“He only orders you to evil and immorality and to say about Allah what you do not know. And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?” (Qur’an 2:169-170)
﷽
When it comes to the issue of the Qur’an being created and the topic of the attributes of Allah (swt), we could put this into four views. This brief entry will show where these four denominations have overlapping agreement and/or disagreement.
A. There are four denominations in this subject.
Ibadi.
Muutazila.
Ahl Sunnah.
Jahmia.
Here are the points.
Ibadi & Mutazila say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are nothing other than Allah (swt)
Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are other things with/than Allah (swt).
Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt).
Ibadi & Mutzalia say: Qur’an is not an attribute of Allah (swt).
Jahmia say: Attributes of Allah are created by Allah (swt).
Ahl Sunnah say: All attributes of Allah aren’t created by Allah (swt).
We (The Ibadi) say there is evidence to prove that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt).
For the Jahmia, the proof that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt) is that the Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt). For them, all the attributes of Allah (swt) are created by Allah (swt).
Ibadi, Mutazalia & Ahl Sunnah all say anyone who believes that the attributes of Allah is created are kaafir. (disbelievers of shirk)
We, the Ibadi, say: The Qur’an is a word of Allah and created by Allah, but we don’t say the Qur’an is an attribute of Allah (swt).
“Our belief is upon Haqq and the belief of the Jahmia is upon kufr and batil.” -Shaykh Hamed Hafidh
We want to thank our teacher Shaykh Hamed Hafidh As Sawafi (hafidullah) for this explanation.
We do not have any reports from a companion(sahabah) to the contrary. So, our interlocutors will either have to weaken the hadith or employ interpretive principles to dismiss it as sound evidence.
Alas, Saudi, Salafi translations cannot hide the fact that the Qur’an is created.
The making the Qur’an Arabic is natural making, because it is a meaning abiding with the Qur’an, namely its being Arabic. This means that it will either be transforming from one quality to another.
1) It was first not-Arabic then Allah invented in it this quality (of being Arabic).
2) Or (it will be) creating it with this quality from the beginning
As Allah created, the sun joined with the quality of being a lamp; and as Allah created the night with the quality of being a covering, and created the day with the quality of being a space for seeking livelihood. That is definitely the sense that it is used here. In the case of making an Arabic Qur’an. This is also because of the non-existence of anything to indicate that it was not non-Arabic before, and then Allah transformed it into Arabic. As for its being Arabic since forever, relating the verb ‘making’ to it in this way is impermissible in reason and in the dictionary, because ‘making’ is an action and action precedes what is enacted, so ‘making’ definitely precedes the made.
The same will be said about His saying, Glorified is He: ‘But We made it a light, We guide by it whoever We will from among Our servants’ (Qur’an 42:52)
This will appear as self-evident to whoever reflects on the meaning of ‘making’, and thinks about the Eternal Necessary attributes of Allah, Exalted is He, and the impossibility of relating ‘making’ to these attributes. For it is impossible in law that one should say that Allah has made His Knowledge All-Encompassing, or His Power All-Containing, or that Allah has made His Existence Pre-Eternal and Sempiternal, or that He has made His Hearing catch all sounds, or made His Seeing encompass all that is visible-because these phrases imply Allah’s production of these attributes.
Even if the interlocutors want to state that Allah (swt) could have made his revelation in Hebrew or Aramaic or Hindi or Greek, they have no escape from the two categories above.
A) First, there is no textual proof that the Qur’an was non-Arabic before being Arabic. Even if it was the case, that would be a clear admission of defeat. That is because of the admission of contradiction-an eternal abiding quality going through a change. From one state to another.
B) Because there is no proof for A we are left with the clear meaning of the Qur’an. One in which we do not superimpose our theology upon it. The Qur’an has been made in Arabic.
The knock-out blow has already been delivered. However, some are tenacious in clinging to false beliefs. They will often use every day Arabic vernacular that they think are great examples that the layperson will understand. However, those examples actually work against them!
“He made us dance.” ”He made his son the King.”
So, even in both of these examples, we need to ask:
Is being the King an eternal quality abiding in the individual or was this something that came about before it did not exist?
Can it be said that dancing is an eternal action abiding in the individual or is it merely a transitional state from non-dancing to dancing?
Made — is that which is transferred from one state to the other, which cannot be except in that which is created. The second is the reasoning of its being made in the Arabic language with the intention that the one being addressed may understand it.
Like that verse are all the verses which make it clear that it is made. For example, His saying, Exalted is He: “But We have made it a light, We guide by it whomever We will from among our servants.” (Qur’an 42:52).
Imam Muhammad b. Aflah, (Ra) has commented on the evidence of ‘making’ as affirmation of its being created; he says:
“The ummah is in consensus that every doer is before his doing, and the maker is before the making, and the artist is before the art, and that the maker is other than the made. When the difference and precedence between them has been affirmed, then it is true that they are two things, and that the first and precedent is the Eternal Maker, and the second, the made, is the originated, being after it had not been.” Source: (The Overwhelming Truth)
He has argued from ‘making’ when referred to Allah, in many verses which denote it-such as His saying, Exalted is He: “He made the darkness and the light”. (Qur’an 6:1)
His saying: “Me made from it, its pair.” (Qur’an 7:189)
His saying: “He it is that has made for you the night that you may rest therein, and the day to make things visible to you.” (Qur’an 10:67)
His saying: “Or who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and set a separating barrier between the two seas.” (Qur’an 27:61)
His saying: “Of the hills He made some for your shelter.” (Qur’an 16:81)
His saying: “And has made for you ships and cattle on which you ride.” (Qur’an 43:2)
His saying: “And made the sun as a lamp.”(Qur’an 71:16)
His saying: “And We made the night and the day signs.” (Qur’an 17:12). Similar to those (verses is the meaning of ‘making’) in His saying:
“Have WE not made the earth as a place to draw together.” (Qur’an 77:25)
His saying: ‘Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse; and the mountains as pegs; and created you in pairs; and made your sleep for rest; and made the night as a covering; and made the day as a means of subsistence’. (Qur’an 78:6-11) and other verses.
Imam Abu l-Yaqazan Muhammed b.Aflah (May Allah have mercy on him), says:
“The meaning of ‘made’ in these places that we have cited is ‘created’. And so it is for the one who opposes [our argument], but not, he claims, in the context of the Qur’an, because ‘making’ in the Qur’an is other than creation. If that is allowed for him, then it must be allowed [also] for another to oppose that and say some similar thing about [something] other than the Qur’an-that the ‘making’, about which we [Ibadis and Hanbalis] agree, has the meaning ‘creation’, has [for him] another meaning than ‘creation’. But what is the difference between the two ‘makings’? For [if there is a difference] it means that Allah has addressed the Arabs with what they do not understand of their speech, and what they do not know of their language, and with what there in it is allowed for them to be in doubt and uncertainty about. In one place, ‘making’ is in the meaning of ‘creation’, ‘origination’ and ‘management’. And in another place [it has] another meaning that we do not understand, and we do not know. The All-Wise is not described as such!”
When we and they agree that ‘making’ in His saying ”And He made the sun a lamp.” (Qur’an 71:16)
His saying: “Indeed, We have made what is on the earth an adornment for it.” (Qur’an 18:7) His saying: “He made for you from yourselves pairs.” (Qur’an 42:11)
His saying: “And He made darkness and light.” (Qur’an 6:1) -is in the meaning of ‘creation’, then all ‘making’ when it is by Allah is in the meaning of creation. In that will be included the Qur’an and other than the Qur’an. Otherwise, debating will become pointless and any evidence [for the argument] will not be valid.
“If they oppose -relying on the saying of Allah: “It was not Allah who made slit eared she-camels or she-camels let loose in pasture.” (Qur’an 5:103) It will be said-Yes Allah did not create a slit-eared she-camel as a slit-eared she-camel, as you claim, nor a she-camel let loose in pasture as a she-camel let loose in pasture, as you claim. Rather, He negated from Himself what He did not do as the polytheist claimed [that He did]. So he criticized them because of their innovation. Its meaning is that We did not create you as you have described, rather, We created against that which you have described. The negation here is of the particular qualifier, not of the particular creation.”
“Like that is His saying: “Surely I will make you a leader for mankind.” (Qur’an 2:124) i.e. I will create in you the quality that was not in you, and the meaning that was not found in you, and I had not done so in you before that. The meaning of ‘made’ wherever it is found is ‘created’, ‘managed’, and all that is the same meaning, though the words are different.”
Prima-Qur’an comment: Another example is the following:
“Allāh has not made (ja’ala) for a man two hearts in his interior. And He has not made (ja’ala) your wives whom you declare unlawful your mothers. And He has not made (ja’ala) your claimed [i.e., adopted] sons your [true] sons. That is [merely] your saying by your mouths, but Allāh says the truth, and He guides to the [right] way.” (Qur’an 33:4)
One of them actually made the comment to us: “Can we say that Allah didn’t create sons or hearts or wives?” Of course not! Such a bizarre conclusion. Again, the negation is of a particular type or qualifier, not of the creation itself. Another thing we wish they had pondered is that if Allah (swt) had made (ja’ala) for man two hearts, or made (ja’ala) our wives our mothers, or made (ja’ala) our adopted sons our real sons the same word (ja’ala) would still be applicable.
That is Muhammad b. Aflah’s statement about ‘making’. (May Allah’s abundant mercy be upon him).
We add to that, we investigated occurrences of ‘making’ in the Qur’an referred to Allah, and we found it fell in either of two classes.
The ‘making’ is either natural or legal. In both there is creation of what did not exist (before).
In natural making, for example, there are the following:
In His saying: “He made from it its pair.” (Qur’an 7:189)
His saying: “And has made for you ships and cattle on which you ride.” (Qur’an 32:12)
His saying: “He made the sun a lamp.” (Qur’an 71:16) –The meaning of origination and contingency is clear.
