Those two PDF files are titled: Ibadhism a moderate sect of Islam & Ibadism in the studies of Ali Yahya Mu’ammar
I am sharing these files as I believe researchers of the Ibadi school may come across them online and while they are useful there are some points of information contained with in the books that need addressed as well as the presentation of the books themselves.
Ibadhism a moderate sect of Islam
Let me address this PDF book first.
This paper is written by Harun Yildiz it seems like a translation from Turkish into Arabic and what makes it more challenging is that it seems the writer is translating thoughts from Arabic to Turkish and than into English. Thus, it is not a smooth read. If you would like to clarify any points the Professor is still alive as of 10/5/2024 and maybe reached here:
A discussion about different aspects of Ibadi Jurisprudence. That the Ibadi’s are known for using: The Qur’an. The authentic Sunnah. Mutawattir Mashur, Ahad (all of which can be acted upon provided they meet the requisite conditions). ‘Ijma (consensus), Qiyas. (analogy), Istidlal & Masalih i Mursala (Istislah).
Not cursing the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) is not something we are known for. It is not a known way with our school.
He has a section discussing Ibadis accepting the Ottoman Rule while living in their own communities deciding things by the azzaba (the religious/political council)
He talks about Ibadi sub-sects which in reality are more concerned with political divisions than real theological divisions. Nukkariyya Naffasiyya Khalafiyya Husayniyya Umariyya Sakkakiyya (real innovative ideas) -the one that has real theological and bizarre claims Farsiyya
He mentions: “It is permitted to increase the number of Imamates in the Muslim community if the area is expanded and the distance therein becomes far, or if the enemy separates its sections and it becomes difficult to rule it with one system, or if that becomes a cause of its downfall and separation of its forces and destruction of the people’s interests.” pg. 21
So what is meant is imagine there is an an Imamate in North Africa and one in Bangladesh they would be cut off by a great distance. So this idea is practical and pragmatic and the hadith is interpreted to reflect this reality.
As correctly pointed out Ibadis are not known for fighting with other Muslims. on pg. 86 in the footnote: “The first actual movement that was put forward by Ibadis is the movement launched by Talibu’l Hakk(Haqq) Abdullah b. Yahya al-Kindi in Yemen with defensive reasons.”
The mistakes (errors) or clarifications that the book needs.
#1 The author states:
“If a deviation is seen in the president, he would be was overthrown in a hard way, not with a soft method.” pg. 82
But than this is contradicted by:
“The unjust ruler will first be requested to practice justice, if he does not respond, he will be told to leave the Muslim affairs; if he does not respond, it is permitted to fight him and remove him by force even if that will result in his death, if that will not lead to bigger riot.” pg.20
As well as:
“It is not right to revolt against a just president, according to Ibadites. It is not wajib(obligatory) to revolt against a cruel president, as Kharijites posited. In addition, this case isn’t forbidden, as Ash’aris and Salafis say. So, justice is primarily demanded from cruel rulers. If he does not answer, his dismissal is requested. If he still does not answer, revolt is no longer unlawful against him and he should be dismissed by force.” pg. 86
His statement here:
“‘However, Quraishness or Arabness is preferable in case of overlapping conditions here.” pg. 86.
This is incomplete information. These are factors that are not default but given consideration in circumstantial situations as was explained at the end of our article here
You do not need to read the whole article. The section that I deal with the point is at the end of the article.
However, I will also address the point here:
Maslaha (Arabic: مصلحة) is an Arabic word that means “benefit,” “welfare,” “interest,” or “public good.
So case in point where Quraishness is preferable. It is painfully obvious that Muslims would be in a better place if we were united under one Amir, Imam, Caliph.
You could unite the Ibadis, Malikis, Hanafis, Shafi’i and Hanbali under one Amir, Imam, Caliph if there was a person who met all the conditions according to the Ibadi School. The Sunni position is that the Amir, Imam, or Caliph needs to be from the Quraysh.
In this scenario, there is a coalition of Sunnis and Ibadi and the Zaydi are excluded.
Or
You could bring the Zaydi in under this Amir, Imam or Caliph if that person was a descendant of Hassan or Hussein.
So, in theory, if you had an Amir, Imam, Caliph who met the conditions of the Ibadi school, was a descendant of the Quraysh, and was a descendant of either Hassan or Hussein, you could theoretically have a coalition (Sunni, Ibadi, Zaydi) willing to give Bayah a single Imam, Amir, Caliph.
Note: The conditions of the Ibadi school are not objected to by any of the other schools. Thus, for us Ibadis there are practical and pragmatic considerations. As well as for the maslaha of the Ummah, we could unify under the above proposed scenario.
The Imami Shi’i are excluded for obvious reasons. They would still freely practice their school while under the power of such a scenario.
He states:
“He who commits adultery with a woman, she will be unlawful to him for ever.” pg. 34
What he means is fornication , if you are caught there are no conditions in which you can marry her/him. If it was adultery it would be stoning as per the Sunnah.
Ibadism in the studies of Ali Yahya Mu’ammar
Now this paper is said to be written by the noble and blessed Shaykh Ali Yahya Mu’ammar (r)
The translator is: Ahmed Hamoud Al-Maamiry. I do not know if it is the quality of the printing but the paper has many grammatical mistakes, some incomplete thoughts/sentences as well as words combined together. I believe this particular translation into English does not speak to the profundity of the Shaykhs eloquence or wisdom. Certainly the original Arabic would be in the best interest of the researcher. Perhaps even a French translation may have done a better job at conveying the thoughts and reflections of the esteemed Shaykh. May Allah have mercy on him.
The mistakes (errors) or clarifications that the book needs.
This is not an error per se in this book, however, it contradicts the point made on pg. 82 in the above PDF book.
“Even when they were able to change systems of rule, they did so through convocation and conviction, and they achieved what they needed without using the sword or killing souls. The system of government was changed three times in without any violence. The Imam whom they assign would call the former Imam and would give him the option between remaining in the country with all his rights and obligations like any other Muslim and choosing to leave to any place he likes peacefully with his property and with whom he likes among his family.” pg. 17
Which of course is totally contrary to everything you ever heard of us. You see the Amir or Imam of the Muslims is much like a CEO of a vast company. If he starts to run the company into the ground the shura council will advise him much like members of the board. If he is involved in scandal (big sins) will be asked to step down. So, just like the CEO that doesn’t do anything against the law but is simply horrible at management, he is asked to step down without punitive measures taken. However, if the CEO does not step down he can be (emphasis on can) be taken our forcibly.
“They affirm the torment of the grave and the questioning b the two angels according to many traditions confirming the issue.” pg.15
However, this is an error (if the respected Shaykh said this) as there is difference of opinion in our school in grading the hadith reports if they weigh in the balance of mutawatir or not.
This is where Sheikh Dr Scholar Abdullah bin Saeed Al Ma’mari clarifies on this matter.
“or the Arabs, but on merit. When merits are equal then the Quraish or the Arabs have the priority.” pg. 20
This is incomplete information. These are factors that are not default but given consideration in circumstantial situations as was explained at the end of our article here:
“And when it is said to them, “Do not cause corruption on the earth,” they say, “We are but reformers.” Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.” (Qur’an 2:11-12)
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, their reward will be Hell—where they will stay indefinitely. Allah will be displeased with them, condemn them, and will prepare for them a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
﷽
Ibn Taymiyya and his sect are ready to slaughter all Muslims in the world.
Ibn Taymiyya and his Salafiyyah sect are the one’s who espouse ideas to cut off the heads of all Muslims who are against them and their ideology.
All you need to do is spend a little time on social media, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and you will not fail to who those who are extremist in their ideology, whom they support in reality.
Read it and weep! If people want to ascribe to the early Khawarij the doctrine of take no prisoners and slaughter them all than what do we have here?!
These so called callers of Salafiyyah tell people: “The Khawarij are the dogs of hellfire!” “They Kill Muslims Who Disagree With Them And They’re Views And Give Bloodshedding Fatwas And They’re Blood Is Halal For Them, They’re Extreme Takfiris!”
But let us look at the following text and be reminded of the saying: If the shoe fits wear it!
Interesting…Interesting…
That sounds awfully familiar (ask them the ruling for one who says the Qur’an is Created)
The following text are from Ibn Taymiyya al Harrani as well as his sect!
“We bear witness-and we are the scholars of Makkah-the Authors of these statements and the conclusions found here. That this religion/sect was established by Shaykh Muhammed B. Abdulwahab and was called too by the Imam of the Muslims. Shaykh Saud B AbdulAziz, To the Oneness of Allah and Negating Polytheism. -That is mentioned in the book is the truth of which there is no doubt or uncertainty of. And of that which occurred prior in Makkah and Madinah. -In Egypt and Syria -and all other countries-up until now is from the forms of polytheism (Shirk). That is mentioned in this book as being disbelief (kufr) that makes the committers of such wealth and blood permissible. And they will be damned to hell forever, residing there and whoever does not enter this religion/sect and acts upon it and supports its people and hates its enemies is a disbeliever (kafir) of Allah and the Last Day. And it is obligatory for the Imam of the Muslims and the Muslims themselves to wage war against them (Jihad) and to Kill them until they repent to Allah from that which they were upon. And he must uphold this religion/sect.”
Source: (Al Duraru Sunniyah Fi Al Jawabat Al Najdiyyah, Vol 1, Pg 314.)
“And the caller too innovation what is deserving of them-is the recompense-by agreement of all Muslims. And that recompense is given by killing them or other than that. As the Salaf killed Jahm B. Safwaan, al-Ja’d b. Dirham (teacher of Jahm bin Safwan) and Gilaan Al Qadari and others..”
