Tag Archives: Ibadi

EF Dawah Discussion with Josh (Jewish) | Is the Quran Being Uncreated Against Tawheed?

“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

﷽ 

We never met this beautiful soul, Joshua. May Allah guide him! He is a very intelligent man. This makes sense. We have a feeling that he is keen on Islam. However, just as he is aware that Judaism has various debates on various issues, he is also smart enough to know that the house of Islam, unfortunately, is not one big happy family.

Probing positions and views before deciding to commit to something IS an intelligent thing to do!

This man, Joshua, had Ali Dawah on the ropes when they were discussing the issue of whether Allah (swt) rested. Because, using a consistent approach, Ali Dawah began to realize he had no scope to argue with the forceful position of this young man. To Ali Dawah’s credit, he didn’t force the issue.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/does-allah-rest-or-does-allah-settle-or-sit-on-the-throne-judaism-and-the-athari-creed/

Now to this topic: Discussion with Josh (Jewish) | Is the Quran Being Uncreated Against Tawheed?

Abbas: “I don’t think it was its attribute. We, we’ve, I think we’ve answered the question many times that, with the knowledge of Allah, the Qur’an would have existed eternally. See. The actual physical book the mushaaf that was sent down and this is obviously an English translation, but the actual Arabic text when it was written down it is something that once it gets old it’s even burnt or it’s buried or whatever. To dispose of it in a respectful way.”


Abbas: “Burning it is actually not disrespectful in Islam. It’s a valid way of getting rid of an old manuscript that’s damaged and can’t be read, so you would have to have a new copy or whatever and the old one would be respectfully ah sort of ah, you know, gone away with in that way. But the knowledge of Allah, as a Jew, umm I think that you would accept that whatever knowledge Allah has, for example, the Torah itself. Would you say that the Torah itself is something that came into existence or did God have that in his knowledge but bring it into existence when he chose to?

Josh: “So I believe that the Torah was in fact created. Only God himself is uncreated. But everything within the so-called “knowledge” of God is created at some point.”

Abbas: “Right, so then are you saying that there was a time when God did not know of the Torah?”

Joshua: “No, there was not a “time” before it, because God is above time. So God created time. Rather or not God created the Torah before he created time is not something I know.“

Abbas: “So, basically what were saying is that was there ever a moment when God did not know of the Torah?”

Joshua.” In a sense, yes. Prior to the creation of the Torah, there could be no knowledge of the Torah.”

Abbas: “So there was a moment when God had no knowledge of the Torah. (Now there is a moment there where the video does a flash sequence. I do not know if that means the video was edited or that is just a video effect.)”

Joshua: “Yes.”

Hamza: “So you don’t believe God has all full knowledge.”

Joshua, “No because, because knowledge we believe is an attribute of God. God’s omniscience is an attribute of him. Therefore, he created his own omniscience.”

Abbas: “Josh, is that a mainstream Jewish belief? In terms of actual rabbinical grounding. That the Torah, at one point God did not actually know what he was going to say. What God was going to give to Moses.”

Hamza (interrupts): “Josh, do you believe that God knows the future?”

Josh: “Yes, because there is no future when it comes to God. Cause for God all time, past, present and future” (could make out due to Hamza speaking over).

Hamza: “So then God knows what the Torah isn’t it always?”

(The team got Josh to admit they had a point that there could be no ‘before’ as he (Joshua) just admitted that past/present/future….)

Imran: (The best listener out of the bunch, in our opinion) He pivots back to the original question: “Your question was really an interesting one because you, you raised this as a question about Tawhid. And you said that this is uh, it requires an explanation having the Qur’an as an uncreated statement that the Qur’an is uncreated, and then you have Allah, who is eternal. Does it affect Tawhid in any way? That was really underlying thing that I think you were trying to get to. So I am going to give you an analogy. Now, obviously, all analogies are imperfect, and we can’t perfect analogies, particularly when it comes to the Creator. But I am gonna try and give an analogy to drawn on and explain. So you’re speaking, right Josh?”

Josh: “Yes.”

Imran: “Can your speech exist without you?” (Can you exist without speaking)

Josh: “I don’t know. Can my speech. Theoretically there could be my speech without me. I suppose. I’m not sure though.”

Imran: “I would say that that’s clearly, that clearly the answer to that question is No. Um, I don’t know how your thinking…if you did not exist, could your speech exist?”

Josh: “Depends. If my speech has to, if there’s prerequisite to the existence of my speech is the existence of myself.”

Imran: “Sorry, sorry to interrupt you. Your thinking. I don’t understand your thinking process. What you’re doing is your taking this speech and your giving it attributes. Now we agreed that speech is an attribute of the Creator. We’ve agreed this. Like just as speech manifests from you. Now the question is do the attributes exist on their own or not?”

Joshua: “With regard to attributes of myself or attributes of God?”

Imran: “So the analogy is to get you to think about the Creator. I am trying to use yourself as an example just to try and give that. So, for example is: Can your speech exist without you?”

Joshua: “So if we (God forbid) leave God out of this picture for this particular analogy. Um, otherwise it’s going to get far too complicated. Then for sure, then you would be right that my speech could not exist without me.”

Imran: “So now I’m going to say now let’s talk about the Creator. Now I’m going to say the attributes of the Creator can’t exist without the Creator.”

Joshua: “Yes, that’s true.”

Imran: “Yup, so now we don’t have a conflation between were not comparing two different things. The Qur’an is the speech of Allah. It’s an attribute you understand? So now the question comes. When we’re talking about (holds up the Qur’an) the text, do we/are we referring to that attribute or not? So there’s two things and now we have to differentiate this. The attribute we’ve agreed is eternal. Why? Because the Creator is eternal, the attribute is eternal. Therefore, the Qur’an is uncreated and eternal. So now that’s a dealt with thing. This is a (holding up the Qur’an) a creation, like somebody has put these pages together, written the pages and the ink down. This (holding up the Qur’an) is not that attribute.”

Joshua: “I understand the difference between the written Qur’an and the spoken Qur’an that..” (unintelligible as Imran talked over him.)

Imran: “So that means coming to the concept of Tawhid. It doesn’t impact that at all. Another example would be: Creation. One of the attributes of God is that he is the Creator. Now, (we agree with this yeah?) “

Joshua: “Yes.”

Imran: “So the creative command is not separate from the creator in any sense, right?”

Joshua: “I would disagree with that because, prior to because prior to having created anything, how can God be considered to be a Creator? In order to be a Creator you need to have a creation.”

Imran: “So o.k that’s interesting, so I think that you sorry Hamza, you wanna…”

Hamza: “You don’t need to create to have the attribute of a creator you just need to create to demonstrate the attribute.“

Joshua: “But that depends on how we understand what the attribute is. Um so, let me just think about how to explain.”

Hamza: (getting visibly impatient) “Oh o.k before Allah, before God created the universe, you believe God created the universe?”

Joshua: “Yes.”

Hamza: “Did he have the attribute of Creator?”

Joshua: “Before he created anything he did not….”

Hamza: “Did he have the attribute of Creator?”

Joshua: “No.”

Hamza: (Surprised) “No!? How did he create than?”

Imran: “O.K. Let’s change the word for a moment, Josh. Let’s make the word ability.”

Joshua: “Ability? o.k. Did God have the ability to create? Yes.”

Imran: “O.K so that’s the attribute.”

Hamza: “That’s the attribute.”

Joshua: “Oh that’s what you mean when you say attributes.”

Hamza: “The Creation is the manifestation of the attribute. Evidence of the attribute if you like.”

Joshua: “It’s the manifestation of ‘Ah’..” (light bulb moment).

Comments:

Over all, that was a very good exchange. In reality, the question Joshua poses is two-fold in nature.

  1. Is the Qur’an created or eternal?
  2. If it is created or eternal, does this pose a problem for the doctrine of Tawhid?

The first argument brought by Abbas is not a good argument.

The eternity of knowledge does not imply the eternity of the known. Otherwise, all things that have come into being would be eternal! Imagine saying, because Allah (swt) has eternal knowledge about Christ Jesus, that Christ Jesus would be eternal! Christians would just love that!

Imran seemed the more learned of the three, at least in terms of Sunni theology. He got straight to the point. However, Imran did a very clever cart before the horse when he asked:

Can your speech exist without you? Actually, we could ask: (Can you exist without speaking?)

The answer to that is yes. You can exist without speaking.

We affirm the attribute of “speech” for Allah (swt) as Imam Diya al-Din ‘Abd al-Aziza Thamini (raheemullah), says in his Mu’alim:

“Know that speech is sometimes referred to Allah in the meaning of negating dumbness of Him, and it then is to be understood as an essential attribute in the way of such attributes. And sometimes it is referred to Him in the sense of its being one of His actions, and it is then to be understood as such. So the meaning of His being Speaking, according to the first interpretation, is that He is not dumb; and according to the second that He is a Creator of Speech.”

Source: (Ma’alim al-din (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa l-Thaqafah, 1st edition 2:9.)

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky for Sunni theology.

Imran: “So the creative command is not separate from the creator in any sense, right?”

Response: What do you actually mean by the creator and his attributes? Because the Sunni theological position is that the attributes of Allah (swt) are not equal to Allah (swt) nor other than his essence!

This is a very, very BIG problem for Sunni theology.

Questions for the Athari/Salafi school.

So, if the attributes are not identical to the essence or other than the essence, what are they?

Can you prove your claims that the attributes are not identical to the essence using kitab wa sunnah?

Using the Qur’an and the Sunnah?

Will you need to rely upon kalam?

Actually, a VERY GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY SUNNI MUSLIM IS:

What do you mean when you say God is one?’