The legal ‘making’ is as in His saying in the following:
“Surely I will make you a leader for mankind.” (Qur’an 2:124)
Another example of the same is the negated making in His saying, Exalted is He: “It was not Allah Who made a slit-ear she-camel or a she-camel let loose in pasture.” (Qur’an 5:103) i.e. He did not legalize the slitting of its ear. An(other) example of the legal ‘making’ is His saying, Exalted is He: “And He made the qiblah to which you were used only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels.” (Qur’an 2:143)
The differences between the two ‘makings’ are as follows:
The first of them is bringing into existence the essence of the made thing or an abiding quality of it which did not exist before. That implies bringing the made from one state to another state, or from one quality to another quality. That (turning from one to another state) is accomplished when ‘making’ is referred to mankind, and it is in the meaning of turning from one state to another, as (when) I made the dough bread, the flour dough. In both cases, there is a turning of the made from one state to another state in which it was not before. The flour being made dough was not dough, and the dough before being made bread was not bread. It is not understood from this other than that the thing made is moving with the making from what it was before (to the changed state).
The second is inventing a law that turns (the object of the action) from one verdict to another one, like the Ka’bah being made the qiblah of the Muslims after Bayt al-Maqdis had been their qiblah.
Dealing with objections: May Allah (swt) guide the sincere.
An objection has been offered to the argument for the creation of the Qur’an from its being made Arabic-that ‘making’ is sometimes other than creation, as in the following examples:
“They make for Allah daughters, Glorified Is He.” (Qur’an 16:57)
“Still, the pagans have made some of His creation out to be a part of Him. Indeed, humankind is clearly ungrateful.” (Qur’an 43:15)
“They made angels who are servants of the Most Gracious females.” (Qur’an 43:19)
His saying: “You make it your provision that you lie.” (Qur’an 56:82).
The answer to this is that the distance between the two ‘makings’ and makers is immense. The making, in the context of what we are here discussing,is an affirmed action referring to Allah, Exalted is He. Whoever rejects it or rejects its effect (namely, the Qur’an), has unbelieved. That which is made—namely, the Qur’an in Arabic, its giving light and its guidance is an established reality. Whoever rejects it, he has certainly unbelieved.
The ‘making’ in what they have objected to is a falsehood referring to the unbelievers. They made—namely, the angels being feminine — is nothing. Whoever affirms that will be regarded as an unbeliever. Who affirms that the made some of his creation to be a part of him is an unbeliever.
There is no problem with the sameness of the letters of the verb (ja’ala)in both references—namely,jim, ‘ayn, lam—because the verb in reference to Allah has one meaning, and in reference to someone else has another meaning regardless of there being no difference in the word. Examples:
“He is who created you and those before you.” (Qur’an 2:21)
“And Allah created you and whatever you do.” (Qur’an 37:96)
“Indeed We have created man from a quintessence of clay.” (Qur’an 23:12)
“We have indeed created man in the best of molds.” (Qur’an 95:4)-and other similar verses where the creation is referred to Allah.
It is in all cases with the meaning of bringing from non-being into being. You will find this same verb, the same word and the same letters, referred to the unbelievers. It has (in those references) a sense that is not proper to the righteous servants of Allah, let alone its being permissible in respect of Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, Exalted is He. That (meaning) is (explicit) in His saying: “And you created falsehood.”(Qur’an 29:17).
So the meaning of the word is the same.
Is there any way to interpret that in one place according to the meaning of the other?
Or is the comparison between the two verbs as impossible as the impossibility of the comparison between the two doers?
“For that is Allah, your Lord, the Truth. And what can be beyond truth except error? How then are you turned away?”(Qur’an 10: 32)
For more information you may wish to read our article here:
“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created (khalaqahu) him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
﷽
The Qur’an is Created because Jesus is Not God.
That is to say, because Jesus (as) is not the uncreated word of Allah, neither is the Qur’an the uncreated word of Allah.
The Qur’an is Uncreated = Jesus is the eternal attribute of Allah.
This would mean, according to Sunni theology (Athari, Ash’ari, Maturidi), that Jesus is not identical to Allah’s essence, but he is not other than Allah’s essence either.
Christian theology states that Jesus (as) existed as the Word of Allah before being placed inside of Mary (as).
فِي البَدْءِ كَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَوْجُودًا -In the beginning the Word (AlKalimat) Existed.
وَكَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ، -And the Word (AlKalimat) was with Allah.
وَكَانَ الكَلِمَةُ هُوَ اللهَ. –And the Word (AlKalimat) was Allah.
كَانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ فِي البَدْءِ – The Word (AlKaimat) was with Allah in the beginning.
بِهِ خُلِقَ كُلُّ شيءٍ، -By Him all things were created.
وَبِدُونِهِ لَمْ يُخلَقْ شَيءٌ مِمَّا خُلِقَ. -And without Him nothing would have been created.
Is Jesus the created word of Allah or the uncreated word of Allah?
“When the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word (bikalimatin)from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. (Qur’an 3:45)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words (bikalimati) of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)
Mary (as) is believing in the Lord and his words. Meaning they are not identical.
“O People of the Scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalam al-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)
“Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)
All these words come from the same Arabic trilateral root.
ك ل م (kaf) (lam) (mim) Jesus is the created word of Allah (swt) just as the Qur’an is the created word of Allah (swt). If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the uncreated word of Allah (swt), then that would be Christianity. If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the created word of Allah (swt), that would be Islam and the path of safety.
One of our teachers has known of people who have left Islam for Christianity. You also encounter them online and some of them have said a study of the Qur’an helped in making that decision. We would submit that it was not the Qur’an that lead them to this decision but a certain theological perspective about the Qur’an and Jesus being Allah’s creation and command not being able to distinguish between the two.
We have never heard of a Muslim who believes that Allah (swt) alone is the Creator and everything else (including the Qur’an as being created) becomes a Christian.
So what we are looking for is consistency.
On what consistent basis is Jesus ‘the word of Allah’ (kalimatuhu) created but the Qur’an (kalam al-lahi) ‘the words of Allah’ uncreated? Listen to what Mohamed Hijab says above.
“The word is actually defined as Kun.” -Mohamed Hijab
If the word is defined as ‘Kun’, then according to the following Sunni Muslims, then Jesus (as) is the uncreated Word of Allah.
We have actually had one Sunni Muslim brother from India (no doubt equipped with his Shaykhs and Alims) come and assert the following thinking it would be some powerful argument and not realizing they had erred in the following:come
1) The lack of depth in understanding the Qur’an and Arabic.
2) The bizarre theological implications of their view.
So they advanced the following:
“He is the One Who has originated the heavens and the earth, and when He wills to (originate) a thing, He only says to (lahu) it: ‘Be’, and it becomes.” (Qur’an 2:117)
“All it takes, when He wills something ˹to be˺, is simply to say to (lahu) it: “Be!” And it is!” (Qur’an 36:82)
So their argument was that if the ‘kun’ was created, then you would need another ‘kun’ to create that ‘kun’, leading to an infinite number of ‘kun’ regressing back through time.
If this saying (of ‘Be’) had (itself) been created, then it would not be correct to (say that) the creations were created by it, because the creation is not created by a creature.
Going back to the opening verse of this article:
“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created (khalaqahu) him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)
A transliteration would be:
inna mathala ʿīsā ʿinda l-lahi kamathali ādama khalaqahu min turābin thumma qāla lahu kun fayakūn
The audio of it is here:
A) It is not really explained by our interlocutors how the word ‘kun’in which the sound‘n’ is eternal when that sound itself is preceded by the sound‘k’, which presumably is eternal.
B) One will not fail to note that in all the verses above (Q 3:59, 2:117, 36:82) that grammatically the structure of the sentence is that Allah (swt) is saying to the ‘lahu’ translated above as ‘he’ or ‘it. “Be!”
Thus, they want us to believe that Allah (swt) is saying to his knowledge of all things (which exist for all eternity) to ‘be’ and it becomes!
The meaning of ‘Be’ in the like of His saying, exalted, is He, “For to anything which We have willed, We but say “Be” then it is.” (Qur’an 16:40)
This relates to the execution of His Will. Exalted is He, in respect of anything of the mumkinat (what is possible) in the context of giving it existence or completing it. It is explained by his Saing, “When We have willed’ i.e. When Our Will has conjoined with it in a way of execution (of the command). Because ‘when’ is for time in the future, and this is emphasized in His saying: “an naqula la-hu.” (that We say to it), (Qur’an 16:40) which is in the imperfect tense which, when it is with ‘an’, means the future.
It is known with certainty that whatever is since forever-like His Knowledge, His Power and His Life-the Will cannot be conjoined with it, because nothing can precede (what is eternal).
And this is emphasized by His saying ‘fa-yakun’ (then it is), the connecting particle ‘fa’ meaning order and sequence. From this you know that His saying, exalted is He, ‘kun fa-yakun’, is, wherever it occurs, nothing but an indirect expression of the speedy response of things to Him, glorified is He, in accordance with the conjunction of His Will with these things. Otherwise, there is no utterance of kaf nun (kun) in the concrete sense (of utterance). If we accept that, then we will say that our discussion is about the Word revealed, such as the Qur’an, not the Word unrevealed.
It is also a metaphor for the expediency of Allah’s creative command.
“Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days” (Qur’an 7:54).
“So woe to those who pray yet are unmindful of their prayers.” (Qur’an 107: 104-105)
﷽
Malik ibn Al-Huwayrith reported:
We came to the Prophet (saw) while we were young men, and we stayed with him twenty nights. Then the Prophet considered that we were anxious to see our families, so he asked us who we had left behind to take care of them, and we told him. The Prophet was kindhearted and merciful, and he said, “Return to your families, teach them, and enjoin good upon them.” Pray as you have seen me praying. When the time of prayer arrives, then one of you should announce the call to prayer and the eldest of you should lead the prayer.
Shaykh Uthman REFUTES Shi’i lies on Folding Hands in Prayer [MUST WATCH]
It is refreshing to see that those who claim to be following the early generations are starting to relax their position on this matter. Al hamdulillah.
For example, Salafi preacher, Assim Al Hakeem mentions that one can pray with their arms to the side with no problem.
If you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable -Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq.
Shaykh Uthman says @0:46 “If you feel that you want to pray with your hands to your side ,and you feel that’s the correct opinion based on the evidence that you have seen, it’s up to you. No problem. That’s between you and Allah. I believe with the evidences from the Qur’an itself and from the authentic hadith of the Prophet (saw) and the sahabam, ahl bayt and others that the sunnah is to fold the hands.”
