“The Messenger of Allah is certainly a good example for those of you who have hope in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and who remember Allah very often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
“And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow.” (Qur’an 2:43)
﷽
The picture on your left is the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) to make du’a or supplication with the hands open. We do not tie the hands or fold our hands in prayer. That is the method of other traditions.
Opening of the hands is the way of the supplicant getting ready to receive some mercy or guidance from above. Leaving the hands at the side leaves the heart open and uncovered. It signifies stillness, tranquility and humbleness before a Sovereign and Mighty God.
Most of the world’s Muslims have it right when it comes to making du’a (supplication).
We open our hands, and we do not tie or fold our hands when making du’a (supplication).
We do not fold or tie hands in prayer.
This is the correct way. This is the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw). No tying or folding of the hands. You should be tranquil in your prayer
FROM SUNNAH TO INNOVATION: AN EVOLUTION OF CHANGE IN THE SUNNI SCHOOLS.
How does one come to such radically different approaches to one of the most witnessed and beloved acts of the Blessed Messenger (saw)? Insh’Allah, we have another article at the end of this that you may wish to read and ponder over.
As you can see in the begging in the fitra period, and early period the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was to not tie the hands or fold the hands in prayer…AT ALL!
Listen to this interesting clip from brother Hamed Rashid Malik
NONE OF THE FOUR SURVIVING SUNNI SCHOOLS OF JURISPRUDENCE SAY ITS OBLIGATRY TO PRAY WITH THE HANDS FOLDED.
Now, they may say it is preferred to tie or fold the hands. However, none of them say it’s prohibited or bid’ah or anything even close to that to keep the hands open in prayer.
School of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal
Imam Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi, the Munaqqih & Musahhih of the Madhhab who authored an explanation on the Muqni’ in a 12-volume work he named “al-Insaf”. It is reported that Imam Ahmad would open his hands and leave them to his sides always.
In the Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah
Abdullah asked his father, Ahmad bin Hanbal, about the hadith of Abi Ma’sher. “It’s not allowed to do takfeer in salat,” so Ahmad said, “It means putting his right on his chest.”
Ibn ul-Qayyim, in his Badaaī’ al-Fawaaid, cites al-Muzani, the student of Imam Ahmad, as follows:
ونقل المزني عنه…ويكره أن يجعلهما على الصدر، وذلك لما روي عن النبي -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- أنه نهى عن التكفير، وهو وضع اليد على الصدر
بدائع الفوائد
Imam Ahmad said:
“It is reprehensible for him to place both of them (hands) upon the chest. And that is because of what is related from the Prophet (saw) that he prohibited al-Takfeer – and that is, placing the hand upon the chest.”
School of Imam Shafi’i
In the book of “Al Um” by Shafi’i you’ll not find mention of tying or folding the hands in the prayer, he didn’t ever mention it.
Also, the book of Nawawi “Al Minhaj” didn’t mention Qabd (tying or folding the hands in the prayer)
And all who have explained it from Shafi’ees didn’t mention it as obligatory in the prayer.
We also know that Imam Shafi’i was a student of Imam Malik, and we will come to that insh’Allah.
School of Imam Abu Hanifa.
Imam Abu Hanifa, we have nothing written from him on this subject. We just do not.
School of Imam Malik
Narrated by Ibn al-Qasim in al-Mudawanna (1:74) and in al-Tamheed (20:75) al-Layth as-Sa’d is reported to have said:
Not tying or folding the hands in prayer is preferred, unless he is standing for an extended period and becomes tired, then there is no problem (la ba’as) with putting the right hand over the left.
LOOKING AT THE NARRATIONS USED BY THOSE WHO ADVANCE TYING/FOLDING THE HANDS
And the only narration that they really have is:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn Sad said, “People used to be ordered to place their right hands on their left forearms in the prayer.”
Abu Hazim added, “I know for sure that Sahl traces that back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.”
This exact hadith came by way of Imam Malik and Imam Malik himself doesn’t do it!
And when a narrator narrates something about the Blessed Messenger (saw) and doesn’t follow it he’s either:
A fasiq
He knows that it isn’t Authentic about the Blessed Messenger (saw)
He may have forgotten
And since Malik is a respectable scholar, then the first option is removed. The last option is also removed because Imam Malik mentioned the hadith in his Muwatta. Which means only option 2 is left, because he saw another thing than what was reported.
Just two other points about the hadith that’s used.
Also, he didn’t say, “We were Ordered,” but said, “People were ordered.”
And only Abu Hazm the Tabi’e has claimed that it’s from the Prophet (saw).
THE PEOPLE WERE ORDERED? INNOVATION BY BANI UMMAYAD
وحدثني عبد الرحمن بن إبراهيم عن عبدالله بن يحيى المعافري عن حيوة عن بكر بن عمرو أنه لم ير أبا أمامة -يعني ابن سهل- واضعا إحدى يديه على الأخرى قط ولا أحدا من أهل المدينة حتى قدم الشام فرأى الأوزاعي وناسا يضعونه
Look what Imam Abu Zur’ah the Shaykh of Imam Al Bukhari had to say:
Abd al-Rahman ibn Ibrahim told me on the authority of Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Ma`fari on the authority of Haywa on the authority of Bakr ibn Amr that he had never seen Abu Umamah – meaning Ibn Sahl – ever put one of his hands on the other, and no one from the people of Medina did that either, until he came to Syria, so he saw al-Awza`i and people putting him on.
Better archive/save the following before it suddenly disappears from the internet.
Abu Umama bin Sahl is one of the Sahaba. His full name is Asad bin Sahal bin Hunaif Al Ansari and The Blessed Messenger (saw) used to call him Abu Umama.
So the pedigree, the start of this practice of tying and folding the hands in prayer, started in Sham, where the Umayyads country was.
All the scholars of the great Scholars of Tabi’een that opposed the Umayyads, it’s authentic about them that they didn’t tie or fold the hands in Salat!
May Allah (swt) open your eyes WIDE dear Muslim ummah! May Allah (swt) put in your hearts a love for the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
If you are interested or keen to pray the way the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed, we would encourage you to read the following. May Allah (swt) bless those responsible for its compilation.
HOW TO DO THE PRAYER ACCORDING TO THE BLESSED SUNNAH?
“Glory to Him who journeyed His servant by night, from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him of Our wonders. He is the Listener, the Beholder.” (Qur’an 17:1)
“Perform the prayer at the decline of the sun, until the darkness of the night; and the Qur’an at dawn. The Qur’an at dawn is witnessed. And keep vigil with it during parts of the night, as an extra prayer. Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a laudable position. And say, “My Lord, lead me in through an entry of truth, and lead me out through an exit of truth, and grant me from You a supporting power.”. And say, “The truth has come, and falsehood has withered away; for falsehood is bound to wither away.”. We send down in the Qur’an healing and mercy for the believers, but it increases the wrongdoers only in loss.” (Qur’an 17:79-82)
﷽
Many believe that Muslims only pray five times a day. However, Muslims have many invocations of divine remembrance throughout the day. There are invocations that are said by Muslims when we eat, embark on a journey, or even sleep.
Embark on a voyage of great spiritual discovery.
The ‘sublime oral tradition’, or hadith, reports that the Blessed Prophet Muhammed, (saw), received the five times daily prayer of Islam during his mystical ascension through the heavens into the glorious (Garden of Spiritual Essence). During this journey, the Noble Prophet was able to contemplate angels performing each of the various movements of prayer.
Prayer is a gift from the Creator, A spiritual technology, displayed first through angelic beings, rather than springing from human intellect, will or initiative. It is reported that The Prophet of Islam proclaimed, “Prayer is the ascension of the faithful.”
Prayer is more of a way of intimate discussion with the Creator than an offering to the Creator. The Creator does not ask for or need any offering. Prayer exists beyond the kingdom of personal will. Rather, it is the key to the kingdom of Divine Will.
The Blessed Prophet Muhammed, (saw), could have brought back from his ascension any gift from the infinite Divine Treasury. Since he returned with the technology of prayer, we can infer that it is most precious.
For Muslims, prayer is ordained by the Creator as the most effective way to unfold the fullness of our humanity. The Creator does not need our prayers but offers the technology of prayer to us as His supreme gift.
We as Muslims pray not only from a sense of obligation but as an act of tender responsiveness, just as a lover desires to fulfill every wish of the Most Beloved, the Most Covetous.
The unified lines of prayer, with the intention of the hearts in perfect alignment as well, produces such an experience of spiritual power and communion, it is as though all humanity was standing together in prayer.
To humble oneself and prostrate during prayer is to plunge directly into the ocean of Divine Mercy. How sublime for the one who discovers it and how unfortunate to miss even a single occasion of it.
“The Messenger of Allah is certainly a good example for those of you who have hope in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and who remember Allah very often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
“And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow.” (Qur’an 2:43)
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Quran 64:12)
﷽
What you are about to see cannot be unseen.
You are about to learn information concerning the prayer of the Blessed Prophet (saw). Whoever adopts it adopts and is blessed and whoever leaves it is accountable.
It has been attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) in the following hadith:
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.
The hadith above has been used by many people to advocate that Muslims should try and pray the way that the Blessed Messenger (saw) prayed.
Often what they really mean is to pray the way they think he prayed.
Clarity from Obfuscation: Where to place the hands in the prayer?
We have a situation in the Muslim Ummah in which there are certain groups who go around and police other people’s prayers. They are like the ‘prayer police’. I honestly think that many of them are coming from a place of sincerity in that they only want you to follow what they believe the Blessed Messenger (saw) was doing.
However, they give the false impression that the correct way of doing the prayer is to place the right hand over the left hand (somewhere…) –we will come to this latter. Thus, they will give the impression that anyone who does anything different from this is not doing the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) or worse, ye,t they are doing innovation!
Interestingly enough, the statement “placing the hands on the chest” is not contained in either of the two most authentic collections of the Sunni hadith corpus, namely, al-Bukhari or Muslim!
What we have are two ways of obtaining evidence about the way the Blessed Messenger (saw) performed his prayer.
Since we do not have a video recording of how the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed how is the sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) preserved and transmitted?
1. Diagram A: Sunnah preserved via mass living connected chains via the mass transmitted living sunnah as actual practice. This means that masses of people pray who observe their seniors, scholars and learned people pray who observe their seniors and scholars, and learned people pray who observe their seniors, scholars and learned people pray who observed the Prophet (saw) prayed.
2. Diagram B: Sunnah preserved in the form of an oral report as theoretical practice. Theoretical practice because these are scholar’s interpretations of what the lone narrator reports entail. Often they contain many conflicting suggestions about how the Prophet (saw) prayed. Often the scholar who employs this method does his/her best to deduce how the Prophet (saw) might have prayed. These become documented in writings.
3. Diagram C: Now, obviously, the hadith (report) or sunnah (practice) — which we have in our hands in the form of writings, started off as khabar al-wahid or lone narrator oral reports. However, without context, (mass living and mass transmitted practice) it is difficult to determine with certainty and clarity the authority they convey. This is why these reports are often called dhaani, which means they imply certainty about a matter but do not necessarily convey it.
Diagram B & Diagram C, for all practical purposes, are the same methodologies.
An example of context in regard to the sunnah is knowing if a prophetic practice was enforced or abrogated.
An example of abrogated sunnah
“Narrated Al-Bara:
The Prophet (saw) prayed facing Bait-ul-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) for sixteen or seventeen months but he wished that his Qibla would be the Ka`ba (at Mecca). (So Allah Revealed (2.144) and he offered `Asr prayers(in his Mosque facing Ka`ba at Mecca) and some people prayed with him. A man from among those who had prayed with him, went out and passed by some people offering prayer in another mosque, and they were in the state of bowing. He said, “I, (swearing by Allah,) testify that I have prayed with the Prophet (saw) facing Mecca.” Hearing that, they turned their faces to the Ka`ba while they were still bowing. Some men had died before the Qibla was changed towards the Ka`ba. They had been killed and we did not know what to say about them (i.e. whether their prayers towards Jerusalem were accepted or not). So Allah revealed:– “And Allah would never make your faith (i.e. prayer) to be lost (i.e. your prayers offered (towards Jerusalem). Truly Allah is Full of Pity, Most Merciful towards mankind.” (2.143)
What this means is that it was the sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) to pray facing towards Jerusalem and then the sunnah was to pray facing towards the Ka’ba and there were companions who died, and this information did not reach them.
An example of the sunnah in theoretical practice as interpreted by scholars.
“Abdullah ibn Maslama related to us, on the authority of Malik from Abi Hazim from Sahl ibn Sa’d He said:
“The people were ordered that a person is to place their right hand over their left forearm during prayer” Abu Hazim said, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet.” Isma’il said,” (I only know that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika).”
#1) It is not an explicit report or statement or action of the Prophet (saw).
#2) The statement, “That the people were ordered that a person is to place their right hand over their left forearm during prayer” is the statement of the Companion, Sahl. And he doesn’t say that the Prophet (saw) gave this order. So there is a possibility that another could have given this order.
#3) The statement, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet” is not the statement of Sahl. Rather, it is the statement of the Tab’i Abu Hazim. So there is no certainty that Sahl actually attributed this to the Prophet (saw), since Abu Hazim is merely conjecturing about what he remembers.
#4) The statement of Isma’il is that (I only know that) That is attributed to (yunma dhalika).” And he didn’t say, “He attributes (yanmi).” Further emphasizes the belief that Abu Hazim didn’t actually hear Sahl attribute the order to the Prophet (saw).
TAKING THE SUNNAH BY THE METHOD OF DIAGRAM Bor DIAGRAM C
The problem with scholars’ interpretations of lone narrator’s reports will be shown.
Notice that many Muslims pray with their right hand over their left hand below their navel or up midway above the navel or high up on the chest. So, obviously that hadith above (which has been shown not to be firmly established by the Prophet) doesn’t help us to know where to place the hands.
You could even do takbir and then put your hands behind your back taking the left forearm with the right hand as in the picture above! Of course, no one among Muslims is doing this. However, this clearly demonstrates why relying upon the methodology relied upon in diagrams B & C above can be problematic.
The group(s) that proclaim the ‘Salafi Manhaj’ are in major dispute in regard to the Prophets prayer based upon the principles of interpretation in diagrams B & C
Sticking with the already previously mentioned Hadith: “The people were ordered that a person is to place their right hand over their left forearm during prayer” and showing the challenges of interpretation rather than going by mass-living mass-transmitted practice.
A very important point.
Many among the Salafis think that just quoting the above hadith is enough to negate sadl-laying the arms at the side. However, that is simply not the case at all! Because that hadith does not indicate if this was to be done before the ruku (see fig 3. and fig 4. below)or the returning position after ruku.
Salafi Interpretation number 1.
The Salafi will place the right hand over the left hand before bowing and after bowing, they leave the hands at the side (sadl).
In figure 4, the majority of Muslims, Ibadi, Shi’i, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi leave their hands at the side after bowing.
Salafi Interpretation number 2.
The Salafi will place right hand over the left hand before bowing and after bowing, they again place the right hand over the left!
In figure 4, the majority of Muslims, Ibadi, Shi’i, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi do not grasp their hands after bowing.
For some strange reason someone didn’t want you to see the above video. As if it was a national intelligence secret. Thankfully, for you dear reader, we saved it. Voilà!
So you can see those Salafis who follow interpretation number 2 in the video below. They place the right hand over the left hand after bowing.
It is a point of dispute among those Muslims who claim to be following: “The way of the Salaaf.”
Among the big Salafi Shaykhs who practice this are:
Shaykh Badeeu deen As-Sanadi and Shaykh Bin Baaz, whereas Shaykh al-Albaani declared that those who did that are innovators.
The proof text that Bin Baaz uses for his position is the very hadith under discussion above! So this hadith does not tell us if the hand is placed one over the other (where they are to be placed) and if they are to be folded (before or after the bowing- ruku)!
So who was the correct way of praying? Who was upon innovation? If people say this is just a matter of ijtihad (interpretation), what they are saying is that one can still be rewarded for guessing how the Prophet (saw) prayed. One of them, either Bin Baz or Albaani, went their entire life without praying one prayer correctly? Yikes!
Possible Salafi Interpretation number 3.
A possible interpretation of the above hadith is to leave the hands at the side before bowing and, after bowing, they place the right hand over the left.
In figure 4, now no one is currently doing this, but it does show the problem of simply relying upon interpretation of the hadith.
In the above hadith you will not find any of the following information:
It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left forearm behind your back.
It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left forearm below your navel.
It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left forearm in the mid-section.
It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left forearm before ruku.
It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand over your left forearm after ruku.
It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand on your left shoulder.
It doesn’t tell you to place your right hand under the chin at the top of the sternum.
THE PEOPLE WERE ORDERED THAT A PERSON IS TO PLACE THEIR RIGHT HAND OVER THEIR LEFT FOREARM DURING PRAYER.
Various Muslim polities and empires would often force their viewpoints and positions on the masses. They would also force people to change their acts of worship.
Example being: The Shirazi Shi’a dynasty that forced people to adopt their prayer as well as adopt their version of Shiasm in general!