He goes on to say if you cannot kill them-that being the first and best option-you should at least warn of them. As he says it is from: “Enjoying Good and Forbidding the Evil”, that “Allah has ordered.”
Source: (Majmoo Al Fatawa: Ibn Taymiyya, Page 242.)
“And whoever amongst them is a caller to misguidance, his deviance cannot be removed except by death! Either he shows open repentance and if he does not he is given judgement for his disbelief (kufr). Like the Imams of the Rafidhis (Shias); they are among those who have misguided people. As the Muslims, Gilan Al Qadari, al-Ja’d b. Dirham (teacher of Jahm bin Safwan) and their likes form the deviant callers. Therefore this dajjal is killed absolutely. -And Allah knows best. And for the killing the caller to innovation then he can be killed as well, to stop his misguidance from affecting the people. Just as one at war is killed. Even if the the situation is not the same as the infidels.”
Source: (Majmoo Al Fatawa: Ibn Taymiyya Page 303 And Page 197)
According to the above Fatwa they are ready to kill all Muslims in the world that accept these views!
“And from the book: Taarikh Al Naysapuri – I heard from Muhammed B. Saleh B. Haani, who heard the Imam of the Scholars: Abu Bakr B. Khuzaymah say: “Whoever does not affirm that Allah is over the throne, and has settled on the throne, above the seven heavens and that he is separate from his creation, then he is a kafir-he is obligated to repent or to be struck (killed). Otherwise he will harm the people of the qiblah and the non-Muslims with his presence.”
Source: (Kitab Ijtima Al Juyush Vol 2: Ibn Qayyim.)
“And he was in the 7th Heaven, Because the Prophet (saw) – Saw his Lord. While he was in this world, and did you know that the scholars did no differ that the entirety of the believers will see they’re lord in the hereafter, and not in this world. Whoever denies the seeing of they’re Lord on the day of gathering is not a believer in the eyes of the believers. And He is worse to the scholars than the Jews and Christians and the Magians. As Ibn Mubarak said: “We can bare the sayings of the Christians and Jews but we cannot bare the saying of the Jahmiyyah.” [end of blue section]
Source: (Page 587 Kitab Al Tawheed By Ibn Khuzaymah)
“And from the book: Taarikh Al Naysapuri – I heard from Muhammed B. Saleh B. Haani, who heard the Imam of the Scholars: Abu Bakr B. Khuzaymah say: “Whoever does not affirm that Allah is over the throne, and has settled on the throne, above the seven heavens and that he is separate from his creation, then is a kafir-he is obligated to repent or to be struck (killed). Otherwise he will harm the people of the qiblah and the non-Muslims with his presence.”
The Imam, Ibn Khuzaymah Died In The Year 312 a.h And he says in his book also, “Whoever denies the seeing of Allah in the hereafter, then he is in the sight of the believers, more worse than a Jew or a Christian or a Magian-and they are not believers in the view of the believers.”
Sources: (Kitab ijtima al Juyush Vol 2 Page 194: Ibn Qayyim Kitab Ijtima Al Juyush Vol 2: Ibn Qayyim.)
“This Is The Saved Group, Those who have gathered upon the truth brought by the The Messenger (saw) and that which he was steadfast upon and those who steer upon the path of the Messenger (saw) and his companions. These are the Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah, The people of the noble hadith-the Salafis those that follow the righteous Salaaf-and strive upon their path in upholding the Qur’an and Sunnah and any other sect opposing them-for them is the promise of Hell.”
“Therefore you-oh seeker-are too look at every sect that proclaims they are the saved sect and look into their actions. If their actions actions is in compliance with the Shari’ah then they are the saved sect and if not, then no. And what is the scale that is meant of judging is the Qur’an and Purified Sunnah in (validating) the truth all of it.”
Source: (Fatawaa Noor Alaa Al Darb, Vol 2, Pg 12: Ibn Baz.)
OPEN YOUR EYES DEAR READERS AND SEE FOR YOURSELF! THE SALAFI MANJAH IS UPON THE MANHAJ OF SLAUGHTER AND KILLING.
Ibn Taymiyya al Harrani what is he is talking about!?
If this guy was a transformer his name would be TAKFIRA-TRON.
This Salafiyyah dawah is effective ONLY in that the people they talk to on the streets they only show the people what they want them to see. Those people (who they invite to Islam) are not researchers and they don’t have access to the Arabic language.
If people really know about them they will know that what they present is not Islam at all.
After the Muslims, the People of the Truth and Steadfastness had captured Mecca and Medina the following Khutbah was given.
Abu Hamza al-Mukhtar bin Awf al-Uzdy al-Umany. Also known as Abu Hamza al-Shari. One of the prominent Ibadhi’s of Basra. The sermon was delivered in Medina in the presence of Imam Malik ibn Anas:
“I counsel you in fear of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (Blessings and peace be upon him) and to observe the ties of blood, and magnify the truth of Allah which tyrants have diminished, and to diminish the falsehood they have magnified, to put to death the injustice they have brought to life, and to revivify laws they have let die; to obey Allah and to those who obey Him, disobey others in obedience to Him, for there is no obeying a creature which disobeys its Creator. We call you to the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Prophet, and to equal sharing, and to justice for the subject peoples and to putting the fifth of the booty in the place Allah ordained for them. As for us, we have not taken arms lightly or frivolously, for play or amusement, or for a change of government on which we hope to immerse ourselves, or for the revenge that was taken from us; but we did it when we saw the earth had grown wicked, and proofs of tyranny had appeared, and religious propagandist increased, but men did as the pleased, and laws were neglected, and the just were put to death, and speakers of truth treated violently, and we heard a herald calling us to Truth and the straight Path, so we answered the summoner of Allah…And by His grace we became brethren.”
“O people of Medina! Children of the Muhajirin and the Ansar! How sound are your roots, and how rotten are your branches! Your fathers were men of certainty and religious knowledge and you are a people of error and ignorance. For Allah opened the door of religion for you, and you (let it grow choked with rubbish); He locked the door of this world for you and you forced it open; hasty to temptation and laggards in the way of the Prophet; blind to the demonstration of Truth and deaf to knowledge; slaves of greed and allies of affliction! How excellent was the legacy your fathers left, had you preserved it, and how miserable will be that of your children if you hold on to it! Them He aided to the Truth you He deserts in error. Your ancestors were few and pious, and you are many and malicious. The preachers of the Qur’an cry out to you, and you are not chidden’ they warn you, and you do not ponder!
(Islam by John A. Williams (London & New York 1961 pp 215-217)
“I did not translate this too give validation by Malik’s statement far from that, I only did this too show the irony in the term “salaf” and how precedent this School Of Thought Is. What Malik thinks or thought about us grants me no relief nor worry-Wallahu Mustaan.”- Abu Azzan al-Muttarjim
“We do not abrogate an ayat or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (Qur’an 2:106)
“And when We substitute an ayat in place of an ayat – and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down – they say, “You, [O Muhammed], are but an inventor [of lies].” But most of them do not know.” (Qur’an 16:101)
﷽
One of the major differences in aqidah (creed) between the Ibadi school and those from ‘Ahl Sunnah’ is on the issue of the preservation of the Qur’an.
The Ibadi position is this:
We have the entire Qur’an. (Chart A)
We have the Qur’an that Allah (swt) intended for us to have which is Chart A
The Sunni position is this:
We have the Qur’an that Allah (swt) intended for us to have. Chart B
We do not have the entire Qur’an.* Chart B
*Note. This is not an outlier or strange position. This is the major position with in what is called ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah‘. You may be surprised at those who call themselves Sunni who are simply ignorant of this. However; as with any school of theology, jurisprudence or approach taken it is always possible to have minority voices and or those that dissent from the mashur (majority view).
This entry will discuss some observations by a Sunni apologist whom is replying to what is commonly referenced on internet culture as team: “Atheist-Christ*” . In this particular response to 1/2 of team Atheist-Christ an enterprising Sunni apologist gives what he feels is a robust response.
*Note: For those not familiar, an Atheist-Christ is a Christian unbothered by an unsaved Atheist among them. He (the Christian) teams up with the Atheist and they jointly attack Islam.
Thus, 1/2 of team Atheist-Christ is an apologist whom has taken issue with the idea of the Qur’an having lost and/or forgotten chapters/verses/words and so forth.
When it comes to the idea or concept of abrogation the only consensus that the Sunni Muslims seem to have is that such a concept exist. What actually abrogates what is anyone’s guess.
Some of them even believe in scenarios such as that the Qur’an used to have verses that explicitly mention stoning adulterers to death and that the verses were abrogated/lost/forgotten/eaten by a goat. However, the ruling remains! In our school this concept is one in which refuge in Allah (swt) is sought.
You get into issues such as the Qur’an abrogating the Qur’an. The Sunnah abrogating the Sunnah. Or even the Sunnah abrogating the Qur’an. The last one being the most dangerous of all, as the sunnah is primarily preserved and transmitted via lone narrator reports. It is an excellent opportunity for something that is dhan (uncertain) to overrule or overwrite something that is qati (decisive) such as the Qur’an.
The basis for this belief is the following text from the Qur’an.
“We do not abrogate an ayat or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (Qur’an 2:106)
The assumption here is that the word ayat is referencing a verse in the Qur’an. It is not assumed for example that is a reference to miracles, that are no longer witnessed or tangible. or that it a reference to even the previous revelations. Now there are so many things to be said about this in and of itself. Notice that it does not say the word surah (chapter). For example in the following verse:
“And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Slave, then produce a Surah (chapter) the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful.” (Qur’an 2:23)
This part also deserves pensive reflection on the part of those who believe the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated.