This may come as a surprise to the readers. They may say the being is one, but can they really, since they also have these attributes that have a quasi/pseudo-being status, in that they are not equal to the being nor other than it?

The second point from Imran

Imran: “So the creative command is not separate from the creator in any sense, right?”

“And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: Allah gives you glad tidings of (a son whose name is) John, (who comes) to confirm A WORD (bikalimatin) from Allah lordly, chaste, a prophet of the righteous. (Qur’an 3:39)

Are we sure that we want to say that Jesus (A WORD) from Allah is not separate from the Creator?

On what consistent basis is Jesus Allah’s word and his spirit and yet be created when the Qur’an is Allah’s word and is eternal and uncreated? On what consistent basis is the claim made?

We are quite certain that Christians are going to be asking themselves why should I leave Christianity, which holds (even in the lesser Arian Christology) that Christ Jesus is a word emanating from the divine nature but sharing the divine nature only to embrace a faith that tells me that Christ Jesus is a word emanating from the divine being but not separate from the divine being?

“His are the creation and the command.” (Qur’an 7:54)


This is answered by the context itself:

Indeed, your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He covers the night with the day, [another night] chasing it rapidly; and [He created] the sun, the moon, and the stars, subjected by His command. Unquestionably, His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds. (Qur’an 7:54)

The most that this verse tells us is that, just as Allah (swt) is alone in bringing the universe out of non-being (into being), in the same way, He is alone in the management of it. He has no partner in its creation and in its management. None other than Him has anything of the creation and management. Rather, to HIM alone belong the creation and the command. The meaning here, clearly, is management. And there is nothing in that which even remotely points either to the eternity of the Qur’an or to its contingency.

Examples:

“Maintain with care the [obligatory] prayers and [in particular] the middle prayer and stand before Allah, devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 2:238)

The middle prayer is not (separated) out of the genus of prayers, the guarding of which has been commanded.

“Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael – then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. (Qur’an 2:98)

No one says that Gabriel and Michael are separated out of the genus of angels. The difference between them is relative.

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

No intelligent person will argue about justice being the doing of good, and the doing of good being justice.

The command (amr) of Allah (swt) has been mentioned jointly with what denotes its creation in many places.

“And [remember, O Muhammed], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah,” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.” (Qur’an 33:37)

“[Remember] when you were on the near side of the valley, and they were on the farther side, and the caravan was lower [in position] than you. If you had made an appointment [to meet], you would have missed the appointment. But [it was] so that Allah might accomplish a matter already destined – that those who perished [through disbelief] would perish upon evidence and those who lived [in faith] would live upon evidence; and indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 8:42)

“There is not to be upon the Prophet any discomfort concerning that which Allah has imposed upon him. [This is] the established way of Allah with those [prophets] who have passed on before. And ever is the command of Allah a destiny decreed.” (Qur’an 33:38)

“He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a thousand years of those which you count.” (Qur’an 32:5)

“Indeed, all things We created with predestination And Our command is but one, like a glance of the eye.” (Qur’an 54:49-50)

“Do the disbelievers await [anything] except that the angels should come to them or there comes the command of your Lord? Thus did those do before them. And Allah wronged them not, but they had been wronging themselves.” (Qur’an 16:33)

All of those examples should be more than sufficient to show our response!

May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the Muslim ummah. May Allah (swt) open the heart of Joshua and bring him to the right way.

If you would like to see more articles on the discussion of the Qur’an, is it created or uncreated? You may wish to see the following:

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/lets-attack-hamza-yusuf-in-ramadan-the-quran-is-created/

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Mohamed Hijab’s excellent argument against the Qur’an being uncreated.

“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

﷽ 

Mohamed Hijab, who is a known Muslim speaker based in the United Kingdom, has recently put forward some excellent arguments against the idea of the Qur’an being eternal and uncreated (unbeknownst to him).

Now, to be fair, we want to say from the outset that Mohamed Hijab (as far as we know) believes that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated.

However, it doesn’t seem that he has pondered the implications of his kalaam argument on the subject of the Qur’an being makhluq (created).

Listen carefully to the exchange between Marwan and Mohamed Hijab

The contingency argument.

@1:28:36 listen to Marwan’s question about pantheism and contingency argument.

@1:30:18 Mohamed Hijab gives his reply listen carefully.

“This is a book, and it’s made out of parts and the parts are the pages of the book right. Correct? So these are the pages of the book. I dunno what book. ‘Jewish historical society of England’ …..This is a book, right, and this is the whole of the book, correct? And it’s made out of parts, correct? Now if I pick a part out. Now if I take all parts out of this book, does it remain as a book? If the parts are taken out, then the whole thing is taken out. If that’s conceivable that parts taken out the whole thing is taken out than there is no way that this thing that I’m talking about is necessary and independent. Because necessary and independent means it’s always there and it can never be any other way. It’s a simple as that. You said, well, if it’s inter-dependent, anything which is inter-dependent by definition is dependent because what does the word inter-dependent mean? Interdependent means things which rely upon each other. So, if in order for this book to exist, there’s an inter-dependence or each page relies upon the existence of other pages in this book in order to exist. Then what we’re saying is this thing is dependent, because everything interdependent is, by definition dependent. What is dependence? Something which relies upon something else for its existence. What is inter-dependence? Something which relies upon something else in order to exist. So, in many ways, what you’re saying is, if we admit that it’s dependent than khalas (finished), it cannot be dependent and necessary at the same time.”

@1:33:16 “How do we describe the kul here? How do we describe the whole of this book? How do we describe the whole of this book?  We describe it through its parts, right?  Now if I say I just dissembled all its parts, and it’s maybe what 3-400 pages, and I’ve scattered them around. They still exist, but they exist in a different form. Now what I’m saying is the fact that I can re-arrange them like this I can you see this hundred, I dunno, let me see 208 pages of this book, yeah. If I take the 232 pages and make page 1 and page 232 and make it like munaqis (opposite), so instead of 1,2,3,4,5 it’s 232, 231, etc., etc. I’ve re-arranged it. The fact that now I can rearrange this book means there is nothing necessary about the arrangement and the form of this book. There is nothing necessary about it at all.”

@1:34:27 “The book as it is the way in which the book is now from 1 to 232, the way in which the book is like that the form the sura the shaqil the hakel -what ever word you want to use, the form of the book as it is now can be re-arranged. Now let me give you an example because I feel, I feel like the issue here is we don’t know the difference between contingency in this necessity. Necessity: 2 +2=4. 2+2=4. Is there any way 2+2=4 can be arranged any other way. Can it re-arrange in any other way? Can 2+2=anything other than 4? Which means its necessary. So its impossible to re-arrange 2+2 to equal anything other than 4. It’s eternally that way, it’s necessarily that way and it will continue being that way. It cannot be any other way. Now this is not the same with the arrangement of the parts of this book. The arrangement of the parts of this book can be other ways. This book itself can be another way. Instead of this colour; which I will describe as beige I dunno maybe I’m colour blind. It could have been blue. I can actually paint it right now. I can make it blue. I can , you want me to do? It looks like a historic book I dun want to ruin it. But I can change this book. There is nothing necessary about this book. Now you might say well, if we define necessity as something susceptibility, destructibility and generation. Yeah? And then in the closed system of the universe energy cannot be destroyed. Cannot be destroyed and therefore the atoms will take another form. I’m saying. I am not defining. I’m not defining contingency in only that way. I’m defining contingency in three ways. Number 1. Something that can be any other way. Number one yeah? Number 2. Something susceptibility to destruction and generation destruction yeah? And number 3. Something which relies upon something else for its existence. Now even if you argued that well this cannot be really destroyed because it’s atoms will take other form. I’m saying its still not necessary because it can be arranged in another way. The parts of this whole can be arranged in a way which is currently not arranged. It can be a way which is currently not/is. So which means that it, it meets the criterion of contingency; because it can be another way.”

@1:37:24 “You are confusing eternality and necessity. O.K? It’s conceivable that something can be eternal and not necessary. It’s conceivable how so? Because something can be eternal but rely upon something necessary. And that’s why the ‘ulemah of Islam they differentiated between what is referred to as wajibun an nafsi and wajibun al ghayri which is necessary for its own sake and necessary or in and of itself and necessary because of something else. So for example if I were to say. You have a sun. Let’s say the sun is necessary. The sun yani. Shams yeah? And it’s rays are contingent based-dependent upon the sun. The fact that the rays exist and they are contingent on the sun doesn’t’ mean that just because they are both eternal. The fact that the rays exist and are contingent on the sun doesn’t’ mean that the rays are necessary just because their eternal because they are dependent upon something which is necessary in this case, the sun or the eternal. You get it?

@1:38:37 “Yeah that’s his Ibn Cena beliefs. Yeah well Islamic refutation of the universe being eternal is clearly against the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Al Ghazali had this kind of refutation if you wanna.”

Marwan ask about the attributes of Allah (swt).

@1:39:00 “We affirm all the attributes of God through these kind of argumentations. That is why, there is a point where you need like the Rahma of Allah. The fact that he is ghafu and afuw and raheem and all that stuff. That needs to be affirmed through revelation.”

Marwan ask are these attributes necessary or contingent?

@1:39:19 ‘Yeah all attributes of Allah are necessary.” @1:40:25 “We don’t use the word dependent it’s being controlled by the irada (intention) of Allah. By the will of God. So the verb all the attributes of God are controlled by the will of God. If Allah wants to speak yeah? If Allah wants to speak he wills that and he does that.”

Marwan so they are contingent upon his will?

Listen to how uncomfortable is the response of Mohamed Hijab. The sudden shift. Also notice that Mohamed Hijab does not affirm that Allah is speaking, or is speaking eternally. He attributes the speaking to his will! Al hamdulillah! Thank you!