“It was, however, nothing less than a reign of terror that inaugurated the new dispensation. On capturing Tabriz in 907/1501, a city two-thirds Sunnite in population, Shah Esmāʿil threatened with death all who might resist the adoption of Shiʿite prayer ritual in the main congregational mosque, and he had Qezelbāš soldiers patrol the congregation to ensure that none raise his voice against the cursing of the first three caliphs, viewed as enemies of the Prophet’s family. In Tabriz and elsewhere, gangs of professional executors known as the tabarrāʾiān would accost the townsfolk at random, forcing them to curse the objectionable personages on pain of death. Selective killings of prominent Sunnites occurred in a large number of places, notably Qazvin and Isfahan, and in Shiraz and Yazd, outright massacres took place. Sunnite mosques were desecrated, and the tombs of eminent Sunnite scholars destroyed (Aubin, 1970, pp. 237-38; idem, 1988, pp. 94-101).”
Another example of prayer being an issue of politics is the history of the rivalry in West Africa between the two Sufi Tariqah: The Tijani and The Qadiri.
“Beginning with the 1949 demolition of the Tijani mosque in Sokoto Province at the order of the sultan of Sokoto, tensions between Tijaniyya and Qadiriyya periodically erupted into violence throughout the 1950s and 1960s. A 1956 riot in two districts of Sokoto resulted in four deaths, including that of a Qadiri imam. In 1965, again in Sokoto Province, clashes attributed to Tijaniyya-Qadiriyya disputes resulted in the deaths of eleven policemen. As in Mali , a potent symbol of and perhaps pretext for inter-brotherhood antagonism remains the posture of arms during prayer: Tijanis cross their arms over the chest (kabalu), whereas Qadaris keep their arms straight at their sides. The Qadiris regard kabalu as heretical.”
Source: (The History of Islam in Africa page 219)
“The exact ritual of prayer has long been an expression of difference-especially whether the arms are folded (kablu) or at one’s side(sadlu) when standing in the course of prayer. After Friday prayer, there is also the issue of what dhikr is said and for how long-and whether, as a novelty, bandiri drums are used. There were thus very visible and audible differences between Qadiri and Tijani Muslims, and these could become a source of much controversy. In some emirates, the Tijaniyya clearly represented opposition to the ruling establishment when that establishment was Qadiri. Given that ‘Uthman dan Fodio was a Shaikh of the Qadiriyya and his son was a successor Muhammad Bello refused to abandon his father’s tariqa in favour of the new, radical Tijaniyya (which a visitor to Sokoto, ‘Umar al-Futi, was then strongly promoting), then joining the Tijaniyya was in effect an act of dissidence or at least dissent.”
Source: (Sects & Social Disorder: Muslim Identities & Conflict in Northern Nigeria page 43)
The issue of the kabalu (folding the hands) or the sadlu (leaving them) was ordered in the Tijani Tariqa as an outward display of political dissonance and a means of separating them and making them distinct.
“For example, Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) strongly recommended us to recite the Basmalah loudly before the Fatihah. This is against the Maliki and Hanafi Madhhabs, but we have to follow it. Shaykh Ibrahim (RA) ordered his (mostly Maliki) followers to pray with folded hands, so Maliki Tijanis have to do it, even if it goes against the Maliki Madhhab. Indeed, when he was ordered by Allah, Rasul (SAW), and Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) to order the people to pray with folded hands, many people in West Africa fought him. They said to him: “But your father (RA) prayed with open arms???” He replied: “Al-Humduli’Llah! Allah has not ordered us to follow anyone absolutely but the Prophet (SAW)”. Also, when someone said: “But Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) is related to have prayed with open arms too?” Baye (RA) replied: “We take the Tariqah from Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) and we don’t go an inch against him. But, we take the Shari’ah from Rasul-Allah (SAW).” As Shaykh Mahy Cisse told me, Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) also wished to pray Qabd but was not given the permission than as he had other affairs to see to, as well as the fact that his following in Fes and Morocco was not big enough to bring about such a major change. Everything has a time, and the Shaykh al-Tijani (RA) ordered Shaykh Ibrahim (RA) to revive this Sunnah among the Malikis.”
We should be careful not to take our fiqh and our ijtihad from dreams as anyone can say anything.
If a Shaykh, especially a Sufi Shaykh, does such a thing, they put you in a difficult position. They are either lying or telling the truth.
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf on the politics of prayer.
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf had quoted something very interesting from the great Hanafi master of fiqh and hadith: Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari.
Quoting from Mulla ‘Ali Qari Shaykh Hamza Yusuf says,
“Mulla ‘Ali Qari says it could have been the Prophet, It could have been the Khulafa, or it could have been the rulers that were telling people to do that.”
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf continues:
“So even the Hanafi, one of the great Hanafi scholars of Hadith, it’s not clear who was telling who to do what.”
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf continues:
My conclusion is, I actually think it’s a political thing. Because the two people who were leaving their hands at their side were the people who were most resistant to the Umayyad rule. And that was the Khawarij and the Shi’a. So it’s very interesting that the thing that immediately distinguishes your political allegiance is the prayer.”
Source is: @ 07:20 seconds into the video
In fact, further proof of what Shaykh Hamza Yusuf says comes to us in the following hadith:
Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr in his book al-Tamheed narrates that:
‘Abd Allah ibn al-Izar said, ‘I used to make tawaf around the Kaba with Said ibn al-Jubayr. Once, he saw a man placing one hand over the other, so he went to him, separated his hands, and then returned to me.
Source: (al-Tamheed Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr 20:76)
Placing one hand over the other was considered to be munkar by Said ibn Al-Jubayr because you can only change an act that is known to be munkar. It is also interesting that he (Said ibn Al-Jubayr) observed a man doing this, meaning that this novel practice ‘stood out to him’. So the majority practice during the time of the companions and their successors was to place the arms at the side.
Keep in mind that Said ibn Al-Jubayr took part in the Battle of Dayr al-Jamājim against the Umayyds!
Also, keep in mind that not everyone who prayed sadl (hands to the side) opposed the Umayyads.
An example of this is: Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib. Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib refused to give allegiance to Abdullah ibn Al-Zubayr, who was opposed to the Umayyads.
Also, the hadith narrated in al-Tamheed: ‘Abd Allah ibn Yazid said, “I never saw Said ibn al-Musayyib holding his left hand with his right hand in the prayer, he used to lay them straight.”
Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib was one of the biggest Tabi’een in Madina, and this was thus the practice of the people of Madina that Imam Malik witnessed.
Source: (al-Tamheed Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr 20:76)
These pieces of information are important and anyone who takes this religion seriously needs to pause and reflect.
Where did these men get the practice of laying their hands straight in prayer from?
Where these people innovators? If they were, how can we trust information from them?
Is there anyone from among the Salafi, or any other group of Muslims who claims that Sadl (laying hand straight) was a sunnah of the Prophet (saw) that was abrogated?
If yes to question 3, what is the proof?
HOW DID ABU UMAMA BIN SAHL PRAY?
How did Abu Umama Bin Sahl Ibn pray?
Abu Umama bin Sahl is one of the Sahaba. His full name is Asad bin Sahal bin Hunaif Al Ansari and The Blessed Messenger (saw) used to call him Abu Umama.
Look at the hadith of Imam Abu Zur’ah, the Shaykh of Imam Al Bukhari!
وحدثني عبد الرحمن بن إبراهيم عن عبدالله بن يحيى المعافري عن حيوة عن بكر بن عمرو أنه لم ير أبا أمامة -يعني ابن سهل- واضعا إحدى يديه على الأخرى قط ولا أحدا من أهل المدينة حتى قدم الشام فرأى الأوزاعي وناسا يضعونه
Source: (Tarikh Abu Zur’ah pg. 319. Hadith 1785)
“Abd al-Rahman ibn Ibrahim told me on the authority of Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Ma`fari on the authority of Haywa on the authority of Bakr ibn Amr that he had never seen Abu Umamah – meaning Ibn Sahl -ever put one of his hands on the other [in prayer], and no one from the people of Madinah did that either. When he came to Syria he saw al-Awza`i and other people placing one hand on the other.”
In other words, Bakr ibn Amr observed that this was a practice of the Syrians.
Recall the hadith:
“Abdullah ibn Maslama related to us, on the authority of Malik from Abi Hazim from Sahl ibn Sa’d He said:
“The people were ordered that a person is to place their right hand over their left forearm during prayer” Abu Hazim said, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet.” Isma’il said,” (I only know that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika).”
Sahl ibn Sa’d — the same one who has informed us that people were ordered by an undisclosed source to initiate a practice in prayer (namely, put the right hand over the left arm in the prayer),is the same one who informed usthat some vile undisclosed individual ordered him (Sahl ibn Sa’d) to curse Ali.
Sahl b. Sa`d reported that a person from the offspring of Marwan was appointed as the governor of Medina. He called Sahl b. Sa`d and ordered him to abuse `Ali. Sahl refused to do that. He (the governor) said to him:
If you do not agree to it (at least), say: May Allah curse Abu Turab. Sahl said: There was no name dearer to `Ali than Abu Turab (for it was given to him by the Prophet himself) and he felt delighted when he was called by this name. He (the governor) said to him: Narrate to us the story of his being named as Abu Turab. He said: Allah’s Messenger (saw) came to the house of Fatima, and he did not find `Ali in the house; whereupon he said: Where is your uncle’s son? She said:”There was something that cropped up between me and him which had annoyed him. He went out and did not rest there. Allah’s Messenger (saw) asked a person to find out where he was. He came and said: Allah’s Messenger, he is sleeping in the mosque. Allah’s Messenger (saw) came to him and found him lying in the mosque and saw that his mantle had slipped from his back and his back was covered with dust and Allah’s Messenger (saw) began to wipe it away from him (from the body of Hadrat `Ali) saying: Get up, covered with dust (Abu Turab); get up, covered with dust.
THE THREE PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT ARE USED BY SOME MUSLIMS TO ADVOCATE CLASPING THE HANDS ABOVE THE NAVEL.
Now we will be looking at the only three pieces of evidence to support the majority practice (all three of them hotly disputed).
1) The Hadeeth of Wa’il Ibn Hujr in Ibn Khuzaimah
2) The Hadeeth of Halb At-Taa’ee in Tirmidhi3)
The Mursal report of Tawus in Sunan Abu Dawud
Now we will be looking at the only three pieces of evidence to support the idea of placing the hands on the chest in prayer (all three of them hotly disputed).
Before we begin this section,we want to say that the proofs and evidence are largely taken from the Sunni Maliki scholar, Mukhtar ibn Muhaydimat ad-Daudi ash-Shinqiti.
He wrote a treatise called: “The Legality of Draping the Arms in Salah”. His works are often used but rarely is the source credited. Allah (swt) has certainly rewarded all who have contributed towards learning and truth!
1) The Hadith of Wa’il Ibn Hujr in Ibn Khuzaimah
2) The Hadith of Halb At-Taa’ee in Tirmidhi
3) The Mursal hadith of Tawus in Sunan Abu Dawud
HADITH NO. 1 THE HADITH OF WA’IL IBN HUJR
Sayyiduna Wail bin Hujr says, ‘I prayed with the Prophet (saw) and he placed his right hand over his left on his chest’.
Source: (Ibn Khuzaimah, 479)
This hadith has been reported by Muammal bin Ismaeel from Sufyan al Thawri from Aasim bin Kulaib from Wail bin Hujr.
However, it is only Muammal who reports these additional words from Sufyan al Thawri.
Sufyan’ al Thawri’s other student, Abdullah bin al Waleed, who also narrates this hadith from him, does not include these words in his narration as recorded in Imam Ahmad’s Musnad. Source: (Ahmad 18392)
It is an accepted principle of hadith that if a certain authentic and reliable narrator contradicts other equally authentic or more reliable narrators in his wording of a hadith, then his narration will be declared shaadh (irregular) and will not be accepted.
Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyyah also says in I’laam al Muwaqqieen, ‘No one has said upon the chest apart from Muammal bin Ismaeel.’
Source: (I’ilaam al Muwaqqieen 2/361)
Study the following observations of the scholars of Jarh and T’adeel about Muammal bin Ismaeel:
Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani has made it clear in his Fath al-Bari that there is daif (weakness) in Muammal bin Ismaeel’s narration from Sufyan. The above hadith has this very chain of narration
Source: (Fath al Bari, 9/297).
WHY IS SUCH A HADITH NOT INCLUDED IN BUKHARI OR MUSLIM?
Imam Bukhari mentions that Muammal ibn Ismaeel is among the munkarul Hadith (denounced in hadith).
Source: (Aathar Us-Sunan Pg. 65, Chapter: Placing the hand on the chest).
(People who view Imam Bukhari as the ultimate authority in matters of hadith should note his following statement:
“It is not permissible to narrate from anyone whom I have labeled munkar al hadith” Source: (Mizan al I’itidal. 1/119)
Shaykh ibn al-Hammaam said in ‘at-Tahreer’, ‘when al-Bukhari says about someone, “there is a problem in him” then his hadith is not depended upon or used for support, or given any consideration.’
Observe the following list of narrators who have all reported the same hadith from Aasim bin Kulaib but none of them have included the additional words‘upon the chest’reported by Muammal bin Ismaeel
Sh’ubah, Abdul Wahid, and Zubair bin Muawiyah as in Imam Ahmad’s Musnad.
Source: (Ahmad 18398, 18371 & 18397)
Zaidah as in Imam Ahmad’s Musnad, Darimi, Abu Dawood. Nasai and Baihaqi
Source: (Ahmad 18391, Darimi 1357, Abu Dawood 726, Nasai 889 and Baihaqi 2325)
Bishr bin al Mufaddhal as in Ibn Majah, Abu Dawood, and Nasai
Source: (Ibn Majah 810, Abu Dawood 726 & 957, and Nasai 1265)
Abdullah bin Idrees as in Ibn Majah
Source: (Ibn Majah 810)
Salam bin Saleem as in Abu Dawood Tayalisi’s Musnad
Source: (Abu Dawood Tayalisi 1020)
In Layperson understanding, it is like this.
A -B-C-D-E-F than G says… A -B-C-D-E-F A -B-C-D-E-F A -B-C-D-E-F
So what happens if we go and double-check what G says? So after double-checking what G says, we go back and see transmissions from F through other chains and none of them say what G is saying. G stands alone in his statement!
Those who claim the Salafi approach have some bizarre logic.
We have 7 people in the example above who narrate this hadith from Aasim bin Kulaib. 6 out of 7 confirm they do not have the extra wording. One of these students, Sufyan Al Thawri, now has two people narrating from him. One of the two students, Abdullah bin al Waleed, also narrated the same as the other 6 students of Aasim bin Kulaib. However, one of Sufyan’s students, Muammal bin Ismail, has the extra wording.
This is what passes as daleel for the Salafi!
Which should be a huge eye-opener to anyone reading this. If the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was folding the right hand over the left upon the chest, it would be a mass-transmitted practice.
This is something as frequent as praying five times a day, every day until He (saw) died! The very fact that they need to go and double-check these statements should open some eyes!
Questions:
So, before we would be inclined to accept such a description of the prayer, just our hearts and curiosity:
1) Is it possible to have the quote from Sufyan Al Thawri or Aasim bin Kulaib where he said the Blessed Prophet (saw) prayed with his hands upon his chest?
We would ike to ensure thjat we are following the Salaaf and not someone’s simple mistake by making an added addition.
2) Why did Imam Bukhari denounce Muhammal ibn Ismaeel, and why does he not use him in his narrations?
3) Why did Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani declare Muhammal’s narrations from Sufyan At Thawri as weak?
HADITH NO. 2 THE HADITH OF HULB AT-TA’I
The hadith of Hulb Al-Ta’i reported by Imam Ahmad in his ‘Musnad’. Also reported in Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and Daraqutni,
“That Yahya bin Sa’eed narrated to us from Sufyan At Thawri , from Simak bin Harb from Qabisa bin Hulb from his father that, ‘I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) turn from his left to right, and place these on his chest, and Yahya al-Yamanee depicted this by placing the right hand upon the left (on the chest) above the level of the elbows.’
The above hadith contains the words ‘upon his chest‘. This extra wording is not firmly established or confirmed, because of all the narrators who report this hadith from Simak, only one reports this extra wording.
Observe the following narration of the same hadeeth without the extra wording of ‘upon his chest’.
Abu al Ahwas reports from Simak bin Harb from Qabisa bin Hulb from his father that the Prophet (saw) would lead us in prayer and would clasp his left hand with his right.
Source: (Ibn Abi Shaibah 3934, Ahmad 21467, Ibn Majah 809 and Tirmidhi 252. Imam Tirmidhi adds that it is a hasan-fair hadith)
Shareek reports from Simak from Qabisa bin Hulb from his father, who says (towards the end of a longer hadith), ‘I saw him place one of his hands on the other and I also saw him turn once towards his right and once towards his left.’
Source: (Ahmad 21464)
Wakee reports from Sufyan from Simak bin Harb from Qabisa bin Hulb from his father, who says, ‘I saw the Prophet (saw) place his right hand upon his left in prayer and I also saw him turn away from both his right and left.’