“We bring forth better than it or similar to it“
Abrogation is omission, removal and it is impossible for that which is eternal. The idea that some part of Allah’s sifat of attribute of ‘speech‘ would be ‘better‘ or “improved upon” over other parts merits pensive reflection.
“We bring forth better than it or similar to it”
If a person believes that this statement is a reference to the Qur’an than it creates a circular reasoning. If you no longer have the original source to compare it with than you have no way of knowing in what way that which was brought was improved upon.
An example:
As mentioned there is the view among a great many Sunni scholars that there used to be verses of stoning the adulterers in the Qur’an and that was abrogated/lost/forgotten/eaten by a goat. Recall the verse they base their belief on states: “We bring forth better than it or similar to it.” So which verse in the Qur’an now is now similar to it or better than it?
Why are Christians scolded for forgetting the revelation where as for Muslims it becomes a proof and a miracle for Islam? So much so that for the Christians hate and enmity was stirred up between them?!
“And with those who say ‘We are Christians’ We took compact; and they have forgotten (fanasu)a portion of that they were reminded of. So We have stirred up among them enmity and hatred, till the Day of Resurrection; and Allah will assuredly tell them of the things they wrought.” (Qur’an 5: 14)
In fact because I can anticipate how these people think. I can almost guarantee you the immediate response will be something akin to the following: “The difference here is that Allah made the companions forget where as the Christians forgot from negligence.”
Which also baffles me. The Creator causes you to forget his revelation = something meritorious.
The Arabic word Insan is derived from the Arabic nasiya meaning to forget. In fact you can see that in the very text of Q 5:14 above.
So allow me to share with you the video from a Sunni apologist who goes by the name of Farid. I think he means well and over all he some good material.
So after listening to 1/2 of team Atheist-Christ put up his objections against the Qur’an Farid had the following to say:
“”Alright. So Firstly the common answer to this which is the answer I adopt is that this this chapter was abrogated. That’s what that’s the classical position. So the argument for that is really simple. Uh basically this specific verse. This specific verse that speaks of the son of Adam having valleys of gold or valleys of wealth, this specific uh verse was memorized and documented by um according to Sayuti 15 companions. That’s quite a high number. and yet it never got into the Qur’an.” -Farid
Prima Qur’an comments:
Actually, it is very surprising that Farid says this. Perhaps to give him the benefit of the doubt what he means is the Uthmanic codex; because to say that it was never part of the Qur’an is to totally misread what was plainly stated.
Look again:
“We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this…..”
It is clear that was considered part of the Qur’an. We do not call du’a and invocations surah. So the more correct perspective here (if it were true at all) is that it was part of the Qur’an. It just doesn’t become part of the Uthmanic codex.
Farid continues:
“Now there is nothing controversial about the verse. There’s no reason for someone to hide the verse away or anything like that. So yes the traditional Islamic answer is this verse EXCUSE ME THIS CHAPTER was abrogated. And that itself will be convincing to any Muslim.”-Farid
Prima Qur’an comments:
Well, I am a Muslim and I am not the only one that doesn’t buy this at all. The Mufti of Oman, learned scholar and Shaykh, has this to say:
“Abrogation is never permitted in the reports of the Law-Maker because His Knowledge is not refreshed and He is not ignorant of anything that happens, and He does not reveal but the truth.”-Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h)
Notice that Farid does a kind of bait and switch. In the above paragraph he uses the word ‘verse’ twice and the third time finally says, “Excuse me This CHAPTER.” Because that is what is being discussed. Recall “We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this…..”
So since the entirety of the chapter(surah) was lost or forgotten Farid is in no position to say that nothing controversial was in its contents. The reason he cannot say that is accordingly the chapter (surah) as a whole was lost/forgotten. However, the portion the chapter that was remembered was: “If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.”
Also, recall the verse in the Qur’an that is the basis for this belief.
“We bring forth better than it or similar to it”
So what verse did Allah (swt) bring that was better than or equivalent to the one of the two valleys full of riches?
Farid continues.
“Now before getting to my arguments I want you to be aware that the concept of abrogation is not something that is specific to Islam. It’s something that existed in Christianity previously you have the laws of Christianity abrogating the laws of Judaism. Right? Umm You even have specific examples of works that were abrogated because they were not important um in Judaism. So this is again this is not something that’s exclusive to Islam.”-Farid
Prima Qur’an comments:
It would have been great if Farid would have given an example of a law in Christianity abrogating a law of Judaism. If he done that perhaps we could see even how problematic such a concept was in their traditions as well. For example:
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9)
“If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
So initially Jesus (whom is God the Son) according to the Athanasian Trinity gave Moses this command that it was o.k to divorce a woman if he found something displeasing or indecent about her. After she marries another man and he too divorces her or dies she cannot go back to the first husband as that would be ‘detestable’ in the eyes of the Lord. Yet, this same Jesus (whom is God the Son) than tries to say it was Moses who gave such a law because “your hearts’ were hard”
Christian damage control
“Jesus now answers that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts. This means that God created a set of rules limiting the damage which divorce might cause. Jesus adds that it was not so from the beginning. In other words, God’s intention in creation was that all human marriage between man and woman should be lifelong. To separate what God had joined was a violation of God’s design. Under Moses, however, Israel was allowed to break the design because of the sin-hardened hearts of the people—providing limits and restraints on the practice.”
God (Jesus as God the Son) first allowed this type of divorce even though it was a violation of his (Jesus) design. Mostly because of the recognition that people’s hearts were hard. However, he suddenly changes that. Umm why? Aren’t the hearts still hard? You mean to say that human hearts are not hard anymore?
Do you know the irony of all this dear readers?
Religious Jews will see this a proof against Christianity and the capricious nature of how they perceive God.
Religious Christians will see this a proof for Jesus divinity because: Who else can give laws that they personally dislike, and violate the very intended pattern hey have planned for human beings (but not yet cause their hearts are hard) but some time 2000 years ago (possibly their hearts were not as hard) and yes you know what that was not adultery than but it is now: who can do that but God?
Religious Muslims who are involved in polemic with Christians (people like brother Farid) would possibly use arguments like this against the Christian faith and yet see things like this as a case for Islam.
This doesn’t become about being consistent and defending the haqq (truth). It’s about the football jersey that I wear and yours doesn’t’ match mine!
Farid continues.
“Now in regards to this specific matter what I find really interesting here this is referring to Abu Musa Al Ashari; who taught the Qur’an in Basra who taught the Qur’an in Yemen he was seen as one of the main reciters of the Qur’an. We rely upon Abu Musa for our Qir’aat today however, however, interestingly Abu Musa forgot a complete chapter of the Qur’an And what’s really interesting about that specific chapter is like we have no information about it.”-Farid
Prima-Qur’an comments:
These statements by Farid prove my previous points. Namely,
A) We can’t say that the chapter contained anything controversial because as he stated, “We have no information about it.”
B) Farid stated earlier that “and yet it never got into the Qur’an.” Than he says, “Abu Musa forgot a complete chapter of the Qur’an” This is why I give him the benefit of the doubt that what he means is the Uthmanic codex. Not that it was never part of the Qur’an ever.
Farid continues.
“Now in this specific hadith we find Abu Musa not saying not saying I forgot this chapter. He says, I was made to forget this chapter. Where do we find this concept? Well we find it in the Qur’an in verse 106 in Surat al Baqarah mā nansakh min āyatin aw nunsihā nati bikhayrin min’hā aw mith’lihā (We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it.”-Farid
Prima Qur’an comments:
Actually, Abu Musa does not say, “I was made to forget this chapter.” He says, “I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this.” Thus, he did not forget the whole chapter. He forgot all of it with the exception of a certain portion. A portion which Farid admits was recited as the Qur’an and it is still there (as it is in the hadith) but it not recited as part of the Qur’an today.
Is this really what Qur’an 2:106 is saying?
Does it say, “We do not abrogate an entire chapter, with the exception of some verses that will remain but will not be in the final version of this Qur’an, or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it, except for the two valleys verse which will remain and not be included in the final compilation.”
This is absolutely bizarre.
Farid continues.
“Now I want you to focus on the words cause it to be forgotten. That is what Abu Musa is saying I was made to forget this. That’s what Abu Musa is saying. Now, how can that even be proven right? I mean that’s the concept is very strange in itself, but is there any precedence for this? Now what really blew my mind was this specific narration That is narrated by Abu Umamah ibn Sahl in which he says, One night a man tried to read a chapter of the Qur’an that he had but he could not. Another man tried to read it but he also could not. Another man also tried to read it but failed. In the morning they went to the Messenger of Allah and gathered there. One of them said: “O Messenger of Allah! Yesterday night I tried to read chapter so-and-so but I could not.” The other said: “I have come for this very reason.” The third man said: “Me too.” The Messenger (saw) said: “It was abrogated yesterday.” Uh this specific hadith is narrated in nasikh wal mansukh by Abi Obaid; it was also narrated in other works like (I did not catch this part) Um it was also narrated by Tabarani in his Mu’jam al-Kabir in which he says that the Ansar that actually go to recite this verse only managed to recite the words bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, in the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, Most Merciful, and than they just freeze. Not knowing forgetting the rest of the chapter. Which is just it’s really interesting.Basically, what happened was you have this collective amnesia that occurred. Now, now I don’t have the answers in regards to why this occurred. I have no idea what was in that chapter. I have no idea what was in the chapter that abu musa narrated. Um it may even be the same chapter; but for some reason God in his infinite wisdom decided to abrogate that chapter in the same way he decided to abrogate the laws of the old testament and the..(pause) and other books in the old testament as well.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
Al hamdulillah. At least Farid realizes that this whole thing does seem “very strange'”
Farid proposes that there was some how this “collective amnesia” that occurred.