@1:40:44 “We don’t need to use the word contingent. They are controlled by his will.

I believe at this point Marwan doesn’t really seem to buy it. A quick glance of the ideas upward and simply responds . ‘O.K’

The arguments brought by Mohamed Hijab absolutely decimate the idea that the Qur’an is uncreated.

Its message is dependent upon asbaab an nuzul (occasion of revelation), which conceivably could have been different. According to our brothers from the Sunni denomination, it has text that has been abrogated and that is dependent upon what abrogates and what is abrogated. It is composed of letters and words and sentences that are dependent upon structure to have a coherent meaning. It’s conceivable that the Ahruf /Qir’aat of the Qur’an could be more or less than what they are. It is conceivable that the Qur’an could have been revealed in a language other than Arabic. It is conceivable that the Qur’an itself cannot be necessary, because it is conceivable that Allah (swt) could have had the Torah or any other revelation completely intact and reach us until this very day.

In the words of Fakhr al-Din Al-Razi:

“The impossibility of a word which is composed of letters and sounds being eternal is self-evident to the mind for two reasons:

The first is that a word cannot be a word unless its letters are sequential. The letter uttered before the last that is uttered is originated, and if something’s being originated is affirmed, its eternity is then impossible. So, for the letter following the end of the first, there is no doubt that it originated.

The second is that, if those letters from which the word is composed occurred in one go, the word cannot be. A word composed of three letters can occur in any one of six combinations. If the letters occurred altogether, the words occurring in some of those combinations would not be better than they are occurring in any of the rest. Alternatively, if the letters occurred in succession, then the word is originated.”

Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 1:P20.)

Fakhr al-Din took fellow Sunni Muslims of the Hanbali school to task when he says,

“These people are so low as to not deserve mention among the group of the learned. It happened one day that I said to one of them: “If Allah spoke these, then either He spoke them in one go, or in succession. The first is void because the speaking of all these letters in one go will not convey an orderly composition which is a combination in sequence. It necessarily follows that this composition, combined with these successive letters, cannot by themselves be Allah’s speech. The second is void, because if Allah spoke them in succession, then it would be originated.’ When the man heard this statement of mine, he said: ‘It is obligatory for us to affirm and pass on’, i.e., we affirm that the Qur’an is eternal and pass by this statement that we have heard. At that point, I wonder greatly at the safety of this speaker.” 

Source: (Al-Tafsir al-kabir (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Illmiyyah, 2nd edition, 27, 187-88)

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

If you would like to read more on the issue of the Qur’an being created, perhaps you may want to read the following articles.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/ef-dawah-discussion-with-josh-jewish-is-the-quran-being-uncreated-against-tawheed/

If you would like to see more articles featuring Mohamed Hijab you may be interested in the following:

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/mohamed-hijab-and-divine-simplicity/

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Saudi translations cannot hide the fact that the Qur’an is created.

“Have the unbelievers not ever considered that the heavens and the earth were one piece and that We tore them apart from one another. From water, We have MADE/CREATED all living things. Will they then have no faith?” (Qur’an 21:30)

﷽ 

The Arabic text above says, “waja’alna” (We have created)

When a person makes something, he/she does it out of other materials made by Allah. For example, a carpenter who makes a table does not create it but he/she merely assembles and joins pieces of wood with nails and glue together.

In other words, he/she has made a table out of materials created by Allah. But when Allah (swt) makes something he makes it out of nothing or out of other materials he has created out of nothing.

“And it is He who has created man from water” (Qur’an 25:54)

The Arabic text above says, “khalaqa” (created). Allah (swt) has used in Qur’an 25:54 and Qur’an 21:30 two different Arabic terms, yet both of these words are synonymous in what they convey.

“It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate so that he might dwell in security with her.” (Qur’an 7:189)

In the above text, the first term used is “khalaqakum” (created) and the second term “ja’ala” (created). Again, this shows the interchangeable nature of these two terms.

“Oh, mankind! Fear your Lord, who created you from a single person and created, out of him, his wife.” (Qur’an 4:1)

The above Arabic text is “khalaqakum” (created) and wa “khalaqa”(created). Allah (swt) used the same word twice. Allah (swt) did not use the word “ja’ala” (created) as he did in Qur’an 7:189. This once more shows that the two words convey the same meaning.

“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

 

The Arabic term that is used here is “ja’alnahu” (made/created)

“Truly I am going to create man from clay” (Qur’an 38:71) 

The Arabic term here is “khaliqun” (create) 

Now let us look at Qur’an 38:72

The underlying words in verse 72 have, however, been given contradictory interpretations. 

Professor Abdullah Yusuf Ali has translated them as: “And I breathed unto him of my spirit.”

Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985) “When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him.”
Yusuf Ali (Orig. 1938) “When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him.” 

While Dr. Al Hilali and Dr. Khan has explained them this way: “And I breathed unto him his soul created by me.”

Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilali So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him.”

The implication of the first translation is that Allah (swt) has given part of His spirit, so man is the essence of Allah.

This sounds very much like those who say the Qur’an is the essence of Allah.

In the second translation by Dr. Al Hilali and Dr. Khan, it means that Allah created man’s soul and then breathed it into him. This interpretation agrees with those who say that the Qur’an is created.

This is also the way the Sahih International translates it this way: “So when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My [created] soul, then fall down to him in prostration.” (Qur’an 38:72)

The three translations (Abdullah Yusuf Ali & Dr. Al Hilali /Dr. Khan and Sahih International are all three contradictory and have both been endorsed by the religious institutions in Saudi Arabia.

Fortunately for us, neither of the translators were Ibadi or the so-called, “Khariji” and thus, no sectarian uproar in the Islamic World!!

Unfortunately, this particular issue is complicated by the fact that there is quite a bit of obfuscation on behalf of our brothers from ‘Ahl Sunnah’ and that is because they do not want to tell us if they regard the attributes of Allah (swt) as being identical with the essence of Allah (swt) or being outside the essence of Allah (swt).

If you would like to learn more about the Qur’an being a creation of Allah (swt), you may wish to read the following:

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/lets-attack-hamza-yusuf-in-ramadan-the-quran-is-created/

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/ef-dawah-discussion-with-josh-jewish-is-the-quran-being-uncreated-against-tawheed/

https://primaquran.com/2024/01/18/allahs-word-created-or-uncreated-mohammed-hijab/

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ibadi, Muutazila, Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia: Qur’an and attributes.

“He only orders you to evil and immorality and to say about Allah what you do not know. And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?” (Qur’an 2:169-170)

﷽ 

When it comes to the issue of the Qur’an being created and the topic of the attributes of Allah (swt), we could put this into four views. This brief entry will show where these four denominations have overlapping agreement and/or disagreement.

A. There are four denominations in this subject.

  1. Ibadi.
  2. Muutazila.
  3. Ahl Sunnah.
  4. Jahmia.

Here are the points.

  • Ibadi & Mutazila say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are nothing other than Allah (swt)
  • Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are other things with/than Allah (swt).
  • Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt).
  • Ibadi & Mutzalia say: Qur’an is not an attribute of Allah (swt).
  • Jahmia say: Attributes of Allah are created by Allah (swt).
  • Ahl Sunnah say: All attributes of Allah aren’t created by Allah (swt).

We (The Ibadi) say there is evidence to prove that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt).

For the Jahmia, the proof that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt) is that the Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt). For them, all the attributes of Allah (swt) are created by Allah (swt).

Ibadi, Mutazalia & Ahl Sunnah all say anyone who believes that the attributes of Allah is created are kaafir. (disbelievers of shirk)

We, the Ibadi, say: The Qur’an is a word of Allah and created by Allah, but we don’t say the Qur’an is an attribute of Allah (swt).

“Our belief is upon Haqq and the belief of the Jahmia is upon kufr and batil.” -Shaykh Hamed Hafidh

We want to thank our teacher Shaykh Hamed Hafidh As Sawafi (hafidullah) for this explanation.

For further reading on this subject:

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/lets-attack-hamza-yusuf-in-ramadan-the-quran-is-created/

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Discussion on (ja’ala) making of the Qur’an in Arabic.

“Indeed, We have made it (ja’alnahu) an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

﷽ 

Al hamdulillah! Praise be to Allah (swt) that the evidence that the Qur’an is created is crystal clear.

Just as the following hadith is crystal clear.

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud:

“Allah has not created (khalaq) in the heavens nor in the earth what is more magnificent than Ayat Al-Kursi.”

حَدِيثِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ قَالَ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ مِنْ سَمَاءٍ وَلاَ أَرْضٍ أَعْظَمَ مِنْ آيَةِ الْكُرْسِيِّ

Source: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2884

We do not have any reports from a companion(sahabah) to the contrary.  So, our interlocutors will either have to weaken the hadith or employ interpretive principles to dismiss it as sound evidence.

Alas, Saudi, Salafi translations cannot hide the fact that the Qur’an is created.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/saudi-translations-cannot-hide-the-fact-that-the-quran-is-created/

The making the Qur’an Arabic is natural making, because it is a meaning abiding with the Qur’an, namely its being Arabic. This means that it will either be transforming from one quality to another.

1) It was first not-Arabic then Allah invented in it this quality (of being Arabic).

2) Or (it will be) creating it with this quality from the beginning

As Allah created, the sun joined with the quality of being a lamp; and as Allah created the night with the quality of being a covering, and created the day with the quality of being a space for seeking livelihood. That is definitely the sense that it is used here. In the case of making an Arabic Qur’an. This is also because of the non-existence of anything to indicate that it was not non-Arabic before, and then Allah transformed it into Arabic. As for its being Arabic since forever, relating the verb ‘making’ to it in this way is impermissible in reason and in the dictionary, because ‘making’ is an action and action precedes what is enacted, so ‘making’ definitely precedes the made.