Source: (Ahmad2146I & 21475. Daruqutni 1087. al T’aleeq al Hasan 1/145)
Daraqutni narrates from Abdul Rahman bin Mahdi and Wakee’, from Sufyan from Simak bin Harb from Qabisa bin Hulb from his father who says, ‘I saw the Prophet (saw) place his right hand upon his left in prayer.’ Source: (Daruqutni 1087)
The above narrations all clearly show that the wording ‘upon his chest’ is an unreliable addition on the part of one of the reporters and therefore this particular narration is shaadh.
The weakness of this Hadith.
Weakness #1: Qabisa ibn Hulb has been classified as weak and unknown.
Shawkani said: “In the chain of this hadith is Qabisa ibn Hulb. Simak bin Harb is the only one to narrate from him. Al-‘Ijli considered him to be reliable. And Ibn Al-Madini and Nasa’i said: “(He is) Unknown.”
Source: (Nayl Al-Awtar [2/200])
Weakness #2: Simak bin Harb has been classified as weak.
Dhahabi said about him: “Sufyan At Thawri, Shu’ba, and others declared him to be weak. And Imam Ahmad said: “He is unstable (mudtarib) in Hadith.” And Nasa’i said: “He used to be dictated to. And he would learn (from those dictated notes.).”
Source: (Al-Mizan [2/422 &423])
So there is a weak transmitter that transmits from another who is unknown. So no attention is to be shown to it!
As for what Tirmidhi relates from Simak bin Harb from Qabisa ibn Hulb from his father, who said:
“The Messenger of Allah used to lead us, and take his left with his right.” and declared it to be Hasan (of fair grading), then said, “Action is in accordance with this among the companions of the Prophet (saw). “
There is no doubt that he (Tirmidhi) depended upon the hadith of Hulb in attributing this action, since there is a distance (in time) between him, and between the Sahaba and Tabieen. Also, because he didn’t mention any support for that (placing hands on the chest) other than the Hadith of Hulb.
If it (the hadith) had been Sahih (sound) in chain and text, it could have possibly passed as evidence. However, it is one of the narrations of Simak and Qabisa. And it has already preceded that Simak is weak… and Qabisa is unknown (majhool). And only Simak narrates on his authority. And Tirmidhi’s choosing of this chain from (all) the different chains going back to the Prophet in this chapter is proof that all chains of transmission fall in the center of embarrassment.
In the layperson’s understanding, it is like this: A -B-C-D-E-F than G says…H…says A -B-C-D-E-F A -B-C-D-E-F A -B-C-D-E-F
So, what happens is we go and double-check what G says. So after double-checking what G says, we go back and see transmissions from F through other chains and none of them say what G is saying from F. Not only that, but it is known that G is unstable as a transmitter. Not only this but G is relying upon H and no one seems to know who H is!
Those who claim the Salafi approach have some bizarre logic.
Three transmitters transmit from Simak without the extra wording, and out of those three transmitters, one of them, Sufyan, has three transmitters and only one of them, Yahya bin Sa’eed, has the extra wording. It is highly likely that this is a text corruption by a scribe.
Questions:
1) Again why isn’t such a Hadith in Bukhari or Muslim?
2) Why did Tirmidhi choose this chain from all the different ones going back to the Prophet (saw)?
3) Why did Imam Ahmad declare him (Simak bin Harb) to be unstable in Hadith?
4) Why did Imam Nasa’i declare Qabisa ibn Hulb as unknown?
HADITH NO. 3 THE HADITH OF TAWUS
And from the Hadith these people depend upon is the hadeeth of Tawus.
Reported by Abu Dawud in ‘al-Maraaseel’ who said, ‘Abu Tawba narrated to us from al-Haytham (ibn Humaid) from Thawr bin Yazeed from Sulaiman bin Musa from Tawus who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) placed his right hand upon his left and then hold them tight on his chest while in prayer.’’
Source: (Abu Dawud 759)
Weakness #1:
This report is incompletely transmitted since there are undisclosed companion and/ or even non-companion intermediaries between these Tabi’in.
So the Hadith of Tawus is Musral, because Tawus is a Taabi’ee. So he could not have seen the Blessed Messenger (saw).
However, the mursal hadith is considered a proof by Imam Abu Hanifa, and the Hanafi’s have their response to this.
Status of Mursal Hadith.
How did the Sunni Imams deal with mursal Hadith?
It is a proof with Imam Malik when it confirms the Amal of Madinah. This does not confirm the Amal of Madinah from a Maliki point of view, because the view of Imam Malik is that the hands are laid to the sides.
Unless the report describes the nawaafil or sunnah prayers.
It’s a proof with Imam Ahmad in general, and we all know the best position of Imam Ahmad is that the hands are below the navel.
And according to Imam Shafi’i, the mursal hadith are not acceptable unless there is another chain with a complete isnaad that backs it up.
Weakness #2: The first narrator of this tradition is Abu Tawba, whose full name is Ahmed bin Salem. IIbn Hajar Al-Asqalani, said of him, “He is famous for tailoring fake traditions.”
Source: (Mizan ul E’tidaal, volume 1, page 100
Ibn Hajar writes in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb that, “he was unreliable and an extreme liar“. “He used to make changes in the traditions and steal traditions, he could never find a person more of a liar than him.”
Source: (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb, volume 2, page 69.)
Weakness #3: The second narrator is Haytham, whose full name is Haytham bin Hameed al-Damishqi; Abu Dawud himself has called Haytham a follower of Qadri religion, Abu Mushar Ghasani has called him a Qadri and unreliable.
Source: (Al Mizan ul E’tidaal volume 4, page 319, series 9289)
Weakness #4:
This hadith is mursal and its isnad contains Sulaiman bin Musa, who has been classified as weak by some scholars.
Bukhari claims that he has munkar narrations.
Source: (Aathar Us-Sunan Pg. 65, Chapter: Placing the hand on the chest)
Dhahabi said about him that Nasa’i says that he is a weak narrator of hadith.
Source: (Al-Mizan volume 2, page 225)
Weakness #5:
The third narrator is Thawr bin Yazeed; he too followed the Qadri faith.
Source: (Mizan ul E’tidaal, volume 1, page 373)
In the Layperson’s understanding, it is like thisA -B-C-D-E-F than G says… A -B-C-D-E-F A -B-C-D-E-F A -B-C-D-E-F
So in this case, we have a report from G, who has been declared to be an outright liar and someone who is known for making up traditions. Then G takes from F, who apparently has issues with his creed. F takes from E, who is apparently classified as weak by some scholars, and Bukhari outright claims he has denounced traditions! E takes from D, who again has issues with his creed. D claims to get information from C, who relates information from an undisclosed source.
Which hadith are these popular da’i following?
In the picture below I see most gripping the left forearm with the right hand. I see placement just above the navel, on the stomach and on the sternum.
“Placed his right hand upon his left and then hold them tight on his chest while in prayer.” -Hadith of Tawus
“By placing the right hand upon the left (on the chest) above the level of the elbows.” -Hadith of Hulb At-Tai
“‘I prayed with the Prophet (saw) and he placed his right hand over his left on his chest’. ” -Hadith of Wail ibn Hujr
The above picture is not to defame or discredit any of the teachers above. The picture is for illustration purposes to show that they themselves do not have uniformity in the approach to prayer.
Questions:
1) Why isn’t such a report in Bukhari, or Muslim?
2) Why is such a description of the prayer such as ‘pressing one hands to the chest tightly‘ only a Musral Hadith?
3) Is it possible that, since there is a break in this chain the Blessed Messenger (saw) may not have even done it at all?
4) Since Abu Dawud mentions many ahadith about the positions of the hands in prayer, can we know for certain the hadith that he followed?
Abu Dawud transmits hadith with different placements for the hands.
Abu Dawud transmitted the following hadith:
hands below the navel
on the chest
and even hands to the sides
Just like Imam Malik related the hadith from Sahl ibn Sa’d, in his Muwatta as mentioned above. Imam Malik related this hadith to show his awareness of this hadith being in circulation.
Similarly, Abu Dawud has transmitted three hadith that he was aware of in regard to the placement of the hands.
Proof that Imam Malik related the same hadith above:
“Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn S’ad said,
The people were ordered that a person is to place their right hand over their left forearm during prayer” Abu Hazim said, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet.” Isma’il said,” (I only know that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika).”
Source: (pg. 59 Al Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas translated by Aisha Abduurrahman Bewley)
Yet, Imam Malik, who was from the city of Madinah, was of the view that the hands should be placed at the sides during the prayer.
This is the opinion narrated by his student Ibn al-Qasim.
Source: (al-Mudawanna (1:74) )
Salafis claim to be people of evidence, and yet they spread rumors about Sunni Mujtahid Imams.
The false claim regarding Imam Malik.
Yet there are some untruths and some huge lies being circulated concerning why Imam Malik prayed with his hands to the side. One of these lies is being circulated by Salafi preacher Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips.
“He was severely beaten in the year 764 CE by the order of the Ameer of Madeenah, because he made a legal ruling that forced divorce was invalid. This ruling opposed the ‘Abbaasid rulers’ practice of adding in the oath of allegiance given to them by the masses the clause that whoever broke the oath was automatically divorced. Malik was tied and beaten until his arms became severely damaged to such a degree that he became unable to clasp them on his chest in Salaah and thus he began the practice of praying with his hands at his sides according to some reports.”
Source: (pg 78. The Evolution of Fiqh Islamic Law & The Madh-habs) By Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips International Islamic Publishing House.)
“Some reports” such as? Doesn’t Abu Ammenah Bilal Philips have to give his evidence or are we just supposed to accept what he said?
Can such a claim be verified by and in any of the traditionally relied upon books of Islamic history? No! One will be hard-pressed to find any evidence substantiating this argument.
Remember what Allah said:
“Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidence, and the guidance, which We have sent down after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse.” (Qur’an: 2:159)
So where is the proof? Secondly, how could Imam Malik not have enough strength to clasp his hands on his chest but still be able to do the tabkir—, go into ruku, and go into sajdah and to push his hands up from sujuud, since Imam Malik’s view is that the knees go up than the hands after sajdah? What about all the other Tabieen who prayed the way Imam Malik did? Did each one of them have their arms broken as well? Also, don’t you think Imam Malik would have said as plain as day, “Hey everyone, as you know, I’m only praying this way because my arm was pulled out of my socket, don’t follow me, follow the Blessed Messenger!”
Likewise, where did the Shi’a get the idea of praying with the arms to the side?
Where did the so-called Khawarij get the idea of praying with their arms to the side?
Where did the Ibadi get the idea of praying with their arms to the side?
Are they all following someone who got their arms pulled out of their shoulder joint? We need to use some common sense!
AAnd when a narrator narrates something about the Blessed Messenger (saw) and doesn’t follow it he’s either:
A fasiq
He knows that it isn’t Authentic about the Blessed Messenger (saw)
He may have forgotten
And since Malik is a respectable scholar, then the first option is removed. The last option is also removed because Imam Malik mentioned the hadith in his Muwatta. Which means only option 2 is left, because he saw another thing than what was reported.
THE THREE POSITIONS OF IMAM ABU DAWUD ON WHERE THE HANDS GO DURING THE PRAYER:
So what was Abu Dawud’s position on the matter? Did he pray with hands below the navel, at the sides, just above the navel or pressed tight to the chest? Abu Dawud transmits three hadith concerning the position of the hands in prayer.
Inquiring minds want to know!
For example:
Abu Dawud also narrates the following:
Place them below the navel.
Narrated / Authority Of Abu Huraira (The established way of folding hands is) to hold the hands by the hands in prayer below the navel.
Reported by Abu Dawud in ‘al-Maraaseel’ who said, ‘Abu Tawba narrated to us from al-Haytham (ibn Humaid) from Thawr bin Yazeed from Sulaiman bin Musa from Tawus who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) placed his right hand upon his left and then hold them tight on his chest while in prayer.’’
No indication that the hands were to be lifted or placed anywhere.
It has been related by Abu Dawud on the authority of `Amr ibn `Ataa al-Qurashi al-`Aamiri who said:
He said: “I heard Abu Humayd as-Sa`adi, who was present among ten of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, (saw), among whom was Abu Qatada, say the following. ‘ I am the most learned of you regarding the prayer of the Messenger of Allah, (saw).’ They said to him: ‘How is this? By Allah! You did not follow him more than us nor did you proceed us in companionship to him.’ He replied: ‘Indeed, this is true.’ They then said: ‘Then show us.’ He said: ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace when he stood for the prayer he would raise his hands equal with his shoulders.
يَقِرَّ كُلُّ عَظْمٍ فِي مَوْضِعِهِ مُعْتَدِلًا
He would then make the takbir letting all of his limbs settle in their proper places... … قَالُوا صَدَقْتَ هَكَذَا كَانَ يُصَلِّي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ They all said: “You have told the truth. Likewise did he, may Allah ta`ala bless him and grant him peace perform his prayer.”
This hadith can be found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Ibn Maajah, and others and is sound!
So far, we quoted the ahadith from Abu Dawud about pressing the hands on the chest and two hadith about placing the hands under the navel, and leaving the arms and hands to the side.
Anyone who studies these Hadiths knows they are fraught with issues and intra-madhab rivalry and intra-Sunni conflict about where the hands are to be placed and how they are to be placed.
Does this mean he found this to be the strongest evidence or acted upon it? Why even narrate such a hadith at all?
Similarly, Imam Malik narrated the hadith that people were ordered to place ‘the right over the left’ (unspecified place). Does this mean he found this to be the strongest evidence or acted upon it?
Why even narrate such a hadith at all? Malik related such hadith just as Abu Dawud did to let people know he was aware of such a narration. So, just because Malik narrates a hadith doesn’t mean he acts upon it. Just as Abu Dawud narrates a hadith does not mean he acts upon it.
*Note* It should be understood that placing the hands below the navel is the view of the Hanafi school of Sunni jurisprudence. It is also one of many views that are ascribed to Imam Ahmed of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence.
The Hanafi school brings us an anomaly. This anomaly consists of instructing men to place their hands below the navel and instructing women to place their hands on their chest.
The placing of the hands on the chest is considered ‘makrooh’ and extremely disliked in the Hanafi school.In the school it is next to haram. One then wonders why one standard for the men and another for the women?
Certainly, this issue has perturbed many in the Hanafi school.
THE IBADI SCHOOL FOLLOWS THE PRAYER OF THE BLESSED PROPHET AS SHOW CASED IN BUKHARI
So then what about the hadith about praying with arms on the side (which is not disputed or controversial) and actually is in Bukhari and is simply brushed aside?
It is related from Abu Hurayra, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, entered the mosque and a man entered and prayed. He greeted the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who returned the greeting and said, ‘Go and back and pray. You have not prayed.’ He went back and prayed as he had prayed before. Then he came and greeted the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who said three times, ‘Go back and pray for you have not prayed.’ He said, ‘By the One who sent you with the truth, I cannot do any better than that, so teach me.’ He said, ‘When you stand for the prayer, say the takbir and then recite something you know well from the Qur’an and then do ruku’ until you are at rest in your ruku’ . Then stand back up until you are completely upright. Then go into sajda until you are at rest in your sajda. Then sit back until you are at rest in the sitting position. Do that throughout all of your prayers.’
So where is all the critique of this hadith? Where is the critique of its chains of transmissions, its matn, its narrators?
By the way, we do not even need these lone narrator reports. Everyone knows that our school has lived in relative isolation from the rest of the ummah. Anyone who has met and lived and studied with our scholars knows they have the utmost circumspect adherence to the Blessed Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
We follow the Sunnah preserved via mass living connected chains via the mass transmitted living sunnah as actual practice. This means that masses of people pray, who observe their scholars and elders and learned people pray, who observe their scholars and elders, and learned people pray, who observe their scholars and elders and learned people pray who observed the Prophet (saw) pray.
Whereas the confusion of the rest of the ummah began with a hadith that says that the people were ordered to place their hands somewhere. It doesn’t even tell you where to place your hands and this has led to confusion and debate about where to place one’s hands in the prayer. Leading to some bizarre displays in the prayer that do not resemble anything remotely close to tranquility and serenity.
Now our dear brothers and sisters and respected readers, after reading all of this, we have to do some reflection.
How is that the Ibadi, Shi’a, Maliki and even people like Said ibn Al Musayyib who were all opposed to each other historically and would jump at the opportunity to cite the other for innovation and infraction can all agree that the method of the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) is to let the hands be at the side?
How is it the ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’ who seem to have a clearer majority than any of the groups mentioned above, and yet have such conflicting views on where the hands are to be placed in the prayer?
We have, in the Hanafi school, men placing their hands below the navel and women placing them on the chest. We have disputes among the Salafi, who do not know if they place their hands on the chest after the ruku or not.
In fact, the Salafi have disputes about actually where to place their hands. The Arabic word yad could refer to any part of the human arm up to and including the shoulder joint.
This is why you see them placing their hands:
Pressed on the chest.
Clasped over the left hand.
On the forearm.
On the shoulder.
Just below the chin…
After examination and close consideration, you will find that the practice of placing one hand over the other above the navel has as their evidence basically only two ahadith and one mursal hadith.