Now neither Farid or myself (to my knowledge) are medical doctors. However, what I can see is that there are considered to be three types of amnesia.
Types of Amnesia
Retrograde amnesia. Having retrograde amnesia means you’ve lost your ability to recall events that happened just before the event that caused your amnesia. …
Anterograde amnesia. …
Transient global amnesia (TGA).
You may read more the distinction between Anterograde Amnesia VS. Retrograde Amnesia here:
I was not satisfied that what Farid describes really fits into any of these categories. At first I thought that maybe Transient global amnesia (TGA) would fit the description. Yet this seems temporary with the memories coming back. So than I thought I would search selective amnesia. This seems to fall under a type of dissociative psychiatric disorder. I do not believe that Farid attributes that to the companions at all.
Farid quotes an example of a few people not being able to remember a particular surah (chapter) and than the Blessed Messenger (saw) is attributed with saying that it was abrogated the night before.
Farid than quotes two other sources but does not bring the references.
“ it was also narrated in other works like (I did not catch this part) Um it was also narrated by Tabarani in his Mu’jam al-Kabir.”
So for example we do not know the type of “amnesia” they had. Was it temporary?
There seems to be temporary memory loss. Where did I place those car keys? There seem to be permanent memory loss, associated above with one of the types of amnesia.
There seems to be forgetfulness of something tangible and non tangible. There seems to be a situation where you were forgetful of what you are forgetful of. Another is something tangible.
So again this creates a type of circular reasoning where if you do not really recall a particular chapter or verse it is possible that you did not forget it at all but just think that you did. You could misplace or forget where you put your car keys. Yet, you know the item in question is tangible, they are car keys. But where did you place them? However, if you think about something obscure like a passage from a book and you think you forgot how to recollect it, it is very possible that actually didn’t commit it to memory to begin with. A type of paradox.
Farid continues.
“Now the Non-Muslim that’s watching this video naturally will be skeptical. Um will probably say, but you see this hadith of Abu Musa it’s speaking about a miracle why should I believe this narration that’s speaking about a miracle there’s no reason for me to believe this. Now I understand where you’re coming from. But that’s why the hadith of Abu Musa that David{1/2 of Atheist-Christ} is quoting is really interesting; and the reason is because again it’s narrated by around 15 people um at least of course at least that’s what we have received. Right? Now none of those 15 actually provide um any context to this. They simply say stuff like oh I heard Rasulullah (saw) recite this verse that speaks of the son of Adam having two valleys of wealth right? Um and you have them narrating this and it’s preserved arbitrarily. It’s narrated at different times at different places. So, yes you have Abu Musa narrating this in Basra. Uh Ibn Abbas, Ibn Zubair narrating this in Mecca. You have Zaid bin Arqam narrating this in Kufa; and of course you have the rest of the sahaba um narrating this in Medina. That’s really interesting. Their narrating this without a context. No one, none of them are arguing that there is a um collective amnesia going on. However, there is absolutely no trace of this chapter. We don’t know anything about this chapter; except for this one verse. Subhan’Allah. Now, there’s one last thing that comes to mind, which is why does this verse exist. Why do they all remember this verse? And why have they all forgotten the rest of the chapter? Now it seems to me like wallahu’alim that Allah (swt) has left this as a trace to point to there being something there once, and now it’s all gone. Subhan’Allah. And Subhan’Allah I mean I wouldn’t have even come across this if it weren’t for our good friend David Wood {1/2 of Atheist-Christ} Um so thank you David {1/2 of Atheist-Christ} I really appreciate this one. Um trust me I wouldn’t have come across this if not for your video. So please keep it up I’m enjoying, I’m learning I’m hoping that everyone else is enjoying the show as well.” -Farid
Prima-Qur’an comments:
Notice that Farid says, “it’s narrated by around 15 people” latter on he states: “Why do they all remember this verse? And why have they all forgotten the rest of the chapter?“
Now I know that English may not be brother Farid’s native language. May Allah (swt) bless him for doing his level best to combat the false narratives about Islam. However, for an English speaker following along the way Farid words things it gives the impression that these 15 narrators all made comments similar to Abu Musa Al Ashari above; namely, “We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this.” However, that is simply not the case at all. This is why it is important to double check sources and to have those sources available for everyone to scrutinize. Source “Trust me bro” is not helpful. For example:
Anas reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying: قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ
If the son of Adam were to possess two valleys of riches. he would long for the third one. And the stomach of the son of Adam is not filled but with dust. And Allah returns to him who repents.
Ibn Abbas reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
If there were for the son of Adam a valley full of riches, he would long to possess another one like it. and Ibn Adam does not feel satiated but with dust. And Allah returns to him who returns (to Him). Ibn Abbas said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur’an or not; and in the narration transmitted by Zuhair it was said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur’an, and he made no mention of Ibn Abbas.
Now it is not possible for the companions to not know the difference between a saying or statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and the Qur’an.
Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:
I heard Ibn Az-Zubair who was on the pulpit at Mecca, delivering a sermon, saying, “O men! The Prophet (saw) used to say, “If the son of Adam were given a valley full of gold, he would love to have a second one; and if he were given the second one, he would love to have a third, for nothing fills the belly of Adam’s son except dust. And Allah forgives he who repents to Him.” Ubai said, “We considered this as a saying from the Qur’an till the Sura (beginning with) ‘The mutual rivalry for piling up of worldly things diverts you..’ (102.1) was revealed.”
If anything is correct about this it is most likely of a similar nature to the Qudsi hadith. That is the content being attributed to Allah (swt) but actually the words of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Now there is something that Farid said above that sounds sensible when it comes to his point about a trace of something. However, trying to make a connection between 15 narrators and the exact statements of Abu Musa Al Ashari is not something he established. Nonetheless when he says, “Now it seems to me like wallahu’alim that Allah (swt) has left this as a trace to point to there being something there once, and now it’s all gone.“
That is how you avoid the paradox I mentioned earlier. You have to be able to recall that you forgot something and having a trace of that can help to establish something was forgotten(temporarily, forever) that is not established. The point that I made above:
“So again this creates a type of circular reasoning where if you do not really recall a particular chapter or verse it is possible that you did not forget it at all but just think that you did.”
Prima-Qur’an Conclusion:
I do not think that anything presented by Farid presents any type of proof or miracle for Islam and/or the preservation of the Qur’an. Not being able to know if a particular thing forgotten was temporary or permanent is important.
The very hadith cited that kicked off the conversation could very well fall into the genre of Qudsi hadith. There is evidence that the companions felt this was a saying of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
The statement from At Tabarani was not given the source or actual quote. You would think something this phenomena would be more wide spread as well. The concept of abrogation as mentioned in my other entry here: https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/why-abrogation-in-the-quran-is-a-false-doctrine/ is an absolute train wreck of a doctrine!
Sunni Muslims (with dissenting voices) believe things like there used to be verses about stoning in the Qur’an and it was removed (abrogated) and yet the ruling remains! Why?
Than as Farid states apparently one companion is made to forget an entire chapter of the Qur’an (with the exception of one verse) and even that verse does not end up in the Qur’an we have today.
The idea that Allah’s verses (his eternal speech) and sifat is superseded by (other eternal speech) better than before merits pensive reflection.
When it comes to our school, Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama we believe the following:
A) We have the whole of the Qur’an with us.
B) We have the Qur’an that Allah (swt) intended for us to have.
Sunni Muslims (with dissenting voices) for the most part hold to position B. They do not hold position A, as they believe whole chapters, verses etc. were lost/forgotten/ etc.
I am motivated to write articles like this because I imagine there is someone persuaded by the depth, comfort, beauty and cohesiveness of Islam. That person than becomes deterred by others telling them, have you seen this video by Atheist-Christ? Than that well intentioned person watches that video and in fairness watches Farid’s video. That person maybe driven further into doubt because Farid’s video could come across as massive copium. In fact that video response could be what drives that person away from embracing the faith!
I want individuals to find responses like this so that they may know that yes Islam is cogent, beautiful, comforting and has depth. If you find certain presentations of Islam disheartening that is not an aspersion on Islam, it is an aspersion on that particular presentation of Islam.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) grant victory to our brothers in Palestine amin!
For those interested I also have some entries on abrogation here:
This was in response to statements by Dr. Abdullah Bin Hamid Ali of Lamppost productions and affiliate of Zaytuna Institute in the United States. He is a Sunni Maliki Ashari’i Islamic scholar.
“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)
﷽
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf states in the interview with Kim Iversen: “What Islam Really Says About Jihad, Martyrdom, and Women’s Rights“, which has been shortened to: “What Islam Really Says About Jihad.“
@17:27 minute mark, Shaykh Hamza says: “The vast majority of Muslims believe in the second coming.”
“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)
﷽
There are so many people on social media these days saying this person refuted so and so. This Shaykh said this. However, upon a closer look you see that nothing of the kind too place.
Let me say this the books of Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness) they are banned in Saudi Arabia. While there are Shaykhs giving fatwa about drinking beer, and more and more concerts are planned. Keeping quite about what is happening to our brothers and sisters in Palestine. Ever ready to draw their tongue and sword against the Muslims. Let this Ummah realize who the real khawarij are!
The truth is many Muslims think that these people are their dawah is dominant. You see them all over social media. They are on YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, you name it. So for an English speaking audience it looks quite impressive. Rarely does anyone counter them. However, if they only had access to the Arabic language and you see these people try and attack our school they get absolutely pummeled. Dare we say you would even pity them!
Some Muslims have a deep resentment towards Saudi Arabia. We, however, do not. They have kept the sacred trust of Mecca and ensuring the safety of the pilgrims as well as maintaining the city of Madinah. Saudi Arabia is also one of the safest countries in the world. We hope for them peace and prosperity; We just hope that it does not come at the expense of the moral compass of the society. May Allah (swt) guide their leadership to do what is right by the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan didn’t refute the Ibadi! He didn’t refute anything!!