The same will be said about His saying, Glorified is He: ‘But We made it a light, We guide by it whoever We will from among Our servants’ (Qur’an 42:52)

This will appear as self-evident to whoever reflects on the meaning of ‘making’, and thinks about the Eternal Necessary attributes of Allah, Exalted is He, and the impossibility of relating ‘making’ to these attributes. For it is impossible in law that one should say that Allah has made His Knowledge All-Encompassing, or His Power All-Containing, or that Allah has made His Existence Pre-Eternal and Sempiternal, or that He has made His Hearing catch all sounds, or made His Seeing encompass all that is visible-because these phrases imply Allah’s production of these attributes.

Even if the interlocutors want to state that Allah (swt) could have made his revelation in Hebrew or Aramaic or Hindi or Greek, they have no escape from the two categories above.

A) First, there is no textual proof that the Qur’an was non-Arabic before being Arabic. Even if it was the case, that would be a clear admission of defeat. That is because of the admission of contradiction-an eternal abiding quality going through a change. From one state to another.

B) Because there is no proof for A we are left with the clear meaning of the Qur’an. One in which we do not superimpose our theology upon it. The Qur’an has been made in Arabic.

The knock-out blow has already been delivered. However, some are tenacious in clinging to false beliefs. They will often use every day Arabic vernacular that they think are great examples that the layperson will understand. However, those examples actually work against them!

“He made us dance.” ”He made his son the King.”

So, even in both of these examples, we need to ask:

Is being the King an eternal quality abiding in the individual or was this something that came about before it did not exist?

Can it be said that dancing is an eternal action abiding in the individual or is it merely a transitional state from non-dancing to dancing?

Made — is that which is transferred from one state to the other, which cannot be except in that which is created. The second is the reasoning of its being made in the Arabic language with the intention that the one being addressed may understand it.

Like that verse are all the verses which make it clear that it is made. For example, His saying, Exalted is He: “But We have made it a light, We guide by it whomever We will from among our servants.” (Qur’an 42:52).

Imam Muhammad b. Aflah, (Ra) has commented on the evidence of ‘making’ as affirmation of its being created; he says:

“The ummah is in consensus that every doer is before his doing, and the maker is before the making, and the artist is before the art, and that the maker is other than the made. When the difference and precedence between them has been affirmed, then it is true that they are two things, and that the first and precedent is the Eternal Maker, and the second, the made, is the originated, being after it had not been.” Source: (The Overwhelming Truth)

He has argued from ‘making’ when referred to Allah, in many verses which denote it-such as His saying, Exalted is He: “He made the darkness and the light”. (Qur’an 6:1)

His saying: “Me made from it, its pair.” (Qur’an 7:189)

His saying: “He it is that has made for you the night that you may rest therein, and the day to make things visible to you.” (Qur’an 10:67)

His saying: “Or who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and set a separating barrier between the two seas.” (Qur’an 27:61)

His saying: “Of the hills He made some for your shelter.” (Qur’an 16:81)

His saying: “And has made for you ships and cattle on which you ride.” (Qur’an 43:2)

His saying: “And made the sun as a lamp.”(Qur’an 71:16)

His saying: “And We made the night and the day signs.” (Qur’an 17:12).
Similar to those (verses is the meaning of ‘making’) in His saying:

“Have WE not made the earth as a place to draw together.” (Qur’an 77:25)

His saying: ‘Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse; and the mountains as pegs; and created you in pairs; and made your sleep for rest; and made the night as a covering; and made the day as a means of subsistence’. (Qur’an 78:6-11) and other verses.

Imam Abu l-Yaqazan Muhammed b.Aflah (May Allah have mercy on him), says:


“The meaning of ‘made’ in these places that we have cited is ‘created’. And so it is for the one who opposes [our argument], but not, he claims, in the context of the Qur’an, because ‘making’ in the Qur’an is other than creation. If that is allowed for him, then it must be allowed [also] for another to oppose that and say some similar thing about [something] other than the Qur’an-that the ‘making’, about which we [Ibadis and Hanbalis] agree, has the meaning ‘creation’, has [for him] another meaning than ‘creation’. But what is the difference between the two ‘makings’? For [if there is a difference] it means that Allah has addressed the Arabs with what they do not understand of their speech, and what they do not know of their language, and with what there in it is allowed for them to be in doubt and uncertainty about. In one place, ‘making’ is in the meaning of ‘creation’, ‘origination’ and ‘management’. And in another place [it has] another meaning that we do not understand, and we do not know. The All-Wise is not described as such!”

When we and they agree that ‘making’ in His saying ”And He made the sun a lamp.” (Qur’an 71:16)

His saying: “Indeed, We have made what is on the earth an adornment for it.” (Qur’an 18:7) His saying: “He made for you from yourselves pairs.” (Qur’an 42:11)

His saying: “And He made darkness and light.” (Qur’an 6:1) -is in the meaning of ‘creation’, then all ‘making’ when it is by Allah is in the meaning of creation. In that will be included the Qur’an and other than the Qur’an. Otherwise, debating will become pointless and any evidence [for the argument] will not be valid.

“If they oppose -relying on the saying of Allah: “It was not Allah who made slit eared she-camels or she-camels let loose in pasture.” (Qur’an 5:103) It will be said-Yes Allah did not create a slit-eared she-camel as a slit-eared she-camel, as you claim, nor a she-camel let loose in pasture as a she-camel let loose in pasture, as you claim. Rather, He negated from Himself what He did not do as the polytheist claimed [that He did]. So he criticized them because of their innovation. Its meaning is that We did not create you as you have described, rather, We created against that which you have described. The negation here is of the particular qualifier, not of the particular creation.”

“Like that is His saying: “Surely I will make you a leader for mankind.” (Qur’an 2:124) i.e. I will create in you the quality that was not in you, and the meaning that was not found in you, and I had not done so in you before that. The meaning of ‘made’ wherever it is found is ‘created’, ‘managed’, and all that is the same meaning, though the words are different.”

Prima-Qur’an comment: Another example is the following:

“Allāh has not made (ja’ala) for a man two hearts in his interior. And He has not made (ja’ala) your wives whom you declare unlawful your mothers. And He has not made (ja’ala) your claimed [i.e., adopted] sons your [true] sons. That is [merely] your saying by your mouths, but Allāh says the truth, and He guides to the [right] way.” (Qur’an 33:4)

One of them actually made the comment to us: “Can we say that Allah didn’t create sons or hearts or wives?” Of course not! Such a bizarre conclusion.  Again, the negation is of a particular type or qualifier, not of the creation itself.  Another thing we wish they had pondered is that if Allah (swt) had made (ja’ala) for man two hearts, or made (ja’ala) our wives our mothers, or made (ja’ala) our adopted sons our real sons the same word (ja’ala) would still be applicable.

That is Muhammad b. Aflah’s statement about ‘making’. (May Allah’s abundant mercy be upon him).

We add to that, we investigated occurrences of ‘making’ in the Qur’an referred to Allah, and we found it fell in either of two classes.

The ‘making’ is either natural or legal. In both there is creation of what did not exist (before). 

In natural making, for example, there are the following:

In His saying: “He made from it its pair.” (Qur’an 7:189)

His saying: “And has made for you ships and cattle on which you ride.” (Qur’an 32:12)

His saying: “He made the sun a lamp.” (Qur’an 71:16)The meaning of origination and contingency is clear.


The legal ‘making’ is as in His saying in the following:

“Surely I will make you a leader for mankind.” (Qur’an 2:124)

Another example of the same is the negated making in His saying, Exalted is He: “It was not Allah Who made a slit-ear she-camel or a she-camel let loose in pasture.” (Qur’an 5:103) i.e. He did not legalize the slitting of its ear. An(other) example of the legal ‘making’ is His saying, Exalted is He: “And He made the qiblah to which you were used only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels.” (Qur’an 2:143)

The differences between the two ‘makings’ are as follows:

The first of them is bringing into existence the essence of the made thing or an abiding quality of it which did not exist before. That implies bringing the made from one state to another state, or from one quality to another quality. That (turning from one to another state) is accomplished when ‘making’ is referred to mankind, and it is in the meaning of turning from one state to another, as (when) I made the dough bread, the flour dough. In both cases, there is a turning of the made from one state to another state in which it was not before. The flour being made dough was not dough, and the dough before being made bread was not bread. It is not understood from this other than that the thing made is moving with the making from what it was before (to the changed state).

The second is inventing a law that turns (the object of the action) from one verdict to another one, like the Ka’bah being made the qiblah of the Muslims after Bayt al-Maqdis had been their qiblah.

Dealing with objections: May Allah (swt) guide the sincere.


An objection has been offered to the argument for the creation of the Qur’an from its being made Arabic-that ‘making’ is sometimes other than creation, as in the following examples:

“They make for Allah daughters, Glorified Is He.” (Qur’an 16:57)

“Still, the pagans have made some of His creation out to be a part of Him. Indeed, humankind is clearly ungrateful.” (Qur’an 43:15)

“They made angels who are servants of the Most Gracious females.” (Qur’an 43:19)

His saying: “You make it your provision that you lie.” (Qur’an 56:82).

The answer to this is that the distance between the two ‘makings’ and makers is immense. The making, in the context of what we are here discussing, is an affirmed action referring to Allah, Exalted is He. Whoever rejects it or rejects its effect (namely, the Qur’an), has unbelieved. That which is made—namely, the Qur’an in Arabic, its giving light and its guidance is an established reality. Whoever rejects it, he has certainly unbelieved.