Shaykh Uthman says @1:09 “But I’m not pushing that opinion. I don’t believe in dividing the ummah based on this. I believe even if you pray with your hands down, your salah is still acceptable.”
Shaykh Uthman says @3:24 “Now when, whether you fold your hands or don’t fold your hands, personally I’m not going to argue with you on this issue. If you feel this is the way of the Prophet (saw), then that’s between you and Allah.”
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq: Misquotes the Shi’i man.
@7:14 “This man is saying there’s not a single narration that shows among the Ahl Sunnah to fold the hands. That’s hwat he’s saying. Listen to him again.”
Actually, that is not what the man said.
The Shi’i man: “Within Ahl Sunnah there is no single proventradition from the holy prophet (peace be upon him and his family in regard to folding of the hands in prayer.”
Proven (adjective) = established beyond doubt.
Something to be mindful of. The idea that something is more established than it truly is. In fact, throughout the video, Shaykh Uthman makes this claim about the Sh’ia man several times.
If one person narrates something to 50 students and those 50 students copy this narration into their books and a person quotes those 50 students, the one listening may get the false impression that the evidence is overwhelming. They may reason to themselves. “Look how many people narrate this.” However, in reality they all quote the one channel.
This is not necessarily dishonest, however, it can give the false impression that something is stronger than what it actually is.
@12:06 “But he mentioned that Ibn Mundhir has mentioned from Ibn Zubayr, from Hassan Al Basri from Nakha’i, about leaving the hands on the side. That not folding the right on the left and this was reported by an-Nawawi, upon the authority of Layth ibn Sa’ad.” (Shaykh Uthman stops reading..)
@12:26 “Now, the honesty that we believe in we quote this. We’re not going to hide anything from you.” (NOTICE THE VIDEO EDIT).
Notice, dear reader, and in this case, dear viewer, that at the point where Shaykh Uthman says, ‘We’re not going to hide anything from you.” The video skips. Which shows that part was cut. Does this mean that nothing was hidden or revealed? Allah knows best. However, it is worth taking note of.
@12:31 “Now what does he say? He says Ibn Al Qassim has mentioned this from Imam Malik one of the great a’immah of Medina that is also reported from him Ibn Al Qassim, but he says he was opposed (@12:47 the video is cut) by Ibn Al Hikim who said that Imam Malik believed in folding the hands as well.
Prima Qur’an:Why can’t Shaykh Uthman simply quote the narration that Imam Malik regarded praying with the hands at side? The way the video is sliced and spliced is done in such a way that it skips over it.
Where did these knowledgeablesalaaf get their view from about placing the hands at the side in prayer?
Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr Al Hassan al-Basri Ibrahim al-Nakha’i Imam Malik
Shaykh Uthman says: @13:49 “20 authentic narrations leading back to 18 different sahaba from the Prophet (saw).”
You have to wonder if that is what Shaykh Uthman believes himself? Are all those narrations authentic? Because it is important to note what Shaykh Uthman is doing is talking about narrations concerning folding the hands in prayer.
Shayky Uthman Ibn Farooq is caught lying.
Shaykh Uthman, while reading from a text, says: @15:04 “We were ordered in the time of the Prophet (saw), as Abu Hazim has clarified, to fold the hands, right on left in the prayer.”
Which Arabic in the text below is he rendering as: ‘In the time of the Prophet’ ?
Often Shaykh Uthman makes mistakes in his Arabic.
@16:03 “Ali radianhu” ???
Insh’Allah we will come back to this hadith. This hadith they feel is their ultimate trump card. Suffice it to say that the text does not say: “were orderedin the time of the Prophet.”
They wish it said that!
We remind Shaykh Uthman the seriousness about lying on the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Narrated `Ali:
The Prophet (saw) said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire.”
Does this really need any comment? Does one really see anything in this text about the placement of hands in the prayer?
Shaykhk Uthman says: @17:12 “Imam Malik himself and I’m going to put a link to the Muwatta Imam Malik in the description. He has an entire chapter in his Muwatta about folding the hands in prayer; from the people of Medina. Not a single hadith in the Muwatta, not a single chapter that says, ‘dangle the hands in prayer’. And Imam Malik style of writing if he saw the people of Madina doing something opposite to that which was narrated, then in the Muwatta he would write, ‘This is what is narrated, but the people of Madina did opposite. But he did not say that about folding the hands.”
There are a few points to take note of.
The Muwatta is not the only work attributed to Imam Malik. The following are also attributed to him.
al-Mudawwanah al-Kubrā
Risālat Mālik ilā al-Layth ibn Saʿd
al-ʿUtibiyyah
2. @12:31 Shaykh Uthman didn’t actually give us the quote that is from Malik on his stance.
3. As we mentioned in our other article. Just because someone narrated something doesn’t mean they acted upon what was narrated. Narrating a hadith shows awareness of its existence.
4. Fiqh is stronger than hadith. Hadith is a narration and fiqh is understanding of the narration.
We mentioned that we would come back to this: “were orderedin the time of the Prophet.”
Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:
The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (saw) .”
Abdullah ibn Maslamah narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa’d, who said: “People were commanded that a man should place his right hand on his left forearm during prayer.” Abu Hazim said: “I know of it only as being attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Isma’il (a narrator in the chain) said: “It is attributed” — and he did not say “he attributes it.”
Effectively, the hadith they think is a trump card actually is an athar. It doesn’t describe something that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did. It describes actions that people did that were attributed to the Prophet (saw).
A note about Sahl ibn Sa’d: He lived to see the Umayyad imperium.
Al-Bukhari’s hadith comes through two chains: one from ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama and the other from Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways, both narrating from Imam Malik ibn Anas, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa‘d, who said: “The people used to be commanded…”
• In the narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama, Abu Hazim said: “I do not know it except that he attributes it (yanmī dhālika) to the Blessed Prophet (saw).”
• In the narration of Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways, it says: “I do not know it except that it is attributed (yunmā dhālika) to him.”
Based on this, the hadith is defective (ma‘lūl), weak, and cannot be used as evidence, because it is merely Abu Hazim’s supposition, and it is also inconsistent (muḍṭarib).
20 different chains from 18 different sahabah?
A Sunni, Maliki scholar Shaykh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali translated a work that showed the problems in these chains.
So when the Shi’i man says: “Within Ahl Sunnah there is no single proventradition from the holy prophet (peace be upon him and his family in regard to folding of the hands in prayer.”
Proven (adjective) = established beyond doubt.
This is correct.
As the article by Shaykh Abdullah states:
“True or not, there exists sufficient doubt about every single report that exists to this effect that weakens the “popular” claim and understanding that it is well established that the Prophet prayed while placing one hand over the other.”
You may also be interested in reading the following:
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq, his first point, lands hard. That was quite embarrassing for the Shi’i to quote that as a reference. Also, something Shi’i has to contend with is the idea of women praying with their hands folded.
However, Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq himself blatantly lied and misled his audience concerning what the Arabic text said.
“Moreover, no burdened soul can bear another’s burden. And if one weighed down by a burden calls another to carry his load, zero of it will be carried, even though he is near to kin. You warn only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer. And whoever purifies himself purifies himself only for his own good. And to Allah is the eventual coming.”(Qur’an 35:18)
﷽
Recently, there were some questions asked by an Ismaili Shi’i about the Ibadi school and whether we allow for the “Walad Zina” to be the Amir of the Muslims, as opposed to the Shi’i or the Maliki.
It was over all a passionate and cordial exchange, and it is hoped that you the reader will benefit.
From the view of the Ibadi school, we need to get something absolutely clear. There is no such thing as an illegitimate child in Islam. There is such a thing as an illegitimate means to conceive a child. A child by right should be brought into the world through wedlock, via marriage.
However, a child in any situation is through the decree of Allah (swt), a blessing from Allah (swt) and an amana (a trust) from Allah (swt).
This idea that some children are tainted by the actions of their parents is alien to the Qur’an. It is a Christian theological concept. To be fair to Christians, the (Disciples of Christ -Campbell Movement) do not believe in inherited sin.
It is overall all a Christian theological concept that we are culpable for what Adam did. We did not tell Adam to eat that apple, did you?
So there is this idea that is very prevalent in Asian society and culture. That idea is that if the son is a hooligan or the daughter did something shameful, it brings shame to the family. No! There is no shame in that family that shame belongs to the individual alone!
“And recite to them the story of Adam’s two sons, in truth, when they both offered a sacrifice [to Allah], and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], “I will surely kill you.” Said [the former], “Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].” (Qur’an 5:27)
So we know among the Ahl Bayt (Household/Tribe/Tent/Lineage) of Adam, that he had two sons. One of his sons was a murderer and the other was murdered. Does this shame cover Adam, Huwa and the son who was murdered? No it does not.
The shame and the guilt belong to the culprit alone.
Let us present a scenario to you: from the dhahir — (the apparent) — what is known—and the ghaib (the unseen).
Now imagine a scenario where a young man (14 years of age), a hafiz of the Qur’an, has beautiful memory retention and recitation. He would like to lead the congregation for the tarweeh prayers in Ramadan.
He is interviewed by the local Mosque Imam (an elder) and the chairperson. They ask the boy, “Can you tell us about the sins of your father?”
What?! May Allah (swt) guide us! May Allah (swt) forgive us! May Allah (swt) open our hearts and eyes.
Imagine you go to an interview and you prepared your resume and your references.
So the hiring department manager says to you, “Can I take a look at your father’s resume and his work history?”
What?! For what? You are the one being hired, not your father.
Another Ismaili Shi’i had messaged one of our team members to ask about women leading the prayer. However, these are not the same categories. As Ismaili Shi’i also have never had a female Imam nor would they allow it. So the question put forward to this Ismaili Shi’a was: “How is claiming that your school is more discriminatory than the Ibadi school a point in your favour?” At that point the individual offered no more interaction.
We do not have a single ruling in our school where a female child would be excluded from anything based upon sins that her parents committed.
