. This is the most that can be said about him.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“Furthermore, even if there is a chain of narration (isnad) that is not strong enough to allow us to base significant rulings on it—such as a hadith narrated by Malik from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar, or by Zirr from Salim from his father, or one that was narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim—there is none of that. It is not narrated by al-Bukhari or Muslim, and it is not a definitively strong chain of narration. Many narrations revolve around Aim ibn Abi al-Najud, and Asim is a narrator whose reliability is questioned. Some scholars consider his hadiths acceptable, but others question his memory. This is the strongest narration I have found on this topic. It is not explicit in mentioning the Mahdi. Rather, it is a hadith about how you will be when the son of Mary descends among you. And before you, from among you, the Muslims present the Messiah, (as), to lead them in prayer. The Muslims present the Messiah to lead them in prayer, and the Messiah, (as), says, “No, rather some of you are imams for one another. Allah has honored this nation.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“Beyond that, many sayings have been woven about the awaited Mahdi. I repeat that the hadiths concerning this awaited one are not so strong that they can reassure the soul without doubt or uncertainty. Rather, their chains of transmission are questionable. One can accept that the hadith is sound in this regard, but the wording of the sound hadith is: “The Hour will not come until a man emerges whose name is like my name and whose father’s name is like my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with injustice and oppression.” I had mistakenly thought there was an authentic hadith in this regard, which is the hadith: “When you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then go towards them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” But Abu Hatim al-Razi mentioned that this hadith is flawed and rejected, and it is as Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, said.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“As for the much talk about the awaited Mahdi, it should not be taken lightly. This matter has garnered significant attention because of the hadiths it contains, as I mentioned earlier. I tasked one of our brothers, a student of knowledge named Adil ibn Abd al-Salam, with compiling all the related material. He compiled it, and the result, after careful review with him and after I researched it in my book,The Authentic and Attributed Collection of Hadiths on Tribulations, Battles, and the Signs of the Hour, is as follows: With Allah’s help, I see that many have spoken on this topic, but many of them are not scholars of hadith; rather, they are like those who gather firewood in the dark. The meaning of “those who gather firewood in the dark” is that they collect what is true and what is weak, like someone gathering firewood at night who might also gather a snake. Allah knows best. As for the Shia, they have myths that have no basis whatsoever in this regard.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
Question from the students of knowledge.
Peace be upon you. Peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy. And upon you be peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings.
How are you, Sheikh Mustafa? Praise be to Allah. Please, Shaykh, I have a question: Is there a single authentic hadith that mentions the name of the Mahdi? And if there isn’t, how can someone who denies the Mahdi be considered wrong?
“Yes, praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. There is a hadith on this matter: “If you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then know that the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi, is among them.” However, this hadith appears to have a good chain of narration, but it was deemed weak by the learned Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him. I agree with his assessment, as the hadith is weak. As for the hadith, “The Mahdi is from us, the family of the Prophet. The Mahdi has a broad forehead and a prominent nose. The Mahdi will rule for seven years. Allah will rectify the Mahdi in one night”—it is all weak and not authentic.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“The most prominent hadith on this topic is one narrated by Asim ibn Abi al-Najud: “The days an dnights will not pass until a man emerges whose name matches my name and whose father’s name matches my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with injustice and oppression.” Regarding Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, there is some scholarly debate; some accept his hadiths, while others question his reliability. Another hadith states: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you? Will he be presented to lead the prayer, or will they present the Messiah? He will say, ‘No, rather some of you are imams over others, a blessing from Allah to this nation.'” As you mentioned, I have not found any authentic hadith from the Messenger of Allah explicitly stating the name of the Mahdi, except for the hadith I mentioned to you: “The Mahdi is from the progeny of Fatima.” This hadith is weak and unreliable. Many hadiths on this subject are also unreliable. I have researched this extensively and have not found any authentic hadith except for the one I mentioned to you: “When you see the black banner coming from Khorasan.” However, this hadith is flawed, as Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, pointed out. The hadith of `Asim ibn Abi al-Najud and the hadith of Muslim are also problematic.