We can see that our brothers are relying upon lone narrator’s reports that are chalked full of problems. However, a very clear report about the Blessed Messenger (saw) praying without placing one hand over the other is reported in Abu Dawud, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, and the only ones who seem to be following it are a few Sunni Muslims of the Maliki school.
“If you stand up for prayer say ‘Allāhū Akbar’ then read that which is easy for you from the Qurʾān. Then bow (make rukūʿ) until you are at ease and tranquil in your rukūʿ. Then stand up fully until you are standing up straight. Then prostrate until you are at ease and tranquil in your sujūd. Then sit until you are tranquil in you sitting – and do this in your entire prayer. Source: (Bukhārī (757), Muslim (397) from Abū Hurayrah)
So, when it comes to anyone who wants to separate us from the Blessed Sunnah of the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw), we will say to them:
“Produce your proof, if you should be truthful” (Qur’an 2:111)
May Allah (swt) open the hearts and the eyes of this Ummah!
With Allah (swt) is success!
If you would like to learn the prayer of the Blessed Prophet (saw), you are encouraged to use the following as a guide.
“AndDO NOT OBEY the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend their ways” (Qur’an 26:151-152)
﷽
Abu Hamza al-Mukhtar bin ‘Awf, one of the prominent Ibadi’s of Basrah had this to say about the Umayyad rulers in general and Yazid in particular during a Friday sermon in Medina in the presence of Imam Malik ibn Anas:
“There came Yazid, a libertine in religion and unmanly in behavior, in whom was never perceived right guidance. He would eat forbidden food, and drink wine, and wear a robe worth a thousand dinars, through which you could see his flesh so that the veil of modesty was rent, an unpardonable disrobe. And Haraba the singing girl on his right, and Salama the singing girl on his left, both singing if you had taken drink away from him, he would rent his garments!
And he would turn to one of them and say, Shall I fly? Aye, he flew. To God’s damnation, and the burning Fire, and a painful torment!
He then turns to the Umayyads:
“The sons of Umayyads are a party of error, and their strength is the strength of tyrants. They take conjecture for their guide, and judge as they please, and put men to death in anger, and govern by mediation and take the law out of context and distribute the public money to those not entitled to them. For God has revealed those who are entitled, and they are eight classes of men, for He says:
“The freewill offerings are for the poor and the needy, those who work to collect them, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and slaves and debtors, and those in the way of Allah and the travelers.”
They, the Umayyads make themselves the ninth category and take it all! Such are those who rule by what Allah has not sent down.” (The World of Islam John A Williams p 218)
What Did Imam Malik Say About Abu Hamzas Khutbah? – His Eminence Shaykh Nasir al MarMuri رحمة الله تعالى.
“That is Allah—your True Lord. So what is beyond the truth except falsehood? How can you then be turned away?” (Qur’an 10:32)
﷽
The Conditions of Takfeer/Excommunication in the Ibadi School by Shaykh, Dr Scholar Abdullah bin Saeed bin Abdullah Al Ma’mari May Allah protect him and continue to benefit us from him.
One of the principles established by Ahl al-Istiqama.
The evidence with clear-cut authenticity and clear meaning in theology is taken as definitive, absolute, certain and must be believed.
Whoever opposes this meaning in theology and rejects it is a Mushrik. We seek refuge in Allah from such people.
That is for those who reject it outright without interpretation.
The one who rejects it by means of interpretation is a fasiq.
In both cases, such people are misguided. Because this evidence can only have one meaning. Rejecting it is unacceptable. This rejection only comes from desire.
Allah (swt) says: “So what is beyond the truth except falsehood?” (Qur’an 10:32)
Whoever opposes clear-cut evidence in terms of authenticity and meaning should not receive sweet words from us.
Again, this is only if it has a clear-cut meaning, is authentic, and it comes from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Our beloved teacher and respected Shaykh Al-Qanoobi (h) has said: “Evidence does not become clear-cut unless it goes through certain conditions.”
There are four conditions in our school which must be fulfilled.
1) The first is that it must be authentically transmitted from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
2) The second is that it has a clear-cut authenticity.
3) The third is that the meaning has to be clear.
4) It has to be agreed as being tawatur.
Point 4 has a caveat.
By Tawatur/Mutawattir. That is to say, mass transmitted in practice without additions, accretions or innovations. Alternatively, mass transmitted by disassociated chains of transmission such that it is not possible for them to have conspired upon a falsehood.
For the person who says it is mutawatir. They should take it as part of their creed.
The one who takes a matter disputed as mutawatir by right cannot call another who disagrees as a fasiq. That is because the one who does so takes those hadith as ahad only.
For instance, the belief in Al-Siraat and some say the punishment of the grave.
Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) says:
The evidence regarding the punishment of the grave is mutawatir.
That was his position and he did not call other scholars from the school as fasiqs.
Example: Our luminous scholar Shaykh Imam Nasir bin Abi Nabhan (r) didn’t believe in the punishment of the grave. That is because he didn’t believe the narrations were mutawatir (clear-cut and mass transmitted).
Rather, Shaykh Nabhan (r) saw them as ahad.
Going back to the general principle of the school. No evidence should be accepted in theology unless it is clear-cut with a clear meaning.
However, Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) and other scholars said it is clear-cut with a clear meaning and so they and their followers have to believe it. It is a point of creed.
This is done without calling Fasiq either side due to this difference of opinion.
This is an important principle mentioned by Shaykh Al Qanubi (h) in some of his books.
“And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.”(Qur’an 21:26)
“But the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination.” (Qur’an 5:18)
﷽
“They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!” Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son (like-kind) for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a (like-kind) son.” (Qur’an 19:88-92)
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
THE BIBLE’S POSITION
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him will not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 King James Version)
What does begotten mean? (According to the English language)
Answer: Begotten is a past participle of beget.
Beget begot, begotten: To become the father of: sire
Sire 1: Father 2: The male parent of an animal (as a horse or dog) sired, siring, PRO-CREATE
Source:(The Merriam Webster’s Dictionary For Large Print Users)
Beget – give birth to
Source: (Webster’s Dictionary)
It is indeed blasphemous to ascribe offspring to the Almighty Allah. It is also insulting to the human intellect of any rational person. All Christians of every sect believe Jesus is the ‘Son of God’.
Allah declares that ascribing a son or any offspring to him is a thing most blasphemous.
We as human beings have children to pro-create our species, and to ensure that humanity survives. We will all die; therefore it is a necessity that sons and daughters take our place.
However, Allah is Ever-Living and needs no such means for survival.
Christians will object and say this is a misrepresentation of their beliefs. Yet, they will claim we know it means ‘Sired by God’, but that is not what we believe!
What does begotten mean? (According to the Greek language)
Their own dictionaries describe Christ Jesus as God’s ‘offspring’ and ‘stock’.
We will now walk through the development of this all-important Christian concept. We will show conclusively how an innocuous expression ‘Son of God‘ became Jesus ‘The Son of God’ in the very theologically loaded sense that it is today.
This very belief latter transforms into ‘God the Son’ the second member of the ever infamous Tri-theistic Trinity of the Athanasian Creed.
SONS BY THE TONS
As Sheikh Ahmed Deedat used to say:
The terms ‘Son of God’ and ‘children of God’ are often used throughout the Bible.
EXAMPLES:
“You are children of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1)
“He shall build a house for my name, and he shall be my son, and I will be his father.” (I Chronicles 22:10)
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6)
“I have said, you are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High” (Psalms 82:6-7)
“...For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9)
“Have we not one father?” “Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10)
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9)
“For unto which of the angels, said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him A FATHER, and he shall be tome A SON?” (Hebrews 1:5)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
In none of the above quotations are the terms ‘children of God’ or ‘Son of God’ understood to be non-allegorical. So why in the case of Jesus is he understood to be the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
If you will pay special attention to the last quotation of Hebrews 1:5 you will see that Jesus is ‘A’ Son and God is ‘A’ Father unto him. It does not say Jesus is ‘THE’ Son and God is ‘THE’ father of Jesus.
The reason why Jesus is ‘a’ son and God is ‘a’ father has to do with adoptionist theology.
Jesus a righteous man or ‘son of God’?
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:54)
“The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”(Luke 23:47)
So we can see that Matthew and Luke report the centurion saying two different things? So is this a contradiction or an acceptable allegory? We would say that this is not a contradiction it is an acceptable allegory. That ‘son of God’ simply meant a righteous servant, one near to God.
Son of God or Slave of God?
“And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored, slaves.“(Qur’an 21:26)
“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 King James Version)
“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 New King James Version)
Notice that the King James Version calls Jesus “his Son”,Whereas the New King James Version calls Jesus “His Servant” and whenever you see that word “servant” in the New Testament, it means slave.
WHAT IS ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY?
Adoptinonist theology:
Adoptionist refers to a person who believes that Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism, while adoptionism is the theological doctrine that Jesus was born a mere mortal and was later adopted as the Son of God.
What are the text used in the Bible to support this view held by early Christians?
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of Adam.” (2 Samuel 7:14)
Prima Qur’an comments:
I am not currently his father but I will be.
He is not currently my son but he will be.
I will be to him ‘a’ father. Not ‘the’ father.
He will be to me ‘a’ son. Not ‘the’ son.
If he goes astray he will be chastened.
Here we have a concept of God appointing someone to be his son, or we may say a righteous servant.
This is also stated in Psalms 2:2 and Psalms 2:7 in a reference to King David.
“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” (Psalms 2:2)
“I will declare the decree: the Lord has said unto me, You are my Son; This day have I begotten you.” (Psalms 2:7)
Note: It has this day I have begotten you. It is being said to King David while he is alive and a grown adult. David was appointed by adoption to be the ‘son of God’.
A THEOLOGY TAKES SHAPE
We will now show how ‘Son of God’ in New Testament theology takes a total and complete departure from how ‘Son of God’ was used in the Old Testament.
Now I will give you the proof text which shows how Jesus went from being the adopted ‘Son of God’ to the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY BEHIND THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying, YOU ARE my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)
Note: The voice from heaven addressed Jesus. The Greek for YOU is su (SU).
“And there came a voice from heaven, saying, “THIS IS my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mathew 3:17)
Note: The voice from heaven talks about Jesus. The Greek for THIS IS outos (HOUTOS).
Question: Why the change in voice?
Why would one writer deliberately alter the wording of the text?
Answer: The theology!
Mark’s theology held that Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at baptism, much like David’s coronation in 2 Samuel 7:14
Matthew’s theology held that Jesus was already the ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.
So Jesus does not need to know who he is. Thus, the voice is changed from “You are my son” to an announcement to the ignorant crowd: “This is my son.”
The Qur’an and the Gospel of Luke reject Matthew’s claim.
Note: Look at the Gospel of Luke and Qur’an say in response to Matthew’s claim about Jesus being the ‘son of God’ based upon the virgin birth.
“And they had no child because Elizabeth was barren, and they were now well stricken in years.” (Luke 1:7)
“And Zacharias said unto the angel, how shall I know this? I am an old man, and wife is well stricken in years. And the angel answered said to him, “I am Gabriel who stands in the presence of God; I am sent to speak unto you and to show you glad tidings.” (Luke 1:18-19)
(His prayer was answered): “O Zakariya!” We give you good news of a son: His name shall be Yahya: on none by that name have We conferred distinction before.” He said: “O my Lord”! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren, and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?” He said: “So (it will be) your Lord says, ‘that is easy for Me: I did indeed create you before when you had been nothing!‘” (Qur’an 19:7-9)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Allah asks Zechariah to reflect upon the fact that he was created indeed before he was nothing
“Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.” He said: ” I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son. She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?” He said: “So (it will be): Your Lord says, ‘that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: It is a matter (so) decreed.” (Qur’an 19:16-21)
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
Prima Qur’an Comment: All glory to be to Allah! Allah explains things in a very simple manner for Christians. Allah says that Adam was made from dust(nothingness) and he was simply willed into being. Thus, as Allah (swt) made Adam from nothingness, likewise Christ Jesus, as the word of Allah, is the created word of Allah. Just as all of Allah’s words are created. Jesus, as the kalim of Allah, was created from nothingness.
THE CREATION OF 5 TYPES OF HUMAN BEINGS:
1) Adam was made without a man or a woman and not divine!
2) Eve made without a woman and not divine!
3) Jesus made without a man and not divine!
4) Isaac and John made while their parents were old, infertile, and not divine!
5) The rest of humanity is made of man and woman and not divine!
THE LUKE FACTOR…
Luke’s version of the baptism of Jesus:
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, YOU ARE my beloved Son; in you, I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)
Note:
1) Luke has the story of the virgin birth
2) Luke has Jesus addressed ‘you are’.
“A few MSS [“D”, “o”, “b”] and Patristic citations representing the “Western” text, have, instead of (You are my beloved Son, in you, I am well pleased), the words of Psalms 2:7, You are my son this day have I begotten you.
“Numerous expositors (e.g. W. Mason, Zahn, Klostermann, Harnack, Moffat, Streeter) accept this variant reading as the original. The majority then explain the alteration of the text from the fact that copyists regarded these words as a contradiction to the reality of the virgin birth.”
Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke by Norval Geldenhuys p. 148]
Prima Qur’an Comment: If we take the above evidence, then the baptism of Jesus (according to Luke) would look like this:
“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, “You are my son, this day have I begotten you”. (Luke 3:22)
This would mean that Jesus became the ‘son of God’ at his baptism as an adult in the same way David became the ‘son of God’ as an adult.
Let’s continue…
“More important still is the fact that the heavenly voice which greeted Jesus at his baptism hailed him in the opening words of the decree of Psalms 2:7 ‘You are my Son’ Mark 1:11”
“Indeed, the “Western” text of Luke 3:22 represents the fuller wording from Psalms 2:7 which is quoted here by the author of Hebrews 1:5”
“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son. “This day have I begotten you?” (Hebrews 1:5)
“The words were evidently in widespread use as a testimonial in the apostolic age, as Acts 13:33 bears witness, and not only these words but the other parts of psalms were given a messianic interpretation, as may be seen from the quotation and explanation of its first two verses in Acts 4:25.
Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews FF. Bruce]
“God has fulfilled the same unto us, their children, in that he has raised Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalms, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you.” (Acts 13:33)
“Why does the heathen rage, and people imagine a vain thing? “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his ANOINTED.” (Psalms 2:1-2)
“Who, by the mouth of your SERVANT David, has said, Why DID the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his CHRIST.” (Acts 4:25-26)
Note: Some important points need to be made.
David was called ANOINTED (Christ). Also, Luke says David was a SERVANT (Slave) of God. This also means Jesus is like David: He is Anointed, meaning appointed by God. Jesus is also the Servant (slave) of God!
Let’s continue…
“Likewise, certain early manuscripts of Luke quote all of Psalms 2:7: Luke 3:22 in Codex Bezae, and certain old Latin Manuscripts used by Justin, Clement, Origen, and Augustine read, “You are my Son this day have I begotten you.”
But interestingly, Luke also used Psalms 2:7, in a speech composed for Paul.
In Paul’s theology, Jesus was “DECLARED to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4)
“Luke apparently knew of this Pauline teaching for he has Paul quoting Psalms 2:7 as a speech uttered to Jesus at his resurrection, and not his baptism! Acts 13:32-33
“For Luke and Paul Psalms 2:7 is a RESURRECTION prophecy and not a BAPTISM prophecy.”
LUKE: He sees the water Jesus is baptized in as ‘the grave’. When Jesus comes out of the water, it is his ‘resurrection.’ The water is symbolic: of ‘being washed by the blood’ of Jesus.
MARK: believed Jesus to be the adopted ‘Son of God’. In the same way, David was the adopted ‘Son of God’, Thus Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at his baptism.
MATTHEW: believed Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.
LUKE AND PAUL: believe Jesus was the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ based on his resurrection from the dead.
Note: Paul said Jesus was ‘Declared’ to be the ‘Son of God’ not that HE WAS the ‘Son of God’
Source: Romans 1:3
What do Christians mean: Jesus is the ‘Son of God’?
Examination time!
We have already seen what begotten means. Not only this but every modern translation of the Bible does away with the term ‘begotten‘?
Why?
Answer:
1) Because David was called, ‘the begotten Son of God’: in Psalms (2:7). You cannot have Jesus be the ‘only-begotten’ when David is already begotten.
2)Hebrews 11:17
“By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promise offered up his only-begotten son.”
a) This is a flat contradiction because Ishmael was begotten before Isaac was.
b) Or this is not to be understood as allegorical.
We know this is not understood literally. Isaac is not the only-begotten son; just as Jesus is not the non-allegorical ‘son of God’.
Question: Is Jesus ‘eternally begotten’ by the father?
Answer: No!
Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son?” This day have I begotten you?”
Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus cannot be ‘eternally begotten’ by the father when this passage clearly states ‘This day’ have I begotten you. Indeed, one would wonder what day that is.
Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son.
For example, to me, it is very clear that Tertullian did not believe in the eternality of the son based upon the following:
“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”
When the Church decided upon the doctrine of Tri-theism they had to make Jesus co-equal and co-eternal with the father in so doing the doctrine of adoption created huge problems for them. Not only this but if Jesus was indeed begotten ‘this day’ he would not be co-eternal. This is why the Church called Jesus ‘eternally begotten’.