The ‘making’ in what they have objected to is a falsehood referring to the unbelievers. They made—namely, the angels being feminine — is nothing. Whoever affirms that will be regarded as an unbeliever. Who affirms that the made some of his creation to be a part of him is an unbeliever.

There is no problem with the sameness of the letters of the verb (ja’ala) in both references—namely, jim, ‘ayn, lam—because the verb in reference to Allah has one meaning, and in reference to someone else has another meaning regardless of there being no difference in the word. Examples:

“He is who created you and those before you.” (Qur’an 2:21)

“And Allah created you and whatever you do.” (Qur’an 37:96)

“Indeed We have created man from a quintessence of clay.” (Qur’an 23:12)

“We have indeed created man in the best of molds.” (Qur’an 95:4)-and other similar verses where the creation is referred to Allah.

It is in all cases with the meaning of bringing from non-being into being. You will find this same verb, the same word and the same letters, referred to the unbelievers. It has (in those references) a sense that is not proper to the righteous servants of Allah, let alone its being permissible in respect of Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, Exalted is He. That (meaning) is (explicit) in His saying: “And you created falsehood.”(Qur’an 29:17).

So the meaning of the word is the same.

Is there any way to interpret that in one place according to the meaning of the other?

Or is the comparison between the two verbs as impossible as the impossibility of the comparison between the two doers?


“For that is Allah, your Lord, the Truth. And what can be beyond truth except error? How then are you turned away?”(Qur’an 10: 32)

For more information you may wish to read our article here:

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Qur’an is Created because Jesus is Not God.

“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created (khalaqahu) him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)

﷽ 

The Qur’an is Created because Jesus is Not God. 

That is to say, because Jesus (as) is not the uncreated word of Allah, neither is the Qur’an the uncreated word of Allah. 

The Qur’an is Uncreated = Jesus is the eternal attribute of Allah.    

This would mean, according to Sunni theology (Athari, Ash’ari, Maturidi), that Jesus is not identical to Allah’s essence, but he is not other than Allah’s essence either.

Christian theology states that Jesus (as) existed as the Word of Allah before being placed inside of Mary (as).

فِي البَدْءِ كَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَوْجُودًا -In the beginning the Word (AlKalimat) Existed.

وَكَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ، -And the Word (AlKalimat) was with Allah.

وَكَانَ الكَلِمَةُ هُوَ اللهَ. –And the Word (AlKalimat) was Allah.

كَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ فِي البَدْءِ – The Word (AlKaimat) was with Allah in the beginning.

بِهِ خُلِقَ كُلُّ شيءٍ، -By Him all things were created.

وَبِدُونِهِ لَمْ يُخلَقْ شَيءٌ مِمَّا خُلِقَ. -And without Him nothing would have been created.

(John 1:1-3) from Arabic to English.

Source: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1%3A1-3&version=ERV-AR)

يَلْبَسُ ثَوْبًا مَغْمُوسًا بِالدَّمِ، وَاسْمُهُ «كَلِمَةُ اللهِ -He wears a garment dipped in blood, and his name is “The Word of God.”

Source: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019%3A13&version=ERV-AR)

 Is Jesus the created word of Allah or the uncreated word of Allah?

“When the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word (bikalimatin)from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. (Qur’an 3:45)

Jesus (as) is a word from Him.

“And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words (bikalimati) of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)

Mary (as) is believing in the Lord and his words. Meaning they are not identical.

“O People of the Scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)

Jesus (as) is a word from Him.

“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalam al-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)

“Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)

All these words come from the same Arabic trilateral root.

ك ل م (kaf) (lam) (mim) Jesus is the created word of Allah (swt) just as the Qur’an is the created word of Allah (swt).  If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the uncreated word of Allah (swt), then that would be Christianity.  If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the created word of Allah (swt), that would be Islam and the path of safety.

One of our teachers has known of people who have left Islam for Christianity.  You also encounter them online and some of them have said a study of the Qur’an helped in making that decision. We would submit that it was not the Qur’an that lead them to this decision but a certain theological perspective about the Qur’an and Jesus being Allah’s creation and command not being able to distinguish between the two. 

We have never heard of a Muslim who believes that Allah (swt) alone is the Creator and everything else (including the Qur’an as being created) becomes a Christian. 

So what we are looking for is consistency.

On what consistent basis is Jesus ‘the word of Allah’ (kalimatuhu) created but the Qur’an (kalam al-lahi) ‘the words of Allah’ uncreated? Listen to what Mohamed Hijab says above. 

“The word is actually defined as Kun.” -Mohamed Hijab

If the word is defined as ‘Kun’, then according to the following Sunni Muslims, then Jesus (as) is the uncreated Word of Allah.

We have actually had one Sunni Muslim brother from India (no doubt equipped with his Shaykhs and Alims) come and assert the following thinking it would be some powerful argument and not realizing they had erred in the following:come

1) The lack of depth in understanding the Qur’an and Arabic.

2) The bizarre theological implications of their view.

So they advanced the following:

“He is the One Who has originated the heavens and the earth, and when He wills to (originate) a thing, He only says to (lahu) it: ‘Be’, and it becomes.” (Qur’an 2:117)


“All it takes, when He wills something ˹to be˺, is simply to say to (lahu) it: “Be!” And it is!” (Qur’an 36:82)

So their argument was that if the ‘kun’ was created, then you would need another ‘kun’ to create that ‘kun’, leading to an infinite number of ‘kun’ regressing back through time.

If this saying (of ‘Be’) had (itself) been created, then it would not be correct to (say that) the creations were created by it, because the creation is not created by a creature.

Going back to the opening verse of this article:

“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created (khalaqahu) him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)

A transliteration would be:

inna mathala ʿīsā ʿinda l-lahi kamathali ādama khalaqahu min turābin thumma qāla lahu kun fayakūn

The audio of it is here:

A) It is not really explained by our interlocutors how the word ‘kun’ in which the sound ‘n’ is eternal when that sound itself is preceded by the sound ‘k’ , which presumably is eternal.

B) One will not fail to note that in all the verses above (Q 3:59, 2:117, 36:82) that grammatically the structure of the sentence is that Allah (swt) is saying to the ‘lahu’ translated above as ‘he’ or ‘it. “Be!”

Thus, they want us to believe that Allah (swt) is saying to his knowledge of all things (which exist for all eternity) to ‘be’ and it becomes!

The meaning of ‘Be’ in the like of His saying, exalted, is He, “For to anything which We have willed, We but say “Be” then it is.” (Qur’an 16:40)

This relates to the execution of His Will. Exalted is He, in respect of anything of the mumkinat (what is possible) in the context of giving it existence or completing it. It is explained by his Saing, “When We have willed’ i.e. When Our Will has conjoined with it in a way of execution (of the command). Because ‘when’ is for time in the future, and this is emphasized in His saying: “an naqula la-hu.”  (that We say to it), (Qur’an 16:40) which is in the imperfect tense which, when it is with ‘an’, means the future.

It is known with certainty that whatever is since forever-like His Knowledge, His Power and His Life-the Will cannot be conjoined with it, because nothing can precede (what is eternal).

And this is emphasized by His saying ‘fa-yakun’ (then it is), the connecting particle ‘fa’ meaning order and sequence. From this you know that His saying, exalted is He, ‘kun fa-yakun’, is, wherever it occurs, nothing but an indirect expression of the speedy response of things to Him, glorified is He, in accordance with the conjunction of His Will with these things. Otherwise, there is no utterance of kaf nun (kun) in the concrete sense (of utterance). If we accept that, then we will say that our discussion is about the Word revealed, such as the Qur’an, not the Word unrevealed.

It is also a metaphor for the expediency of Allah’s creative command.

“Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days” (Qur’an 7:54).

You may also read more on this subject here:

May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq: “If you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable.”

“So woe to those who pray yet are unmindful of their prayers.” (Qur’an 107: 104-105)

﷽ 

Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported:

We came to the Prophet (saw) while we were young men, and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them, and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them.” Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6008)

This is a commentary on the following video:

Shaykh Uthman REFUTES Shi’i lies on Folding Hands in Prayer [MUST WATCH]

It is refreshing to see that those who claim to be following the early generations are starting to relax their position on this matter. Al hamdulillah.

For example, Salafi preacher, Assim Al Hakeem mentions that one can pray with their arms to the side with no problem.

If you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable -Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq.

Shaykh Uthman says @0:46If you feel that you want to pray with your hands to your side ,and you feel that’s the correct opinion based on the evidence that you have seen, it’s up to you. No problem. That’s between you and Allah. I believe with the evidences from the Qur’an itself and from the authentic hadith of the Prophet (saw) and the sahabam, ahl bayt and others that the sunnah is to fold the hands.”

Shaykh Uthman says @1:09 “But I’m not pushing that opinion. I don’t believe in dividing the ummah based on this. I believe even if you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable.”

Shaykh Uthman says @3:24 “Now when, whether you fold your hands or don’t fold your hands, personally I’m not going to argue with you on this issue. If you feel this is the way of the Prophet (saw), then that’s between you and Allah.”

Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq: Misquotes the Shi’i man.

@7:14 “This man is saying there’s not a single narration that shows among the Ahl Sunnah to fold the hands. That’s hwat he’s saying. Listen to him again.”

Actually, that is not what the man said.

The Shi’i man: “Within Ahl Sunnah there is no single proven tradition from the holy prophet (peace be upon him and his family in regard to folding of the hands in prayer.”

Proven (adjective) = established beyond doubt.

Something to be mindful of. The idea that something is more established than it truly is.  In fact, throughout the video, Shaykh Uthman makes this claim about the Sh’ia man several times. 