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“The text mentions the name of the Mahdi. Also, I sent a message to some of our sons and brothers who are students of knowledge here. I was tasked with compiling a comprehensive treatise, and they dedicated time to this, and it came out with the same result. A treatise, I think it was printed, O Abd al-Rahman. Yes, check if it was printed or not. In short, what is notewrothy is that the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not include any hadith about the Mahdi except what I mentioned form the hadith of Muslim: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you?” Our beloved Shaykh, yes, if you encountered someone who denied the Mahdi, would you rebuke him? By Allah, I mean, we iniform him of what is established according to the opinion of Hasan al-Khabar and Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, but the rebuke is not severe. May Allah reward you and the Muslims. What I have brought to your attention regarding the hadiths of the awaited Mahdi—you may be surprised if I tell you that most of them are not authentic, and I do not know of a single authentic hadith that contains the name of the Mahdi. Rather, they are all fabricated. For example, the hadith, “If you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” I used to doubt its authenticity, but it turned out to be defective.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“Abu Hatim al-Razi, in his book Al-`Ilal, mentions a hadith that might be considered acceptable: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you?” However, it doesn’t explicitly state that he is the Mahdi. Another hadith states: “The days and nights will not pass until a man emerges whose name is my name and whose father’s name is my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with oppression and tyranny.” This hadith also doesn’t name the Mahdi. He then asks about the hadiths concerning the awaited Mahdi. Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. Regarding the Mahdi, there are few hadiths, and people are divided between excess and negligence in their understanding of him. Some cite a vast number of weak hadiths on this subject and base their rulings upon them, while others deny the Mahdi altogether. Both approaches are reprehensible. As I mentioned earlier, very few hadiths are considered authentic or sound.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“The authentic ones include: “What will you do when the son of Mary emerges among you?” or “When the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you?” In this hadith, Jesus,(as), is presented by the Muslims to lead them in prayer, but he says, “No, rather some of you are imams over others.” Allah honors him for this. The nation is divided into two groups of scholars. Some said this is the Mahdi. Another authentic hadith, or one considered acceptable despite some ambiguity in its narrators, states: “The Hour will not come until a man emerges whose name matches my name and whose father’s name matches my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with oppression and tyranny.” This hadith is acceptable and does not explicitly state that this person’s name is the Mahdi. Rather, the hadith states: “His name matches my name and his father’s name matches my father’s name.” A third hadith appears to have a sound chain of transmission, but it is flawed due to the wording: “When you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then go towards them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” This hadith is flawed, and Abu Hatim al-Razi mentioned its flaw in his book Al-`Ilal.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“These are almost all the reports that have been transmitted concerning the Mahdi with authentic chains of transmission. Yes, I know that some eminent scholars have compiled books in which they gathered the hadiths of the Prophet (saw) concerning the Mahdi. However, upon reviewing and scrutinizing these books, it became clear to me that most of what they included is not authentic. Their excuse is that they are not scholars of hadith. They included everything related to the Mahdi without considering its authenticity or weakness. This is a very brief summary. The most accurate thing that can be said is what Muslim included: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your Imam is from among you?” Scholars interpreted this Imam as the Mahdi, peace be upon him. The second hadith is: “He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with injustice and oppression.” As I mentioned earlier, some of the men in its chain of narration are not mentioned by al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him. He is not mentioned at all in either al-Bukhari or Muslim. Rather, in Muslim, there is the hadith that mentions: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you?” Regarding the name of the Mahdi, I do not recall at the moment a hadith with a sound chain of transmission that includes the name of the Mahdi. Rather, all that I have come across in this regard has a weak chain of transmission, or a sound chain but with a flaw, as I mentioned earlier in the hadith alluding to the black banners coming from Khorasan: “Then go towards them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
Prima Qur’an comments. What we found interesting is that Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi really went out on a limb to throw a life jacket to those who hold onto the belief that Mahdi is established in the authentic sunnah.
But what certainly raises an eye brow is the following:
“Regarding the Mahdi, there are few hadiths, and people are divided between excess and negligence in their understanding of him. Some cite a vast number of weak hadiths on this subject and base their rulings upon them, while others deny the Mahdi altogether. Both approaches are reprehensible.”
On what basis can those who deny the Mahdi altogether be considered among the reprehensible when Shaykh al-Adawi himself is among them.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
It seems that the trend is such that in another 20 to 30 years one will scarcely find someone from the scholars who believes in the coming of the Mahdi unless that one is a pariah. Allah knows best.
“This is a Warner of the series of the Warners of old. The (hour) ever approaches draws nigh” (Qur’an 53:56-57).