Jahmi say that heaven and hell will disappear soon or later. They say Allah (swt ) is every where, and we do not say this.
“The knowledgeable ones in Oman are predominantly Ibadi’s. And the Ibadiyyah are a sect from the Khawarij. And Ahmed Ibn Hamad al-Khalili (Grand Mufti of Oman) is their Imam. And his writings entail the Madhab of the Khawarij and the Madhab of the Jahmiyyah. He has very evil writings! Do not take knowledge from him! Rather take knowledge from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. Yes.” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an response:
What can we say? Ahmed Ibn Hamad al-Khalili (hafidhullah) has written numerous works and none of that is a secret. So which books or writings of books of Shaykh al-Khalili (hafidhullah) did Shaykh Salih al Fawzan refute? None! Which shows that these people who made this video are even willing to lie about their own Shaykh! They even made a lie upon Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan because he didn’t refute absolute jack!
@0:56 Then the producers claim that Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan “refutes the creed of the Ibadiyyah!”
Questioner: “Esteemed Shaykh, who are the Ibadiyyah sect? And is it obligatory to warn against them?”
“The Ibadiyyah are a subsect from the Khawarij (renegades) and are followers of a man named Abdullah Ibn Ibad. They are a sect from the Khawarij. Yes.” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an response:
The students of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan should ask him what books and writings of ‘Abdullah Ibn Ibad‘ (rahemullah) is he familiar with? In what way do we follow him? What are the proofs and evidences?
Questioner: “Esteemed Shaykh, are the Ibadiyyah sect from the followers of Sufism?”
“The Ibadiyyah are from the Khawarij (renegades) & they have extremism upon the Madhab of the Khawarij, The Ibadiyyah make Takfeer upon those who commit major sins other than Shirk, and they believe that the sinful (Muslims) will reside in the hellfire forever. This is from the beliefs of the Khawarij. They are followers of a man named Abdullah Ibn Ibad. They are a sect from the Khawarij.” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
“And they (the Ibadiyyah) say that the Qur’an is created, upon the Madhab of the Jahmiyyah. They combine between the beliefs of the Jahmiyyah and the Khawarij. Yes.” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an response:
“And they believe that the sinful (Muslims) will reside in the hellfire forever.”
Actually, we do not believe that the believers go to hell at all! Does Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan have a single verse from the Qur’an that says the believers got to hell or leave the hell?
“Theysay that the Qur’an is created.” That is because the Qur’an is created!
In fact, on this subject a golden opportunity was presented to Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz to expose Shaykh Ahmed ibn Hamad Al Khalili (hafidullah) and by extension the belief that the Qur’an is created as false. However, ibn Baz backed down!
It is attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) “Whoever guides someone to goodness will have a reward like the one who did it.”
Questioner: “Does the creed of the Ibadiyyah entail disbelief? And if someone prays Salah behind the Ibadi’s, should he repeat his Salah?”
“It is well known that the Ibadiyyah say that the Qur’an is created. They utter the speech the Jahmiyyah. The Salah is not valid behind anyone who says that the Qur’an is created. Yes.” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an response:
Does having similar beliefs to a particular group of Muslims make one from among them? What kind of logic is that?! This must mean that Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan utters the speech of the Jahmiyyah because they believe that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is a Prophet of Allah (swt). Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan also believes this. So does this mean that Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan =a Jahmi?
The Jahmi believe that heaven and hell will disappear sooner or later. This is not our belief. The Jahmi believe that Allah (swt) is omnipresent and this is also not our belief. There are many more examples.
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan is known to speak falsehood and attribute speculation about Allah (swt) and since his aqeedah errors are published and well known he should publicly repent!
For example: Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan when speaking about the Qur’an 4:157 says, “Allah made this man resemble the Messiah.”
Meaning that Allah (swt) made some random person to look like Jesus. However, Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, nor his students can produce any proof for this speculative assumption from the Qur’an or the Sunnah!
In summary Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan only warned his denomination about Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness) . He gave absolutely no refutations. Do not get it twisted!
Let us demonstrate how a refutation is done,
We will do this by refuting Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan’s speculation concerning Allah (swt) having two eyes.
Step 1)
Make your intention for the sake of Allah (swt) the purpose is not to glorify your ego but to establish the truth so that the people maybe guided.
Step 2)
You give the position of the other side. You do not edit, cut out or censor them. Lay out their evidence from their own sources. This is done like this…observe….
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan’s speculation concerning Allah (swt) having two eyes is based upon the following pieces of evidence:
Questioner ask: “Sheikh may Allah grant you success. In the hadith of the Prophet (saw) “And indeed your Lord is not one eyed.” Is this evidence for the attribute of the two eyes of Allah?”
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan replies “Yes, Ahlus-Sunnah-Wa-Al-Jamaa’ah derive from it the affirmation of the two eyes of Allah. If God is not one-eyed, so then the meaning of it is that He has two eyes, yes.”
Questioner ask: “And is there another evidence (that is) more sufficient than this?”
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan replies: “In the Qur’an “Which sailed on before Our eyes, as a reward for someone who has been rejected.” [Qur’an 54:14]
“Cast him into the chest, and toss it into the river. The current will throw him up on the shore where an enemy of Mine as well as an enemy of him will pick him up. I have lavished love of My own on you so that you are brought up under my two eyes.” [Qur’an 20:39]
Step 3)
Refutation. Show how the opposing sides conclusions are flawed. We will do this now.
“And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
For the first evidence:
What they do is rely upon the following hadith:
The Prophet (saw) said, “Allah did not send any prophet but that he warned his nation of the one-eyed liar (Ad-Dajjal). He is one-eyed while your Lord is not one-eyed, The word ‘Kafir’ (unbeliever) is written between his two eyes.”
From they deduce that Allah (swt) must have two eyes. In the above hadith, they rely upon reason and speculation!! The very thing they accuse others of doing. No where does that hadith say that Allah (swt) has two eyes.
The second evidence:
“In the Qur’an “Which sailed on before Our eyes, as a reward for someone who has been rejected.” [Qur’an 20:39]
Prima Qur’an response:
From they deduce that Allah (swt) must have two eyes. In the above passage of the Qur’an they rely upon reason and speculation!! The very thing they accuse others of doing. No where does that text of the Qur’an does it say that Allah (swt) has two eyes. Even if they don’t want to allow for the fact that the Arabs in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) were masters of their language and understood fully idiom and expression and even if you want to take the literal meaning “Our eyes” is an unspecified number!
The third evidence used:
“Cast him into the chest, and toss it into the river. The current will throw him up on the shore where an enemy of Mine as well as an enemy of him will pick him up. I have lavished love of My own on you so that you are brought up under my two eyes.” [Qur’an 20:39]
Prima Qur’an response:
First of all these people lie upon their own Shaykh! Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan did not say ‘two‘ eyes. Even if he did in another speech or book then he has attributed to Allah (swt) speculative theology. Look at the two Saudi backed translations of the Qur’an into English.
Even if they don’t want to allow for the fact that the Arabs in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) were masters of their language and understood fully idiom and expression and even if you want to take the literal meaning the translation “Two eyes” is a flat lie! There is no word ‘two‘ in the Arabic text. Not only that but they are in a real pickle now! Because the text says, ‘eye‘ and other text says ‘our eyes‘. This is what happens when you do not understand language, idiom and expression.
You see this is a very different situation then the following text of the Qur’an:
“And the Jews say, ‘The hand of Allah is tied up.’ Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His Hands are extended, He spends however He wills…” (Qur’an 5:64)
Even if they don’t want to allow for the fact that the Arabs in the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) were masters of their language and understood fully idiom and expression and even if you want to take the literal meaning the translation as ‘both‘ they have scope to say that Allah (swt) has two hands. Yet they have absolutely no proof that Allah (swt) has ‘two‘ eyes. Their position would have been more consistent if they simply stated: “We believe that Allah has eyes.” They could have done that without specifying a number.
That my friends is how a refutation is done.
We have done our level best to defend the honour of Shaykh Ahmed ibn Hamad Al Khalili (hafidullah). In reality he does not need my defense. His defense is the Qur’an and the Sunnah! We have also done our level best in defending again the slander against our brothers, the Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness)
“Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally in that. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6)
﷽
Analyzing the Hadith: Khawarij are the dogs of hellfire!!
This is an analysis of the hadith that are attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw), in terms of their chains of narration and analysis of the text being transmitted Insh’Allah.
This particular hadith which has been put in the mouth of the Blessed Messenger (saw) has him insult, revile and curse his companions!
Before we start dear reader one should be reminded. What I am about to share with you be extremely careful in what you attribute to the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Narrated by Ali: “The Prophet said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whosoever tells a lie against me then he will surely enter the hell-fire.”
Narrated By ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair: ” I said to my father, ‘I do not hear from you any narration (Hadith) of Allah s Apostle as I hear (his narrations) from so and so?” Az-Zubair replied. l was always with him (the Prophet) and I heard him saying “Whoever tells a lie against me then (surely) let him occupy, his seat in Hell-fire.”
Narrated By Anas: “The fact which stops me from narrating a great number of Hadiths to you is that the Prophet said: “Whoever tells a lie against me intentionally, then (surely) let him occupy his seat in Hell-fire.”
Narrated By Al-Mughira: “I heard the Prophet saying, “Ascribing false things to me is not like ascribing false things to anyone else. Whosoever tells a lie against me intentionally then surely let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire.” I heard the Prophet saying, “The deceased who is wailed over is tortured for that wailing.”