The questions still remain. Is it the position of the Shi’i (Ismaili, 12er, Zaydi) that a person is judged based upon what his/her father/mother has done?
In fact, this question should be a cause of pensive reflection. (For the 12er and Ismaili in particular).
Why?
Because if they have a ruling in their books that ‘Walad Zina’ cannot be an Imam, it means that the possibility is there for this to occur, otherwise it wouldn’t be in your books of jurisprudence to begin with. Let them spend time in reflection on what this entails for them and their view of Imams.
How is a child brought in this world? Remember, we don’t believe children bring themselves into being. They are brought into being through conception (which they have no power over). How does such a child be held culpable for the actions of their parents?
Furthermore, it is a matter of Islamic Aqidah that any and all babies and children who die before they reach their age of accountability enter into Jannah without accountability!
This means the worst possible people in history you can imagine. Even if these people were the oppressors and butchers of Muslims themselves, if their young ones died they would enter into Jannah.
That being the case, why will we use such a disgusting appellation ‘Walad Zina’?
Granted, in jurisprudence, if you are talking about the issues surrounding inheritance, it is another matter. Is this child adopted or were they conceived via wedlock or not?
However, to give such a title as if it were some permanent nomenclature ‘Walad Zina’ is akin to calling all the Messengers and Prophets of Allah (swt), ‘The great-great-grandsons of a sinner.’
We don’t use that as some type of permanent nomenclature for the honorable Messengers and Prophets of Allah (swt).
Adam (as) is not remembered as the sinner but as the repentant and one whom Allah (swt) himself taught words of reconciliation, wrapping him up swiftly in a rapture of divine mercy and comfort!
As a Muslim ummah, we need to turn away from this imported Christian theological concept.
This view has no basis in the Qur’an. As unfortunate as the child’s means of coming into the world is, that child’s very being, essence and existence and every breath is a chance to extol the praise and glory of Allah (swt). To render service to his/her parents, community, nation and to all people and even creatures of this Earth.
In the case of the man in particular, will he not get married? Then he will be an IMAM of his family.
Will he not lead the prayers? Then he will be the IMAM of the prayer.
Such a person is righteous and if Allah (swt) has chosen to lead the Muslims, we would give our hands and take the oath of allegiance.
Such a person can be the Amir of the Muslims and Allah (swt) knows best. We want to thank my Shi’i interlocutor for a passionate and respectful discussion.
If there are any Shi’i reading this that have additional resources, books of jurisprudence and/or remarks that they feel add to the dialogue, feel free to do so in the comment section.
If you are interested, you may wish to read the following articles:
And they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves if they only knew.” (Quran 2:102-103)
﷽
Is it not curious that, out of all the things that people learned concerning magic that an emphasis is put on causing separation between a man and his wife? That there are extremely dark forces at play working against the foundations of a family should be something that we really think about.
In Islam, marriage completes half of one’s faith. 60% of Shari’ah law is focused on the family.
There is a significant gap between the holistic guidance of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the often-mechanistic application of certain legal rulings, particularly concerning marriage and divorce.
The Reality of Supra-Natural Forces and Their Target.
The Qur’an explicitly confirms the existence of magic and the efforts of Shaitan to sow discord, especially within the most sacred of institutions: the family.
“The Shaitan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer.” (Qur’an 5:91)
“If an evil impulse from Shaitan provokes you, seek refuge with Allah; He is All-hearing and all-knowing.” (Qur’an 7:200)
“And march forth in the way of forgiveness from your Lord, and for Paradise as wide as the heavens and the earth, prepared for the pious. Those who spend in prosperity and in adversity, who repress anger, and who pardon the people; verily, Allah loves the good-doers.”(Qur’an 3:133-134)
“So whatever you have been given is but enjoyment for this worldly life, but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord. And those who avoid the greater sins, and illegal sexual intercourse, and when they are angry, they forgive.” (Qur’an 42:36)
It can be seen from the aforementioned verses that enmity, anger, hate are things that Shaitan provokes us with. We also see that tempering our anger and forgiveness are more wholesome.
“Say: ‘I seek refuge with the Lord of Daybreak, from the evil of duality, and from the evil of the darkness as it gathers and from the evil of those who blow on knots (l-‘uqadi) and from the evil of an envier when he envies.'” (Qur’an 113:1-5)
From those who ‘blow on knots‘. The term ‘l-uqadi’ .
This term is used in the following instances of the Qur’an:
“There is no blame upon you for that to which you indirectly allude concerning a proposal to women or for what you conceal within yourselves. Allah knows that you will have them in mind. But do not promise them secretly except for saying a proper saying. And do not determine to undertake a (uq’data l-nikahi)marriage contract until the decreed period reaches its end. And know that Allah knows what is within yourselves, so beware of Him. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.” (Qur’an 2:235)
“And in case you divorce them even before you have touched them, and you have already ordained for them a marriage-portion, then give her one half of what you have ordained except in case the women remit, or he in whose hand is the (uq’datu l-nikahi) knot of marriage remits; that you remit is nearer to piety. And do not forget the virtue of grace among yourselves; surely Allah is Ever-Beholding of whatever you do.” (Qur’an 2;237)
When you look at those instances of the word, it becomes apparent that ‘blow on knots‘ means ‘blow on marriages’. “Devise plots against marriages.”
The phrase “those who blow on knots” (an-naffathati fil ‘uqad) has a primary meaning referring to sorceresses who literally tie knots and blow spells upon them. However, the linguistic drawn to the “knot of marriage” (‘uqdat an-nikah) in verses 2:235 and 2:237 is a powerful and valid tafsir (interpretation). It highlights that one of the primary objectives of these dark forces is to unravel the sacred bond (‘aqd) between spouses. This is not a minor issue; it is a direct assault on half of a Muslim’s faith.
Aqad literally means to ‘tie’ or to ‘bind’. In English, we have the interesting idiom of ‘tying the knot‘ as a reference to getting married.
The Arabic word Khul means to ‘untie or to disrobe’.
Whereas the word Talaq means to abandon or rid oneself of something.
“Definition of “divorce” (talaq) Literally, the word “divorce” (talaq) means to abandon a thing or get rid of a thing. When an animal tied with a string is untied it is called talaq. If the tied with a string she-camel is untied, the Arabs mention this state as: “talaqa al-naqata talaqan” 23 (The she-camel has been released).”
Source: (Pg 15. Islamic Law of Marriage and Divorce by Shehza Sham)
So, if the term Talaq means to untie, to abandon or to get rid of something, it makes no sense to say to someone “I abandon you” thrice, because in order to be abandoned the second time or the third time just like saying ‘I untie you thrice’. In order to be ‘untied’ a second or third time, you would need to be tied or in a state of ‘aqad’ for a second or third time.
If we take into account that supra-natural forces are at work in bringing about discord in Muslim marriages, why is it not taken into the calculation by certain Muslim jurists and especially those influenced by ‘tassawuf’ when deciding the fate of Muslim marriages?
Here is something that those of our brothers of the Ahl Sunnah need to take on board. If you believe the following haidth, we have a question for you.
Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah’s Messenger (saw) so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect)…….the hadith is longer.
If you believe the best of creation, the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), could be affected by magic to the extent that it created a false reality in his personal life, then it is a form of arrogance for any scholar or jurist to dismiss the possibility that ordinary Muslim couples could be acting under similar influences of anger, hatred, miscommunication, and irrational behavior provoked by Shaitan.
Until today, there has been no meaningful engagement in regard to this question.
We also need to keep the following verses in mind:
“O Prophet! When any of you divorce women, divorce them during their period of purity and calculate their ‘idda carefully. And have fear of Allah, your Lord. Do not evict them from their homes, nor should they leave, unless they commit an outright indecency. Those are Allah´s limits, and anyone who oversteps Allah´s limits has wronged himself. You never know, it may well be that after that Allah will cause a new situation to develop.” (Qur’an 65:1)
Even though this is what the Qur’an clearly states, the jurist will allow couples’ marriages to be dissolved without asking questions like:
“Did you intend to divorce your wife while she was in menses?”
If the answer is yes, then you cannot intend to divorce your wife while she is in her menses.
If the answer is “I don’t know”, then again, you cannot intend to divorce your wife on an “I don’t know.”
Yet, we, unfortunately, know of many Muslims who have gone through the divorce process, and they have informed us that the judge, the counselor, didn’t even bother to ask this question. Most unfortunate.
Another aspect of the revelation that unfortunately gets ignored is the following:
“Then, when they have reached their term (3 months), take them back in kindness or part from them in kindness, and call to witness two just men among you, and keep your testimony upright for Allah. Whoso believes in Allah and the Last Day is exhorted to act thus. And whosoever keeps his duty to Allah, Allah will appoint a way out for him…” (Qur’an 65:2)
People do not realize it, but it is very possible for people to part amicably. Sometimes a woman cannot produce children, and she has the option to be a co-wife. Whereas, if a man cannot produce children, he does not have the option to be the co-husband.
People can decide to amicably part if having biological children is an absolute deal-breaker in a relationship. They may find, for various other reasons, that they are not suitable as partners.
Yet, unfortunately, once again, the judges or the counselors do not ask about the emotional state of the man/wife when words are uttered? The answer is no.
“If any men among you divorce their wives by Zihar (calling them mothers), they cannot be their mothers: None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth. And in fact, they use words (both) iniquitous and false: but truly Allah is one that blots out (sins), and forgives (again and again).” (Qur’an)
This verse clearly repudiates those men who would use an idiom or simply a verbal expression to divorce women. This verse is also clear when coupled with other verses about having just two witnesses present, and consultation that it repudiates instant divorce simply through pronunciation.
“They are invited to the book of Allah to settle their dispute”. (Qur’an 3:23)
“And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing, so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy”. (Qur’an 6:155).
“Lo! this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright”. (Qur’an 17:9)
The Juristic (Fiqh) Response vs. The Holistic (Tazkiyah) Approach
The Problem: In many contemporary contexts, these two streams have become separated. A judge in a civil or family court, or even an imam acting in an advisory capacity, often wears only the hat of the jurist. They apply the law as a set of rules without the accompanying spiritual and pastoral context that is essential for dealing with something as sensitive as divorce.