﷽
Yasir Qadhi: The Return of Jesus and the Qur’an.
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi takes a look at the four verses that are often advanced to make the claim.
“The issue about coming back at the end of times is one that has caused a little bit of controversy uh in the last few years online and before this point in time has also been a point of contention actually for the last few decades. I thought that in today’s library chat let’s take an academic look. Let’s remove ourselves from the emotional back and forth and let us see uh the reality of this issue and uh allow the evidences to speak for themselves. So today’s talk is going to be about a very interesting topic inshalla and it’s also one that uh on the one hand it is a very introductory level in the sense that everybody will benefit but on the other hand um because of the nature of this talk there will be quite a lot of packed information with names and dates and uh I will be at times speeding up uh I I know people say I talk uh quickly but I think I’m going to have to speed up quite a lot for this particular talk because I have quite a lot of information I want to just um uh put into today’s uh library chat. So it is at the same time an introduction and also it is a very uh comprehensive inshallah uh introductory level talk.”- Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Obviously I always make that caveat uh so that people don’t think that this is the end all and be all. Uh today’s talk will be dealing with theology uh with history even with methodology. And before I begin I’d like to point out that there’s there’s two primary ways to look at a controversy or to look at a contentious issue. Uh usually what I do is uh one of the ways to look at it is start from the end and to lay out all of the opinions and then to backtrack and say who says what and why did they say that and that’s a very standard and academic approach. You can flip it around and you have another approach and that is to build and that is to go back to the beginning and say what does the Quran have to say? What does the sunnah have to say? And so today we’re going to be following uh that particular uh procedure and I’m going to be working chronologically forward. And what we’re going to do is divide this entire library chat into a number of different sections. Firstly, does the Quran mention the return of or not? Uh secondly, what does the hadith have to say? And is are they a hadith mutawat or not? And who said they uh thirdly, uh what did the early scholars of Islam have to say about this issue? Uh fourthly uh the is there unanimous consensus on this issue. Uh fifthly what do the other strands of Islam say? Sunni Islam is obviously you know generally clear but what do the other strands of Islam say? And then finally sixth point uh what is the modern controversy and where did this arise and who are the main figures and players with regards to the modern controversy.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“So uh this is a fairly comprehensive uh lengthy introduction to the entire uh topic and I did spend a good amount of time uh around a day and a half doing uh this research to demonstrate uh a methodology of of how we talk about uh contentious issues. So we begin from the beginning and that is the book uh the book of Allah the Quran. The Quran uh has four verses in it that are used by some uh to posit that the Quran preaches the return “Isa of two of these verses have the exact same phrase in them. And so in reality it boils down to three particular phrases in the Quran because once again there are four verses but two of the verses are pretty much the same for what we want to do. So the two that are the same are (Qur’an 3:46 and Qur’an 5:110)and the both of them have the phrase that is going to speak this is repeated twice in the Quran. He shall speak shall speak to mankind which basically means you know in the cradle he’s going to speak as a baby.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Now uh the the word has been defined by many early scholars including that means when the whiteness of the hair begins to appear. So that’s what means and the actual age is something that is disputed. Most say around 40 some say 35 some say even beyond the age of 30. The number is not what is important. means that uh at at an older age and the the notion here is that the Quran says something that should be miraculous that he’s going to speak as a baby and he’s going to speak at an older age. Now it’s not a miracle to speak at an older age but if is not around at an older age then this is a prediction that he’s going to come back and speak when he’s an older man. So both the word and the context of the verse according to a group of scholars is indicating that is going to uh come back and uh this is the interpretation of quite a number of early authorities.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Nonetheless, it is not something that is explicit and uh the verse is ambiguous about this point about the return of this particular verse because even if we say that was 33 when his ministry finished Jesus was 33. So 33 would be considered by quite a number of uh linguists. Therefore, we say that this verse has been interpreted by a group of to imply that will come back. Nonetheless, A, it is not universally interpreted that way and B, the language in and of itself does not indicate that Isa is coming back. Okay? But it can be said that the context would indicate this. Okay? that why would it be miraculous unless there is a miracle involved.