There are two options here. If you lied about the Blessed Prophet (saw) intentionally than you will be in the hellfire. If you lied about the Prophet (saw) unintentionally you still need to make tauba (repentance) and vow to never repeat such again.
Ibn Sirin said:
“Nobody used to ask about the isnad (chain of narration), but when the fitna occurred (infighting among the companions), they would question others by asking: “Tell us the names of your men?” After this they were cautious about every narrator, and they would take narrations from those who were known to be scrupulous in following the Sunnah, and leave (or reject) the narrations of those who were known as innovators in religion.”
Source: (Muslim Volume 1 P. 15)
HADITH: KHAWARIJ ARE THE DOGS OF HELLFIRE.
This huge statement attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) comes to us by way of two transmissions attributed to two companions.
Hadith #1 The first is by way of Abdullah Ibn Abi Awfa.
‘Abdullah Ibn Abi Awfa
It was narrated that Ibn Awfa said:
“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.'”
Hadith #2 This hadith is by way of Abu Umamah said:
“(The Khawarij) are the worst of the slain who are killed under heaven, and the best of the slain are those who were killed by them. “Those (Khawarij) are the dogs of Hell. Those people were Muslims but they became disbelievers.” I said: “O Abu Umamah, is that your opinion?” He said: “Rather I heard IT from the Messenger of Allah.”
An example of difference in the text when Abu Ghalib claims to narrate from Abu Umamah:
“Abu Umamah saw heads (of the Khawarij) hanging on the streets of Damascus. He said: ‘The dogs of the Fire and the worst dead people under the canopy of the heavens. The best dead men are those whom these have killed.’ He then recited: On the Day when some faces will become white and some faces will become black… (3:106) until the end of the Ayah. I said to Abu Umamah: ‘Did you hear IT from the Messenger of Allah (saw)?’ He said: ‘If I had not heard IT but one time, or two times, or three times, or four times – until he reached seven – I would not have narrated it to you.”
ANALYZING THE FOUR CHAINS THROUGH ABU UMAMAH AL BAHILI
1.Abu Ghalib
Ibn Hibban says we cannot take his hadith. An Nasai’ says he is weak. Ibn Sa’d also says he is weak. Yahya ibn Ma’in & Tirmidhi both comment that he is a good transmitter. Al Dhahabi comments that in all of his (Abu Ghalib’s) narrations there is something.
2. Safewan bin Suliam Almadni
He did not meet Abu Umamah Al Bahili He met with another Abu Umamah As Said ibn Suhair ibn Hanif On account of that Ibn Hajar Al Asqalni commented that it is possible this transmission is cut off. And it is proven that it has a cut as he did not meet the one he claims to transmit from. The lack of ‘an ‘an, that he was listening makes this clear he did not get from the source. This is why in the matn it says: “He entered” he did not say, “I heard from…” “I listened..” In the narration when the hadith is a strong and correct hadith the wording will be: “I saw him”, “I met him”, “I listened from him”
3. Shadad ibn Abdillah Abi Ammar
Ibn Hajar-says He is sincere; however, the hadith is musral. The sahaba is cut off.
3a. Ikrima ibn Ammar
Ibn Hajar says: sincere but a faulty individual. His narration through Yahya ibnu Kathir -His hadith via this route is Maqloob. Fulaan yasriq al-Hadith -so and so steals Hadith.
4.Siyar Ashami Al Amawi
Virtually none of the people of Jarh wa Tadeel has given him trust, with the exception of Al Bukhari. Even than it is not that Bukhari gave him trust but Bukhari uses him in Tarikh Al Kabir. Ibn Hibban gives him trust. However, it is noted that Ibn Hibban is lax when giving trust to narrators. No other is with Ibn Hibban considering him. Ibn Abi Hatim in his Al Jarh wa Tadeel claims no one gives Siyar Ashami Al Amawi trust. Al Dhahabi says of him ‘wuthiq’ and not ‘thiqa’. This indicates weakness in Siyar Ashami Al Amawi.
4a. Abi Saeed Abur Rahman bin Abdillah Al Basri
He is a mawla (client) of Bani Hashim. He is a Shaykh for Ahmed bin Hanbal. Ibn Hajar says about him: He is sincere but may have faults. Imam Al Uqali says Imam Ahmed mentioned that his teacher had “many faults”. Al Qabani also says that Imam Ahmed found found fault in his teacher.
The chain for this hadith is: Abu Bakr bin Abi Shayba narrates from Ishaq bin Yusuf bin Mrdas narrating from Sulaiman bin Mahran al-Ahmash narrating from Abdullah Ibn Abi Awfa.
ANALYZING THE TWO CHAINS THROUGH ABDULLAH IBN ABI AWFA
1.al-Amash
al-Amash is known as Mudallas.
A Mudallas (“concealed”) in hadith is one which is weak due to the uncertainty caused by tadlis. Tadlis (concealing) refers to an isnad where a reporter has concealed the identity of his Shaykh.
Tadlis al-Isnad. A person reports from his Shaykh whom he met, what he did not hear from him, or from a contemporary of his whom he did not meet, in such a way as to create the impression that he heard the hadith in person. A mudallis (one who practices tadlis) here usually uses the mode (“on the authority of”) or (“he said”) to conceal the truth about the isnad.
There is agreement that al-Amash did not meet Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa.
2.Saeed Ibnu Jamhan via Allalakaee via two ways:
2a.Allalakaee -via- Hashragu Ibnu Nabatha
Ibn Hajar says about him (Hashraju): Truthful but forgets allot.
2b.Allalakaee-via- Qutnu ibnu Nusair
Ibn Hajar says about him: Truthful but forgets allot. Abu Zuhra says he is carrying something in his heart about that man. Ibnul Adei says that he is stealing the hadith. Fulaan yasriq al-Hadith -so and so steals Hadith
MATN (TEXTUAL) CRITICISM OF THEHADITH: KHAWARIJ ARE THE DOGS OF HELLFIRE.
The statement:
“The dogs of the Fire and the worst dead people under the canopy of the heavens. The best dead men are those whom these have killed.”
This is not from pure Arabic grammar and the Prophet (saw) did not speak like this.
The statement: “Did you hear IT from the Messenger of Allah (saw)?’ He said: ‘If I had not heard IT but one time, or two times, or three times, or four times – until he reached seven – I would not have narrated it to you.”
Is hardly believable. This is a huge hadith this is not something light or small. Where are the other sahaba, companions?
This hadith is giving a hukm! It is talking about taking the life of others, which is not a small matter. How are we to believe that especially in light of the claim of one narrator that the Prophet (saw) mentioned as such seven times! Only 1 or 2 have heard this!?
After 64 hijri, this hadith mentions this term ‘khawarij’ which was not there in the time of the Prophet (saw).
Dr. Salahuddin ibn Ahmad al-Idlib says this hadith is mawdu, it is lies!
Source: (Manhaj Naqd al-Matn ‘Inda ‘Ulama’ al-Hadith al-Nabawi (منهج نقد المتن عند علماء الحديث النبوي) page 362)
Translated from the above:
Concerning the Condemnation of the Khawarij: Ibn Majah narrated from Ibn Abi Awfa that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said:
“The Khawarij are the dogs of Hellfire.” (1)
The fabricators did not neglect condemning the Rawafid (a term for some Shi’a sects), so they fabricated hadiths for that purpose. Among them is what Ibn al-Jawzi narrated from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said:
[There will be] “The Qadariyyah, the Murji’ah, and the Rawafid.” (2)
And in Al-Mawdu’at (The Fabricated Hadiths), it is also narrated from Anas that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said:
“The Qadariyyah, the Jabriyyah, the Murji’ah, the Rawafid, and the Khawarij will be stripped of a quarter of Tawhid (monotheism), so they will meet Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, as disbelievers, abiding eternally in Hellfire.” (3)
These labels (for sects) did not exist during the time of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him), so it is not permissible to attribute these hadiths condemning them and insulting them to him.
The Second Issue: Fabricated Hadiths in Support of Jurisprudential Schools (Madhahib)
Ijtihad (legal reasoning) in subsidiary jurisprudential matters led to the emergence of different schools of thought (Madhahib). Each jurisprudential school had its principles, conclusions, and theories. Each group would support its viewpoint with what it understood from the texts of the Noble Quran and what was narrated from His Messenger (peace be upon him).
“Regrettably, some ignorant zealots among the followers of the jurists were not content to limit their evidence to sound, established texts. Instead, they wanted to silence their opponents with decisive proofs that did not accept rebuttal, even if they were not proven. Thus, they began to compose forged hadiths and attribute them to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).“
(1) Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 172 (2) Al-Mawdu’at (Ibn al-Jawzi), Vol. 1, p. 272 (3) Al-Mawdu’at (Ibn al-Jawzi), Vol. 1, p. 278
Notice that to Abu Ghalib this is not some common knowledge or something well known.
Also, note that he asked Abu Umamah if that was his opinion or rather he heard IT from the Blessed Messenger (saw). Another point of consideration is that the ‘it‘ is not qualified. What part of his statement is he actually saying he heard from the Blessed Messenger (saw)? Notice the statement of takfir “They used to be Muslims but they became disbelievers.”
The very thing they accuse the so called ‘Khawarij’ of doing are that which they themselves are doing!
Do take note of the following!
Notice how apparently this individual takes an ayat of the Qur’an that is used to describe unbelievers and arguably applies the text to believers (or former believers). Again, something they accuse the so called ‘Khawarij’ of doing!
Also, notice the ghastly image the narrator finds in Damascus. The heads of these people are on pikes: “Abu Umamah saw heads (of the Khawarij) hanging on the streets of Damascus.”
Now, that sounds like something that an imperium would do against dissenters.