The Qur’anic procedure for divorce is not a mere utterance but a process designed for contemplation and reconciliation.
Divorce during Menses (Tuhr): The ruling in (65:1) to divorce women during their period of purity is precisely to prevent a rash decision made in a state of emotional turmoil (which can sometimes coincide with a wife’s menses). A man who says “I divorce you” in a fit of rage during her menses has transgressed Allah’s law. The juristic consensus is that such a divorce is still legally effective but is considered bid’ah (reprehensible innovation) and a sin.
The practical consequence is that the marriage is often considered dissolved, and the crucial pastoral step of questioning the validity of the intention and context is skipped.
The Role of Witnesses and Kindness: Verse (65:2) emphasize kindness, witnesses, and a measured process. This stands in stark contrast to the instantaneous, often unilateral, and highly emotional divorces that occur. The Qur’anic ideal is a mediated separation, not a sudden outburst.
Before any divorce is finalized, a mandatory mediation process should be instituted that involves:
Questioning the emotional state and intention at the time of the utterance.
Investigating possible external factors (family interference, financial stress, etc.).
Recommending ruqyah (Qur’anic healing) if there is a legitimate suspicion of magic or evil eye.
Exhausting all avenues for reconciliation, as the Qur’an commands.
May Allah (swt) sanctify and bless all of your marriages. May Allah (swt) protect you all from the evil eye. May you and your spouse work out your differences. May Allah (swt) make your wife or wives appear as the most loving and beautiful of women. May Allah (swt) make your husband appear to you as the most kind, generous, understanding and handsome of men.
You might be interested in reading the following articles:
“This day are things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Lawful unto you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time when you give them their due dowers, and desire charity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” (Qur’an 5:5)
“O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 5:87)
﷽
This entry will give the position of the Muslims, otherwise known as (Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama) or the Ibadi school. It will give our justifications from the Qur’an and Sunnah for marrying the people of the book (Jews and Christians).
Companions such as Ibn Abbas, Saad bin al-Musayyab, Said bin Jubair, Uthman, Talha, Tawus, Mujahid are all known to have married people of the book. The Blessed Messenger (saw) himself is known to have married from among the Ahl Kitab.
So, yes, in the Ibadi school, a Muslim man can marry a Christian or Jewish woman if certain conditions are met.
Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah.
The five necessities—religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property are defined.
This ruling would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage & preservation of religion.
Among our brothers from the Ahl Sunnah, there are two positions. The position of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa is that Muslim men can marry Christian and Jewish women and until today there are no restrictions put on this.
The position of Imam Ahmad and Imam Shafi’i is that Muslim men cannot marry Christian or Jewish women.
The position of the Ibadi school is in between these two camps. It is very clear that we cannot make impermissible what Allah (swt) made permissible.
That being said, there is a context to these verses and conditions that must be met.
Conditions placed on marrying the Ahl Kitab.
1st condition is that this takes place under Muslim governance, where there is full compliance of the shariah law.
The 2nd Condition is that the interest of the Muslims dominates. The children, for example, are to be raised as Muslims.
The 3rd condition is that the Muslim man actually is a practicing Muslim.
The 4th Condition is that the Jewish or Christian woman actually be practicing Judaism or Christianity.
The 5th condition is that she did not ever commit fornication or have an extramarital affair.
Understanding the first condition.
“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best way and best in result.” (Qur’an 4:59)
What happens today in North Africa and in Turkey is that many of these men who are exposed to the Maliki and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence will marry women from the United States, Europe, Russia. Often the children of these marriages are split between nationalities. The inheritance laws are not decided by the laws of Islam they are decided by secular institutions. The fate of the children will be decided by the laws of those lands. More often than not, the court awards the custody of the children to the mother. The children are brought up without a Muslim father, an Imam leading the prayers and teaching the deen of Islam. This is totally unacceptable.
Understanding the second condition.
“Our Lord, and make us Muslims that submit to You, and from our descendants a community that submits to You. And show us our rites and accept our repentance. Indeed, You are Ever-Accepting of our repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:128)
“O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your own families from a Fire whose fuel is mankind and stones, (and) over which are harsh, severe Angels, who do not disobey Allah in whatever He commands them and who perform whatever they are commanded to.” (Qur’an 66:6)
Anyone who loves their children does not want to expose them to the dangers of hellfire. The best and clearest way to help ensure this is to raise them as Muslims. To instill in them the articles of faith. The love and fear of Allah (swt). The love of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and following his noble example. Muslims cannot give blessings to their children to be raised by other religions because they were all abrogated with the coming of Islam. Qur’an 2:106 establishes this.
“Men are in charge of women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend for maintenance from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband’s absence what Allah would have them, guard. But those wives from whom you fear ill/strange conduct advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; then if they persist strike them. But if they obey you once more, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Qu’ran 4:34)
It is difficult enough to get Muslim-majority nations to want to establish the Imamate. Does anyone think that non-Muslim majority nations have a vested interest in doing so? They have different world views and different principles upon which they base their concepts of justice. Many of them promote egalitarianism. Too many times, Muslim men are taken by the charms and beauty of non-Muslim women. Non-Muslim women may make promises to them. However, none of those promises are legally binding. This will lead us to understand the third condition.
Understanding the third and fourth conditions.
“And do not marry polytheistic (l-mush’rikati) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men to your women until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite you to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
This verse is ‘Aam. There is an exception or allowance to marry the mush’rikati women. That exception is given in Qur’an 5:5
Many of these Muslim men who want to marry Christian or Jewish women are themselves not practicing Islam. That is not a good foundation to start a marriage with a Muslim woman, let alone a non-Muslim woman. The children are likely to be swayed by the parent who shows more conviction and practice of their faith tradition than the parent that does not show conviction or practice their faith tradition. That is why Allah (swt) says that marrying someone who is a slave is better than marrying a free, non-believing woman, even though her /his looks may please you.
Allah (swt) also said you can marry Christian and Jewish women.
Understanding fourth and fifth conditions.
“This day are things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Lawful unto you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time when you give them their due dowry, and desire charity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” (Qur’an 5:5)
That Christian or Jewish woman has to be a practicing Jewish or Christian woman. She has to follow the tenets and edicts of her faith tradition. She cannot be a ‘nominal’ Jew or a ‘nominal’ Christian. If the Christian or Jew converts to Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, New Age spirituality, or anything of the kind, the marriage can become null and void.
Also, Allah (swt) says, ‘chaste women’—muhsanatu. This means if these women have committed fornication or adultery, you cannot marry them. So this only leaves you with the option of marrying someone who is a virgin or a divorcee.
These Muslim men should be aware of one of the very strong positions in the Ibadi school in regard to themselves (the Muslim men) being chaste.
The same rule applies to Muslims as well. Muslims who have committed fornication for adultery can only marry other Muslims who have done similar. They cannot marry chaste believers, nor can they marry those people they have done fornication/adultery with.
This is not an example of abrogation. This is an example of a specification. Now you ask yourself are these conditions met today?
The Ibadi school is priority to Muslim Women First.
What happens in places where the Maliki and Hanafi schools reign supreme? You do see Muslim men often marry “Christian” or “Jewish” women, many of whom are actually agnostic or even atheist. They do so while many hundreds of thousands of Muslim women go unmarried. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslim women who are widows, divorcees, orphans, single people, or simply never been married before.
Shouldn’t our priority be the Ummah of Muhammed (saw)? Remember the wisdom of Allah (swt)
“And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you.”
What happens in those places where the Shafi’i school is dominant? For example: places like Indonesia or Malaysia? What happens is that Muslim men or Muslim women will tell non-Muslims to convert to Islam, and then they will marry them. At least these approaches are more sensible. Bringing people to Islam. That, of course, is acceptable by Islamic law. However, every action is judged by intention and so too will be the fruit of that intention.
There are thousands of Muslim men and women who convert to Islam every year of their own free will and volition. Not under any social pressure to convert because of love. Would it not be wise to give preference to these people for marriage?
May Allah (swt) continue to guide the Ummah of Muhammed (saw)!
You may be interested in reading the following articles:
“The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers.” (Qur’an 24:3)
﷽
One of the known positions in the Ibadi schoolis that one cannot marry a person whom they have committed fornication or adultery with. Rather, those people who have done so are to be punished, banished and then only to marry among those who have committed similar acts.
Those who associate partners with Allah or worship other than Allah are to be married among themselves. Those Muslims who have committed adultery/fornication are to only marry those Muslims who have similarly committed acts of adultery/fornication. They are forbidden to marry the ones they have committed fornication/adultery with.
Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah.
The five necessities—religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property are defined.
This ruling would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage.
The following is a presentation put forward by our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui. -May Allah continue to bless him and benefit us by him.
If you notice, many English translations of this text seem convoluted. It gives the impression that if a Muslim man or woman committed fornication that they could marry an idol worshiper. Nothing can be further from the truth.
We do want to comment that we personally feel that all translations and translators of the Qur’an have failed to convey what Qur’an 24:3 means and we have yet to see a translation that translates the meaning accurately. We put this right up there with Qur’an 4:157 as the worst translated text that translations and translators have failed to convey.
One may see for themselves the disparate translations of Qur’an 24:3 here:
The major reason why we loath all translations of Qur’an 24:3 is that when you look at it:
“The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress.” It gives the impression that a Muslim male or female or committed fornication has two options for his/her future.
a) marry a believer who has done a similar offense.
b) marry a mushrik who has done a similar offense.
We would translate it as: “The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress.” The reason that the mushirk is put in this context is to show the level of disdain that Allah (swt) has for people who commit fornication.
Looking at the verse itself:
“T”The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers” (Qur’an 24:3)
The believer does not marry the mushrik
The believer who commits fornication marries only a believer that similarly has committed fornication.
What becomes very strange is how some will agree to point 1. They will say yes, a believer can never marry a mushrik. Yet, those same people will say, but a believer who has committed fornication can marry a believer who has not done such an act!
This is clearly inconsistent.
We wanted to comment on two sections of this article. The first is the following paragraph.