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“The third verse that we’re going to discuss is verse (Qur’an 4:159).That Allah subhana wa ta’ala says there’s not a single person of the people of the book except that he will believe in Isa before his death. Now the context of this series of verses is the context of the notion that the Yahood killed Isa. And Allah says very explicitly that they neither killed him nor did they crucify him but rather it was made to appear to them so. And Allah says they did not kill him for sure for certainty. They did not kill him. Rather Allah raised him up to himself. And then Allah subhana wa ta’ala says, “And there is no one from the people of the book except that he shall believe in him.” These are now pronouns. He shall believe in him before he dies. These are all pronouns here. Okay, the majority of early Mufasirun have interpreted this verse to mean that there will not remain a single person of the Ahl Kitab except that they will believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. Okay. So the and according to the majority say that this is Isa Ibn Maryam and therefore before Isa dies the Ahl Kitab will believe in him. Okay the Ahl Kitab will affirm him.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“However, there is a minority opinion from Qatada and Saeed Ibn Jubary and others that the pronoun biti and mauti are different and the bihi is a reference according to them to the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and the mauti is a reference to the person of the Ahl Kitab and therefore the verse will translate and there is not a single person of the Ahl Kitab except that he shall believe in the Prophet Muhammed sallallahu alaihi wasallam before he dies. And so they had a bizarre belief. Well, we say it’s bizarre. They don’t they wouldn’t think it is bizarre. They have a bizarre belief that at the time of death of the soul of the when the angel of death comes that before the angel of death takes the soul of the of the Ahl Kitab, the Kitabi must confess their emaan in the Prophet sallallah aii wasallam. This confession is a spiritual one. It doesn’t make them a Muslim. In other words, they’re not going to confess with the tongue that is physical. They’re going to confess with their soul and then they shall be allowed to uh escape their bodies. Now the problem of course is that uh the context of this these series of verses does not mention the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam at all. And also by the way uh the the the the notion that the soul is going to have to uh confess the belief of the Prophet it’s something that’s not found in any other source neither a verse of the Quran nor hadith of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. And that is why uh says so says the correct position about this verse is that it goes back to Isa and that none of the people of the book shall remain alive at that time except that they believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. and uh kir says there is no doubt that what says is the better opinion. So this verse therefore seems to be pretty strong. However to be clear it has been interpreted differently as well.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“There is a third uh problem if you like or problematization and that is done by the famous grammarian Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammed ibn al-Sarī al-Zajjāj and al-Zajjāj says that how can all of the Ahl Kitab believe in Jesus when most of them would have died before the coming of Jesus. Right? So al-Zajjāj says this verse does not mean what people think it means because he is saying that uh uh the verse says not a single person of the Ahl Kitab shall remain except that they believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. He is saying the bulk of Ahl Kitab have lived and died before the return of Jesus. By the way, al-Zajjāj is affirming the return of Jesus, he’s simply saying that this verse does not apply to that. That’s his interpretation. Others have responded that this verse is going to be restricted by common sense and the restriction by common sense means there is no person of the Ahl kitab that shall be alive when Jesus comes down except that he shall believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. So that restriction that shall be alive when Jesus comes down, it’s not in the Quran but it is assumed. It is something that is understood by the context of the uh verse. And another problematization that occurs is that uh the verse says there is not a single person of the Ahl Kitab except that they shall believe in him before he dies. Even if we say it is Jesus, what do we say to the Yehood that will be fighting on the side of the Dajjal and they’re seeing Jesus? they’re not going to believe in Jesus, right? So, what does this mean? And some have responded to this by the claim that well, iman here does not necessarily mean they shall believe uh in Jesus the belief of the Kalima and the belief of an acceptance of Islam, but rather they shall believe that Jesus was a prophet even if they reject his prophethood. Just like Allah says in the Quran that Allah affirmed the Quraysh have in Allah but they commit. So this is a partial im and so they believe in the concept of God. They believe that there is an Allah out there but they don’t believe that Allahel alone is the and the now the the same can apply over here that when you’re fighting on the side of the those people that are fighting they’re going to recognize that that is Jesus and they’re going to believe that that is the prophet but they know or they for whatever reason they are rejecting likel rejected they’re rejecting the following but they know that he is Jesus so to summarize this verse This verse seems to strongly indicate but to be fair uh a number of dissenting voices have not interpreted this verse to to confirm the return of Jesus Christ.