Lastly, this text differs remarkably from the first one. Unless someone wants to make the spacious argument that Abu Ghalib is relating two different instances. That makes the matter worse because it makes Abu Ghalib question Abu Umamah’s statement as being truthful on two different occasions!
Also, it is extremely telling to note that Abu Umamah al Bahili was in the battle of Siffin on the side of Ali, even after the events.
OVER ALL ASSEMENT OF THE THREE HADITH ABOVE.
The Blessed Messenger (saw) never call people dogs.
The strongest condemnation of unbelievers and those who reject the message of truth comes from Allah (swt) in the Qur’an: “Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6).
Allah (swt) never called anyone dogs, let alone the Blessed Messenger (saw)
Now dear reader imagine you are walking with a friend of yours. This friend suddenly says, “And the Litharians are the worst of people! They are absolute scum!”
Wouldn’t that be odd? Wouldn’t you want to have some context to this statement?
Considering this statement: “dogs of hellfire” coming from the lips of the Blessed Messenger (saw) it should have more context and more background to it and it simply doesn’t!
It just gives the impression that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was walking around during the brisk afternoon and stated: “The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.” Really? Just like that?
No context?
The three hadith quoted above give you absolutely no context. Now what Ahl Sunnah does is that they take these hadith and juxtapose them besides other hadith to paint a picture. However, these hadith quoted above give no picture, no context and no clue to the situation that has given rise to the very strong words that are allegedly used by the Blessed Messenger (saw).
This is a huge statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw). Only two of the companions narrate this?
The other point is that the word ‘Khawarij’ was not in use in the time of 640 Hijra. This is a tell tale sign itself.
Now, if we want to talk about a hadith that talks about rebels or those who do khurooj. Why not talk about a hadith that has no ambiguity in the text or in its chain of transmission? Then we can know who these ‘khawarij’ are.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“That Ibn `Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
Now this presents a clear dilemma for Ahl Sunnah and the Pro Alid camp. They are in a pickle. However, it does not present a dilemma for truth seekers.
Are we to believe that Ikrima (ra) whom is an impeccable narrator, and whom narrated the above hadith about Ammar that is used by the pro Alid camp to attack the Umayyad’s was among the dogs of the hellfire?
Or,
Is it more likely given the ambiguity of the ‘dogs of the hell fire’ text quoted above, no context for such a tremendous statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw), and the issues surrounding the chains of transmission that they are indeed fabrications with malevolent intent?
May Allah (swt) open your hearts and your eyes dear Ummah! Muslims are to be guided by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Our noble scholars lead the way.
The Amir of the Muslims is the head of the Muslims. It is not a theocracy. It is a human government. One in which the head of state can make mistakes and can be removed from office! Peacefully preferably and forcibly if need be.
I recommend the following articles for you dear reader. Remember the victors write history and know that Allah (swt) will allow the truth to prevail in the end.
Say, ‘Truth has come and falsehood has been banished; it is doomed to banishment.'” (Qur’an 17:81)
Dogs of hellfire? Who really believes that animals are going to hell?
This article addresses the bizarre belief that Allah (swt) has a goat into hell ….well…just because.
“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.” (Qur’an 5:32)
﷽
Please excuse the tired clichés (khawārij). Nevertheless, this material may still be of value to researchers and interested readers.
Summary
Sālim ibn Ḥammūd ibn Shāmis al-Siyābī (1908–1993) was an Omani scholar, poet, historian, and judge. He was born in Ghāla, in the ولاية of Bawshār in eastern Oman. A largely self-taught scholar, al-Siyābī memorized the Qur’an at the age of seven and later studied classical Arabic works, including the Alfiyyah of Ibn Malik, a renowned 1,000-line poem on Arabic grammar.
Al-Siyābī was a prolific author, credited with as many as 84 works. According to Sultān ibn Mubārak al-Shaybānī, his writings can be categorized into prose and treatises, poetry and versified compositions, and research and correspondence.
This manuscript was copied by Yūsuf ibn Sāʻid al-Zakwānī in 1386 AH (1966 CE). Written in black ink with rubricated headings, it contains two works by al-Siyābī.
The first is a theological treatise defending Ibadism against accusations made by other Muslim scholars. The second, titled Wahb al-Samāʾ fī Aḥkām al-Dimāʾ (“The Gift from Heaven on the Rulings of Bloodshed”), is primarily composed in verse and addresses the jurisprudence of bodily injuries. It is organized into short sections, each outlining the legal ruling for injury to a specific part of the body.
In the first work, Aṣdaq al-Manāhij fī Tamyīz al-Ibāḍiyya min al-Khawārij(“The Most Truthful Method for Distinguishing the Ibāḍīs from the Khārijites”), al-Siyābī critiques the prejudices held by some scholars against the Ibāḍīs. Writing in a question-and-answer format, he argues that Ibāḍīs should be understood within the broader Sunni tradition rather than as Khārijites.
In the introduction, he explains that he composed the treatise after consulting numerous works of Islamic theology in which certain scholars expressed outrage at the claim that the Ibāḍīs were responsible for the killings of Ali ibn Abi Talib and Uthman ibn Affan.
This claim relates to the early political conflicts that followed the death of the Prophet (saw) and contributed to divisions within the Muslim community. The Khārijites initially supported ʿAlī but later rejected his leadership after he agreed to arbitration during his conflict with Muawiyah I. Declaring both sides illegitimate, they rebelled and became known as khawārij (“those who seceded” or “rebels”).
A subsequent internal split among the Khārijites—particularly regarding methods of political opposition—led to the emergence of the Ibāḍī movement. Today, Ibāḍī communities are found primarily in Oman, as well as in parts of North and East Africa.
“When Musa came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! show (Yourself) to me, that I may look upon you.” Allah said: “You shall never see me; But look upon the mount; if it abides in its place, then you will see me.”
When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.” (Qur’an 7:143)
﷽
Our brothers have done it again. An excellent overview of the meaning of the request of Musa (as) to see Allah (swt).
As for Musa (as), we get that he knows the attributes of Allah -Transcendent and Exalted He is. That which concerns the positive side and that which concerns the negative side. So he knows of the impossible -to affirm- attributes upon Allah. As we said that this is perceived through the natural instinct and the mind. And Musa (as) without doubt is greater than that; rather he is a prophet whom revelation is passed onto, and he has been chosen by Allah from all creation. So he cannot attribute to Allah that which is not suited. So he is not ignorant-dignified he is- rather he is knowledgeable. He is knowledgeable on the fact that it’s impossible for Allah to be described with being perceived.
As for connecting his request {“My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You.”} [Qur’an 7:143] and his Belief that this is impossible, then that is understood by saying that he didn’t request the ‘action of seeing’/ru’ya for himself. Rather, he asked (that) for his people. Even if it came in the singular form or first person(perspective). When he said {“My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You.”}. As for the proof that he asked it for his people then the ayats of the Qur’an are clear! {And [recall] when you said, “O Musa, we will never believe you until we see Allāh outright”;} [Qur’an 2:55].
So, they are the ones who asked Musa (as) for that. And they negate belief upon themselves until that is achieved for them. And Allah the Exalted also said, {For truly, they had asked Moses for something even greater than that, for they said, “Show us Allah openly.”} [Qur’an 4:153] The evidence is also when Musa (as) and those of those who were with him (from bani Israel, when asked for ru’ya) were struck.
He said {Will You annihilate us for what the fools among us have done?} [Qur’an 7:155]. So the sign here is that they are ignorant and they have brought this upon themselves. This all signifies that he asked the ‘action of seeing’ for them, as in him being attentive for them to believe. So he was Merciful to his people, benevolent towards them, even though he knows that this is a grave matter. But he wanted to prove its impossibility not in acceptance to them for what they asked. Rather they were stubborn, so he asked this not in respect to their request to them. All the while knowing it being impossible. Rather to show them by proof that it is not happening. Because they know with their stubbornness that he is better than them; and that he is a messenger of Alllah whom revelation is passed onto.
For if the perception was unachievable for him , then it will be all the more so unachievable for them, thus not happening. And indeed , this is what happened. And reality has been shown with the decimation of the mountain, and with them being struck alongside Mosa (as) by the lightning. And that signified the danger of what was asked.
And that was a punishment for them, but as for Musa (as) it was a type of guidance, because Allah the almighty knows the truth of Musa (as) , but this from Allah was due to Musa (as) being hasty in asking that which he should have sought permission in first. It was more appropriate and fitting for him to first ask permission from Allah the Exalted. Then, his repentance from this indicates that this is grave upon Allah, because when he became unconscious. What did he say, he first said {And when he awoke, he said, “Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers.”} [Qur’an 7:143]
“Do not follow what you have no knowledge of. Indeed, all will be called to account for ˹their˺ hearing, sight, and intellect.” (Qur’an 17:36)
﷽
“To Allah belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth, that He may recompense those who do evil for what they have done, and recompense those who have done good (ahsanu) with the reward most fair (bil-hus’na).” (Qur’an 53:31)
The issue of the companions is a sensitive one among the Muslim ummah. Often one dives right into the subject without taking some time to define terms. For example:
Who actually is a companion (sahaba)? What are the criteria that are used?
Is there a universally agreed upon definition?
All of these preliminary questions would be very helpful in establishing the truth of the matter.
So, for us, we do not deal with emotions. We deal with proof and evidence because this is what ultimately establishes truth from error.
The following verses are those that the Sunni Muslims will use to somehow justify that a certain group of the companions are going to paradise. However, we need to do a tight textual analysis to see if this is actually correct.