“There are cases where some men pursuing an illegal sexual relationship, trick and deceive women that resist their sexual advances. The most commonly deceptive trick used by these men is to entice women into fake marriage proposals in order to coerce an unlawful relationship with them. Many women, especially younger women, are duped by these men, so they accept and yield to their seduction only to realize later that it was an utter lie.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
“It is logically conceivable, therefore, that the legalization of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been an open invitation for committing adultery among young Muslim men and women. The permissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been the reason for moral corruption and carefree attitude among young people when it comes to sexual relationships. In such societies, men see no consequences for their conduct; and a gullible woman thinks she will be rewarded with marriage by succumbing to a pre-marriage sexual relationship. She will have no reason not to believe, since the society she lives in has accepted such marriages. Had the idea of the impermissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages prevailed in Muslim societies and been entrenched in their culture, a Muslim woman would not have been taken advantage of: she could recognize a lie when she heard it. She could respond to it by saying that post-fornication and post-adultery marriages are not allowed in the Islamic religion. So the fact is that there will be no marriage between us after we engage in an illegal sexual relationship.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
Prima Qur’an comments:
The above paragraph are very sound in reasoning. Our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui has made a very forceful argument.
“That is because each of the two partners, in such marriages, is most likely to doubt the other to be an adulterer, since as adulterers they found each other prior to their marriage. The fact that one spouse knows what mischief the other spouse is capable of doing can be utterly destructive to their mutual trust and mutual respect, and eventually to the marriage itself. Thus, it can be conclusively said that mutual trust and mutual respect lead to happiness and tranquility in any marriage. Conversely, the lack of trust and respect between spouses, which could be very much the result of their premarital mating, nourishes the meltdown of love and increases tension in the marriage.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
Prima Qur’an comments:
Here we disagree with our respected teacher because the reasoning is not sound.
It is not explained how a person who has committed fornication/adultery and then marries another person who has similarly committed fornication/adultery would not suspect their spouse of mischief. After all, the reason they know they are able to marry each other is because of the very fact that both are equal for doing the same sin.
Meaning the only reason I have access to you for marriage is because you have been guilty of committing the exact same thing that I have been found guilty of.
Note — this is not an argument against the fiqh position; this is an argument against the use of rai’ (reason) that does not seem to follow through.
By limiting those who have committed fornication/adultery to marrying only those who have similarly done such things, it is one possible safety measure to stop the spread of sexual infectious diseases. Or, perhaps, to allow those who may have contracted an infectious sexual disease to enjoy the fruits of marriage and companionship among themselves.
The position is strong the practical implimentation is wanting.
This particular position in our school is very strong. We do not dispute this point. However, our school would struggle with practical implimentation of this ruling.
No one is saying that a person who committed fornication can never get married, but if the ruling is that they can only marry someone who has similarly committed fornication (not the one they did the deed with), how does this work?
Those in our school who hold this position there is a real disconnect here between the ruling and the practicality. This is especially true when we consider the following.
Islam does not encourage one to broadcast the sins that Allah (swt) has covered.
Islam allows for and encourages the safeguard of one’s honour.
A brother or sister does not necessarily approach friends or respected elders and say: “Excuse me, I have committed fornication. Do you have anyone among your friends or relatives that has committed fornication that is looking to get married?”
There is an encounter that was mentioned to me concerning Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h). He was in the middle of Oman and approached by a man from the Hanafi school. The man said, “Oh Shaykh, I have committed Zina and I really love this woman and I want her to be the mother of our children.” The Shaykh replied to the man: “May Allah give you better than her.”
Though it is not polite to say to the man’s face, we imagine that the Shaykh also thought: “May Allah give her better than you.”
Jabir reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
There is a remedy for every malady, and when the remedy is applied to the disease it is cured with the permission of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
Do note that this is a widely known position in the school. There are other voices in the Ibadi school that do not agree with the above position. If you are thinking of adopting the school or have questions on this matter, kindly consult a scholar of the school.
“But why do they come to you for judgment when they have the Torah containing Allah’s judgment, then they turn away after all? They are not believers.” (Qur’an 5:43)
“Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light, by which the prophets, who submitted themselves to Allah, made judgments for Jews. So too did the rabbis and scholars judge according to Allah’s Book, with which they were entrusted and of which they were made keepers. So do not fear the people; fear Me! Nor trade my revelations for a fleeting gain. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the disbelievers.” (Qur’an 5:44)
﷽
There is a very, very easy way to avoid the legal punishments for adultery in Islam. In fact, a person could live in a political entity in which punishments for committing adultery are enacted and never even have to worry about them at all.
It is very similar to living in a nation in which there are strict punishments for killing someone. The very easy way to avoid the repercussions and legal punishments is simply not to do the acts.
Can you imagine our opponents? “No, a man should have the right to cheat on his wife!” “No, a woman should have the right to cheat on her husband!”
Rather than discuss the sternness of the punishment, the discussion should really centre around questions of intelligence and decision-making.
Is cheating on your husband or wife a good decision or a bad decision?
Is cheating on your husband or wife an intelligent decision in a society where you could be stoned to death for such actions?
Is cheating on your husband or wife an intelligent decision when one has recourse to more wives (in the case of a man) or recourse to divorce (man and woman)?
Notwithstanding the Islamic legal punishment for adultery we read numerous reports across numerous countries, and cultures about the rash acts that husbands and or wives commit when they find that their partner has cheated on them.
Any search engine can pull up the latest murders, murder-cum-suicides and rage-fueled actions taken by those who felt betrayed by the man or woman most dear to them. Someone they never felt would betray them in such a manner.
So, before we even get to the punishment for adultery, an ideal Islamic society would have several measures and safeguards in check before an individual were to make unintelligent decisions.
One would be taught: Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah.
This would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage.
Growing up in a strong family household with emphasis upon respect for oneself. Emphasis upon reverence to Allah (swt).
A strong emphasis upon proper interaction between the genders.
A strong emphasis upon the respect that is due to marriage and a strong desire not to cause discord between a wife and husband.
Understanding that sexuality is something sacred and intimacy can create strong bonds between two people.
Marriage is the completion of half of one’s Islam.
Marriage is the backbone upon which healthy communities and healthy socities are brought about.
That your spouse will be your partner through joy and hardships.
That such a relationship should be built upon trust and not lust.
The understanding that if one commits a major sin and does not repent from that sin and dies while in that state that one will be in an eternal agony far worse than any prescriptive punishment meted out by human beings on Earth.
The understanding that if one’s marriage is not working out that one has the recourse to divorce. Divorce can be a solution to a marriage which lacks love, intimacy, passion, friendship, companionship, mercy, trust, cooperation and depth.
That divorce is not a source of shame nor does one need to be stigmatized because of it.
Before we continue, let it be known to the reader that, under previous administration of this site, our brother was of the incorrect view that rajm (stoning) for adultery was not part of the Islamic penal code. He has publicly recanted and publicly repented from that position. May Allah (swt) forgive him and guide any who has been misled about this.
He held the position not because he had liberal or modernist leanings or tendencies. He held that position that rajm (stoning) for adultery was not part of the Islamic penal code because he believed that it was the strongest position based on the evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Thus the importance of taking knowledge from the learned.
He did not hold the position due to liberal or modernist leanings for three reasons.
He believes in the eternality of the hellfire for all who enter it. This is not a liberal or modernist position.
He believes in a penal punishment that we imagine could be more painful and excruciating than rajm (stoning) and that is to be ‘lifted up’ or impailed according to the Qur’an 5:33. He has informed us this was always his view.
He believed that, due to what he saw as the ambiguity of ‘rajm’ as a punishment, that he was following Qur’an 5:32 “Whoever saves a life it’s as if he saved the whole of mankind.”
Insh’Allah we link to his original article so people can see the evolution in his thought process.
So consider this article a self-refutation. A more learned primaquran refuting a less learned primaquran.
It is also our sincere hope that, at any point, we are mistaken in a position, or misrepresent the views of others that Allah (swt) guides us to the right action and the correct course.
Let us start with this insightful hadith concerning the Mother of the believers.
Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:
While I was with Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked, “What type of shroud is the best?” `Aisha said, “May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?” He said, “O mother of the Believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur’an,” She said, “Why?” He said, “In order to compile and arrange the Qur’an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not in proper order.” `Aisha said, “What does it matter which part of it you read first? (Be informed) that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced Islam, the Verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed was: ‘Do not drink alcoholic drinks.’ people would have said, ‘We will never leave alcoholic drinks,’ and if there had been revealed, ‘Do not commit illegal sexual intercourse, ‘they would have said, ‘We will never give up illegal sexual intercourse.’ While I was a young girl of playing age, the following Verse was revealed in Mecca to Muhammed: ‘Nay! But the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense), and the Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.’ (54.46) Sura Al-Baqara (The Cow) and Surat An-Nisa (The Women) were revealed while I was with him.” Then `Aisha took out the copy of the Qur’an for the man and dictated to him the Verses of the Suras (in their proper order)
This insightful hadith teaches us that the priority of teaching Muslims was not given to the penal aspect of Islamic law. Rather, when one looks at which verses are said to have first to the Blessed Prophet (saw), priority is given to establishing faith in Allah, believing in the life to come. The promise of heaven and the promise of hellfire.
The punishment for sexual impropriety in the early days of Islam was a temporary light punishment because people were from the days of ignorance and were new to following a moral code that called them to a higher standard of behavior. This is indicated by the hadith where Aisha (ra) spoke about the matter.
The way of Allah (swt) with the early Muslim community in legislation was to guide the nation gradually, by which is more successful in treatment, wiser in application, and easier for the souls to accept with satisfaction and reassurance, as we saw in the prohibition of alcohol and usury, and other Shariah rulings.
Faahish in Islam is an immoral act, either done by mouth, meaning to say something immoral, or it is done by action of the body to do something immoral. It means something that exceeds the limit. Something excessive.