There is no Greek text to support the idea that Jesus is ‘eternally begotten‘ That is why to meet the strong arguments of Bishop Arius his fellow Christians could only respond with two things:
1. Violence.
2. Use an oxymoron ‘eternally begotten‘.
The Greek text is monogenes
How do other Bibles translate John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son (or the unique son of God), that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have life eternal.” [The Living Bible]John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” [New International Version] John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [Revised Standard Version] John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [The New American Bible] John 3:16
Note: All of the above translations say something like ‘Only Son’ or ‘Unique Son’.
a) Either this is a flat contradiction because, as shown from Hebrews 1:5 Jesus is ‘A’ Son not ‘Thee’ Son of God.
b) Or this is to be understood as allegorical!
We know this is not to be taken nonallegorically. Jesus is not the only son because, as already proven, God has many ‘sons’.
As far as the ‘Unique Son’ is concerned, every ‘Son of God’ is unique! So, once again, Christians are at a loss to explain how Jesus is the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’.
Remember that Jesus never once claimed to be the ‘only son’ of God!
Christians started to see the problem with John 3:16 translations. In a classic debate between Christian televangelist Jimmy Swaggart and Muslim debater Ahmed Deedat, Swaggart anticipated a possible question of Deedat by saying the following:
@ 8:53 minutes “Now I want to start this off tonight by quoting a passage of scripture that Mr. Deedat and myself disagree somewhat over. But which is one of if not the dearest passage in the word of God to the world of Christendom. Found in St. John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only unique Son (Fooled you there Mr. Deedat), his only unique son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
The Christians should repent to Allah for every ascribing a non-allegorical son to him. Glory be to Allah who has not adopted a son or daughter! It can be seen how Jesus was called the ‘Son of God’ in the same way that previous people were called ‘Sons of God’.
However, this concept slowly evolved from being the adopted son of God into Jesus being the non-allegorical ‘Son of God’ and eventually led to him being ‘eternally begotten God’
May Allah bring the people out of the great darkness into the light. May Allah guide us to the truth!
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”(Qur’an 5:83)
“Also, mention when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good news of a word 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. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous. “She said, “My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” The angel said, “Such is Allah; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is. (Qur’an 3:45-47)
﷽
“Also, mention, in the book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east and she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man. She said, “Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, so leave me, if you should be fearing of Allah. He said, “I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you news of a pure boy. “She said, “How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste? “He said, “Thus it will be; your Lord says, ‘it is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter already decreed.” (Qur’an 19:16-21)
As Shaykh Ahmed Deedat (r) has mentioned in his Pamphlet “Is the Bible God’s Word?” page 11:
We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor —defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavor to cast just a cursory glance at a “half-a-dozen” or so of those “minor” changes.
1. “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14 – AV) The indispensable “VIRGIN” in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase “a young woman,” which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word that has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah, which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer “VIRGIN.”
The argument goes (from the Jews) and the atheists, for that matter, that if the Gospel writer ‘Matthew’ had been inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit, then he (Matthew) would not have relied upon the Jewish Septuagint for the source of his quote.
Technically, the word almah more than not was used for a young woman that could be married. Being a young, unmarried woman, it was often understood that she was not married and thus, a virgin.
However, those who argue against this state that the word ‘bethulah’, which actually does mean virgin, should have been used in place of ‘almah’, which has the possibility of being a virgin.
The website: Jews for Jesus has the following to say:
We as Muslims could agree with our Christian apologist and say look, ‘almah’likely means ‘virgin’ and that is good enough.
The reason that it is not good enough is that the author of the ‘Gospel According to Matthew’ had made some huge blunders when being reliant upon the Greek Septuagint.
We will give a clear example: Believe us, there are many!
“When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me. And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, ‘The master has need of them.’ Then he will send them at once. “This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled: Say to daughter Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’ “The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them. The huge crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road. The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.” And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken and asked, “Who is this? “And the crowds replied, “This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee.” (Matthew 21:1-11)
This is disastrous. It is disastrous on several accounts. Whoever wrote the Gospel according to Matthew couldn’t have known the original Hebrew text. Instead, the Greek Septuagint was relied upon resulting in the mistaken belief that the so-called “prophecy” was about Jesus riding upon two donkeys!
Again, look at what Christian scholars have had to say about the matter.
4-5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Isaiah 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).
7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy.
So why could this be a Jewish contention against the Qur’an?
The Core of the Critique.
The criticism, as we’ve laid out, follows this logic:
The Christian Doctrine is Based on a Mistranslation: The Christian belief in a virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 relies on the Greek Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew word almah (young woman) as parthenos (virgin), rather than the more precise Hebrew word for virgin, bethulah.
Matthew’s Error Demonstrates Human Authorship: The author of the Gospel of Matthew (who used the Septuagint) further demonstrates his human fallibility by misreading Zechariah 9:9, thinking it describes two animals (an ass and a colt) instead of one animal described with poetic parallelism.
The Qur’an is Therefore Derivative and Human: Since the Qur’an also affirms the virgin birth, the critic argues that its author simply borrowed this “mistaken” Christian doctrine, which itself is based on a Greek mistranslation of a Hebrew text. This, they claim, proves the Qur’an is a human document from the 7th century, not a divine revelation.
The assumption that the Jew could make is that because Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Mary (May Allah honour her) that the “author of the Qur’an” simply copied the Christian doctrine — which in turn is based upon the Greek Septuagint and has no knowledge of the Hebrew text. Presumably, this makes the Qur’an all too human and not of divine authorship.
The Qur’an is Independent and Authoritative, Not Derivative. This is the most critical point. The Qur’an does not seek to prove the virgin birth by referencing the Hebrew Bible. It does not say, “And this happened to fulfill what was said by the prophet Isaiah…” as Matthew does.
Instead, the Qur’an narrates the event as a direct, fact revealed by Allah.
We as Muslims have a straightforward response to this. That is that whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ was quote-mining the Jewish sacred text to get legitimacy for Jesus as the Messiah. Whereas, for us as Muslims, the Qur’an stands independent of any justification for the miraculous birth of Christ Jesus.
Muslims could agree with Christian apologists that almah can imply virginity. However, the Islamic position is stronger: We have no theological need to enter that debate. Our belief is not contingent on the interpretation of a single word in a text that could have been altered. Our belief is based solely on the clear, unambiguous words of the Qur’an:
“She said, ‘How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?’ He said, ‘Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me…””(Qur’an 19:20-21)
The Qur’an uses the phrase “while no man has touched me” (وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ), which is an explicit, clear statement of virginity that avoids the ambiguity of the Hebrew almah altogether
In other words, Christ Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. This is our belief as Muslims who believe in the words of the Qur’an.
This was a real event that took place. Where we part with the Christians is this:
The Christians in particular whoever wrote the ‘Gospel according to Matthew’ felt a need to justify this event by reference to the Hebrew scriptures albeit reliance upon the Greek Septuagint.
Conclusion:
The mistakes of Matthew highlight the human process of trying to fit Jesus into Old Testament prophecies, sometimes through forced interpretations and errors from using a translation.
The Qur’an, by contrast, displays none of this. It is entirely self-contained and authoritative. It does not make interpretive errors about Zechariah or Isaiah because it does not reference them in the first place. It simply states the truth of the event as revealed by Allah.
Therefore, the argument that the Qur’an “copied” a mistake actually proves the opposite: its independence from the textual corruptions and human errors that affected the previous scriptures. The Qur’an’s account of the virgin birth is not evidence of its human origin but rather of its divine origin, as it provides a pristine, uncorrupted narrative free from the dilemmas of biblical scholarship.
As Muslims, our belief in this stands apart from needing any proof text or citation from previous scriptures. With Allah is the success!
May Allah (swt) guide the sincere among them so that they do not perish in ever lasting hellfire!
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
﷽
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
This a verse that is frequently misunderstood and used for very different, often opposing, theological arguments. We have identified the core issue: the misinterpretation of the word ṣāḥibatun (companion) and the failure to read the verse in its full rhetorical and theological context. The verse not a statement of inability or a lesson in biology. It is a powerful rhetorical device intended to shatter human-centric, anthropomorphic conceptions of God.
There are two categories of people who use this verse with two very different objectives.
Christians use this to show that the Qur’an gets Christian theology wrong.
Those that do not believe in miracles because they believe miracles violate the laws of causality. Thus, they want to negate the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The first category.
The Christian understanding is like the following:
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The second category.
“Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) This famous social reformer and educationist of nineteenth-century India denied that Jesus was born of a virgin”
Source: (See his Commentary of the Quran Tafsir al-Quran, published by Munshi Fazl Din, Kashmiri Bazaar, Lahore, vol. ii, pp. 24–35. See the section titled ‘Muslim Newspaper Sidq’)
Understanding the rhetorical question.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“How can Allah have a child, when He does not have a companion?”
Now the very clear and sensible understanding of this rhetorical question is simple. One Creator being contrasted with the idea of having a companion.
Who is Allah?
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
Who or what is the companion in the verse?
Look at all the verb forms as well as the nouns and their use within the Qur’an.
Ṣāḥibah (from the root Ṣ-Ḥ-B) carries meanings of companion, associate, partner, consort, or one who accompanies. In this theological context, it negates any notion of a divine partner, consort, or equal—not merely a spouse.
We find it interesting that, usually, people have decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ rather than ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ (wife) is not used in this context at all. Whereas we would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas those in categories 1 and 2 above tend to focus on the term ‘wife’.
The way that these people have misunderstood the text, we either have to choose between some of the following options:
A) A creator that is incapable: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
B) A creator that is like his creation: (May Allah pardon us).
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
C) A creator that takes on gender roles: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words if the companion is seen as a wife (zawja) than Allah (swt) is the husband.
D) A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology: (May Allah pardon us) /An argument against virgin birth of Jesus.
In other words Allah needs a wife (zawja) in order to have a son. Which Christians do not believe. It would be a blatant misrepresentation of their beliefs. This argument is also used by those who want to argue against the virgin birth of Jesus (as).
Dealing with proposition A. The Incapable Creator
A creator that is incapable (May Allah pardon us)
It contravenes the following verse:
“His being alone is such that when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, “Be” — and it is.” (Qur’an 36:82)
It seems a bit of a stretch to think that Allah (swt) would make an argument that he couldn’t have a son without a companion and yet create a vast universe from the command ‘Kun’.
“It is not for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 19:35)
It even contravenes the very verse that they quote to make their case!
Resolution: Allah’s creative power is absolute and uncaused. He does not require mechanisms, partners, or processes.
Dealing with proposition B.The Creator Like Creation:
The creator that is like his creation (May Allah pardon us).
The following verse is sufficient to refute this.
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
Resolution: An originator (badīʿ) is one who creates something without any prior model or precedent, emphasizing His utter transcendence and unlike-ness to creation.
Dealing with proposition C. The Gendered Creator
That the Creator takes on gender roles.
So, if Allah (swt) is making a rhetorical argument about human relations, is Allah (swt) now taking on the role of the husband or the male progenitor? Be sensible people! Allah (swt) is drawing attention to the fact that he has no peer, no companion.
Resolution: This is a result of the mistranslation “wife.” Islam completely rejects attributing gender or physical human characteristics to Allah. The argument is about divinity, not matrimony.
Dealing with proposition D.Ignorance of Christian Theology / Argument Against Virgin Birth.
A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology/An argument against the virgin birth of Jesus.
Ironically, proposition D is also the position taken by those who want to deny the virgin birth of Christ Jesus in the Qur’an. So they (those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality) have ironically sided with the Christian in their misunderstanding of the verse. Albeit to reach very different ends.
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The questions that are put forward by those who hold the view that the virgin birth (a miracle) would violate the laws of causality would be:
Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?
To which the reply to this is:
On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?
Another question for them would be: Based upon your interpretation of the verse, would you be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon your logic?
In other words, do you find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son?
Another question for them would be:
Why would Allah (swt) need to be like his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?
Why not look at the whole verse? Why only quote part of it?
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion, and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 6:101)
First, Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Do these people now believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?
What natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality? The verse all says, “He created all things.”
Why do people seek out companionship/friendship/associates and peers, to begin with? Ponder it.
The need for companionship?
“They say, “Allah has taken a child.” Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient. Unto Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth. You have no authority for this. Do you say about Allah that which you know not?” (Qur’an 10:68)
Anything that human beings can receive from companions/friends/peers and associates stems from needs, and Allah (swt) is free from needs. Whatever people get from having associates and companions Allah (swt) can simply create it. Allah (swt) is the Self-Sufficient!
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer that would entail being of the exact divine nature of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) crushes that notion with the following ‘He created ALL things’.
It is only logical that you can’t have two uncreated beings.
It is only logical that you can’t have two originators. This would also entail having a walad (a child). A walad or a child would be ‘like kind’.
The following verse more than drives home this point.
“Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any god– in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe.” (Qur’an 23:91)
That verse crushes the idea that Allah (swt) could even have a companion.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
As for those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality and are trying to reinterpret scripture to appease atheists, they understand Allah as saying, “But if I had a wife, I could have a child.”
Which is simply theologically unsound. Their interpretation of the text ignores the whole of the verse; and worse yet, it doesn’t negate for Allah (swt) the possibility of having a companion! (May Allah pardon us).
This is the same train of thought by those who believe miracles violate the laws of causality and therefore reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The focus for people who use this text as an argument is on the word ‘walad’, whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’, a companion to begin with.
Resolution:
Against Christian Critique: The Qur’an is not misrepresenting mainstream Christian theology. It is attacking the logical implication of the claim “God has a son.” From a purely logical, non-creedal standpoint, if a being has a son, that son must be of the same nature (a peer). The Qur’an argues that since Allah has no peers or companions (no other divine being), the concept of a “son” is logically incoherent. It challenges the metaphysics of the Trinity, not the biology of the Nativity.
Against the Naturalist/Mu’tazilite Critique (e.g., Sir Syed Ahmad Khan): Those who deny miracles like the virgin birth because they “violate causality” profoundly misunderstand the verse. They interpret it as, “Allah needs a wife to have a son.” This is a catastrophic error. The verse is not providing the necessary condition for divine filiation (“a wife is needed”). It is rejecting the entire paradigm as impossible. Allah does not need a wife to have a son; He transcends the very category of having offspring altogether. The miracle of Jesus’s birth (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) is a sign of Allah’s absolute power to create as He wills (Kun fa-Yakūn), outside of natural causality, which He Himself established. To use this verse to deny the virgin birth is to completely invert its meaning.
Conclusion:
The verse in question is a masterful rhetorical tool that:
Affirms Surah Ikhlas: Allah is One, Unique, without peer, partner, or companion.
Denies Anthropomorphism: Allah is beyond human categories like gender and biological reproduction.
Establishes Logical Coherence: The concept of “divine offspring” is metaphysically absurd because it requires a plurality within the divine, which is impossible for the One who created all things and has no equal.
Upholds, Not Denies, Miracles: The power that created the heavens and the earth from nothing can certainly create a human being in a womb without a father. Denying this is a failure to understand Allah’s absolute power, which the verse itself emphasizes.
The focus is not on the word walad (son) in isolation, but on the impossible pre-condition for it: a ṣāḥibah (companion). Since the pre-condition is impossible (Allah has no companion), the conclusion (Allah has a son) is also impossible. This is a definitive negation of any form of shirk (associating partners with God) while simultaneously affirming Allah’s limitless power to create as He wills.
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
For those interested, you may want to read the following articles:
“The Truth is from your Lord.’ Then whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an 18:29)
﷽
We are very disheartened to learn that this is a position held among those who hail from the Deobandi movement. To see them fall short on this particular point of theology is hurtful. This is an important point of theological difference as it can undermine our confidence in some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of our faith.
It is clear though, that this matter has split the ranks of the Ahl Sunnah. This is the declaration of Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki. He is himself a Sunni Muslim and a follower of the Maliki school of jurisprudence. The Shaykh has said that holding such a view or opinion is kufr (disbelief).
This false belief that is certainly so problematic for Muslims theologically that it is challenging to understand how anyone could entertain it, to begin with.
The theological musings of Darul Uloom Deoband have concerning Allah (swt) have to be among the most dangerous of theological speculations that have come from theology.
If we are to speak using emotive we would say that it is perhaps the absolutely most monstrous attributions to Allah (swt)! Not even the Christians ascribe the possibility of lying to Allah (swt)!
This, of course, is not speaking to the laity and the regular adherents of the Deobandi school of thought, the common person. To those valiant brothers in the Tabligh Jamaat that go out in the path of Allah (swt) and call people back to the Deen of Allah (swt). They are, for the most part, ignorant of this position. In fact, the Tablighi Jamaat are one of the greatest dawah force in the Muslim Ummah (imo).
Deobandi scholars in general are known among the Muslim scholars to be people of wara and taqwa and among those who cling to the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
That being said, we absolutely and utterly abhor the theological position that the Deobandi scholars have. Namely, that Allah (swt) can lie. (May our Rabb forgive us and bring us back to our senses.)
So first thing is first. Let us read and listen from their own sources what they say on the matter.