“And why do you not spend in the cause of Allah while to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth? Not equal among you are those who spent before the conquest [of Makkah] and fought [and those who did so after it]. Those are greater in degree than they who spent afterward and fought. But to all Allah has promised reward (l-husna). And Allah, with what you do, is Acquainted.” (Qur’an 57:10)
“Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] – other than the disabled – and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised reward (l-husna). But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a greater reward (ajran aziman).” (Qur’an 49:5)
First, neither of these verses are speaking about paradise or promising anyone paradise. Someone will need to show where in the Arabic text it says this.
This is the issue of comparison of deeds. What deeds are more meritorious than the other. This text does not address the issue that all of them will go to paradise.
Allah (swt) differentiates those who do jihad and those who remain at home. Allah (swt) differentiates between those who have spent and fought before and those who came later.
Also, if you juxtapose the two verses together, look at them closely.
The statement: ”With a greater reward (ajran aziman)” cannot mean paradise/heaven.
First, because the Arabic text does not say so.
Second, because it would exclude from paradise those from the statement: “But to all Allah has promised reward (l-husna)” because the verse in 49:5 indicates that ajran aziman is distinct from l-husna.
The only way for Sunni scholars to solve this is for them to use strained interpretative devices to suggest that husna means heaven and ajran aziman means seeing Allah, or that husna means heaven and ajran aziman means greater heaven.
The Qur’an speaks in generality. It speaks in terms of generality. When it speaks of the companions as we see above, it speaks in terms of generality. Thus, Qur’an 57:10 and Qur’an 49:5 speak in generalities and do not explicitly mention paradise. Therefore, we should not read paradise into those general verses simply because we assume that the recipients as a whole were righteous or guaranteed paradise.
This is methodologically sound. A general promise of al-ḥusnā (the best reward) does not, by itself, constitute an explicit guarantee of paradise for every individual within the groups mentioned, especially when:
The Qur’an itself affirms that hypocrites existed among the Muhājirūn and Anṣār (Qur’an 9:101).
The Prophet (saw) explicitly stated that some of his companions would be barred from his Ḥawḍ (Bukhārī, 6582).
Any creedal claim of universal salvation for all companions requires additional evidence beyond these two verses.
Contrast those verses above where no mention of paradise is in the Arabic text with a text that has explicit mention.
“And their Lord responded to them, “Never will I allow to be lost the work of [any] worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another. So those who emigrated and were evicted from their homes and were harmed in My cause and fought and were killed – I will surely remove from them their misdeeds, and I will surely admit them to gardens (jannatin) beneath which rivers flow as reward from Allah , and Allah has with Him the best reward.” (Qur’an 3:195)
Notice how Allah (swt) describes those, their, them who receive the gardens(janna)? They are those whom: emigrated, were evicted, harmed, fought and were killed.
Qur’an 3:195 describes a specific group with specific qualities and promises them paradise. It does not say others are excluded, but it also does not authorize us to extend its promise beyond those qualities.
Allah does not cause the loss of anyone who does good.
So, certainly, if anyone does good, they will be rewarded with what is better. And whoever does evil will be rewarded for that. So, if this is the ruling for mankind in general, of course, the believers get reward for good, and it is no secret that in Islam some intentions are more noble than other intentions. Some actions are more meritorious than other actions.
Whoever comes with a good deed will be rewarded with what is better. And whoever comes with an evil deed, then the evildoers will only be rewarded for what they used to do.” (Qur’an 28:84)
“Be patient in hard times.(Oh Muhammed) Allah does not fail to repay those who do good.” (Qur’an 11:115)
Also, keep in mind, based upon the verses in the Qur’an, we know that people who die as a shaheed in the path of Allah (swt) will be in paradise. This is also our good opinion and outward perception. However, only Allah (swt) really knows what is in the heart of people.
“It has been narrated on the authority of Sulaiman b. Yasar who said:
People dispersed from around Abu Huraira, and Natil, who was from the Syrians. said to him: O Shaykh, relate (to us) a tradition you have heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Yes. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: The first of men (whose case) will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be a man who died as a martyr. He shall be brought (before the Judgment Seat). Allah will make him recount His blessings (i. e. the blessings which He had bestowed upon him) and he will recount them (and admit having enjoyed them in his life). (Then) will Allah say: What did you do (to requite these blessings)? He will say: I fought for Thee until I died as a martyr. Allah will say: You have told a lie. You fought that you might be called a” brave warrior”. And you were called so. (Then) orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face downward and cast into Hell.”
The principles of interpreting the Qur’an are twofold.
When one text is general and another is specific, the specific is regarded as stronger as evidence.
A clear text is preferable to an interpretation of the text.
An example:
Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
“In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of Ibrahim; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage therefore it is a duty mankind (nas) owe to Allah,- those who are able to perform the journey; but if any deny faith, Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures.” (Qur’an 3:97)
Nass (people/mankind) includes children, women, slaves, the insane; all are included in the word nass (people). When it comes to hadith, some are lifted from the obligation. Children must not go on hajj alone. Women must not go unless they have the company of a mahrim. The mentally challenged are not obligated at all. All of those categories are not obligated unless certain conditions are met—even though they are all nass (people, mankind)
For example the companion/sabaha that Allah (swt) called a fasiq.
“O you who believe! If a Fasiq (liar- evil person) comes to you with any news, verify it, lest you should harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful for what you have done” (Qur’an 49:6)
“And as for those who are Fasiqun (disbelievers and disobedient to Allah), their abode will be the Fire, every time they wish to get away therefrom, they will be put back thereto, and it will be said to them: “Taste you the torment of the Fire which you used to deny.” (Qur’an 32:20)
I said to ‘Ammar: What is your opinion about that which you have done in case (of your siding with Hadrat ‘Ali)? Is it your personal opinion or something you got from Allah’s Messenger (saw)? ‘Ammar said: We have got nothing from Allah’s Messenger (saw) which people at large did not get, but Hudhaifa told me that Allah’s Apostle (saw) had especially told him amongst his Companion, that there would be twelve hypocrites out of whom eight would not get into Paradise, until a camel would be able to pass through the needle hole. The ulcer would be itself sufficient (to kill) eight. So far as four are concerned, I do not remember what Shu’ba said about them.”
The Prophet (saw) said, “Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, ‘My companions!’ Then it will be said, ‘You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you.”
If Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) understood the verses of 57:10 and 49:5 in the way contemporary Sunni Muslims strenuously interpret them, then Umar(ra) would not go to Hudhayfah ibn Yaman (ra) and ask if he was a hypocrite.
Now someone will reply: “This is a sign of his sincerity.”
Yes, that is true, but it is a sign of nifaq to doubt a promise of Allah (swt)!
Rather, Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) did this because of both. He was not certain of his place in paradise, and he had sincerity and true fear of Allah (swt).
As the following verse reminds us:
“Did they feel secure against Allah’s planning? None would feel secure from Allah’s planning except the losers.” (Qur’an 7:99)
The next set of verses to look at:
“And the vanguard among (min’al) the emigrants and the helpers, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them forever; that is the mighty achievement.” And among (min’al) those around you of the Bedouins are hypocrites, and also from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You do not know them, We know them. We will punish them twice, once in this world; then they will be returned to a great punishment.” (Qur’an 9:100-101)
So when we look at this verse in Arabic and in context we realize a few important points.
This verse starts off with words of praise and reward for the vanguard among the emigrants and the helpers, as well as anyone ‘those‘ who followed them in goodness. They are the subject of Allah’s grace and promise.
So, the first part of the verse is not all the companions who immigrated to Madinah. However, the following verse also makes the first verse clear. ‘And among the Bedouins and people of Madinah.’
So is the second verse saying that all the Bedouins are hypocrites?
Is the second verse saying that all the people of Madinah are hypocrites?
So, when we consider that the Bedouins are people who could have migrated with the Blessed Messenger (saw), they could be among the Muhajirun.
When we consider that the Ansar are from Madinah, they could be from among those in Madinah. However, even after these clear points are presented, there are additional points of consideration.
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 59:10)
This very beautiful revelation was revealed as a reminder to the people of Madinah who were receiving the immigrants, the people who were coming from Mecca to join them. Notice the verse does not say, “all those who came before us”. Rather, the verse says, ‘those who have believed.’.
Now, even though this verse was in the context of the Ansar receiving the Mujahirin, we should see no reason why not to apply this verse today for us as Muslims.
We should certainly harbor no ill will from those who came before us who were believers. No one needs to insert words into the text that is not there. There is no problem with praying, “leave not in our hearts rancour against those who believed”, because Allah (swt) knows those who believed and those who did not.
This is an issue of creed (aqidah) for Sunni Muslims, but it is not for our school, Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama
The Sunni Muslims state in Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah.
“We love the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. We do not exaggerate in our love for any of them, nor do we disown any of them. We hate those who hate them or who mention them without good, for we do not mention them except with good. Love for them is a part of religion, faith, and spiritual excellence, and hatred for them is unbelief, hypocrisy, and transgression.”
This is the Sunni statement of creed in regards to the companions.
We respond to this with the angels du’a in the Qur’an:
“Those (angels) who bear the Throne and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, and believe in Him, and ask forgiveness for those who believe (saying): ‘Our Lord! You comprehend all things in mercy and knowledge, so forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and save them from the torment of the blazing Fire! Our Lord! And make them enter the Paradise which you have promised them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their offspring! Verily, You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. And save them from the sins, and whomsoever You save from the sins that Day, him verily, You have taken into mercy.” And that is the supreme success.’” (Qur’an 40: 7-9)
The beauty of this du’a is that it says: ‘for those who believe’ and ‘those who repent and follow Your Way’.
Thus, if Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muaviya, Yazid or anyone else are those people, then the du’a lands on them. And if Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Muaviya, Yazid or anyone else are not them, then the du’a misses them.
The point being that is the purview of Allah (swt).
Prima Quran 