The punishment for an unspecified type of Faahishah: (Anything short of fornication or adultery)
The punishment in the early days of Islam was as given by Allah (swt) in the following:
“As for those of your women who are accused of committing a (fāḥishata) immoral deed, call four witnesses from among you, and if they testify to their guilt, keep the women at home until death comes to them or until Allah shows them another way. Punish both of the guilty parties, but if they both repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. Allah is always ready to accept repentance. He’s the Mercy Giver.” (Qur’an 4:15)
So, the punishment for an unspecified type of immorality (fahishata) for a woman was confinement in the house and not allowing her to go out. The punishment for an unspecified type of immorality (fahishata) for the man was reproach and scolding with harsh words. In the early days of Islam, Muslims did not have jails or prison complexes. The home was an efficient holding facility.
However, from the above text (Qur’an 4:15) this is where the practice and basis of establishing such acts via four witnesses comes from.
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Fornication.
The following verse of the Qur’an came by way of takhsees(specification) for a particular type of sexual impropriety, namely fornication.
“(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving them) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement. The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.” (Qur’an 24:2-3)
It is very clear that the above verses are not talking about married couples. This can be seen from the text: “The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress.” Meaning the default is they are unmarried.
We do want to comment that we personally feel that all translations and translators of the Qur’an have failed to convey what Qur’an 24:3 means and we have yet to see a translation that translates the meaning accurately. We put this right up there with Qur’an 4:157 as the worst translated text that translations and translators have failed to convey.
One may see for themselves the disparate translations of Qur’an 24:3 here:
The major reason why we loath all translations of Qur’an 24:3 is that when you look at it:
“The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress.” It gives the impression that a Muslim male or female or committed fornication has two options for his/her future.
a) marry a believer who has done a similar offense.
b) marry a mushrik who has done a similar offense.
We would translate it as: “The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress.” The reason that the mushirk is put in this context is to show the level of disdain that Allah (swt) has for people who commit fornication.
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Adultery.
Islamic law differentiates between the hadd for a non-married person by flogging for 100 hundred lashes and intensifying the punishment for the married person by making it stoning to death. This is because the crime of adultery after marriage is more severe and graver in Islam’s view.
The rest of the explanation deals with the rationale behind these punishments, their legitimacy, and how they are derived from Islamic law.
As regards flogging (lashing), it has been firmly established by the explicit Quranictext:
“(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes.”
That verse refers to the punishment for someone who is (non-muhsan) not married.
As regards rajm (stoning), it has been established by the implicit Quranic text as well as the explicit Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw)
The implicit textual evidence of the Qur’an is as follows:
“But why do they come to you for judgment when they have the Torah containing Allah’s judgment, then they turn away after all? They are not believers.” (Qur’an 5:43)
The only reason why this group of Jews would go to the Blessed Prophet (saw) is because they were hoping for a lighter judgement than what was already established among them.
They were familiar with the penal code on general Faahishah and specific Faahishah: fornication they were hoping that the Blessed Prophet (saw) had something light for them in regard to those who committed adultery.
All the commentators in regard to the asbab an nuzul of this verse point to a group of Jews who went to see if they would get a judgement other than what was in the Torah.
We also have numerous hadith to this effect.
“When they have the Torah containing Allah’s judgment.”
“We have revealed to you this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires over the truth that has come to you. ” (Qur’an 5:48)
Those who maintain that the punishment for adultery is the same as those who are unmarried—namely, 100 lashes would have to come to terms with the following powerful contention:
There is no manuscript evidence from any Torah from the time of the Blessed Prophet (saw), or before him that the punishment for adultery was anything other than rajm (stoning).
The other powerful point that the detractors would have to deal with is the fact that the statement in the Qur’an: “But why do they come to you for judgment?” has been related on account of nothing other than the Jews coming to the Blessed Prophet (saw) over an incident of adultery.
Abū ‘Ubayda narrated from Jābir that ‘Ibn ‘Umar said: “The Jews went to the Prophet (saw), to tell him that a man and a woman of their community had committed adultery. The Prophet,(saw), said: “What does the torah say about stoning?” They said: “They must be branded and inflicted with the punishment of the whip.” ‘Abd Allah ‘Ibn Salām said to them: “You lie, it says that they should be stoned. Bring the torah and let’s check.” We brought the torah. One of the Jews got his hands on the stoning passage and read what preceded that passage and what followed it. ‘Abd Allah ‘Ibn Salām said to him: “Take away your hand.” Once the hand was raised, we found the passage relating to stoning. At this time, the Jews said: “It is true, O Muḥammed, there is a passage on stoning.” The two culprits were then stoned by order of the Prophet, (saw). ‘Ibn ‘Umar said: “I then saw the man leaning over the woman to protect her from the stones being thrown at them.”
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) passed by a Jew with a blackened face who had been flogged. He called them and said: ‘Is this the punishment for the adulterer that you find in your Book?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ Then he called one of their scholars and said: ‘I adjure you by Allah (SWT) Who sent down the Tawrah (Torah) to Musa! ‘Is this the punishment for the adulterer that you find in your Book?’ He said: ‘No; if you had not adjured me by Allah (SWT), I would not have told you. The punishment for the adulterer that we find in our Book is stoning, but many of our nobles were being stoned (because of the prevalence of adultery among them), so if we caught one of our nobles (committing adultery), we would let him go; but if we caught one of the weak among us, we would carry out the punishment on him. We said: “Come, let us agree upon something that we may impose on both noble and weak alike.” So we agreed to blacken the face and whip them, instead of stoning.’ The Prophet (saw) ‘O Allah (SWT), I am the first of those who revive your command which they had killed off,’ and he issued orders that (the man) be stoned.”
Notice what the man said about passing over the punishment among the nobles and imposing it upon the weak.
Recall the following hadith:
Narrated `Aisha:
Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”
Now this becomes very interesting when we later turn our attention to Qur’an 4:25 where in Islam, the weak and the poor are given lesser punishments than the rich and the powerful.
The mission of the blessed Prophet (saw) is to clarify, as Allah says:
“So that you may explain to the people what was revealed to them.” (Qur’an 16:44).
The explanation and clarification provided by the Blessed Prophet (saw) suffice to detail and elucidate the general meaning of the Quran!
As for stoning, it has been established by the actions, sayings of the Blessed Prophet (saw), as well as by the consensus of the Companions and their followers.
Authentic narrations that leave no room for doubt have confirmed this, and it has been transmitted through reliable sources that the Blessed Prophet (saw) implemented the punishment of stoning on some Companions, such as Ma’iz and the woman from the tribe of Ghamid. The Caliphs/Imams after him continued to enforce this punishment during their rule, repeatedly announcing that stoning is the prescribed punishment for adultery after marriage.
Islamic scholars in every era and region have unanimously agreed that this ruling is a well-established, followed Sunnah and a definitive divine law, supported by abundant evidence that leaves no room for doubt or skepticism. This ruling has remained in place until our time, with no one dissenting except for what has been claimed concerning certain groups from among the Kharijites, who claimed that stoning is not prescribed. The fallacy of their argument will be clarified below:
The truth is that this is found in the books of their opponents, and there are no known books of theirs now. So we cannot be certain whether they made this statement or not.
In this link, you will find a book by the respected scholar, Shaykh (Abu Is’haq) Ibrahim Attfayish (hafidhullah),who explained that the Kharijites do not deny stoning, but they have an interpretation which you will find in the book. Here is the link:
“This matter, according to me, is not as many think it is; some non-Ibadi Muslims’ claim that Khawarij reject stoning is an insinuation. This claim backfires on them because they narrated a verse that states “if an old man and old woman commit adultery, stone them as a punishment from Allah and Allah is Almighty All-Wise” was recited in the Holy Quran in Al-Ahzab but was eaten by a goat. Based on this false narration, an imperfection has occurred in the Qur’an. This terrible error will always accompany them despite their claims that its recitation is being abrogated while its ruling remains in effect! However, our Ibadi scholars say that stoning is not prescribed in the Holy Qur’an but in the hadith. Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Hujjah Ar-Rabi bin Habeeb narrated in his Sahih that Imam Jabir bin Zaid said, “Istinja, circumcision, witr and stoning are obligatory Sunnah.” -Shaykh Attfayish (h).
The opponents of stoning or rajm have four basic arguments.
Argument 1: They said stoning or rajm is the severest of punishments; if it were legitimate, it would have been mentioned in the Quran. Since it is not mentioned, this indicates that it is not legitimate.
Argument 2: The punishment for a female slave is half that of a free woman as we find here:
“They should receive half the punishment of free [unmarried] women.” (Qur’an 4:25) Since stoning cannot be halved, it cannot be the prescribed punishment for a free woman.
Argument 3: The ruling in the verse is general for all adulterers, and specifying the (married adulterer) is contrary to the Quran.
Response to these arguments:
Response to argument 1: As mentioned, the absence of stoning in the Qur’an is only by way of explicit evidence and not by implicit evidence as has already shown. Plus the historical, archeological and manuscript evidence of what the prescribed punishment in the Torah was/is.
The absence of stoning in the Quran does not indicate its illegitimacy. Many legal rulings are not mentioned in the Quran but are explained by the Sunnah. Allah has commanded us to follow the Blessed Prophet (saw) and adhere to his orders:
“And whatever the Messenger has given you — take; and what he has forbidden you — refrain from.” (Qur’an 59:7)
The Blessed Prophet (saw) conveys on behalf of Allah Almighty, and everything he brought is by divine revelation:
“Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is but a revelation revealed.” (Qur’an 53:3-4)
How can stoning be considered illegitimate when the Blessed Prophet (saw) implemented it, and his Companions did so as well, as he clarified this through his words and actions?
Furthermore, the Quran explains the mission of the Blessed Prophet (saw) in the verse:
“And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” (Qur’an 16:44)
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Adultery of Malakat Aymanukum
“So marry them, with their people’s leave, and give them their wages honourably as women in wedlock, not as in licentious or taking lovers. But when they are in wedlock, if they commit indecency (bifahishatin), they shall be liable to half the chastisement of freewomen. That provision is for those of you who fear fornication; yet it is better for you to be patient. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”(Qur’an 4:25)
This indicates that the intended punishment here is flogging, not stoning, as indicated by the halving of the punishment. Allah knows that stoning cannot be halved, as it is impossible for people to half-kill a person. Therefore, reason and sound understanding suggest that the punishment mentioned here is flogging, not stoning.