If one person narrates something to 50 students and those 50 students copy this narration into their books and a person quotes those 50 students, the one listening may get the false impression that the evidence is overwhelming.  They may reason to themselves. “Look how many people narrate this.” However, in reality they all quote the one channel. 

This is not necessarily dishonest, however, it can give the false impression that something is stronger than what it actually is. 

@12:06 “But he mentioned that Ibn Mundhir has mentioned from Ibn Zubayr, from Hassan Al Basri from Nakha’i, about leaving the hands on the side. That not folding the right on the left and this was reported by an-Nawawi, upon the authority of Layth ibn Sa’ad.” (Shaykh Uthman stops reading..)

@12:26 “Now, the honesty that we believe in we quote this. We’re not going to hide anything from you.” (NOTICE THE VIDEO EDIT).

Notice, dear reader, and in this case, dear viewer, that at the point where Shaykh Uthman says, ‘We’re not going to hide anything from you.” The video skips. Which shows that part
was cut. Does this mean that nothing was hidden or revealed? Allah knows best. However, it is worth taking note of.

@12:31 “Now what does he say? He says Ibn Al Qassim has mentioned this from Imam Malik one of the great a’immah of Medina that is also reported from him Ibn Al Qassim, but he says he was opposed (@12:47 the video is cut) by Ibn Al Hikim who said that Imam Malik believed in folding the hands as well.

Prima Qur’an: Why can’t Shaykh Uthman simply quote the narration that Imam Malik regarded praying with the hands at side? The way the video is sliced and spliced is done in such a way that it skips over it.

Where did these knowledgeable salaaf get their view from about placing the hands at the side in prayer?

Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr
Al Hassan al-Basri
Ibrahim al-Nakha’i
Imam Malik

Shaykh Uthman says: @13:49 “20 authentic narrations leading back to 18 different sahaba from the Prophet (saw).”

You have to wonder if that is what Shaykh Uthman believes himself? Are all those narrations authentic? Because it is important to note what Shaykh Uthman is doing is talking about narrations concerning folding the hands in prayer.

Shayky Uthman Ibn Farooq is caught lying.

Shaykh Uthman, while reading from a text, says: @15:04 “We were ordered in the time of the Prophet (saw), as Abu Hazim has clarified, to fold the hands, right on left in the prayer.”

Which Arabic in the text below is he rendering as: ‘In the time of the Prophet’ ?

Often Shaykh Uthman makes mistakes in his Arabic.

@16:03 “Ali radianhu” ???

Insh’Allah we will come back to this hadith. This hadith they feel is their ultimate trump card. Suffice it to say that the text does not say: “were ordered in the time of the Prophet.”

They wish it said that!

We remind Shaykh Uthman the seriousness about lying on the Blessed Prophet (saw).

Narrated `Ali:

The Prophet (saw) said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:106)

The word intentionally is not in the Arabic text.

Does the Qur’an mention anywhere about the placement of the hands?

“Therefore pray to your Lord and make a sacrifice.” (Qur’an 108:2)

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/108/2/

Does this really need any comment? Does one really see anything in this text about the placement of hands in the prayer?

Shaykhk Uthman says: @17:12 “Imam Malik himself and I’m going to put a link to the Muwatta Imam Malik in the description. He has an entire chapter in his Muwatta about folding the hands in prayer; from the people of Medina. Not a single hadith in the Muwatta, not a single chapter that says, ‘dangle the hands in prayer’. And Imam Malik style of writing if he saw the people of Madina doing something opposite to that which was narrated, then in the Muwatta he would write, ‘This is what is narrated, but the people of Madina
did opposite. But he did not say that about folding the hands.”

There are a few points to take note of.

  1. The Muwatta is not the only work attributed to Imam Malik. The following are also attributed to him.
  • al-Mudawwanah al-Kubrā
  • Risālat Mālik ilā al-Layth ibn Saʿd
  • al-ʿUtibiyyah

2. @12:31 Shaykh Uthman didn’t actually give us the quote that is from Malik on his stance.

3. As we mentioned in our other article. Just because someone narrated something doesn’t mean they acted upon what was narrated. Narrating a hadith shows awareness of its existence.

Abu Dawud transmitted the following hadith:

  • Hands below the navel
  • On the chest
  • And even hands to the sides

You can read more about that here:

4. Fiqh is stronger than hadith. Hadith is a narration and fiqh is understanding of the narration.

We mentioned that we would come back to this: “were ordered in the time of the Prophet.”

Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:

The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (saw) .”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:740)

So for them this hadith serves as a neutralizer to any idea of the Blessed Prophet (saw) praying with arms to the side.

Go look at how the render the English over here: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:740)

What a juciy dishonest lie! In plain sight!

The whole of the Arabic text actually says:

Abdullah ibn Maslamah narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa’d, who said: “People were commanded that a man should place his right hand on his left forearm during prayer.” Abu Hazim said: “I know of it only as being attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Isma’il (a narrator in the chain) said: “It is attributed” — and he did not say “he attributes it.”

Effectively, the hadith they think is a trump card actually is an athar.  It doesn’t describe something that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did. It describes actions that people did that were attributed to the Prophet (saw). 

A note about Sahl ibn Sa’d: He lived to see the Umayyad imperium.

Al-Bukhari’s hadith comes through two chains: one from ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama and the other from Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways, both narrating from Imam Malik ibn Anas, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa‘d, who said: “The people used to be commanded…”

• In the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama, Abu Hazim said: “I do not know it except that he attributes it (yanmī dhālika) to the Blessed Prophet (saw).”

• In the narration of Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways, it says: “I do not know it except that it is attributed (yunmā dhālika) to him.”

Based on this, the hadith is defective (ma‘lūl), weak, and cannot be used as evidence, because it is merely Abu Hazim’s supposition, and it is also inconsistent (muḍṭarib).

20 different chains from 18 different sahabah?

A Sunni, Maliki scholar Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali translated a work that showed the problems in these chains.

So when the Shi’i man says: “Within Ahl Sunnah there is no single proven tradition from the holy prophet (peace be upon him and his family in regard to folding of the hands in prayer.”

Proven (adjective) = established beyond doubt.

This is correct.

As the article by Shaykh Abdullah states:

“True or not, there exists sufficient doubt about every single report that exists to this effect that weakens the “popular” claim and understanding that it is well established that the Prophet prayed while placing one hand over the other.”

You may also be interested in reading the following:

Final thoughts.

Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq, his first point, lands hard.  That was quite embarrassing for the Shi’i to quote that as a reference.  Also, something Shi’i has to contend with is the idea of women praying with their hands folded.  

However, Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq himself blatantly lied and misled his audience concerning what the Arabic text said. 

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Can a child of fornication/adultery be an Imam? Ismaili Shi’a & Ibadi views.

Moreover, no burdened soul can bear another’s burden. And if one weighed down by a burden calls another to carry his load, zero of it will be carried, even though he is near to kin. You warn only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer. And whoever purifies himself purifies himself only for his own good. And to Allah is the eventual coming.”(Qur’an 35:18)

﷽ 

Recently, there were some questions asked by an Ismaili Shi’i about the Ibadi school and whether we allow for the “Walad Zina” to be the Amir of the Muslims, as opposed to the Shi’i or the Maliki.

It was over all a passionate and cordial exchange, and it is hoped that you the reader will benefit.

From the view of the Ibadi school, we need to get something absolutely clear. There is no such thing as an illegitimate child in Islam. There is such a thing as an illegitimate means to conceive a child. A child by right should be brought into the world through wedlock, via marriage.

However, a child in any situation is through the decree of Allah (swt), a blessing from Allah (swt) and an amana (a trust) from Allah (swt).

This idea that some children are tainted by the actions of their parents is alien to the Qur’an. It is a Christian theological concept. To be fair to Christians, the (Disciples of Christ -Campbell Movement) do not believe in inherited sin.

It is overall all a Christian theological concept that we are culpable for what Adam did. We did not tell Adam to eat that apple, did you?

So there is this idea that is very prevalent in Asian society and culture. That idea is that if the son is a hooligan or the daughter did something shameful, it brings shame to the family. No! There is no shame in that family that shame belongs to the individual alone!

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

So we know among the Ahl Bayt (Household/Tribe/Tent/Lineage) of Adam, that he had two sons. One of his sons was a murderer and the other was murdered. Does this shame cover Adam, Huwa and the son who was murdered? No it does not.

The shame and the guilt belong to the culprit alone.

Let us present a scenario to you: from the dhahir — (the apparent) — what is known—and the ghaib (the unseen).

Now imagine a scenario where a young man (14 years of age), a hafiz of the Qur’an, has beautiful memory retention and recitation. He would like to lead the congregation for the tarweeh prayers in Ramadan.

He is interviewed by the local Mosque Imam (an elder) and the chairperson. They ask the boy, “Can you tell us about the sins of your father?”

What?! May Allah (swt) guide us! May Allah (swt) forgive us! May Allah (swt) open our hearts and eyes.

Imagine you go to an interview and you prepared your resume and your references.

So the hiring department manager says to you, “Can I take a look at your father’s resume and his work history?”

What?! For what? You are the one being hired, not your father.

Another Ismaili Shi’i had messaged one of our team members to ask about women leading the prayer. However, these are not the same categories. As Ismaili Shi’i also have never had a female Imam nor would they allow it. So the question put forward to this Ismaili Shi’a was: “How is claiming that your school is more discriminatory than the Ibadi school a point in your favour?” At that point the individual offered no more interaction.

We do not have a single ruling in our school where a female child would be excluded from anything based upon sins that her parents committed.

The questions still remain. Is it the position of the Shi’i (Ismaili, 12er, Zaydi) that a person is judged based upon what his/her father/mother has done?