“Falling into the topic which you have mentioned in your question, is extremely dangerous for the Iman of a believer“
Prima Qur’an comment: Yes, it should cause anyone who has an ounce of love for Allah (swt) and understanding of sound doctrine should flee as far away from this speculation as they can!
“The ulama of Deoband have explained this issue to the best of their knowledge according to the Quran and Sunnah. Therefore we need to look at this from an academic perspective rather than an emotional one.”
Prima Qur’an comment: They are correct in that the truth is truth regardless of how we feel about it. Islam is based upon proofs and evidences.
In the article in the link above after affirming that Allah doesn’t lie they then turnaround and affirm the following possibility:
“Thereafter they explained that Allah has the power to do whatever he wants. SO IF HE WANTED TO LIE, NOBODY CAN STOP HIM. No one can take that power away from him. There is a difference between “Allah does lie” and “ALLAH CAN LIE.”
Or the monstrous assertion that it is possible for Allah (swt) to create another like him!
Watch the following video:
@ 2:11 He says, “Let no man go away today and say Shaykh Mumtaz was saying Allah CAN lie, No!”
However, he turns around @ 1:38 and says, “But the OPTION Is there for Allah (swt), because he is Haqq he will never take that OPTION.”
Prima Qur’an comment: So he is saying that he CAN and worse he says that Allah (swt) could create another Allah (swt) but chooses not to! Yikes! (Oh Allah (swt) Rabb of Grace and Abundant Mercy, please forgive us and forgive our brothers and guide them to a course that is more just than this!) Amin!
The following verse of the Qur’an that absolutely grinds to powder and scatters into the four corners of the known existence such absurd theological speculation!
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
So what does Shaykh Mumtaz have in mind should Allah (swt) wish to create another Allah (swt)? Some type of Binitarian belief? Or if He can create another like himself, what’s the limit? Three? Some type of Trinitarian belief?
It is our sincere hope that those from Deoband will refrain from this type of theological speculation. We hope that they recant from this position and make sincere repentance to Allah (swt). Death waits for no one.
By Allah (swt) our hearts have never felt more heavy and filled with sadness than to know that these people hold these positions!
It really does go to show you that Allah (swt) spoke the Haqq (unlike what scholars muse) when He said
“Is not Allah sufficient for His Servant? And yet, they threaten you with those they worship other than Him. And whoever Allah allows to stray-for him there is no guide. And whoever Allah guides-no one can misguide. Is not Allah Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution?” (Qur’an 39:36-37)
Refutation of this problematic doctrine.
The first issue is part of a much larger discussion centered around the following: Allah (swt) can do anything versus Allah (swt) has power over all things. We would recommend you read that article first:
Attributes ascribed to His Self (Sifāt Dhātiyyah).
Attributes ascribed to His Actions (Sifāt Fi’liyyah).
Attributes ascribed to both His Self and His Actions (Sifāt Dhātiyyah Fi’liyyah)
The attribute of The Liar could not be attributed to category 1 because Allah (swt) has described himself as Al Haqq. It is not possible to be The Truth and The Liar simultaneously. Second the attribute of The Liar implies something eternal and external with Allah (swt). If Allah (swt) is The Liar than in relation to what? Third if Allah (swt) is to be described by the attribute of The Liar this means there can be no cohesion or symmetry in the universe. The universe can never make sense nor can it be intelligible in any meaningful way.
The attribute of lying can not be in category 2 as a possible act that Allah (swt) can dispense if he so chooses because of what is discussed in the above article: Allah can do anything versus Allah has power over all things.
Humans may need to lie or deceive due to some need, want, desire, or fear. None of this is applicable to Allah (swt). Alas, Allah (swt) does not have redundant attributes.
Lying is never a praiseworthy trait or quality.
“They think to deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive it not.” (Qur’an 2:9)
“In their hearts is a disease, so Allah has increased their disease, and for them it is a painful punishment because they habitually used to lie.” (Quran 2:10)
“So He penalized them with hypocrisy in their hearts until the Day they will meet Him – because they failed Allah in what they promised Him and because they habitually used to lie.” (Qur’an 9:77)
“And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah or says, ‘It has been inspired to me,’ while nothing has been inspired to him, and one who says, ‘I will reveal something like what Allah revealed.’ And if you could but see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of death while the angels extend their hands, saying, ‘Discharge your souls! Today you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme] humiliation for what you used to say against Allah other than the truth and that you were, toward His verses, being arrogant.’” (Qur’an 6:93)
We sincerely implore the scholars of Deoband – to read these verses and immediately fall into sujud begging the Almighty Allah (swt) for forgiveness!
Dear brothers, this theological position is unbecoming of people who have produced some of the best scholars and students of knowledge in many fields of Islamic sciences!
Is this verse not befitting of them?
“Who is more unjust than one who events a lie about Allah (swt). One who says ‘it has been inspired by me’.” (Qur’an 6:93)
Dark whispering to the subconscious mind that found fertile ground within their minds and souls to plant the most insidious theological speculation.
Surely Allah (swt) is our salvation! May Allah (swt) protect us from the evil insinuations of the one who whispers.
Allah (swt) says:
“Moreover, they have no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
“And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, ‘Do you kill a man merely because he says, “My Lord is Allah” while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is the consequence of his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar.’ ” (Qur’an 40:28)
“However, if they intend to deceive you – then sufficient for you is Allah. It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers. “(Qur’an 8:62)
“However, We have certainly tried those before them, and Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.”(Qur’an 29:3)
“Only they forge the lie who do not believe in Allah’s communications, and these are the liars.” (Qur’an 16:105)
“So who is more unjust than he who invents a lie about Allah? Those will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses will say, “These are the ones who lied against their Lord.” Unquestionably, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers.” (Quran 11:18)
They have no means of knowing whether they are deceived. They can only trust that they are not being deceived, but they have no certainty. This destroys the very foundation of the religion of truth, the science of hadith, and everything else along with it. The big question for anyone who holds the position that Allah (swt) CAN lie is this:
If you believe that Allah (swt) CAN lie on what objective basis, can you determine if anything from Allah (swt) to be true?
We have seem them evade this question. There is no evasion on the last day.
They have certainly erred in their theological speculation about the divine by having the audacity to attribute to Allah (swt) the capacity and capability to lie!
May Allah (swt) protect our minds, our hearts from the whispers of devils, and from the approach of the hellfire and from theological speculation that brings us to the very depths of darkness where there is no light therein.
Their shameful musings about Allah (swt) opened the doors of sophistry, which in turn would call into question the probity of the sources of religious knowledge altogether.
In reality, this theological speculation is an absolute feast for atheists and Christians!
How can we trust anything from Allah (swt)
The truth about Allah (swt), his oneness?
The truth about Rasul Allah (saw) being a Messenger of Allah (swt). That he is the last and final messenger?
The truth about the Qur’an is that it is a revelation from Allah (swt), the last and final message?
Issues of certainty and morality. All of these things become issues of doubt and speculation due to the theological speculation of the scholars of Deoband.
Deobandis have effectively stripped every argument Muslims have against atheists, Christians, or anyone else. Why should an agnostic trade in his/her uncertainty for the uncertainty of Muslims?
They have also put themselves in a precarious situation. It would be very difficult for any other Muslim to take it seriously or even discuss any matter or point of jurisprudence, theology, etc. with a representative of Deoband because there is nothing to be discussed. They can’t even say with all sincerity that they are upon the Haqq.
These people, the Deobandi, believe that it is possible for Allah (swt) to both lie and to be truthful! Because if Allah (swt) is Haqq and Allah (swt) does not change, then why the theological speculation with regard to this?
To say that Allah (swt) has the potential to be both liar and truth sayer not only imputes lies to Allah azzawajala but it would entail a logical contradiction.
This reminds one of the atheists.
The atheist poses the following paradoxical question.
If Allah is Infinite and Unlimited in Power, can He create a rock he cannot lift?
Which is a non-question? It is like asking if Allah (swt) can make a squared circle. It is a no-thing.
Such a rock can’t exist, not because Allah (swt) is not All-Powerful but because He is!
Allah (swt) has Unlimited, Infinite Powers. This theoretical rock would also have to have MORE than infinite and unlimited powers so that Allah (swt) could not move it. There’s no such thing as beyond infinite and unlimited, so the question is flawed.
Infinity +1 There is no such thing, there is simply infinity.
Allah (swt) cannot act contrary to his being. Allah acts consistently within his own essence, his own being.
The reason people fall into this trap is because of very poor training in theology and/or philosophy. They do not have an excellent foundation concerning the divine being. After all don’t they accept power as a basis for Allah (swt) being God? That is the whole point. There are certain qualities that make Allah, God.
Allah cannot, for example Not-Be Allah. Allah (swt) cannot be a sinner or be unholy. Allah (swt) cannot commit shirk.
Allah (swt) cannot be contained by space/time. All these things are inherent to the divine logic that is Allah (swt).
Based on logic there are things that cannot exist if another thing exists.
As Allah (swt) is Infinite and Unlimited in Power, a thing he can not do cannot exist because it violates the very principle of being Infinite and Unlimited in Power.
“He knows what is before them and what will be after them, but they do not encompass in knowledge. And all faces will be humbled before the Ever-Living, The Self Existent. And he will have failed who carries injustice.” (Qur’an 20:110-111)
Allah (swt) is described as the Ever-Living, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for Allah (swt) to die. Allah (swt can’t will himself to die because it goes against what is intrinsic to the divine logic.
Their ridiculous claim is that you deny the power of Allah (swt). So ask them in turn this very simple question that will crush their falsehood.
If Allah (swt) can do anything, can Allah (swt) create a reality where he can’t do everything?
If the answer is no, they just admitted that Allah (swt) can’t do everything.
If they say yes, then it means they admit the possibility of a reality where Allah (swt) is not able to do all things.
Another point that crushes their speculation is the following:
The difference between us and those who hold the view that Allah (swt) CAN lie when it comes to the power of Allah (swt) is this:
They believe Allah (swt) is All-Powerful based upon speculation. Whereas the believers we believe Allah (swt) is All-Powerful based upon certainty.
“To Allah is your return, and He has power over all things.'” (Qur’an 11:4)
The basis for which those who say that Allah (swt) CAN lie is this verse. However, this verse is dependent upon Allah (swt) being Haqq and only Haqq.
The Deobandis have no objective basis on which to rest their argument. Because if both Truth and Lies can come from our Lord on what objective basis do they know that the verse in Qur’an 11:4 is true to begin with? Whereas the believers we believe that Allah (swt) is Al Haqq and thus we have certainty in what Allah (swt) reveals to us. It is not POSSIBLE for Allah (swt) to lie to us.
So coming to the doctrine of the Deobandis let us see what Allah (swt) says about Truth.
“The Truth is from your Lord.’ Then whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an 18:29)
Allah (swt) clearly says that Truth is from Him. Otherwise the phrase -“sadaqallahul azeem” -The Truth from Allah the Almighty, it would lose all meaning.
As truth is from Allah (swt) it is not even a POSSIBILITY for non-truth to come from Allah (swt).
Allah (swt) says:
“That is because Allah He is the Truth (Al Haqq) -the Only True God of all that exists, Who has no partners or rival, the ultimate reality, and what they (those who associate) invoke besides Him, it is Batil (falsehood) And verily, Allah He is the Highest, The Most Great.” (Qur’an 22:62)
“Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Surely, falsehood is ever bound to vanish.” (Qur’an 17:81)
“No! We hurl the Truth against Falsehood, and it crushes it. Behold, falsehood does perish! Woe to you for the false things you ascribe.” (Qur’an 21:18)
Oh, Allah (swt) please guide these people. Guide them and us. How can they attribute to Allah (swt) a possible attribute that can vanish or be overcome by other attributes?
Subhan’Allah! What more evidence do the Deobandi need?
May Allah (swt) bring us from darkness into light and may Allah (swt) cause the Muslims to be on guard against this type of theological speculation.
Allah (swt) says that He is Al Haqq. Allah (swt) says that is The Truth. Allah (swt) clearly contrasts himself with batil (falsehood). Allah (swt) cannot contain both batil and haqq and have this as part of his being. Both can never be attributed to Allah (swt)
Allah (swt) says:
“Truly, it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts which are in the breast that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
Allah (swt) says:
“So do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know it.” (Qur’an 2:42)
Mixing truth with falsehood is something that sinful man does. Are we going to really attribute the ability to mix truth with falsehood to the one who shaped and formed us in the womb, who provides for our every need, who is the very Lord of the Throne?!!
Moreover, again we have:
“So to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them. And leave [the company of] those who practice deviation concerning His names. They will be recompensed for what they have been doing.” (Qur’an 7:180)
How could they even conceive as a possibility that one of the best attributes of Allah (swt) could be “The Untruthful” ?!?
This is what Allah (swt) says about those who believe that Allah (swt) has the potential of having sons.
“Where at the heavens might well-nearly be rent into fragments, and the earth be split asunder, and the mountains fall down in ruins!” (Qur’an 19:90)
This is for attributing to Allah (swt) the mere potentiality of having sons can you imagine what Allah (swt) has in store for those who would attribute the mere possibility and potentiality of being “The Lord of Untruthfulness“? May Allah (swt) forgive them and us. May Allah (swt) guide them and us.
Deoband certainly needs to reconsider this. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by simply stating that this is no longer a theological position that they hold to. Their scholars believe that Allah (swt) CAN lie.
They give arguments and ammunition that will unfortunately tickle the imagination of the enemies of the faith.
As shown in the video above even one of their learned people believes that Allah (swt) CAN create another Allah (swt) !!
“Therefore be patient; surely the promise of Allah is true and let not those who have no certainty hold you in light estimation. (Qur’an 30:60)
Dear readers, fellow Muslim brothers and sisters reading this. We strongly advocate for unity and cooperation among all Muslims. We are very strongly against this theological position of Deoband.
We would implore, urge, beg them to reconsider it. If not for the good of this Muslim ummah, for the safety and passage of their own well-being into the next life. To refrain from stating with the tongue theological speculation that can not bring any good. If we human beings are not infallible and a scholar is not infallible, what harm would come to Deoband, and its reputation if they simply admitted to an error here? Everyone in the Muslim Ummah knows there are giants of knowledge among them.
We humbly thank Allah that he saved us from what others have been afflicated with.
“And say: …So, after the truth, what else can there be, save error?” (Qur’an 10:32)
“And know that among you is the Messenger of Allāh. If he were to obey you in much of the matter, you would be in difficulty, but Allāh has made beloved to you the faith and has beautified it in your hearts and has made hateful to you disbelief, wickedness, and disobedience. Those are the guided.” (Qur’an 49:7)
﷽
The noble companion Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di and the deception of Ahl Sunnah. “Be Just!”
In order to defame the noble companion, Hurqus ibn Zuhair (ra), some of the Ahl Sunnah have pulled out all the stops in their attempts at deception and blatant lying.
Allah (swt) has exposed them and laid bare their attempts to defame and besmirch him for no other reason than the fact that he saw through the lies and deception of Muaviya and left with those companions who deserted Ali bin Abu Talib who went against the hukm of Allah (swt).
This article will show you beyond a shadow of a doubt (Allah-willing) that some of the past scholars of Ahl Sunnah have mixed up Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di (ra) with one Abdullah ibn Dhul Khawaisara At Tamimi, Rather or not this was a major blunder on behalf of their scholars or done with evil intentions, will be up to you the reader to decide.
The Core Argument: Mistaken Identity or deliberate obfuscation?
Our central thesis is that Ahl al-Sunnah scholars have mistakenly—or perhaps deliberately—conflated two distinct individuals:
Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr aṣ-Ṣaʿdī (ra): A noble companion who later opposed ʿAlī due to his stance on the arbitration at Ṣiffīn.
ʿAbdullāh ibn Dhī al-Khawāṣira at-Tamīmī: The anonymous “man” in the hadiths who criticized the Blessed Prophet’s (saw) distribution of wealth and was prophesied to be the progenitor of the Khawārij.
We argue that pinning the so-called Kharijite prophecy on Ḥurqūṣ is a defamation stemming from sectarian motives to discredit those who opposed ʿAlī’s later political decisions.
The status of the hypocrites in Islam.
It was narrated from Umar bin al Khattab that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
`The thing I fear most for my Ummah is every hypocrite who speaks with knowledge`
“Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire – and never will you find for them a helper.” (Qur’an 4:145)
The very first exercise. The name of Hurqus ibn Zuhair in the hadith literature.
First thing that you, the truth seeker, should do is bring up this name of Hurqus ibn Zuhair as-Sadi (ra) and bring him to your teachers! Bring him to the people you trust. Rather, you are a Barelvi, Deobandi, Salafi, Ikwani, follower of one of the four madhabs.
Simply bring his name up and ask your learned people: “Show us the hadith with his name, ‘Hurqus ibn Zuhair’, explicitly mentioning where the Blessed Messenger (saw) said he is a Khawarij.” Should be quite a simple exercise!
“Be Just O Messenger of Allah!”
“O Muhammed, fear Allah!”
“O Messenger of Allah! Fear Allah!”
“Be Just”
Now let us analyze these various hadith shall we?
1st Hadith Analyzed.
Narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah
While Allah’s Apostle was distributing the booty at Al-Ja’rana, SOMEBODY said to him “Be just (in your distribution).” The Prophet replied, “Truly I would be miserable if I did not act justly.”
Prima Qur’an Comment: A “somebody” said. An anonymous individual. The Prophet (saw) was told to ‘be just‘.
2nd Hadith Analyzed.
It was narrated that Sharik bin Shihab said:
“I used to wish that I could meet a man among the Companions of the Prophet (saw) and ask him about the Khawarij. Then I met Abu Barzah on the day of ‘Id, with many of his companions. I said to him: ‘Did you hear the Messenger of Allah (saw) mention the Khawarij?’ He said: ‘Yes. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) with my own ears, and saw him with my own eyes. Some wealth was brought to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he distributed it to those on his right and on his left, but he did not give anything to those who were behind him. Then A MAN stood behind him and said: “O Muhammed! You have not been just in your division!” He was a man with black patchy (shaved) hair, wearing two white garments. So Allah’s Messenger (saw) became furious and said: “By Allah! You will not find a man after me who is more just than me.” Then he said: “A people will come at the end of time; as if he is one of them, reciting the Qur’an without it passing beyond their throats. They will go through Islam just as the arrow goes through the target. Their distinction will be shaving. They will not cease to appear until the last of them comes with Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. So when you meet them, then kill them, they are the worst of created beings.“
Prima Qur’an Comments: Then “a man” stood behind him. An anonymous individual.
Note: The Blessed Messenger (saw) did mention the word ‘Khawarij’. That is simply the statement of the narrator. Here the narrator does not say that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said: “Dogs of hellfire.”He does not allow the Prophet (saw) to go beyond what Allah (swt) ever did. So the narrator has the Prophet (saw) say, “The worst of created beings.”
They come “at the end of time.“
Also, how ironic that it is claimed that the Prophet (saw) would say, “When you meet them, then kill them,” and that this hadith ends up in a section titled: “The Prohibition of Bloodshed.”
Also, note the lack of adaab. In other narrations, this man simply says, “Be Just.” However, in this narration we have to have the man call out the Blessed Messenger (saw) by name, “O Muhammed, you have not been just.”
Also note that such people appear “at the end of time.”
3rd Hadith Analyzed.
Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
When `Ali was in Yemen, he sent some gold in its ore to the Prophet (saw). The Prophet (saw) distributed it among Al-Aqra’ bin H`Abis Al-Hanzali who belonged to Bani Mujashi, ‘Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, ‘Alqama bin ‘Ulatha Al-`Amiri, who belonged to the Bani Kilab tribe and Zaid AI-Khail at-Ta’i who belonged to Bani Nabhan. So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, “He gives to the chiefs of Najd and leaves us!” The Prophet (saw) said, “I just wanted to attract and unite their hearts (make them firm in Islam).” Then there came A MAN with sunken eyes, bulging forehead, thick beard, fat raised cheeks, and clean-shaven head, and said, “O Muhammed! Be afraid of Allah! ” The Prophet (saw) said, “Who would obey Allah if I disobeyed Him? (Allah). He trusts me over the people of the earth, but you do not trust me?” A man from the people (present then), WHO, I THINK, was Khalid bin Al-Walid, asked for permission to kill him, but the Prophet (saw) prevented him. When THE MAN went away, the Prophet said, “Out of the offspring of this man, there will be people who will recite the Qur’an but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out through the game, and they will kill the Muslims and leave the idolaters. Should I live till they appear, I would kill them as the Killing of the nation of ‘Ad.”
Prima Qur’an comments: Then there came“a man”. Anonymous individual.
Able to recall bulging forehead, thick beard, fat raised cheeks, clean-shaven head, but not the name. Nope! Also, you think that if this man had a deformed hand that looked like a woman’s breast that it would be the most noteworthy description. Nope!
Also, *note* the lack of adaab. In other narrations, this man simply says, “Be Just.” In another narration we have to have the man call out the Blessed Messenger (saw) by name, “O Muhammed, you have not been just.”
In this one: “O Muhammed Be afraid of Allah!“.
Which is it?Be just or be afraid of Allah?
Then, the narrator can’t recall who asked for permission to kill this guy. “I think it was Khalid bin Al-Walid.”
Then, apparently, the Blessed Messenger (saw) says, “Out of the offspring of this man will be a people who will kill the Muslims. Then, apparently the Blessed Messenger (saw) says, “Should I live till they appear, I would kill them as the Killing of the nations of ‘Ad”.
Yet the man is standing right there, so why doesn’t the Blessed Prophet (saw) kill the man then and there? The narrator is content to make the Blessed Prophet (saw) let future generations do the killing.
This is very much unlike Khidr, who slew a boy on the spot for future evils he would commit. Yet, here we have the Prophet (saw) apparently saying he would kill them. Yet, being fine to let this particular individual live and bring about all kinds of fitna!
“And as for the boy, his parents were ˹true˺ believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.” (Qur’an 18:80-81)
4th Hadith Analyzed.
Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
`Ali bin Abi Talib sent a piece of gold not yet taken out of its ore, in a tanned leather container to Allah’s Messenger (saw). Allah’s Messenger (saw) distributed that amongst four Persons: ‘Uyaina bin Badr, Aqra bin H`Abis, Zaid Al-Khail and the fourth was either Alqama or Amir bin at-Tufail. On that, ONE OF HIS COMPANIONS said, “We are more deserving of this (gold) than these (persons).” When that news reached the Prophet (saw) , he said, “Don’t you trust me though I am the truth worthy man of the One in the Heavens, and I receive the news of Heaven (i.e. Divine Inspiration) both in the morning and in the evening?” There got up A MAN with sunken eyes, raised cheek bones, raised forehead, a thick beard, a shaven head and a waist sheet that was tucked up and he said, “O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! Be afraid of Allah.” The Prophet (saw) said, “Woe to you! Am I not of all the people of the earth the most entitled to fear Allah?” Then that man went away. Khalid bin Al-Walid said, “O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! Shall I chop his neck off?” The Prophet (saw) said, “No, for he may offer prayers.” Khalid said, “Numerous are those who offer prayers and say by their tongues (i.e. mouths) what is not in their hearts.” Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies.” Then the Prophet looked at HIM while the latter was going away and said, “From the offspring of this (man there will come out (people) who will recite the Qur’an continuously and elegantly but it will not exceed their throats. They would go out of the religion (i.e. Islam) as an arrow goes through a game’s body.” I THINK HE ALSO SAID, “If I should be present at their time I would kill them as the nations a Thamud were killed.”
Prima Qur’an comments: “One of his companions” was complaining that he was upset about the distribution of the booty. “One of his companions was an anonymous individual.
That man doesn’t get scolded. No prophecy about his descendants being murderous individuals, nada, nothing.
Yet, another “man”, an anonymous individual, also shows his disdain. Then, when Khalid bin Al Walid wants to chop off his head, we get the narrator putting into the mouth of the Blessed Messenger (saw), “I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies.”
Yet, then they have the Blessed Messenger (saw)proceed to tell us knowledge of the unseen about this man’s children. In other words, I can’t tell you about the intentions of this guy who is alive right here in front of us both. However, I can tell you the murderous intentions of his children.
Welcome to the world of the bizarre!
Then, the narrator isn’t sure if the Prophet (saw) said if he wanted to annihilate these people totally or not. “I think he also said.”
Well, you better jog your memory!” You are talking about annihilation here!
5th Hadith Analyzed.
Narrated Abu Sa`id:
While the Prophet (saw) was DISTRIBUTING (SOMETHING, ‘Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira at-Tamimi came and said, “Be just, O Allah’s Messenger (saw)!” The Prophet (saw) said, “Woe to you ! Who would be just if I were not?” `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, “Allow me to cut off his neck ! ” The Prophet (saw) said, Leave him, for he has companions, and if you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers and fasting, in comparison to theirs. Yet they will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game’s body in which case, if the Qudhadh of the arrow is examined, nothing will be found on it, and when its Nasl is examined, nothing will be found on it; and then its Nadiyi is examined, nothing will be found on it. The arrow has been too fast to be smeared by dung and blood. The sign by which these people will be recognized will be A MAN whose one hand (or breast) will be like the breast of a woman (or like a moving piece of flesh). These people will appear when there will be differences among the people (Muslims).”
Abu Sa`id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet (saw) and also testify that `Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet (saw) was brought to `Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person (i.e., `Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi): ‘And among THEM are MEN who accuse you (O Muhammed) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.’ (9.58)
Prima Qur’an Comments: So the Prophet (saw) was disturbing “something.” Ambiguous.
Why would need clarity on what the Prophet (saw) was distributing? It’s not like the narrator is about to quote the Qur’an in the distribution of alms! (reflect dear reader!)
In this narration, the narrator wastes no time. We get a name right from the start: “Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira at-Tamimi.”
This time it’s Umar bin Al Khattab and not Khalid bin Al Walid that wants to kill this man.
This time we do not need to make way for this man’s descendants or for those who come at the end of time. The companions will deal with him in their very lives!
We also get some identifying markers of this individual: whose one hand or breast (we are not quite sure) will be like the breast of a woman or a moving piece of flesh (or a goat, according to Ali Ibn Abu Talib). See: https://sunnah.com/muslim:1066g .
So here we are given some important identifiers from the Blessed Prophet (saw) but we aren’t quite sure what those are. Now as to the verse that narrator quoted.
“And among them are some who criticize you concerning the distribution of charities (ṣadaqāti). If they are given from them, they approve; but if they are not given from them, at once they become angry. If only they had been satisfied with what Allah and His Messenger gave them and said, “Sufficient for us is Allah ; Allah will give us of His bounty, and His Messenger; indeed, we are desirous toward Allah” (Qur’an 9:58-59)
In fact those verses were revealed about some of the Ansar that were upset with the distribution of booty from Hunain.
No future prophecy about some diabolical group of people that has yet to arrive.
Narrated Anas Bin Malik:
When it was the day (of the battle) of Hunain, the tributes of Hawazin and Ghatafan and others, along with their animals and offspring (and wives) came to fight against the Prophet (saw) The Prophet (saw) had with him, ten thousand men and some of the Tulaqa. The companions fled, leaving the Prophet (saw) alone. The Prophet then made two calls which were clearly distinguished from each other. He turned right and said, “O the group of Ansar!” They said, “Labbaik, O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! Rejoice, for we are with you!” Then he turned left and said, “O the group of Ansar!” They said, “Labbaik! O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! Rejoice, for we are with you!” The Prophet (saw) at that time, was riding on a white mule; then he dismounted and said, “I am Allah’s Slave and His Apostle.” The infidels then were defeated, and on that day the Prophet (saw) gained a large amount of booty which he distributed amongst the Muhajirin and the Tulaqa and did not give anything to the Ansar.The Ansar said, “When there is a difficulty, we are called, but the booty is given to other than us.“ The news reached the Prophet (saw) and he gathered them in a leather tent and said, “What is this news reaching me from you, O the group of Ansar?” They kept silent, He added,” O the group of Ansar! Won’t you be happy that the people take the worldly things and you take Allah’s Messenger (saw) to your homes reserving him for yourself?” They said, “Yes.” Then the Prophet said, “If the people took their way through a valley, and the Ansar took their way through a mountain pass, surely, I would take the Ansar’s mountain pass.” Hisham said, “O Abu Hamza (i.e. Anas)! Did you witness that? ” He replied, “And how could I be absent from him?”
Notice that no one seems to have a problem with the Ansar saying they felt they were not being treated with justice. They are not called dogs of the hellfire.
So, either Abu Said Al Khudri was absolutely wrong with regard to the Asbab-al-Nuzul (The Occasion of Revelation) of those verses, or worse, a latter redactor put those words in the mouth of Abu Said Al Khudri. Either way, it doesn’t look good!
A look at some Tafsir in regards to these verses:
“And among them are some who criticize you concerning the distribution of charities (ṣadaqāti). If they are given from them, they approve; but if they are not given from them, at once they become angry. If only they had been satisfied with what Allah and His Messenger gave them and said, “Sufficient for us is Allah ; Allah will give us of His bounty, and His Messenger; indeed, we are desirous toward Allah” (Qur’an 9:58-59)
Prima Qur’an Comments: In the commentary of Ibn Abbas (ra) we have:
“And of the hypocrites: Abu’l-Ahwas and his host. They claimed that he did not divide them fairly.”
In the commentary of Tafsir al-Jalalayn we have:
“Some of them defame you concerning the apportioning of voluntary alms-giving; if they are given a share of them they are content but if they are given none then they are enraged.”
In the commentary of Ibn Kathir we have:
“We were told that a Bedouin man, who had recently embraced Islam, came to the Prophet, when he was dividing some gold and silver.”
So the tafsir are all over the place!
Ibn Abbas tafsir has Abu’l-Ahwas and his host.
Jalalayn has them and they, unnamed and unspecified.
Ibn Kathir has a a Bedouin man, whohad recently embraced Islam,
Asbāb al-Nuzūl Error: We correctly point out that the claim that Qur’an 9:58-59 was revealed about this specific Tamīmī man contradicts the well-established occasion of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl) documented by Anas ibn Mālik, which attributes it to the Ansār after Ḥunayn. This is a strong point against the reliability of that specific chain or narrator’s addition in Bukhārī 6933 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6933
Very important point that Ibn Kathir is the one who starts the obfuscation.
And also from Ibn Kathir: “This statement of Qatadah is similar to the Hadith that the Two Shaykhs narrated from Abu Sa’id about the story of Dhul-Khuwaysirah, whose name was Hurqus.” Hurqus protested against the Prophet’s division of the war spoils.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
Ibn Kathir mixes up Dhul-Khuwaysirah with Hurqus. This is where the confusion comes in from Ahl Sunnah. It has never been explained to anyone we have encountered among Ahl Sunnah hadith specialist why Ibn Kathir makes this connection?
Why does he say: “It is similar to the hadith that the two shaykhs narrated from Abu Sai’d about Dhul-Khuwaysirah?”
Which hadith? Did Ibn Kathir have access to transmissions from Bukhari and Muslim that are no longer in circulation? Certainly raises some questions!
Also, a very important point! We have not seen any mention of Hurqus in any of these hadith!
“There stood up ‘Umar b. Khattab, and said: Should I not strike his neck? Upon this he said: No. Then he turned away, and Khalid the Sword of Allah stood up against him, and said: Prophet of Allah. shall I not strike off his neck? He said, No, and then said: A people would rise from his progeny who would recite the Book of Allah glibly and fluently. ‘Umar said: I THINK he (the Holy Prophet) also said this: If I find them I would certainly kill them like Thamud.”
When trying to reconcile obvious discrepancies, we get this innovative approach. We get both Umar bin Al Khattab and Khalid bin Al Walid both wanting to cut off the culprit’s neck! However, we are still not sure if the Prophet (saw) will kill such people in the future. “I think” he (the Holy Prophet) also said this...…
Narrated Jabir b. Abdullah
A PERSON came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) at Jirana on his way back from Hunain, and there was in the clothes of Bilal some silver. The Messenger of Allah (saw) took a handful out of that and bestowed it upon the people. HE (THE PERSON who had met the Prophet at Ji’rana) said to him:
Muhammed, do justice. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Woe be upon you, who would do justice if I do not do justice, and you would be miserable and a loser if I do not do justice. Upon this Umar b. Khattab said: Permit me to kill this hypocrite. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) said: May there be protection of Allah! People would say that I kill my companions. This man and his companions would recite the Qur’an but it would not go beyond their throat, and they swerve from it just as the arrow goes through the prey.
Prima Qur’an Commentary: “A person“. An anonymous individual.
In this instance it was silver from Bilal and not gold from Ali.
Umar ibn Al Khattab says, “Permit me to kill this hypocrite.” Upon which the Prophet (saw) is reported to have said: “People would say that I kill my companions.”
Why would that be an issue?
If a companion has done something deserving of death?
Who does the Prophet (saw) report to other than Allah (swt)?
Also, it didn’t seem to be an issue in the following hadith:
“On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Messenger of Allah (saw) gave protection to the People except for four men and two women, and he named them. Ibn Abi Sarh was one of them. He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn Abi Sarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Messenger of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his head and looked at him three times, denying him every time. After the third time he received his oath. He then turned to his Companions and said: Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We do not know, Messenger of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us a hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye.”
Remember that Umar ibn Al Khattab (ra) supposedly called this man a hypocrite and wanted permission to cut off his head (if we are to combine the reports). Ibn Kathir apparently says this person is Hurqus (ra). How could Umar ibn Al Khattab (ra) use Hurqus (ra) — (who is a supposed hypocrite) as a leader of armies and fighting battles on behalf of the Muslims? This makes no sense!
Tabari next says (paragraph 2538 Vol. 13, pp. 119–120):
“When Muslim warriors invaded al-Hurmuzan’s territory and set up their camp close to where he was in al-Ahwaz, he realized that he lacked manpower to overcome them. So he begged for peace, whereupon they wrote about that proposal to Utbah, asking him for directives in this matter. Al-Hurmuzan sent a letter to Utbah who, while accepting the proposed peace treaty, answered that al-Hurmuzan was to remain in control of all of al-Ahwaz and Mihrijan Qadhaq with the exception of Nahr Tira and Manadhir and that area of Suq al-Ahwas that the Muslims had already conquered. What we had liberated from Persian rule would not be returned to them. Sulma b. al-Qayn placed a garrison in Manadhir under the command of Ghalib, and Harmala placed one in Nahr Tira under the command of Kulayb. They had formerly commanded the forces of al-Basra.