A married female slave is flogged fifty lashes, while a free, unmarried woman is flogged one hundred lashes. The reason for this leniency towards the female slave compared to the free woman is that the crime committed by the free woman is more heinous and detestable, as she is less likely to be tempted and is further removed from the cause of immorality, whereas the female slave is weaker in resisting it. Therefore, Allah, in His mercy, reduced her punishment.
Regarding the evidence that stoning cannot be halved, you will find more on this in the book “Tafsir Ayat Al-Ahkam” (2/19) by Shaykh Muhammed bin Ali Al-Sabuni.
Notice that in Islam the punishment for the weak and the poor, in this example, is less than for the powerful and wealthy. Recall the hadith narrated by Aisha (ra):
“The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich.”
Also, recall the exchange the Jews had with the Blessed Prophet (saw):
“The punishment for the adulterer that we find in our Book is stoning, but many of our nobles were being stoned (because of the prevalence of adultery among them), so if we caught one of our nobles (committing adultery), we would let him go; but if we caught one of the weak among us, we would carry out the punishment on him.”
That is why, in our school, the punishments for adultery and pre-marital sex are meted out like so:
Free Woman/Man that are married =Rajm.
Free Woman/Man that are unmarried =100 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that are married =50 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that is unmarried = Taazir.
A tazir punishment is when there is nothing explicit from the Qur’an or Sunnah. It is discretionary. It could be corporeal in nature, it could be harsh words of admonishment.
Recall the meaning of Faahish.
Faahish in Islam is an immoral act, either done by mouth, meaning to say something immoral, or it is done by action of the body to do something immoral. It means something that exceeds the limit. Something excessive.
Thus, they differ in degree and severity.
Response to argument 3:
The claim that the ruling is general and specifying it is contrary to the Quran is complete ignorance. Don’t we see that many rulings came in general terms and were specified by the Sunnah?
For example, the verse:
“As for the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands.” (Qur’an 5:38)
This statement is general and includes all thieves, even if the theft is of something insignificant (trivial). According to their claim, we would have to cut off the hand of someone who steals a penny or a needle, even though the Sunnah specified and limited this ruling to a quarter dinar or its equivalent value of ten dirhams.
Similarly, the verse:
“And your mothers who nursed you, and your sisters through nursing.” (Qur’an 4:23)
This only mentions the prohibition of the mother and sister through nursing, while the Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that nursing forbids all the relationships that blood does. Hence, according to their argument, the prohibition of (a daughter through nursing) would contradict the Qur’an. The Qur’an prohibits marrying two sisters simultaneously, so anyone who says it is forbidden to marry a woman and her maternal or paternal aunt should be judged as contradicting the Qur’an
Unfortunately, some of the jurists and some of the schools have obfuscated this matter for the people so that they remain in a state of confusion about these matters.
All four types of punishments in regard to the different types of Faahish remain valid should the need arise. None of them are abrogated!
The punishment for an unspecified type of Faahishah: Confinement in homes. (Qur’an 4:15)
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Fornication. 100 lashes. (Qur’an 24:2-3)
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Adultery. Stoning for free married persons. (Qur’an 5:43)
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Adultery of Malakat Aymanukum 50 lashes for the malakat aymanukum and discretionary “punishment” for the Malakat Aymankum who is unmarried. (Qur’an 4:25)
When we look at the four above. We can see that none of these can be enacted where Islam is in a state of Kitman. Where Islam is in a state of Zuhur (Manifestation), may Allah (swt) grant guidance and justice to the people of those lands.
MISUNDESTANDINGS REGARDING UMAR IBN AL KHATTAB (RA) AND FLAT LIES ATTRIBUTED TO HIM IN REGARD TO RAJM (STONING)
The following is correctly attributed to Umar bin Al Khattab (ra)
Umar bin Al-Khattab said:
“Verily Allah sent Muhammed (saw) with the truth, and he revealed the Book to him. Among what was revealed to him was the Ayah of stoning (Qur’an 5:43). So the Messenger of Allah (saw) stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that time will pass over the people such that someone will say ‘We do not see stoning in the Book of Allah.‘ They will be misguided by leaving an obligation which Allah revealed. Indeed, stoning is the retribution for the adulterer if he was married and the evidence has been established, or due to pregnancy, or confession.”
What Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) means is similar to the following hadith:
It was narrated that ‘Abdulleh said:
“The Messenger of Allah cursed the woman who does tattoos and the one who has them done, and those who pluck their eyebrows and file their teeth for the purpose of beautification, and those who change the creation of Allah.” News of that reached a woman of Banu Asad who was called Umm Ya’qub. She went to him and said: “I have heard that you said such and such.” He said: ‘Why should I not curse those whom the Messenger of Allah cursed ? And it is in the Book of Allah.” She said: “I read what is between its two covers ‘and I have not found that.” He said: “If you read it properly you would have found it. Have you not read the words: ‘And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammed) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it).’?” She said: “Of course.” He said: ‘The Messenger of Allah forbade that.” She said: ‘I think that your wife does it.’ He said: “Go and look.” So she went and looked, and she did not see what she wantedShe said: “I have not seen anything!’ ‘Abdullah said: “If she was as you say, I would not have kept her with me. “
This is what Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) was referencing when he said that it (stoning) was mentioned in the Qur’an in the way the companion mentioned (plucking the eyebrows) was mentioned in the Qur’an.
The following is incorrectly attributed to Umar bin Al Khattab (ra)
‘Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned. If I didn’t dislike that I add to the Book of Allah. I would have written it in the Mushaf, for I fear that there will come a people and they will not find it in the Book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it.”
Now this is either incorrectly attributed to Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) or it is very possible that when we read this we are missing the point!
It cannot be that Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) meant to write down something as if it was the Qur’an! This is clear from the following verse:
“So woe to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from Allah”—seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned.” (Qur’an 2:79)
Thus, the statement:
“If I didn’t dislike that I add to the Book of Allah. I would have written it in the Mushaf.”
It is a reference to Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) writing his own personal commentary or notes to (Qur’an 5:43) or that Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) was speaking in hyperbole. That is possible as well, because we all know he ended up not writing it down.
a note about the four witnesses need four stoning.
They all four must have witnessed the actual act of penetration. Simply catching a man and woman naked would not suffice.
The four witnesses must be mentally sound. They cannot be small children, for example; or those who have not reached the age of puberty.
There are discussions about people who wear too much kohl, if it causes blurry vision.
Lastly: the very easy way to avoid the repercussions and legal punishments is simply not to do the acts! Don’t cheat on your wife! Don’t cheat on your husband! If the marriage is so lacking in passion and intimacy that you feel the urge to cheat, then seek a dissolution of the marriage. Otherwise, you are playing with fire, both literally and metaphorically speaking.
“And do not conceal the testimony, for whoever conceals it, their hearts are indeed sinful. And Allah knows what you do.” (Qur’an 2:283)
﷽
The following snippet is part of a much larger program with Dr. Mahmoud Ismail.
The episode is titled: The Kharijites, History’s Wronged
Again, as with others, it is unfortunate the nomenclature of the word ‘Kharijite’ or ‘Khawarij’. It is something we are unfortunately going to be accustomed to by historians and academics.
“They were the most loyal soldiers of Ali. Firstly, they were from the Qurra’, who read the Qur’an, recite it, and teach it. They taught in the Masjids of Basra and Kufah.”
“They were the most loyal to Ali and the bravest.”
“They rejected arbitration from the beginning, opposite to the Sunni narrations and some Shi’i ones, which say they forced Ali to accept arbitration. Then they turned around and forced him to reject it! This never happened! I have written about this with evidence. Text has been cited with high importance and relevance.”
Their banner was: “There is no rule except from Allah.”
“Everyone pledged to Ali except a man from the Levant called Muawiyah bin Abi Sufian-from the off-hand Muslims. You understand? The accusation of accepting arbitration they distanced themselves from the camp of Ali. They headed to a village called Harura.So they were called ‘Harauris’. These are those who rejected it(arbitration) from the beginning. So how can it be when the results of abritration came they reject it? Ali was with their opinion. The opinion of the Khawarij. Hence, when Ali sent Ibn Abbas to debate them he said be nice witih them, speak to them softly. Ali was with the opinion of Khawarij. However, he indeed was forced. Who forced him? Who forced him to accept arbitration? Al-Ash’ath Bin Qaid Al-Kindi.”
If you wish to watch the full discussion kindly see the following:
In fact, they quote a Sunni historical source as a provocative claim about Abu Bakr (ra) in regards to the house of Fatima (ra). Yet these same Shi’a do not ponder the implications of someone so hated by Abu Bakr (ra) being among one the confidents of Imam Ali!
“Yes, I am not upset for anything in this world, except three things I have done and I wish I had not done them and three things I have not done and I wish I had done them and three things I wish I had asked the Prophet (saw). But what I wish I had not done, first is that I wish I had not invaded the house of Fatima even if they closed it to me for war, second is that I wish I had not burned Fuja’a Sullami and instead I either had killed or released him. The third is that I wish on the Day of Saqifa, I had left the caliphate on either of these two men ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubayda that one of them would become the caliph and I would become his minister.
But the three things I did not do and wish I had: the first is that when Al-Ash’ath bin Qais was brought to me in captivity, I wish I had struck his neck, because I suspect he will enforce evil wherever he finds it; and the other one is that I wish when I sent Khalid Bin Waleed to the battle of the apostates I had remained at Zil Qissah so that I could help the army if they were defeated; and the third one, I wish that when I delegated Khalid to Sham I had sent Omar to Iraq so that I had opened my two hands in the cause of Allah.
Then he opened his hands and added:
I wish I had asked the Messenger of Allah (saw)that to whom the caliphate belonged, so that nobody would go to war on it; and I wish I had asked him did Ansar have any right in this matter; and I wish I had asked him if the the brother’s daughter and the father’s sister would inherit anything [from the deceased], because I’m not sure about it.
Source: (Târîkh Tabarî, v 3 p 429 ; Târîkh Ya’qûbî, v 2 p 137)
You really have to wonder how someone like Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, an apostate who came back to Islam and found such high favour, station and status in the ranks of Imam Ali.
Prima Quran 