In fact, this question should be a cause of pensive reflection. (For the 12er and Ismaili in particular).

Why?

Because if they have a ruling in their books that ‘Walad Zina’ cannot be an Imam, it means that the possibility is there for this to occur, otherwise it wouldn’t be in your books of jurisprudence to begin with. Let them spend time in reflection on what this entails for them and their view of Imams.

How is a child brought in this world? Remember, we don’t believe children bring themselves into being. They are brought into being through conception (which they have no power over). How does such a child be held culpable for the actions of their parents?

Furthermore, it is a matter of Islamic Aqidah that any and all babies and children who die before they reach their age of accountability enter into Jannah without accountability!

This means the worst possible people in history you can imagine. Even if these people were the oppressors and butchers of Muslims themselves, if their young ones died they would enter into Jannah.

That being the case, why will we use such a disgusting appellation ‘Walad Zina’?

Granted, in jurisprudence, if you are talking about the issues surrounding inheritance, it is another matter. Is this child adopted or were they conceived via wedlock or not?

However, to give such a title as if it were some permanent nomenclature ‘Walad Zina’ is akin to calling all the Messengers and Prophets of Allah (swt), ‘The great-great-grandsons of a sinner.’

We don’t use that as some type of permanent nomenclature for the honorable Messengers and Prophets of Allah (swt).

Adam (as) is not remembered as the sinner but as the repentant and one whom Allah (swt) himself taught words of reconciliation, wrapping him up swiftly in a rapture of divine mercy and comfort!

As a Muslim ummah, we need to turn away from this imported Christian theological concept.

This view has no basis in the Qur’an. As unfortunate as the child’s means of coming into the world is, that child’s very being, essence and existence and every breath is a chance to extol the praise and glory of Allah (swt). To render service to his/her parents, community, nation and to all people and even creatures of this Earth.

In the case of the man in particular, will he not get married? Then he will be an IMAM of his family.

Will he not lead the prayers? Then he will be the IMAM of the prayer.

Such a person is righteous and if Allah (swt) has chosen to lead the Muslims, we would give our hands and take the oath of allegiance.

Such a person can be the Amir of the Muslims and Allah (swt) knows best. We want to thank my Shi’i interlocutor for a passionate and respectful discussion. 

If there are any Shi’i reading this that have additional resources, books of jurisprudence and/or remarks that they feel add to the dialogue, feel free to do so in the comment section. 

If you are interested, you may wish to read the following articles:

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/polygyny-and-redundant-revelation/

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/the-hypocrisy-of-bidi-talaq-innovated-divorces-weighed-against-the-wisdom-of-the-quran/

https://primaquran.com/2023/06/10/some-shia-views-on-the-origin-of-black-people-blatant-racism/

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Blowing on Knots. Saving Muslim Marriages

And they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves if they only knew.” (Quran 2:102-103)

﷽ 

Is it not curious that, out of all the things that people learned concerning magic that an emphasis is put on causing separation between a man and his wife? That there are extremely dark forces at play working against the foundations of a family should be something that we really think about.

In Islam, marriage completes half of one’s faith. 60% of Shari’ah law is focused on the family.

There is a significant gap between the holistic guidance of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the often-mechanistic application of certain legal rulings, particularly concerning marriage and divorce.

The Reality of Supra-Natural Forces and Their Target.

The Qur’an explicitly confirms the existence of magic and the efforts of Shaitan to sow discord, especially within the most sacred of institutions: the family.


“The Shaitan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer.” (Qur’an 5:91)

“If an evil impulse from Shaitan provokes you, seek refuge with Allah; He is All-hearing and all-knowing.” (Qur’an 7:200)

“And march forth in the way of forgiveness from your Lord, and for Paradise as wide as the heavens and the earth, prepared for the pious. Those who spend in prosperity and in adversity, who repress anger, and who pardon the people; verily, Allah loves the good-doers.”(Qur’an 3:133-134)

“So whatever you have been given is but enjoyment for this worldly life, but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord. And those who avoid the greater sins, and illegal sexual intercourse, and when they are angry, they forgive.” (Qur’an 42:36)

It can be seen from the aforementioned verses that enmity, anger, hate are things that Shaitan provokes us with. We also see that tempering our anger and forgiveness are more wholesome.

“Say: ‘I seek refuge with the Lord of Daybreak, from the evil of duality, and from the evil of the darkness as it gathers and from the evil of those who blow on knots (l-‘uqadi) and from the evil of an envier when he envies.'” (Qur’an 113:1-5)

From those who ‘blow on knots‘. The term ‘l-uqadi’ .

This term is used in the following instances of the Qur’an:

“There is no blame upon you for that to which you indirectly allude concerning a proposal to women or for what you conceal within yourselves. Allah knows that you will have them in mind. But do not promise them secretly except for saying a proper saying. And do not determine to undertake a (uq’data l-nikahi)marriage contract until the decreed period reaches its end. And know that Allah knows what is within yourselves, so beware of Him. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.” (Qur’an 2:235)

“And in case you divorce them even before you have touched them, and you have already ordained for them a marriage-portion, then give her one half of what you have ordained except in case the women remit, or he in whose hand is the (uq’datu l-nikahi) knot of marriage remits; that you remit is nearer to piety. And do not forget the virtue of grace among yourselves; surely Allah is Ever-Beholding of whatever you do.” (Qur’an 2;237)

When you look at those instances of the word, it becomes apparent that ‘blow on knots‘ means ‘blow on marriages’. “Devise plots against marriages.”

The phrase “those who blow on knots” (an-naffathati fil ‘uqad) has a primary meaning referring to sorceresses who literally tie knots and blow spells upon them. However, the linguistic drawn to the “knot of marriage” (‘uqdat an-nikah) in verses 2:235 and 2:237 is a powerful and valid tafsir (interpretation). It highlights that one of the primary objectives of these dark forces is to unravel the sacred bond (‘aqd) between spouses. This is not a minor issue; it is a direct assault on half of a Muslim’s faith.

Aqad literally means to ‘tie’ or to ‘bind’. In English, we have the interesting idiom of ‘tying the knot‘ as a reference to getting married.

The Arabic word Khul means to ‘untie or to disrobe’.

Whereas the word Talaq means to abandon or rid oneself of something.

“Definition of “divorce” (talaq) Literally, the word “divorce” (talaq) means to abandon a thing or get rid of a thing. When an animal tied with a string is untied it is called talaq. If the tied with a string she-camel is untied, the Arabs mention this state as: “talaqa al-naqata talaqan” 23 (The she-camel has been released).”

Source: (Pg 15. Islamic Law of Marriage and Divorce by Shehza Sham)

So, if the term Talaq means to untie, to abandon or to get rid of something, it makes no sense to say to someone “I abandon you” thrice, because in order to be abandoned the second time or the third time just like saying ‘I untie you thrice’.  In order to be ‘untied’ a second or third time, you would need to be tied or in a state of ‘aqad’ for a second or third time.

If we take into account that supra-natural forces are at work in bringing about discord in Muslim marriages, why is it not taken into the calculation by certain Muslim jurists and especially those influenced by ‘tassawuf’ when deciding the fate of Muslim marriages?

Here is something that those of our brothers of the Ahl Sunnah need to take on board. If you believe the following haidth, we have a question for you.

Narrated Aisha:

Magic was worked on Allah’s Messenger (saw) so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect)…….the hadith is longer.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5765)

If you believe the best of creation, the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), could be affected by magic to the extent that it created a false reality in his personal life, then it is a form of arrogance for any scholar or jurist to dismiss the possibility that ordinary Muslim couples could be acting under similar influences of anger, hatred, miscommunication, and irrational behavior provoked by Shaitan.

Until today, there has been no meaningful engagement in regard to this question. 

We also need to keep the following verses in mind:

O Prophet! When any of you divorce women, divorce them during their period of purity and calculate their ‘idda carefully. And have fear of Allah, your Lord. Do not evict them from their homes, nor should they leave, unless they commit an outright indecency. Those are Allah´s limits, and anyone who oversteps Allah´s limits has wronged himself. You never know, it may well be that after that Allah will cause a new situation to develop.” (Qur’an 65:1)

Even though this is what the Qur’an clearly states, the jurist will allow couples’ marriages to be dissolved without asking questions like:

“Did you intend to divorce your wife while she was in menses?”

If the answer is yes, then you cannot intend to divorce your wife while she is in her menses.

If the answer is “I don’t know”, then again, you cannot intend to divorce your wife on an “I don’t know.”

Yet, we, unfortunately, know of many Muslims who have gone through the divorce process, and they have informed us that the judge, the counselor, didn’t even bother to ask this question. Most unfortunate.

Another aspect of the revelation that unfortunately gets ignored is the following:

“Then, when they have reached their term (3 months), take them back in kindness or part from them in kindness, and call to witness two just men among you, and keep your testimony upright for Allah. Whoso believes in Allah and the Last Day is exhorted to act thus. And whosoever keeps his duty to Allah, Allah will appoint a way out for him…” (Qur’an 65:2)

People do not realize it, but it is very possible for people to part amicably. Sometimes a woman cannot produce children, and she has the option to be a co-wife. Whereas, if a man cannot produce children, he does not have the option to be the co-husband.

People can decide to amicably part if having biological children is an absolute deal-breaker in a relationship. They may find, for various other reasons, that they are not suitable as partners.

Yet, unfortunately, once again, the judges or the counselors do not ask about the emotional state of the man/wife when words are uttered? The answer is no.