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“The fourth verse that we will uh discuss is considered to be the most explicit and it is considered to be uh uh the strongest indication that the Quran is affirming the coming of Jesus, the second coming of Jesus and that is Qur’an 43:61. Allah says in the Quran and he is or it because again and it or he is a knowledge of the day of judgment. Now what is the context of these verses? Go back a few verses and Allah subhana wa ta’ala describes the that when uh the son of Mary is given as an example your people they uh break out in applause in applause and they they become happy and they say which one is better our gods or Jesus and Allah says they’re only using him to argue now the the context of revelation that when Allah subhana wa ta’ala revealed uh in the Quran you and those whom you worship uh besides Allah will all end up in Jahannam. One of the members of the Quraysh thought that he had outwit the Quran. And he said, “Okay, if everything that is worshiped besides Allah is going to end up in Jahannam. How about the Christians who worship Jesus and you guys think that Jesus is a prophet? This means that Jesus is going to go to Jahannam as well.” And of course we know from the Quran and from the Sunnah that uh the righteous who were mistakenly worshiped uh will not end up in Jahannam and uh the idols that were constructed as false god will end up in Jahannam. So the verse here says when the son of Mary is given as an example your pe your people meaning the Quraysh they become happy at this and they say which one is better our gods or Jesus and then the verses go on he is but a righteous example and a good a good servant and then Allah says and he shall be a a knowledge of the day of of the hour a knowledge of judgment So do not have any doubt about this.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Now this verse has been interpreted by a number of Sahabah most prominently Abbas as being an explicit affirmation of the return of and in fact Ibn Abbas and a number of other uh early Sahabah Ubai and others they actually had a variant recitation of this verse which is actually even more explicit and that recitation rather than it would become means a flag means a sign means an indication and they would recite the verse. Now, of course, the whole concept of recitations and something is a very very deep one and you’re probably aware that it’s probably best I do not go into a lot of detail because people are super sensitive about this topic even though again the evidences are very clear about this. But uh the Sahabah had their multiple recitations and all of them are valid as our Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said is very explicit that do not argue over these uh verses. Our Prophet said do not argue over these recitations and the Quran was revealed in seven and uh Abbas and others would recite this verse in a different recitation and Jesus is a sign for the day of judgment. Now that recitation it is authentic from the Sahabah. However, it has not been preserved in the 10 recitations. It is not preserved in the 10 karat that are commonly recited in our times. It is however well known in the early books of so the way that we recite the verse and is and he comments on this that whoever recites this verse as it means that he is a knowledge of the closeness and proximity of the day of judgment. And whoever recites it with a fat then that means that he is an and he is a sign for the day of judgment. The point being that whether you recite or uh the meaning uh slightly changes but the concept is still the same. Either Jesus is a knowledge of the proximity of the day of judgment or Jesus is a sign of the day of judgment. So this is the majority interpretation of this verse from a whole bunch of early.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“However, still there is an alternative interpretation and that is the interpretation of Hassan Al Basri said wa-innahu la’il’mun lilssa’ means wa-innahu the ha goes back to the Quran or goes back to the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam that the Quran is uh the knowledge of the day of judgment and it goes back to the revelation of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and so he did not understand this verse to be uh now again Hassan Al Basri affirms the coming of Jesus. It’s just a matter of does the Quran talk about it or not. So these are the four verses in order of strength from the weakest in terms of its uh dala in terms of its evidence to the strongest. And to conclude this particular section about the verses of the Quran, the Quran suggests and indicates there is really a very strong suggestion that isa shall return. And this has been the derivation of the vast majority of Sahabah and the early commentators of the Quran that the Quran indicates the coming of. However, to be academic and pedantic, uh this is not the unanimous uh interpretation of the Quran. And again, right now we’re talking about does the Quran talk about to the coming of Jesus or not. As for other sources of the coming of Jesus, that is a separate topic. Does the Quran talk about the coming back of Jesus or not? For every one of these verses, you will find some of the early authorities, a minority opinion, uh interpreting the verse in a different manner. And therefore uh we can say that the Quran strongly suggests the Quran seems to have a very strong indication that Isa is coming. However, it is not definitive and it is not conclusive in and of itself. Just from the language of the Quran and just from the context of the Quran, we give it the presumption but not the certainty. And that’s the first evidence, the Quran.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
wa-innahu la’il’mun lilssa’ wa-innahu the ha
If you would like to see other articles in regard to Shaykh Yasir Qadhi we would invite you to read the following:
Prima Quran 