(paragraph 2541) Umar Ibn Al Khattab sends “Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sadione of the Prophet’s Companions as reinforcement.” and “So, when they crossed over the bridge to the other side, fighting broke out while they were still on that part directly facing Suq al-Ahwas. In the end al-Hurmuzan was beaten. He set out in the direction of Ramhurmuz took a village called al-Shaghar on the dam of Arbuk and finally alighted at Ramhurmuz. Hurqus conquered Suq al-Ahwaz and took up residence there. Then he entered the mountain region, and the administration of the whole region from Suq al-Ahwaz all the way to Tustar became well organized. He imposed the jizah, wrote the news about the conquest to Umar Ibn Al Khattab and sent fifth parts of the booty acquired in the different areas, dispatching a delegation to carry this to him.”
Tabari quotes a poem by “al-Aswad b. Sari” (paragraph 2542): “We wrested from al-Hurmuzan a whole area so rich in provisions in every district. It’s dry land and water supply well in balance, when excellent groves come to early fruition. This land has a turbulent stream into which pored tributaries from both sides, always overflowing.” Then In paragraph 2543, Tabari says: “When al-Hurmuzan had arrived in Ramhurmuz and the province of al_ahwaz had become full of the Muslims settling in it, even right in front of him, he sent a peace agreement and sent messages to Hurqus and Jaz asking for this.” Hurmuzan was defeated again in Ramhormoz.
Sources: (The History of al-Tabari Vol. 13 page 140)
Prima Qur’an Commentary:
Ask yourself the question dear reader. How on earth is Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) going to send a munafiq with the flag of Islam to go to conquered lands? Umar ibn Al Khattab (ra), who was a caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate sent an army under Hurqus ibn Zuhayr al-Sa’di (ra) who defeated Hormuzan in 638 at Hormizd-Ardashir!
The Historical Ḥurqūṣ: A Valued Commander, Not a Reviled Outcast A most powerful evidence. The historical record from al-Tabari is unequivocal:
Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) personally appointed Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr (ra) as a commander of a Muslim army during the conquest of Persia.
Ḥurqūṣ (ra) was successful, leading troops to victory at Suq al-Ahwaz and imposing jizyah. He sent the khums (one-fifth of the booty) back to ‘Umar in Medina.
This is not the action of a caliph towards a man he believed to be the “progenitor of the dogs of hellfire.” ‘Umar, who in the hadiths wanted to behead the critic, would never later entrust a entire army and the spread of Islam to that same man.
This historical fact completely dismantles the narrative of conflation. It is logically impossible for the Ḥurqūṣ (ra) who was a trusted general under ‘Umar (ra) to be the same individual as the one ‘Umar (ra) wanted to kill for hypocrisy in front of the Blessed Prophet upon him be peace).
Sunni website goes all out in castigating the sahaba Hurqus b Zuhair al-Sa’di (ra)
Now go and look at this Sunni website and see how they try and defame the sahabah Hurqus (ra). First they bring up this name: Dhu’th-Thudayyah, which is not the companion Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di
Dhuth-Thudayyah’s full name was Hurqoos ibn Zuhayr al-Bajali. He was one of the Khawaarij (Khaarijites) who rebelled against Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), spread mischief in the land and shed blood that it was forbidden to shed. ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) fought them at the battle of an-Nahrawand and killed them; none of them escaped except a few.
The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) urged the believers to fight them. The first of them was Dhu’l-Khuwaysirah at-Tameemi, who told the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): Be fair! And Dhu’th-Thudayyah was the last of them.
He was a very dark black man, who had a foul odour and a deformed arm; there was only an upper arm, with no forearm, and at the end of his upper arm there was something like a nipple on which there were some white hairs.
They (the Khawaarij) are the ones concerning whom the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Among the progeny of this man will be people who will recite the Qur’an, but it will not go any further than their throats. They will pass through Islam as an arrow passes through the prey. They will kill the people of Islam and leave the idol-worshippers alone. If I live to see them, then I will certainly kill them like ‘Aad (i.e., as ‘Aad were destroyed).”.
Dhu’th-Thudayyah was the sign of these people; he was the sign of fitnah (turmoil) and a symbol of mischief and evil.
When ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and the believers who were with him fought them, he asked them to look for this man among the slain, and they found him. ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and those who were with him rejoiced greatly at that, and ‘Ali prostrated to Allah in gratitude.
al-Bukhaari (3610) and Muslim (1064) narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Whilst we were with the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and he was sharing out some wealth, Dhu’l-Khuwaysirah, a man from Banu Tameem, came to him and said: O Messenger of Allah, be fair! The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Woe to you! Who will be fair if I am not fair? You will be doomed and lost if I am not fair.” ‘Umar said: O Messenger of Allah, give me permission to strike his neck. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Let him be, for he has companions, in comparison to whose prayer one of you would regard his prayer as insignificant, and he would regard his fasting as insignificant in comparison to their fasting. They recite the Qur’an but it does not go any further than their collarbones. They will pass out of the faith as an arrow passes out of the prey. Their sign will be a black man, one of whose upper arms will be like a woman’s breast, or like a piece of quivering flesh. They will emerge when there is division among the people.
Abu Sa’eed said: I bear witness that I heard this hadeeth from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and I bear witness that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib fought them when I was with him. He ordered that man be sought, and he was found and brought; I looked at him and saw that he was just as the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had described him.
According to another report narrated by them (al-Bukhaari and Muslim): “Among the progeny of this man will be people who will recite the Qur’an, but it will not go any further than their throats. They will pass through Islam as an arrow passes through the prey. They will kill the people of Islam and leave the idol-worshippers alone. If I live to see them, then I will certainly kill them like ‘Aad (i.e., as ‘Aad were destroyed).
It was narrated that Naafi‘ ibn Maslamah al-Akhnasi said: Dhu’th-Thudayyah was a man from (the clan of) ‘Arnah from (the tribe of) Bajeelah. He was a very dark black man who had a foul odour. He was well-known among the troops, and before that he used to accompany us.
Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah, 7/289
Ibn al-Atheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Dhu’th-Thudayyah – thudayyah is the diminutive of thadiy (breast nipple) And may be taken as meaning a piece of a breast.
An-Nihaayah, 1/592
Muslim (1066) narrated from ‘Ubaydah as-Salmaani, from ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that he mentioned the Khawaarij and said: and said: Among them is a man with a defective arm, or a small arm. I would tell you what Allah promised on the lips of Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) to those who kill them. I said: Did you hear that from Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? He said: Yes, by the Lord of the Ka‘bah; yes, by the Lord of the Ka‘bah; yes, by the Lord of the Ka‘bah.
Muslim (1066) and Abu Dawood (4768) narrated that Salamah ibn Kuhayl said: Zayd ibn Wahb al-Juhani told me that he was
He was in the army that was with ‘Ali and went out to fight the Khawaarij. ‘Ali said: O people, I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “There will appear some people among my ummah who will recite the Qur’an and your recitation will not compare to theirs, and your prayer will not compare to theirs, and your fasting will not compare to theirs. They will recite the Qur’an and you will think that it is to their credit but in fact it will count against them. Their prayer will not go any deeper than their collar bones and they will pass out of Islam as an arrow passes out of the prey. If the army that attacks them knew what has been decreed for them on the lips of their Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), they would have relied on their deeds. The sign of that is that among them there is a man who has an upper arm but no forearm, and on his upper arm there is something like a nipple with white hairs on it. Would you go to Mu’aawiyah and the people of Syria, and leave these people in charge of your families and wealth in your absence? By Allah, I hope that they are the same people, for they have shed blood unlawfully and attacked the people’s cattle. March in the name of Allah.
Salamah ibn Kuhayl said: Zayd ibn Wahb described to me the stops (made by the army) until he said: then we crossed a bridge, and when we met (the Khawaarij), who were being led that day by ‘Abd-Allah ibn Wahb al-Raasibi, he (‘Abd-Allah) said to (his men): Throw your spears and draw your swords from their sheaths, for I am afraid that they may urge you to negotiate as they did on the day of Haroora’. So they threw their spears and unsheathed their swords, and (the companions of ‘Ali) fought back with their spears, and they (the Khawaarij) were killed and piled up one on top of another, but only two of the people (i.e., the companions of ‘Ali) were killed that day. ‘Ali said: Search among them for the one with the deformed hand. But they did not find him. Then ‘Ali himself went to some people who had been killed and were lying on top of one another. They took them out and found him among those who were closest to the ground (at the bottom of the pile). He said takbeer and said: Allah spoke the truth and His Messenger conveyed it. ‘Ubaydah al-Salmaani stood up and said: O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, by Allah besides Whom there is no other god, did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? He said: Yes, by Allah besides Whom there is no other god – until he asked him to swear three times and he did so.
Then Abu Dawood narrated that Abu’l-Wadee’ said: It is as if I can see him, an Abyssinian wearing a shirt, one of his hands like a woman’s nipple with hairs on it like the hairs on the tail of a jerboa.
Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.
Ahmad (850) narrated that Taariq ibn Ziyaad said: We went out with ‘Ali to fight the Khawaarij, and he killed them then he said: Look, for the Prophet of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that there would emerge people who would speak of the truth but it would not go past their throats; they will pass out of the truth as the arrow passes out of the prey. The sign is that one of them will be a black man with a deformed arm, with some black hairs on his arm. If it is him, then you have killed the worst of people, and if it is not him, then you have killed the best of people. And we wept, then he said: Look. So we looked and we found the deformed man, and we fell down in prostration and ‘Ali fell down in prostration with us.
This hadeeth has several isnaads; see al-Irwa’, 2/231
Al-Haafiz (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It was narrated that Abu Maryam said: Indeed that deformed man was with us in the mosque, and he was a poor man. I gave him a burnous of mine to wear and I saw him attending meals with ‘Ali. He had on his arm something like the breast of a woman, with a nipple on its end like the nipple of a breast, with something on it like the whiskers of a cat. Both reports were narrated by Abu Dawood.
At-Tabari narrated it at length via Abu Maryam. In it, it says: Before that, ‘Ali used to tell us that some people would appear and the sign would be a man with a deformed arm. I heard that from him many times until I saw him – meaning the deformed man – not wanting to eat with ‘Ali because he often heard that from him. And in it, it says: Then he instructed his companions to look for the deformed man, so they looked for him but they could not find him until a man came and told him: We have found him beneath two slain men in a ditch.
According to the report of Aflah: ‘Ali said: Which of you recognizes this man? One of the people said: We recognize him; this is Hurqoos.
According to the report of ‘Aasim ibn Shamkh, Abu Sa‘eed said: Ten of the Companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) told me that ‘Ali said: Look for the sign that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) spoke of, for I have never told lies and I will never tell lies. He (that man) was brought, and ‘Ali praised and thanked Allah when he recognised the sign. In the report of Abu Bakr, the freed slave of the Ansaar, from ‘Ali, there were seven nipples around it. In that report it states that the people were upset after the killing of the people of the river, but ‘Ali said: I do not think but he was one of them. They found him on the bank of the river, beneath the slain. ‘Ali said: Allah and His Messenger spoke the truth. The people rejoiced when they saw his body, and what they had been feeling disappeared.
End quote from Fath al-Baari, 12/298
For more information on the sect of the Khawaarij (Kharijites), please see the answer to question no. 182237. And Allah knows best.
Prima Qur’an Comments.
Our argument is devastatingly simple and to the point: Show usthe hadith where the Blessed Prophet (saw) says, “Hurqus ibn Zuhayr is a Khariji.” They cannot, because it doesn’t exist. The named figure in the hadith is ‘Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi.
They get confused between Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di and Dhu’l-Khuwaysirah. This seems to have its origin with Ibn Kathir, who himself does not supply the narrations he claims are from Bukhari and Muslim. Also, don’t you find it odd that when mentioning the bad qualities of an individual you start off with:
“He was a very dark black man, who had a foul odour and a deformed arm; there was only an upper arm, with no forearm, and at the end of his upper arm there was something like a nipple on which there were some white hairs.”
“He was a very dark black man who had a foul odour.“
This is jarring. Not a good look at all, Ahl Sunnah not a good look at all!
Remember the hadith quoted above? We will produce it here again:
Narrated Abu Sa`id:
While the Prophet (saw) was DISTRIBUTING (SOMETHING,`Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira at-Tamimi came and said, “Be just, O Allah’s Messenger (saw)!” The Prophet (saw) said, “Woe to you ! Who would be just if I were not?” `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, “Allow me to cut off his neck ! ” The Prophet (saw) said, Leave him, for he has companions, and if you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers and fasting, in comparison to theirs. Yet they will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game’s body in which case, if the Qudhadh of the arrow is examined, nothing will be found on it, and when its Nasl is examined, nothing will be found on it; and then its Nadiyi is examined, nothing will be found on it. The arrow has been too fast to be smeared by dung and blood. The sign by which these people will be recognized will be A MAN whose one hand (or breast) will be like the breast of a woman (or like a moving piece of flesh). These people will appear when there will be differences among the people (Muslims).” Abu Sa`id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet (saw) and also testify that `Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet (saw) was brought to `Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person (i.e., `Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi): ‘And among THEM are MEN who accuse you (O Muhammed) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.’ (9.58)
`Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi IS NOT Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di. Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di (ra) is a righteous companion. He fought hard to with the banner of Islam in his hand. He left the camp of Ali at Siffin when he saw that Ali settled for the arbitration. He is a noble man who the detractors of truth want to defame!
The Case for Ḥurqūṣ:
Companionship: He was a recognized companion (ṣaḥābī), and this status commands respect.
Sincere Motive: His opposition to ʿAlī at Nahrawān was, from his perspective, based on a rigorous understanding of the Qur’an and what it called for at that time: “No judgment but Allah’s” (لَا حُكْمَ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ).
Not the “First Kharijite”: Mainstream Sunni historiography distinguishes between the early Muḥakkima (those who cried “lā ḥukma” at Ṣiffīn) and what they consider the later, more extreme Khawārij
A Call for Nuance:
Contextualizing Ḥurqūṣ’s Actions: His opposition to ʿAlī should be understood within the complex political and theological chaos of the First Fitna. He was not a “dog of hellfire” but a sincere, Muslim who with a group that left ‘Ali’s camp because they believed his acceptance of arbitration was a sin against the rule of Allah. Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr (ra) was among them when ‘Ali waged war against them at the Battle of Nahrawan.
Later Sunni historiography, written from a polemical standpoint against the Muḥakkima, had a motive to tarnish the origins of this movement. What better way to do that than to retroactively link Ḥurqūṣ to the prophetic prophecies about the ‘dogs of hellfire’?
By conflating him with the anonymous/Dhul-Khuwaysirah figure, they could:
Demonize the Muḥakkima : Frame them not as sincere Muslims, but as the literal fulfillment of a prophecy about a people born from a hypocrite.
Justify their Extermination: If they are the “dogs of hellfire,” then fighting them is not just a political necessity but a religious duty.
Protect the Narrative: It discredits any potential valid criticism from the Muḥakkima’s early stance by associating it entirely with a condemned group.
Conclusion: A Successful Vindication insh’Allah Our defense of Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr (ra) is compelling and, based on the evidence we’ve presented, largely successful. A just (‘ādil) conclusion must acknowledge:
Two Distinct Figures: The evidence strongly suggests that ‘Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi (the supposed critic in the booty distribution narrations) and Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr aṣ-Ṣa’di (the companion, general of ‘Umar, and later seceder at Ṣiffīn) were two different people.
Historical Conflation: A conflation of these two figures occurred in later Islamic historiography and continues to be perpetuated by modern scholars and websites (like IslamQA.info) without critical examination of the primary sources.
Motive for Conflation: This conflation served a sectarian and polemical purpose: to retroactively tarnish the early Muḥakkima movement by linking one of its prominent figures directly to a damning prophecy.
The Status of Ḥurqūṣ: He should be remembered as a Companion of the Blesed Prophet (saw) who was among the first teeth of Islam, was a trusted general of Caliph ‘Umar (ra).
Is acknowledged in the books of those who call themselves people of the Sunnah that the people of Nahrwan the following:
“ He said: and who are these?By Allah they are the first teeth, the companions of Muhammed, Ahl Al Barani wa Sawari, which are the Ahl Suffa.”
Source: (Al-Kitab Al-Musannaf Fi Al-Ahadith Wal A’thar (The classified book in Hadiths and Narrations) By Imam Al-Hafiz: Abu Bakr Abdullah Bin Muhammed Bin Abi Shaibah Al-Kufi Al-Absi Volume 7)
Our call to “Be Just!” We have provided a powerful corrective to a historical injustice embedded within the tradition, demanding a return to the primary texts and a more nuanced understanding of the companions and the tragic conflicts that divided them.
You may also be interested in reading our article here:
Prima Quran 