If any men among you divorce their wives by Zihar (calling them mothers), they cannot be their mothers: None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth. And in fact, they use words (both) iniquitous and false: but truly Allah is one that blots out (sins), and forgives (again and again).” (Qur’an)

This verse clearly repudiates those men who would use an idiom or simply a verbal expression to divorce women. This verse is also clear when coupled with other verses about having just two witnesses present, and consultation that it repudiates instant divorce simply through pronunciation.

“They are invited to the book of Allah to settle their dispute”. (Qur’an 3:23)

“And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing, so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy”. (Qur’an 6:155).

“Lo! this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright”. (Qur’an 17:9)

The Juristic (Fiqh) Response vs. The Holistic (Tazkiyah) Approach

The Problem: In many contemporary contexts, these two streams have become separated. A judge in a civil or family court, or even an imam acting in an advisory capacity, often wears only the hat of the jurist. They apply the law as a set of rules without the accompanying spiritual and pastoral context that is essential for dealing with something as sensitive as divorce.

The Qur’anic procedure for divorce is not a mere utterance but a process designed for contemplation and reconciliation.

Divorce during Menses (Tuhr): The ruling in (65:1) to divorce women during their period of purity is precisely to prevent a rash decision made in a state of emotional turmoil (which can sometimes coincide with a wife’s menses). A man who says “I divorce you” in a fit of rage during her menses has transgressed Allah’s law. The juristic consensus is that such a divorce is still legally effective but is considered bid’ah (reprehensible innovation) and a sin.

The practical consequence is that the marriage is often considered dissolved, and the crucial pastoral step of questioning the validity of the intention and context is skipped.

The Role of Witnesses and Kindness: Verse (65:2) emphasize kindness, witnesses, and a measured process. This stands in stark contrast to the instantaneous, often unilateral, and highly emotional divorces that occur. The Qur’anic ideal is a mediated separation, not a sudden outburst.

Before any divorce is finalized, a mandatory mediation process should be instituted that involves:

  • Questioning the emotional state and intention at the time of the utterance.
  • Investigating possible external factors (family interference, financial stress, etc.).
  • Recommending ruqyah (Qur’anic healing) if there is a legitimate suspicion of magic or evil eye.
  • Exhausting all avenues for reconciliation, as the Qur’an commands.

May Allah (swt) sanctify and bless all of your marriages. May Allah (swt) protect you all from the evil eye. May you and your spouse work out your differences. May Allah (swt) make your wife or wives appear as the most loving and beautiful of women. May Allah (swt) make your husband appear to you as the most kind, generous, understanding and handsome of men.

You might be interested in reading the following articles:

https://primaquran.com/2023/04/05/can-a-child-of-fornication-adultery-be-an-imam/

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/polygyny-and-redundant-revelation/

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/the-hypocrisy-of-bidi-talaq-innovated-divorces-weighed-against-the-wisdom-of-the-quran/

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The position of the Ibadi school on marrying Ahl Kitab

“This day are things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Lawful unto you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time when you give them their due dowers, and desire charity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” (Qur’an 5:5)

“O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 5:87)

﷽ 

This entry will give the position of the Muslims, otherwise known as (Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama) or the Ibadi school. It will give our justifications from the Qur’an and Sunnah for marrying the people of the book (Jews and Christians).

Companions such as Ibn Abbas, Saad bin al-Musayyab, Said bin Jubair, Uthman, Talha, Tawus, Mujahid are all known to have married people of the book. The Blessed Messenger (saw) himself is known to have married from among the Ahl Kitab.

So, yes, in the Ibadi school, a Muslim man can marry a Christian or Jewish woman if certain conditions are met.

 Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah. 

The five necessities—religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property are defined.

This ruling would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage & preservation of religion.

Among our brothers from the Ahl Sunnah, there are two positions. The position of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa is that Muslim men can marry Christian and Jewish women and until today there are no restrictions put on this.

The position of Imam Ahmad and Imam Shafi’i is that Muslim men cannot marry Christian or Jewish women.

The position of the Ibadi school is in between these two camps. It is very clear that we cannot make impermissible what Allah (swt) made permissible.

That being said, there is a context to these verses and conditions that must be met.

Conditions placed on marrying the Ahl Kitab.

  • 1st condition is that this takes place under Muslim governance, where there is full compliance of the shariah law.
  • The 2nd Condition is that the interest of the Muslims dominates. The children, for example, are to be raised as Muslims.
  • The 3rd condition is that the Muslim man actually is a practicing Muslim.
  • The 4th Condition is that the Jewish or Christian woman actually be practicing Judaism or Christianity.
  • The 5th condition is that she did not ever commit fornication or have an extramarital affair.

Understanding the first condition.

“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best way and best in result.” (Qur’an 4:59)

What happens today in North Africa and in Turkey is that many of these men who are exposed to the Maliki and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence will marry women from the United States, Europe, Russia. Often the children of these marriages are split between nationalities. The inheritance laws are not decided by the laws of Islam they are decided by secular institutions. The fate of the children will be decided by the laws of those lands. More often than not, the court awards the custody of the children to the mother. The children are brought up without a Muslim father, an Imam leading the prayers and teaching the deen of Islam. This is totally unacceptable.

Understanding the second condition.

“Our Lord, and make us Muslims that submit to You, and from our descendants a community that submits to You. And show us our rites and accept our repentance. Indeed, You are Ever-Accepting of our repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:128)

“O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your own families from a Fire whose fuel is mankind and stones, (and) over which are harsh, severe Angels, who do not disobey Allah in whatever He commands them and who perform whatever they are commanded to.” (Qur’an 66:6)

Anyone who loves their children does not want to expose them to the dangers of hellfire. The best and clearest way to help ensure this is to raise them as Muslims. To instill in them the articles of faith. The love and fear of Allah (swt). The love of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and following his noble example. Muslims cannot give blessings to their children to be raised by other religions because they were all abrogated with the coming of Islam. Qur’an 2:106 establishes this.

Men are in charge of women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend for maintenance from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband’s absence what Allah would have them, guard. But those wives from whom you fear ill/strange conduct advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; then if they persist strike them. But if they obey you once more, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Qu’ran 4:34)

It is difficult enough to get Muslim-majority nations to want to establish the Imamate. Does anyone think that non-Muslim majority nations have a vested interest in doing so? They have different world views and different principles upon which they base their concepts of justice. Many of them promote egalitarianism. Too many times, Muslim men are taken by the charms and beauty of non-Muslim women. Non-Muslim women may make promises to them. However, none of those promises are legally binding. This will lead us to understand the third condition.

Understanding the third and fourth conditions.

“And do not marry polytheistic (l-mush’rikati) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men to your women until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite you to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)

This verse is ‘Aam. There is an exception or allowance to marry the mush’rikati women. That exception is given in Qur’an 5:5

Many of these Muslim men who want to marry Christian or Jewish women are themselves not practicing Islam. That is not a good foundation to start a marriage with a Muslim woman, let alone a non-Muslim woman. The children are likely to be swayed by the parent who shows more conviction and practice of their faith tradition than the parent that does not show conviction or practice their faith tradition. That is why Allah (swt) says that marrying someone who is a slave is better than marrying a free, non-believing woman, even though her /his looks may please you.

Allah (swt) also said you can marry Christian and Jewish women.

Understanding fourth and fifth conditions.

“This day are things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Lawful unto you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time when you give them their due dowry, and desire charity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” (Qur’an 5:5)

That Christian or Jewish woman has to be a practicing Jewish or Christian woman. She has to follow the tenets and edicts of her faith tradition. She cannot be a ‘nominal’ Jew or a ‘nominal’ Christian. If the Christian or Jew converts to Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, New Age spirituality, or anything of the kind, the marriage can become null and void.

Also, Allah (swt) says, ‘chaste women’—muhsanatu. This means if these women have committed fornication or adultery, you cannot marry them. So this only leaves you with the option of marrying someone who is a virgin or a divorcee.

These Muslim men should be aware of one of the very strong positions in the Ibadi school in regard to themselves (the Muslim men) being chaste.

The same rule applies to Muslims as well. Muslims who have committed fornication for adultery can only marry other Muslims who have done similar. They cannot marry chaste believers, nor can they marry those people they have done fornication/adultery with.

Please see the article here:

This is not an example of abrogation. This is an example of a specification. Now you ask yourself are these conditions met today?

The Ibadi school is priority to Muslim Women First.

What happens in places where the Maliki and Hanafi schools reign supreme? You do see Muslim men often marry “Christian” or “Jewish” women, many of whom are actually agnostic or even atheist. They do so while many hundreds of thousands of Muslim women go unmarried. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslim women who are widows, divorcees, orphans, single people, or simply never been married before.

Shouldn’t our priority be the Ummah of Muhammed (saw)? Remember the wisdom of Allah (swt)

And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you.”

What happens in those places where the Shafi’i school is dominant? For example: places like Indonesia or Malaysia? What happens is that Muslim men or Muslim women will tell non-Muslims to convert to Islam, and then they will marry them. At least these approaches are more sensible. Bringing people to Islam. That, of course, is acceptable by Islamic law. However, every action is judged by intention and so too will be the fruit of that intention.

There are thousands of Muslim men and women who convert to Islam every year of their own free will and volition. Not under any social pressure to convert because of love. Would it not be wise to give preference to these people for marriage?

May Allah (swt) continue to guide the Ummah of Muhammed (saw)!

You may be interested in reading the following articles:

https://primaquran.com/2023/04/05/can-a-child-of-fornication-adultery-be-an-imam

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/marriage-to-people-of-the-book-polygyny-and-redundant-revelation

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/the-hypocrisy-of-bidi-talaq-innovated-divorces-weighed-against-the-wisdom-of-the-quran

https://primaquran.com/2017/10/23/blowing-on-knots-saving-muslim-marriages

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized