Tag Archives: ibadism

Paul The Anti Christ

“Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to your heart by Allah’s will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe. Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the ungrateful.”(Qur’an 2:97-98)

“But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

﷽ 

Note: The Angel of revelation is none other than Gabriel. Paul here is foreshadowing the coming of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) who is the culmination of the ‘Good News‘.

The Ibadi school is the earliest school to warn the people about Paul

8th century Ibāḍī theologian ʿAbd Allāh al-Fazārī writes:

“Every nation after its prophet has a Sāmirī to misguide it and a Paul to deceive it like the Sāmirī of the Jews and the Paul of the Christians, Allāh curse them.”

First, we need to remove two contentions that Christians raise against us as Muslims.

The first is to quote the following verse:

“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful, disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)

“Those who follow you” is a reference to the believers who followed Jesus in his time and then to the Muslims with the coming of the Prophet Muhammed (saw).

“O believers! Stand up for Allah, as Jesus, son of Mary, asked the disciples, “Who will stand up with me for Allah?” The disciples replied, “We will stand up for Allah.” Then a group from the Children of Israel believed while another disbelieved. We then supported the believers against their enemies, so they are apparent.” (Qur’an 61:14)

The first question to ask is: How did Allah (swt) support the believers against their enemies?

The same way he did Jesus (as).

“Indeed, We gave Moses the Book and sent after him successive messengers. And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the holy spirit. Why is it that every time a messenger comes to you ˹Israelites˺ with something you do not like, you become arrogant, rejecting some and killing others?” (Qur’an 2:87)

So Allah (swt) supported Jesus with the Angel Gabriel and with clear proof.

The second question is what does the word ẓāhirīna actually mean?

zahrina (apparent) who is it speaking about? alladhina amanu (those who believed).

What became apparent? Those who believed vs those who disbelieved.

The word actually means apparent. That those true followers of Jesus (as) it became apparent that they were upon the truth. How? By means of the clear proofs that Allah (swt) supplied them with by their Prophet and Teacher, Jesus — alayhi salam.

Not that they became dominant or victorious. This is contrary to the reality. They were killed, wiped out.

What does False or Anti-Christ mean?

Answer: “Antichristos can mean either “against Christ” or “instead of Christ” or perhaps, combining the two, ‘one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ” (Westcott)

Pseudo Christos — “one who falsely lays claim to the name and office of the Messiah”

Source: (VINES concourse dictionary of the biblical words W.E. Vine pg.13 and pg.54)


Note: The term ‘Anti‘ is sinister in that it does not necessarily mean opposed to as it means in place of.

THE ANTICHRIST WILL BE A CHRISTIAN ACCORDING TO JESUS

“For many will come in my name, saying, I am (Χριστός) Christ; and shall deceive many.” (Matthew 24:5)

Χριστός literally means annointed one.

Source: (https://biblehub.com/greek/5547.htm)

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness ‘” (Matthew 7:21-23)

Prima Qur’an comments:

Do Hindus make prophecies in the name of Jesus?

Do Buddhists drive out demons in the name of Jesus?

Do Muslims do mighty deeds in the name of Jesus?

The only religion on this planet that does anything in the name of Jesus are Christians!

The Anti-Christ will come in the guise of a follower of Christ.

“For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you . They are godless men who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign Lord.”(Jude 1:4)

Was Paul historically ever Anti-Christ himself?

Answer: Yes!

“For at the very beginning I was determined that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Acts 26:9-10)

Note: “contrary to the name of Jesus” (Contra-Christ /In place of Christ/ Anti-Christ)

“On that day, a great persecution broke out against the church of Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul(Paul) began to destroy the church . Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.” (Acts 8:1-3)

“Meanwhile, Saul (Paul) was still breathing out murder threats against the Lord’s disciples.” (Acts 9:1)

“And Saul (Paul) was there, giving approval to his (Stephen’s) death.” (Acts 7:61)

Common misconceptions about Anti-Christ

Prima Qur’an Comment: Some common misconceptions about the Anti-Christ are that there is only one anti-Christ. The other misconception is that the anti-Christ will only show up at the end of time. The following text clears this up.

“Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that The ANTICHRIST is coming, even now , many antichrist have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)

Note: We can see that there will be many false Christ, and we can see that even in the time of Jesus’ disciples there were antichrist.

Paul’s Unconfirmed “Conversion”.

Question: Did Paul convert to the teachings of Jesus?

Answer: No!

The only testimony we have that Paul is a ‘disciple’ of Jesus is Paul’s own contradictory accounts in Acts chapters 9, 22 and 26.

Acts 9:7 says:

“The men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.”

Acts 22:9 says:

“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.”

Acts 26:14 says:

“And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul Saul why persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”

Prima Qur’an Comment: All these instances in which Paul speaks about Jesus speaking to him for the first time are obviously flat lies.


Not only that, but in Acts 22:9 it says the same people traveling with him “saw indeed the light.”

This is very strange because Paul also says in Acts 26:23

“At midday, O King, I saw in the way a light from heaven, Above the brightness of the sun, shining around me and Them which journeyed WITH me.”

Besides the above contradictions, Paul said this light was brighter than the sun and that those with him “saw indeed the light” yet read the following:

“And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened he saw no man, but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.” (Acts 9:8-9)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Now this light was “brighter than the sun” yet his companions were fine! Paul’s whole “conversion” story is a fabrication.

Establishing testimony for yourself according to Christ Jesus.

“But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three witness every word may be established.” (Matthew 18:16)

Prima Qur’an Comment: According to the criteria set by Christ Jesus, Paul’s testimony of conversion is blatantly false. The only record we have of Paul’s so-called conversion is from the writer Luke. There is no testimonial from the men who traveled with Paul.

The above contradictory accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts chapters 9,22 and 26 render his account baseless!

Two important points about Paul.

1) Paul never met the historical Jesus.

2) Paul only claimed to have met Jesus in a vision of light.

Paul’s ‘vision of light’ was none other than Satan?

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ And little wonder; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:13-14)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul transformed himself into an apostle of Christ Jesus. Because Paul’s conversion story is not confirmed and it is contradictory.

The being of light who was speaking to Paul in the vision was Satan.

Satan is the one who made the seeing blind in the instance of Paul.

Christ Jesus as a prophet of Allah never once made anyone blind! Jesus made the blind to see!

“And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of revelations, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, the MESSENGER OF SATAN, to buffet me lest I should be exalted above measure.” (2 Corinthians 12:7)

Question: What does the word messenger mean in 2 Corinthians 12:7 ?

Answer:

Angelos, “a messenger, an angel, one sent,” of Paul’s “thorn in the flesh,” “a messenger of Satan.”

Source: (VINES concourse dictionary of the biblical words W.E. Vine pg.239)

Comment: Paul keeps talking about this revelation that he is getting from this being of light he met. Yet he also interestingly lets the cat out of the bag by speaking of the ‘angel of Satan‘ sent to him.

Paul’s Gnostic Anti-Christ teachings.

Paul’s belief that we are saved through hidden Gnosis.

What is Gnosis?

Answer:

Gnosis=knowledge

Who are the Gnostics?

Answer:

The Gnostics, headed by Valentius, who lived in Rome for almost 30 years until ca.165 claimed fresh revelations and added to the scriptures. In their antimaterial scheme of things, spiritual knowledge, or gnosis, meant that the pneumatics or people of higher spirit were already saved, the psychics or people of the psyche or living soul could be redeemed, whereas the hylics or people of matter were incapable of deliverance from matter and so remained beyond or rather below redemption.

“My brothers, I could not talk to you as a spiritual people, but as fleshly people , as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now. For you are still of the flesh. While there is jealousy and rivalry among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving in an ordinary human way? Whenever someone says “I belong to Paul,’ and another, “ I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?” (1 Corinthians 3:1-4)

Prima Qur’an Comment: The New American Bible had the following to say in its footnote above.

“Spiritual people…fleshly people: Paul employs two clusters of concepts and terms to distinguish what later theology will call the natural and the supernatural. The natural person is one whose existence perceptions and behavior are determined by purely natural principles. The psyche and the sarx ( flesh) a biblical term that connotes creatureliness. Such person are only infants; they remain on a purely human level(anthropo) On the other hand, they are called to be animated by a higher principle, the pneuma, God’s spirit. They are to become spiritual(pneumatikoi) and mature in their perception and behavior. The culmination of existence in the Spirit is described.”

Note: Paul, in the above passage 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 clearly expresses Gnostic belief. He also clearly shows that those he called “brothers” were not on a spiritual (pneumatik) level and therefore not saved because they were not initiated into Paul’s secret doctrines.

Irenaeus insisted on salvation being mediated through the flesh; this cohered with the missions of the Holy Spirit and the Son. “Human beings,” he wrote, are made “spiritual” not by the abolition of the flesh “but by outpouring of the Spirit: (ibid., 5.6.1). Renewal in the image of God comes about “:not by getting rid of the material body but by sharing in the Spirit.” (ibid., 5,8.1)

Paul, himself being a Gnostic, taught that the only way people would gain true salvation was if secret knowledge (gnosis) was imparted to them.

“This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.” ( 1 Corinthians 2:13 )

“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect, yet not wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught: But we speak of the wisdom of God in a mystery ,even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory.” ( 1 Corinthians 2:67 )

The apple was a gift of gnosis.

Remember that the apple Satan gave Adam and Eve was a form of hidden gnosis.

Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the Lord God had made. The serpent asked the woman, “Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?” The woman answered the serpent: “ We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; It is about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, “ You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.” But the serpent said to the woman: “ You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.” The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of it’s fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.” (Genesis 3: 1-7)

What is the hidden wisdom Paul wants to share with you?

“Undeniably great is the mystery of our devotion; which was manifest in the flesh, vindicated by the spirit seen by angels proclaimed to gentiles, believed throughout the whole world and received up into glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16)

The mystery and secret gnosis that Paul is talking about is his concept of a risen crucified Christ revealed in him! That this risen crucified Christ is Paul himself! For those of you unable to see this or recognize it as the truth, well, we will just borrow the words of Paul…

“My brothers, I could not talk to you as a spiritual people, but as fleshly people , as infants (babies that have little comprehension or reasoning skills )in Christ.”

Again, what Christ he is talking about is questionable.

“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son IN me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:” (Galatians 1:15-16)

Paul denied Christ Jesus as coming in the flesh.

“Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,

Who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found in humanappearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11)

Note: Contrary to what others may have told you or statements written in the name of Paul, this is Paul’s concept of Jesus.

Paul claims, in true Gnostic form, Jesus was found in human likeness, not that he was human. Paul claims Jesus was found inhuman appearance, not that he was human.

“Consequently, from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer.”(2 Corinthians 5:16)

Note: Bishop Irenaeus also rejected both the Marcionite separation of the NT God the Father from the OT Creator who made all things, and the Gnostic denial of the Son of God being truly made flesh for our salvation.

PAUL’S CRYPTIC GNOSTIC CLAIM TO BEING CHRIST.

Question: Did Paul claim that he was Christ?

Answer: Yes!

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; YET NOT I, BUT CHRIST lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20)

Prima Qur’an Comment:

Paul says it is not really “him” that you see, the “he” was crucified, and it is “not I but Christ” living in his body. He is claiming that he is essentially Christ, and for this reason he is superior to all of Christ’s disciples who opposed him at every turn.

“And my temptation which was in my flesh you despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus( Galatians 4:14)

Prima Qur’an Comment People received Paul as if he was Jesus Christ himself!

“Even as Christ Jesus” This is interesting as Paul is saying that people received him as a person would receive Christ Jesus himself; on that very same level.

Jesus is speaking about bearing a record of one’s self.

“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” (John 5:31)

Yet Lo, and Behold Paul says:

“I am become a fool in glorying; you have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chief apostles, though I be nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” (2 Corinthians 12:11-12)

Note: Paul is bearing testimony of himself. Also, the very thing which Paul says makes him someone worthy of being listened to are his signs and wonders the very thing Jesus warned about in the following:

SIGNS AND WONDERS

Jesus warned about signs and wonders

“For there shall arise false Christ and false prophets, and show great signs (miracles) and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus said that when the false christ come they will deceive you by way of signs and miracles. The very thing that Paul uses as a sign of a true apostle, ” signs and wonders”.

Jesus warning about “Signs and Wonders”

Speaking of Paul and other false Christ, Jesus said:

“For there shall arise false Christ and false prophets, and show great signs (miracles) and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:24)

Note: This is exactly what Paul did in front of the “very elect” at the Jerusalem council!

“Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.” (Acts 15:12)

“And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brothers, Listen to me!” (Acts 15:13)

Note: Paul and Barnabas (son of the Father) were busy trying to fool the “very elect” with signs and wonders. When James (the very brother of Christ Jesus) saw what was happening, he said, “Listen to me”!

Jesus said as well,

“I come to you in my Father’s name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.” (John 5:43)

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, I kept them in your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (John 17:11)

Again, Paul bears witness of himself, even claiming that God revealed Jesus in him!

“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son IN me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:” (Galatians 1:15-16)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul once again referring to himself. Paul did not immediately consult with James, the brother of Jesus (flesh and blood), i.e. other disciples of Christ Jesus.

Paul’s gnostic teaching that God’s plan was revealed through Gnosis (secret knowledge) to him is worthy of note.

Paul and his divisions: sowing tears among the wheat.

Beware of false prophets, which come in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tears among the wheat, and went his way.” (Matthew 13:24-25)

The Gospel of Christ Jesus vs. the Gospel of Paul.

“And there had been much disputing, Peter rose up , and said unto them, Men and brothers, you know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should heard the word of the gospel, and believe.” (Acts 15:7)

“But contra wise, when they saw that the gospel of the un circumcision was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.” (Galatians 2:7)

Prima Qur’an Comments: Here we are confronted with a major contradiction because Peter teaches that he was to go and teach to the gentiles. However, Paul teaches that he actually was to go to the uncircumcised (Gentiles), and Peter was to go to the circumcision (Jews).

Not only that, but here we can plainly see there were two gospels! So which one is true? The gospel of circumcision or the gospel of uncircumcision?

Paul continues bashing Peter…

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I rebuked him to his face! He was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he width drew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew,live in the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compel you the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Galatians 2:11-14)

Note: Paul is not shy in writing that he rebuked Peter to his face for being a hypocrite. Paul is clearly distinguished from James (The brother of Jesus) and the Jerusalem council in the above remarks!

Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ” Unless you are circumcised according to the law of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Because there arose little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas (Son of the Father)with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.” (Acts 15:1-2)

“And Barnabas was determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus:” (Acts 15:37-39)

The “Great Commission”

Paul’s great commission is a forgery and a lie.

Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus came only for the Jews. Jesus mission was to “seek and to save that which was lost”: namely the 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus foretold the coming of Ahmad who was to be a universal messenger.

We have established this in our article here:

Paul, who wanted to destroy the teachings of Christ Jesus, at first went to the Aramaic Christians, who turned away from him and his theology.

Little wonder Paul made the following comment,

“This, you know, that all those who are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Germogenes”. (2 Timothy 1:15)

The Aramaic Christians knew of Christ Jesus warning of anti-christ. The early Christian community turned away from Paul and his secret gnosis teachings. Paul, in his frustration, turned to the Greek-speaking Gentiles.

“Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: But seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, Lo, We turn to the Gentiles.” (Acts 13:46)


Note: Paul was upset that the early Aramaic Jews were turning from his theology. So he and Barnabas (the son of the Father) ‘waxed bold’, and clearly stated that their mission now was to win over the gentiles to his theology. The Mediterranean world that Paul lived in was full of tri-theistic theologies, inundated with Greek philosophy, in particular Neoplatonic thought, and gods who incarnated for the salvation of mankind. Paul definitely had an audience.

The Gospel of Jesus was the gospel of circumcision

In Matthew 15:24 we have Jesus saying:

“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

Luke 22:29-30 He says to his apostle:

“And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my father has appointed unto me: “That you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit in thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:29-30)

Note: What Paul did was a direct violation of the commandments of Jesus. (MATTHEW 15:22-24), and (MATTHEW 10:5-6) quoted above.

Jesus commissioned his 12 apostles:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6)

Note: There was no admitting even a Samaritan into the kingdom, much less uncircumcised gentiles. Being with a gentile was often considered as sinful behavior.

“You worship what you know not: we know what we worship: For salvation is of the Jews.” (John 4:22)

Note: Jesus, when he tells the woman that “salvation is of the Jews”

He is insisting on the right of the Pharisaic Sanhedrin to legislate for all Israelites, including descendants of the ten northern tribes.

“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost”. (Matthew 18:11)

The Healing of the Canaanite Girl:

“And Behold, A Woman of Canaan came out of the same coast, and cried unto him, saying have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: My daughter is grievously vexed with the devil. “But He (Jesus) answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, send her away; for she cries after us.” “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:22-26)

Note: In verse 24 Jesus’ response was to his apostles.

Then she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord Help Me.”

But he answered and said, It is not suitable to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.”

Note: Verse 26 was Jesus’ response to the woman with the Jewish custom of referring to gentiles as “dogs” is reflected in the reaction of Jesus to the Syrophoenician woman who requested help from Jesus.

“But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not suitable to take the children’s bread and to cast it unto the dogs.” (Mark 7:26)

Note: The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation. Again Jesus says in

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under your feet, and turn again and rend you.” (Matthew 7:6)

“But contra wise, when they saw that the gospel of the un circumcision was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.” (Galatians 2:7)

Christians tell us that the parting command of Jesus to his apostles was:

Mark 16:15 & 20:

“Go you into the world and preach the Gospel to every creature…”

“And they went forth and preached everywhere…”

This is totally irreconcilable with early church history; for some ten years after Jesus, Peter is accused and condemned by the apostles and brethren because they had heard that Gentiles had also received the word of God:

Acts 11:1-19

1. “And the apostles, and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

2. “And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him.”

3. “Saying, you went unto men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.”

4. “But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them saying,”

5. “I was in the city of Joppa praying: And in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descended, as it had been a great sheet, let down from the heavens by four corners; and it came even to me.”

6. “Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered and saw four footed beasts of the Earth, and wild beast, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.”

7. “And I heard a voice saying unto me, arise Peter slay and eat.”

8. “But I said, not so, Lord: For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth.”

9. “But the voice answered me again from heaven, what God has cleansed, do not call common.”

10. “And this was done three times: And all were drawn up again unto heaven.

11. “And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea to me.”

12. “And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house:”

13. “And he showed us how he had seen an Angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, send me to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;”

14. ” who shall tell thee words, whereby you and all your house shall be saved.

15. “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.”

16. “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with the Holy Ghost.”

17. “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?”

18. “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God saying, then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”

19. “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but the Jews only.”

Consider also Peter’s statement in Acts 10:28

“You know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation;…”

Prima Qur’an Comment: If Christ Jesus really gave the command above in Mark 16:16 to preach to the whole world all would have known about it.

It would not be unlawful for a Jew to be with a Gentile. Thus, to have the Jerusalem council say, “You went into men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” would be a very strange thing indeed!

Not only this but the concept that Christ Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind is also a doctrine of Paul.


If Christ Jesus’ mission was to die for the sins of all mankind as Paul and his followers teach, then the following comment would be quite strange as well:

“When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, then has God also to the Gentiles, granted repentance unto life.”

Paul’s method of deception is exactly like the snake in the garden.

“But I fear, lest by any means as the serpent BEGUILED Eve, through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that comes preach another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if you receive another spirit, which you have not received, or another gospel, which you have not received, you might as well bear with him.” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Here Paul is worried people will be beguiled into accepting another spirit (prophet). They will accept another Gospel. They will accept another Jesus.


It is likened to being in the very presence of God and hearing things explicitly stated by God and then turning around and doing something in place of that.

In this case, something Anti Christ because Christ teachings came from God.

Question: Could this be an analogy of what Paul did with Jesus’ teachings? By initiating Greeks into a secret doctrine concerning Christ Jesus.

Answer: Yes!

Paul beguiled the early followers of Christ Jesus.

Question: What does the word Beguile or Guile mean?

Answer: (Greek) – Dolos means Evil, cunning, treachery, deceit.

Source: (VINES concourse dictionary of the biblical words W.E.Vine pg.167 )

A Look at how the word Guile/Beguiled is used in the Bible.

“Jesus saw Nathaniel coming to him and said, Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no GUILE(John 1:47)

“Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord, imputed not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no GUILE.” (Psalms 32:2)

“For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no GUILE.” (1 Peter 3:10)

“Now the SERPENT was more CRAFTY than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.” (Genesis 3:1)

“For our exhortation was not in deceit nor of uncleanliness, nor in GUILE(1 Thessalonians 2:3)


Note: Paul was speaking above, yet, lo and behold, what he says now…

“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being CRAFTY, I caught you with GUILE.” (2 Corinthians 13:16)

Prima Qur’an Comment:

So this beguiling Paul was afraid people would fall into, is the same beguiling he used. Paul, who was receiving secret revelations from an unidentified ‘being of light’, was using craft to ensnare people with his theology.

Paul didn’t burden people with laws, he caught them with DOLOS (GUILE) -treachery, deceit, evil etc…

THE CHARACHTER OF PAUL.

Paul: The Scriptural distorter

“Wherefore he says, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.” (Ephesians 4:8)

“You have ascended on high, you have led captivity captive: you have received gifts for men; yes, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.”(Psalms 68:18)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul misquoted the scripture by saying that God “gave gifts to men” when it says that God has “received gifts for men”.

Paul: The thief

I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” (2 Corinthians 11:8)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Where do all these Christian evangelists get their inspiration from when they steal money from the masses? They get it from Paul, of course!

Paul: Mocks commands of God for his own theological points.

“For it is written in the Torah, You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treaded out the corn. Does God really take care of oxen?” (1 Corinthians 9:9)

“You shall not muzzle the ox when he treaded out the corn.” (Deuteronomy 25:4)

Prima Qur’an Comment:

“A righteous man regards the life of his beast: but he that follows vain persons is void of understanding”. (Proverbs 12:10)

Paul: The Liar

“For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul was accused by others of doing “evil that good may come“. For example above he claims he ‘robbed churches’ to do people service. He also claimed that he didn’t burden anyone but caught them with guile. Paul’s concept of lying for the greater glory of God to advance his theology is anything but noble.

Paul: Calls Jesus accursed.

“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” (Galatians 3:13)

Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3)

Note: I wonder what spirit motivates Paul to say that Jesus is a curse?

Paul: The not so sure

“But if she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think I have the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 7:40)

Prima Qur’an Comment: If Paul was a man of God he would know.

Paul’s uncertainty is quite interesting and disturbing.

Paul: The hypocrite

“Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” (Galatians 5:2)

However, look at what Paul did in the following verses…

“Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.” (Acts 16:3)

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for everyone of them.” (Acts 21:26)

Paul Above the law

“Because the law works wrath: for where no law is, there is notransgression.” (Romans 4:15)

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” (1 Corinthians 6:12)

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” (1 Corinthians 10:23)

THE ANTICHRIST TEACHINGS OF PAUL.

Remember what the term anti/false christ means….

Antichristos can mean either “against christ” or “in place of Christ”

Christ Jesus verses Paul the false Christ: Mono Y Mono.

Question: Are we to live by faith (a feeling) or by our faith (a code set of laws)?

What Christ Jesus teaches:

“But Jesus turned him. about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.” (Matthew 9:22)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus didn’t say that faith made the woman whole. He said that her faith made her whole.

What Paul teaches:

“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is WRITTEN, The just shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:17)

Paul directly misquoted from where this was WRITTEN in Habakkuk 2:4

“Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” (Habukkuk 2:4)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus and the TNCH teach that we are to live by our faith (set code of laws).

However, Paul’s antichrist teaching is that we are to live by faith(feeling).

Question: Who is our Father according to Christ Jesus?

What Jesus teaches:

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father’ for you have one Father, and he is in HEAVEN.” (Matthew 23:9)

What the TNCH teaches:

“Have we not all one father? Did not one God create us?” (Malachi 2:10)

What Paul teaches: 

“Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” (Corinthians 4:15)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus teaches that only one should be called father and that is ‘God in heaven’. However, Paul’s Antichrist teaching is that he(Paul) is now a father!

Question: Can we eat any type of food?

What Christ Jesus teaches:

“Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by “eating food sacrificed to idols, and by committing sexual immorality.” (Revelation 2:14)

“It seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT and to US not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.” (Acts 15:28-29)

What Paul teaches:

“As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean itself.” (Romans 14:14)

Note: Paul should have known better than to say, “I am fully convinced no food is unclean” when he was at the Jerusalem council when James The Brother Of Jesus gave the edict.

Comment: Christians in every country EAT BLOOD PRODUCTS and things such as ‘blood puddings‘ and pork meats. Why? Because of this anti christ teaching of Paul’s. However, there is a group of Christians called the ‘Seventh day Adventist” that are a little more sensible in the way they approach food.

Question: Can you call people fools? (Greek: Moron)

What Christ Jesus teaches:

“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother Raca is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone of you who says, ‘you fool!” will be in danger of the hell fire.”  (Matthew 5:22)

What Paul teaches:

“But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” “You Fool, What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.” (1 Corinthians 15:35-36)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Apparently Paul was the fool, because if a seed does indeed die there can be no sprouts and thus no plant life.

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified.” (Matthew Galatians 3:1)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus taught that to call someone a fool would put them in danger of ‘hell fire‘. However, Paul’s anti christ behavior taught him to call people ‘fool’ in a most unhumble manner!

Question: Is it important for one to be circumcised?

What Christ Jesus teaches:

“Think not that I have come to destroy the laws of the Torah or what the prophets said: I am not come to destroy, but to observe. For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in on wise pass from the Torah, till all be fulfilled, Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19)

“And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)

“And God said unto Abraham, Thou shall keep my covenant therefore, you , and your seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you, Every man child among you shall be circumcised, And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you , every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of your seed. He that is born in your house, and be that is bought with your money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an EVERLASTING COVENANT.” (Genesis 17:9-13)

What Paul teaches:

“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you ,whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace.” (Galatians 5:2-4)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus observed the Torah and taught the everlasting covenant of circumcision. However, Paul’s anti christ teaching is that it will profit you nothing’. Remember he said, “I Paul say unto you”

Question: Is the Law (Torah) a curse?

What Christ Jesus teaches:

“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, You shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (5:20)

“Then spoke Jesus to the multitude and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say , and do not.” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“But the people who know not the law are cursed.” (John 7:49)

What Paul teaches:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continue not in all things which are written in the Torah to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident : for, The Just shall live by faith.” (Galatians 3:10-11)

“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree:” (Galatians 3:13)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul above mentions that the law is a curse. However’ Jesus said that EXCEPT our piety is more than that of scribes and Pharisees we will in NO CASE enter heaven. Jesus also pointed out before Paul made this statement, “” That there will be such hypocrites but it does not take away that they SIT IN MOSES SEAT, so be not like them for they SAY, AND DO NOT.

Question: Is it fine to be without works of the law?

James, the brother of Jesus says:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? See you how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.” (James 2:21-23)

What Christ Jesus says:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of LAWLESSNESS (anomian).'” (Matthew 7:21-22)

What Paul teaches:

“But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.” (Galatians 3:11)

Priam Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus taught that we should follow the scribes and pharisees in that they have knowledge. Christ Jesus also taught that he would tell the Christians on the day of judgment to depart from him for being workers of lawlessness. James, the very brother of Jesus, also wrote that Abraham was justified by works. However, Paul’s anti Christ teaching is that this new Christ he is preaching is the Christ of grace and thus being justified by the law is not necessary.

Question: Do we need a blood sacrifice to forgive our sins?

What Christ Jesus taught

“But go you and learn what that means, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Matthew 9:13)

 Jesus quotes from:

For I desire mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)

 “By Loving kindness and truth iniquity is atoned for.” (Proverbs 16:6)

What Paul teaches:

“And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus as well as the entire TNCH taught that God desires mercy and not sacrifice that what he really wants is his people to be obedient to him with their heart and not doing outward rituals devoid of spirit.

Paul’s anti christ teaching is that, contrary to the tnch and Christ Jesus, he believes “without shedding blood there is no forgiveness.”

What he means by that is that there is no forgiveness of any sins or faults!

Question: is there anyone righteous?

What Christ Jesus taught

“But go you and learn what that means, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Matthew 9:13)

“And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” (Luke 1:6)

What Paul teaches.

There is none righteous, no not one.” (Romans 3:10)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Jesus taught that the righteous were on the right track. Jesus came so that the sinners could be called away from their sins. Zechariah and Elizabeth were two great examples of God-fearing righteous people before God. They obeyed “all the commands of God blameless.” However, Paul’s anti christ teaching is that everyone is a sinner and there is no one righteous, including Zechariah and Elizabeth. Paul’s anti christ theology is that everyone is doomed unless they accept his christ of grace teaching.

Question: Is everyone a sinner?

Christ Jesus taught

“And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, neither has this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” (John 9:1-3)

What Paul teaches.

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Christ Jesus did not teach original sin. Christ Jesus also clearly distinguished that he came for ” sinners and not the righteous”. However, Paul’s anti christ teaching is that all have sinned.

PAUL: The founder of modern ‘Christianity’.

Question: Whose Gospel was it that Jesus would raise from the dead?

Answer: Paul’s

“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead, according to My Gospel.(2 Timothy 2:8)

“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you unto the grace of Christ unto another gospel which is not another; but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Galatians 1:6-7)

Prima Qur’an Comment: Paul is claiming that his gospel is the only true gospel. However, we can see that his gospel radically differs from that taught by Christ Jesus.

Paul is truly anti christ in that he opposed christ teachings. Paul is also truly anti christ in that he taught things in place of what Christ Jesus came to teach.

Question: Who wrote the majority of today’s accepted New Testament?

Answer: Paul

Out of 27 books of the ‘New Testament’ Paul is said to have written the following 14!

Romans-written by Paul

1 Corinthians-written by Paul

2 Corinthians-written by Paul

Galatians- written by Paul

Ephesians-written by Paul

Philippians-written by Paul

Colossians-written by Paul

1 Thessalonians-written by Paul

2 Thessalonians-written by Paul

1 Timothy-written by Paul

2 Timothy-written by Paul

Titus-written by Paul

Philemon-written by Paul

Hebrews-writer disputed but usually said to be Paul

Question: What does Michael H. Hart in his book-“The 100” say about Paul?

Answer:

“Since there are probably roughly twice as many Christians in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammed has been ranked higher than Jesus.

There are two principal reasons for that decision.

First, Muhammed played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity.

Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity(Insofar as these differed from Judaism),

St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, it’s principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament.

Source: (Michael H. Hart “The 100” pages 38-39)

A bold statement by Paul

“But though we,or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

Note: The Angel of revelation is none other than Gabriel.

Question: What does the Qur’an say in response to Paul?

Answer:

“Say: Whosoever is an enemy to Gabriel- for he brings down the revelation to thy heart by Allah’s will; a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe, Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and apostles, To Gabriel and Michael-Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who are ungrateful.” (Qur’an 2:97-98)

Prima Qur’an Comment: What if God wants to send an angel from heaven to the Prophet Muhammad (saw) 700 years after the Gnostic Paul made his comments above? What if that angel came to restore the true good news of Christ?

Namely, the following:

“If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will pray the Father, and he shall give you ANOTHER comforter, that HE may abide with you forever”. (John 14:15-16)

Little wonder Paul made the following comment,

“This you know, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Germogenes.” (2 Timothy 1:15)

Prima Qur’an Comment:

This statement of Paul can not be easily overlooked. Paul is stating the very early Churches of Jesus (those speaking Aramaic) turned away from him. These early Christians knew of the prophecy of Jesus concerning the coming of Ahmed ( Muhammed)

This is why Paul turns his attention and evangelizes the Greek-speaking Romans!

“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)

You may also wish to read the following:

May Allah Guide the Christians so that they do not burn in the hellfire.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Face to Face with the Blessed Prophet: How Oman Preserved Pure Islam Through Unbroken Transmission

“We have sent you only as a mercy for the whole world.” (Qur’an 21:107)

﷽ 

Face to Face with the Blessed Prophet (saw): How Oman Preserved Pure Islam Through Unbroken Transmission.

This will be a translation of the talk given by Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani (h) below:

The school of reciters: A starting point in Omani History -Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani (h).

Allah-Willing this lecture will establish a few key points.

The Islam of Oman was not a late or secondary arrival. It was taken directly, face-to-face, from the Prophet Muhammed (saw) through multiple delegations (wufud), and preserved through an unbroken, mutawatir (mass-transmitted) chain of transmission. Due to Oman’s geographical remoteness, this Islam remained pure, uncorrupted by foreign influences (Persian, Roman, Greek, Indian).

The Delegations (Wufud): The Shaykh lists at least 12 delegations from Oman to the Prophet (saw), including:

    • Mazin bin Ghadhub Al-Ta’i (three separate visits: pre-Hijra, 3 AH, 7 AH). The Prophet (saw) famously prayed for Oman: “O Allah, guide them and reward them… grant them chastity, sufficiency, and contentment… do not empower an outsider enemy against them.”
    • Delegations from Bani Nabhan, Bani Tahiyeh (including Ka’b bin Bursha’, who recognized the Prophet’s description in the Torah and Gospel), Bani Al-Haddan, Bani Thamalah, Bani Al-Farahid, Al-Atiq, Abdul Qais, Bani Rasib (Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi), and even a delegation of Omani women who met Aisha (ra).

    Early Mosques and Qiblas: The existence of mosques in Oman oriented toward two qiblas (first Jerusalem, then Mecca) proves that prayer was established before the Prophet’s migration to Medina.

    The School of the Reciters (Qurra’): After the Blessed Prophet’s school at Dar Al-Arqam in Mecca, the “School of the Reciters” was established in Medina. These Qurra’ (who memorized Quran, knew Sunnah, and reasons for revelation) were the elite missionaries, judges, and army leaders. Their tragic martyrdom at Bi’r Ma’unah and later at Nahrawan (alongside Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi) is highlighted.

    Imam Jabir bin Zaid (18-21 AH – c. 93-103 AH): The central figure in preserving Omani Islam. A Tabi’i (Follower), he met 70 Companions who fought at Badr, traveled 40 times for Hajj to collect narrations, and copied the Blessed Prophet’s letter on sadaqat from the sons of Amr bin Hazm. He founded the school of Ahl al-Haqq wal-Istiqamah (People of Truth and Righteousness). His students included Abu Bilal Mirdas, Abdullah bin Ibadh, and Salim bin Dhakwan.

    Codification (Tadwin): The lecture argues that Imam Jabir bin Zaid was the first to codify the Blessed Prophetic Sunnah, before any other school. This codification passed through Abu Ubaidah Muslim bin Abi Karimah → Al-Rabi’ bin Habib → then to Oman (Mahbub Al-Rahil in Sohar, Abu Al-Mundhir in Nizwa, Abu Ali Al-Azri in Izki).

    Al-Khalil bin Ahmad Al-Farahidi (d. 175 AH / 791 CE): An Omani scholar who founded Arabic prosody (‘arud), diacritical marks, grammar (nahw), and authored the first Arabic dictionary (Kitab Al-‘Ayn), all in service of the Quran.

    Reasons for Marginalization: Economic blockades, famine, migration to Africa, lack of enduring institutions (unlike Al-Azhar or Qayrawan), focus on tribal wars, and the burning of libraries by Abbasid forces (e.g., Ibn Bur). Over 12,000 Omani manuscript titles exist but lack publication and institutional support.

      Lost Heritage: The repeated references to lost or unprinted manuscripts (Jami’ Abi SafrahMusnad of Al-Rabi’Diwan Al-Muarad, Jabir bin Zaid’s original books) point to a rich but endangered scholarly tradition.

      Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds. We praise Him, the Exalted, seek His help, His guidance, and His forgiveness for all sins, and repent to Him. We send prayers and peace upon our Master Muhammed, and upon all his family and companions. Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, sent him as a mercy to the worlds. He delivered the message, fulfilled the trust, advised the nation, removed distress, and strove in the way of his Lord until certainty came to him. We ask Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, to make us among those who listen to the saying and follow the best of it. So, peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah.

      In this pleasant and blessed meeting, in a house among the houses of Allah, and in this gathering, we wish to present some of what concerns us from the history of our nation. That is the period during which the Messenger (saw) was sent, how it happened, and how our forefathers transmitted this Islam to us, and their relationship with the Messenger (saw). This is because historical references need someone to read and review them, and they need someone to study them. Also, much of what was written in the Omani biographical literature (Siyar) has not seen the light of day. Many of these Siyar still need verification, printing, and study.

      Because people have not fully grasped this history, nor have they known it, if someone were to ask them: “How did Islam reach you? From whom did you take the religion? The Messenger (saw) was sent in Mecca and Medina, so how did you (in Oman) receive it? Who transmitted Islam to you from there to here?” In this phase, meaning in this context of historical understanding, we must know about the delegations that came from the people of Oman to the Messenger of Allah (saw).

      And also the second point: the role of the scholars from the people of Oman in establishing the principles of Islam by establishing various schools, the codifications (mudawwanat) they wrote, the books they authored, and through which they preserved Islam. Islam remained with them in a strong context, untouched by alteration, substitution, or distortion. With Allah’s will, I will address two points.

      The First Point: The delegations (Wufud) that came from the people of Oman to the Messenger of Allah (saw).

      Of course, history mentions that a number of people from Oman came as delegations to the Messenger of Allah (saw). I will mention some of these delegations to make it clear to everyone that your fathers and forefathers took Islam through continuous transmission (mutawatir) from the Messenger of Allah (saw), generation after generation, group after group, so that it becomes firmly established in every person’s mind that the Islam our fathers and forefathers preserved was pure and correct, originating from the Messenger of Allah (saw).

      These are the delegations that set out to the Messenger of Allah (saw) when they heard of his mission. As you know, only Mazin bin Ghadhub Al-Ta’i is studied in the school curricula, and his meeting with the Messenger (saw) is studied as if he was an individual who visited the Messenger (saw). However, in history books like the history of Ibn Kathir’s Al-Sirah Al-Nabawiyyah and books on the biographies of the Companions, it is mentioned that Mazin had three delegations.

      It is mentioned in the book Subul Al-Huda wal-Rashad that a narration from Mazin bin Ghadhub says: “We arrived to the Messenger of Allah (saw) in Mecca Al-Mukarramah.” This narration indicates that Mazin met the Messenger (saw) in Mecca before his migration to Medina. He said: “We found Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (RA), and he guided us to the Messenger of Allah (saw.” This indicates that there was a meeting between the people of Oman and the Messenger (saw). This view is supported by the fact that when Prophet Ibrahim (AS) built Mecca, he supplicated to his Lord: “My Lord, I have settled some of my descendants in an uncultivated valley near Your sacred House, our Lord, that they may establish prayer. So make hearts among the people incline toward them…” Thus, visitors to the Sacred House have come since the time of Prophet Ibrahim, so there were necessarily people from the tribes of Oman and the land of Oman who came to Mecca. This is evidence that they met the Messenger before his migration to Medina.

      A second piece of evidence supporting this view is the existence of some mosques in Oman oriented towards the two Qiblas, such as one with us in Ibra, one mentioned in Nizwa, or some other mosques. This also indicates that they established prayer… What? Before the Messenger’s (saw) migration to Medina, and therefore they used to face Al-Aqsa Mosque.

      The third piece of evidence is found in some graves indicating that, before Islam, they used to bury their dead facing Al-Aqsa Mosque, not facing the Qibla of the Kaaba. All these pieces of evidence support the view that the people of Oman met the Messenger (saw) in Mecca before his migration to Medina.

      The second matter: After the migration, it is also narrated that Mazin came to the Messenger (saw). This is mentioned in the books of Companions’ biographies (those who met the Messenger). Mazin met the Messenger a second time in the third year of the Hijra. The books of Companions’ biographies detail this journey: he set out to the Messenger (saw). Of course, as you know, in that past time, it was not possible for a person to travel alone from these remote, distant areas to Medina due to the distance and the danger of the road. Therefore, they would travel in a caravan, a group, or a delegation. Also, as was the custom of the Arabs when meeting with rulers and princes, one would not go alone but rather in a delegation or a caravan with his group and family. So, they set out in a delegation.

      It is also mentioned that among the delegation with Mazin bin Ghadhub in the sixth year was his student and servant, Abu Al-Kathir Salih bin Al-Mutawakkil. They arrived to the Messenger of Allah (saw) in Medina, stood before him, and recited verses found in history books and Companions’ biography books, saying: “To you, O Messenger of Allah, my mount wearily travels, crossing deserts from Oman to Al-Arj, so that you may intercede for me, O best of those who tread the earth, and my Lord forgives me, and I return with success.”

      Out of love, honor, and reverence for the Messenger of Allah (saw), he recited the poem. It is narrated that the Messenger (saw asked him, “Who is this who is with you?” – referring to his young servant. He said, “This is my servant, Abu Al-Kathir Salih bin Mutawakkil.” The Messenger (saw) said, “Take good care of him,” so Mazin set him free in the presence of the Messenger (saw), out of love, reverence, and honor for the Messenger of Allah (saw).

      As you know, when Mazin bin Ghadhub went out the first time he met him, and now the second time with those from Oman, what were they carrying? They were the nation (Ummah), wanting to save the nation from the ignorance (Jahiliyyah) they were upon. Mazin said to the Messenger (saw): “Supplicate to Allah for the people of Oman.” The Messenger (saw) said: “O Allah, guide them and reward them.” Mazin said, “More, O Messenger of Allah.” He said: “O Allah, grant them chastity, sufficiency, and contentment with what You have given them.” Mazin said, “More, O Messenger of Allah. The sea splashes next to us, so supplicate to Allah regarding our sea produce, our footwear (khuff), and our livestock (dhalf).” He (saw) said: “O Allah, increase the good from their sea for them, and bless them in their footwear and livestock.” Mazin said, “More, O Messenger of Allah.” The Messenger (saw) said: “O Allah, do not empower an outsider enemy against them. Say ‘Ameen,’ O Mazin.” So he said ‘Ameen,’ and then the supplication is answered.

      Of course, after that, Mazin requested supplication for himself. The rest of the narration or story is known to you. In it, Mazin said upon returning to Oman, as mentioned in Ibn Kathir’s Al-Sirah Al-Nabawiyyah: “Then my people rebuked me, blamed me, and treated me harshly. They ordered their poet to satirize me. I said, ‘If I satirize them, I satirize myself.’ So I withdrew to one side, built a mosque, and stayed there…” The mosque upon his return in the sixth year after (meeting) the Messenger. He established the mosque and raised the call ‘Hayya ‘ala as-Salah’ (come to prayer) in it, and established the congregation. At that time, in Mecca, the Adhan had not been raised, nor was prayer established. So the Adhan was raised and prayer was established in Oman before Mecca, because Mecca was conquered in the eighth year of the Hijra, while Mazin established the mosque and raised the call to prayer there from the sixth year.

      He says: “Then my people said… This mosque, no one in need would come and supplicate to Allah except that Allah answered him, nor would a sick person come and supplicate to Allah except that He cured him. He says: Then my people blamed themselves and came to me saying, ‘Yours is your religion, and you are the one in charge of our affairs, so return to us.’ So I returned to them.” Then he says: “Then Allah guided a people from Oman, and they entered Islam.” He says: “And in the following year, i.e., the seventh year of the Hijra, those whose souls yearned (for the Prophet) also came, accompanied by people from Oman, when he had told them about the Messenger’s (saw) conduct. They went to the Messenger of Allah (saw), and the Messenger (saw) gave them glad tidings, saying: ‘O pure one from the pure ones, O most generous from the most generous ones, Allah has guided a people from Oman, and they have entered Islam. Allah has made Oman prosperous and increased profits and abundant goodness from the land and sea.’ The Messenger (saw) said: ‘My religion is the religion of Islam, and Allah will increase the people of Oman in Islam. So blessed (Tuba) is he who believes in me and sees me, and blessed is he who believes in me but does not see me, and blessed, and then blessed is he who believes in me but does not see me, nor sees the one who saw me.'”

      So here are three delegations with Mazin: before Mecca, the third year, and the seventh year.

      Likewise, it is also mentioned – and you know that Mazin bin Ghadhub is from Bani Tayy, from As-Sa’di, from Sa’d Tayy in Samail – that there was another delegation. Perhaps it was with Mazin, before, or after – Allah knows best – but history does not mention it. They were from Bani Nabhan of Tayy, led by Khalid bin Sadus bin Asma’ Al-Nabhani, accompanied by Yazid bin Jabir bin Asma’ Al-Nabhani. They came to the Messenger of Allah (saw), embraced Islam, and took Islam directly from him.

      So, how many delegations now? Four delegations. Also, in the sixth year when the Messenger concluded the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and in the seventh year he began writing to the leaders and kings of the world. The Messenger (saw) sent a letter to Kisra Shiroweih, the king of Persia. When the letter reached the Persian king, he tore it up. He wrote to his governor… so Allah empowered his son Shiroweih over him, who killed his father Kisra and Shiroweih and seized control of the Persian lands. Then Shiroweih wrote to some of his governors in Oman, called the Marzaban, saying: “Select for me a man, Arab-Persian (i.e., fluent in both languages), and send him to investigate the matter of this man (Muhammed).” So he selected Ka’b bin Bursha’ Al-Tahi from Bani Tahiyeh of the desert… So they formed a delegation – as you know, one cannot travel alone – and they came to the Messenger of Allah (saw). This was the first delegation from Bani Tahiyeh.

      Ka’b bin Bursha’ Al-Tahi had read the scriptures of the People of the Book, the Torah and the Gospel, leaving nothing, and recognized what was in them. He knew the descriptions of the promised Prophet who would be sent at the end of time. When he arrived in Medina, he threw down his riding stick (signifying travel gear) before the Messenger (saw), sat with him, and began to learn from him, asking him about Islam and what he calls to. The Messenger (saw) clarified for him. He found those descriptions mentioned in the books of the People of the Book applied to the Messenger (saw). The proof was established for him, he entered Islam, and brought those with him into the religion. He returned to Oman and informed the Marzaban there of the truth of the Messenger’s (saw) prophethood. The Marzaban said, “Give me time until I return to Persia.” Ka’b began to inform the people of the truth of the Messenger’s (saw) prophethood, of the evidence and proofs he saw, and that the descriptions in the Torah and Gospel applied to the Messenger (saw). The souls of the people of Oman, the people of Sohar (Ka’b was sent from Sohar), yearned for the meeting with the Messenger (saw).

      It is narrated that the Messenger, in the sixth year of the Hijra, sent Abu Zaid Al-Ansari (whose name was Thabit bin Qais bin…) to the people of Oman to call them to Islam. He sent Abu Zaid Al-Ansari in the sixth year, and he remained until the eighth year when Amr bin Al-Aas came, calling them to Islam and managing their affairs.

      Also, after the return of the delegation of Bani Tahiyeh, the Messenger (saw) sent Al-Ala’ bin Al-Hadrami as governor over Oman and Bahrain. At that time, Bahrain was part of Oman. He sent him as governor over Oman and Bahrain. When Al-Ala’ Al-Hadrami arrived – and the Messenger (saw) had written a letter for him, a letter that exists in the Omani Sirah, printed but without verification, in the book Al-Muntakhab by the Ministry of Heritage – it is the Sirah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) by Al-Ala’ bin Al-Hadrami, which is the oldest Sirah. So the people of Oman formed a delegation led by Asad bin Yabraḥ Al-Tahi. They came to the Messenger of Allah (saw), met him, and took Islam directly from him, face to face. The Messenger taught them directly, and they took it by word and deed. They stayed with him, studied under him, and were honored by his companionship. When they wanted to return, they said, “O Messenger of Allah, send with us someone to teach us the matters of our religion.” Mukharrib Al-Abd (whose name was Mudrik bin Khowt) stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allah, send me with them, for they have a favor upon me. They captured me on the day of Janoub and then freed me as a favor.” So the Messenger (saw) sent them with him to Oman.

      How many delegations now? Mazin’s three, the delegation of Bani Abban is four, the delegation of Ka’b bin Bursha’ Al-Tahi is five, and the delegation of Asad bin Yabraḥ Al-Tahi is six. All of them were from the desert region. So, six delegations.

      When they came to Oman, Islam began to spread, and they themselves spread Islam. It is said that the Azd of Oman formed a delegation led by Salamah bin Iyadh Al-Azdi. They came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) – these delegations are mentioned in Ibn Sa’d’s Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra – they met with him, learned from him, and took Islam directly from him, face to face. Then, when they wanted to return, they said, “O Messenger of Allah, supplicate to Allah to unite us.” The Messenger (saw) said: “O Allah, unite us.” So they returned to Oman, Islam spread among the people of Oman, and began to spread among the tribes.

      Then the people of Oman formed two more delegations: the delegation of Bani Al-Haddan and the delegation of Bani Thamalah. As you know, there are mountains called the Haddan mountains, belonging to Bani Shams, Ma’awil bin Shams, and Tahi bin Shams, all from the Azd of Oman. The author of Al-Tabaqat says that they had already entered Islam in Oman (meaning they were Muslims when they left Oman, but they wanted to be honored by the company of the Messenger). The delegation of Bani Al-Haddan was led by Musalliyah bin Hazzan Al-Haddani, and the head of the delegation of Bani Thamalah was Abdullah bin Illas Al-Thamali. They came to the Messenger (saw), stayed with him, sat by his side, and sought blessings from his company. The Messenger (saw) wrote a letter for them when they wanted to return to Oman, which included: “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, from Muhammed, the Messenger of Allah (saw), to the dwellers of the coasts and the valleys of Sohar…” It is a letter regarding charity (Sadaqat), also found in Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, written by Thabit bin Qais bin Shammas, witnessed by Sa’d bin Ubadah and Muhammed bin Maslamah. They came to Oman, established themselves, and Islam spread throughout Oman, and they began teaching the people.

      How many delegations now? With Allah’s will: Mazin’s two (or three), Bani Abban is four, the two Bani Tahiyeh delegations are six, the Azd of Oman delegation is seven, Al-Haddan delegation is eight, Bani Thamalah delegation is nine. Also, the delegation of Bani Al-Farahid.

      Ibn Duraid, who is from Sohar and a famous scholar of the Arabic language, author of Al-Jamharah and Al-Ishtiqaq, lived in the third century (AH). He met Imam Al-Salt bin Malik in Nizwa and stayed with him. Ibn Duraid said: “I went out to Nizwa during days of rain and fertility. Imam Al-Salt bin Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said to me, ‘Listen to us tomorrow, insha’Allah. We will pray two rak’ahs and supplicate to Allah to remove the rain from us,’ due to the heavy rainfall that had damaged houses. So he sat with him. In the morning, Imam Al-Salt prayed two rak’ahs and supplicated to Allah to place it on the mountains, hills, and tree growths – meaning he supplicated to Allah to lighten the rain for them. Ibn Duraid said: ‘The first one from the people of Oman to come to the Messenger of Allah (saw) was my grandfather Hammam bin Jarw bin Wasi’ Al-Farahidi, along with some people from his tribe.’ He said ‘with some people from his tribe,’ indicating it was a delegation, but it’s not specified whether it was before or after these other delegations. He said ‘the first,’ so perhaps it is among the earliest delegations that came to the Messenger (saw), perhaps even in Mecca – and Allah knows best. Because his phrasing is ‘The first from the people of Oman to come to the Messenger of Allah (saw) was my grandfather Hammam… with some people from his tribe.’ So it wasn’t just one individual, but they stayed with him, learned from him, and returned to Oman.

      So, how many delegations now? Ten. The eleventh delegation is the delegation of Al-Atiq, led by Abu Safrah Sarif bin Dhalim from Sohar and also Dibba. He came to the Messenger (saw) wearing a yellow turban dragging behind him by a forearm’s length, with dignity and awe. The Messenger (saw) asked, “Who are you?” He said, “My name is Sarif bin Dhalim” (in one narration, ‘Sariq bin Dhalim’). The Messenger (saw) said… in a narration, ‘Ibn Al-Halqan, Ibn Al-Julanda, Ibn Al-Mustakbir, who seizes every ship by force’… narrations vary. The Messenger said, “Leave ‘Sarif’ or ‘Sariq’ and ‘Dhalim’ (names implying theft and injustice); you are Abu Safrah.” He said, “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah, truly, truly. Allah blessed me with 18 children, and the last of them was a daughter, so I named her Safrah.” They stayed with him. However, it is mentioned that this delegation might have been after the eighth or ninth year of the Hijra.

      So, delegations so far: 11.

      The delegation of Abdul Qais: The author of Al-Tahdheeb (in the biography of the Companions) said that the delegation of Bani Abdul Qais came to the Messenger (saw). Their leader or chief was Al-Mundhir bin Al-Harith bin Abdul Qais. He was from Oman. He came to the Messenger (saw) and sat with him, wearing his best clothes. When they sat with the Messenger (saw) and he looked at them, he said: “There are two qualities in you that Allah and His Messenger love: forbearance (Hilm) and deliberation (Anah).” The author of Al-Tahdheeb said he was from Oman.

      So, delegations now: 12.

      The delegation of Bani Rasib, led by Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi. Sheikh Salim bin Hamud (Al-Siyabi) mentions in his book that he came as a delegation to the Messenger (saw) with his group and people from Oman. He stayed with the Messenger (saw), and his companionship was established. It is also mentioned in his biography that afterwards, perhaps they participated in the conquests during the time of Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA). When Umar (RA) wrote to his governor in Oman, Uthman bin Abi Al-Aas Al-Thaqafi, to advance to fight the Persians, crossing the sea, and after they were victorious, Al-Khattab gave them a part of Basra. They settled there. Later, when Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas needed help during the conquest of Persia, he wrote a letter to Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA) requesting assistance, so Umar wrote to Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi to come to him. He was the right-hand man in the conquests of Iraq. He participated twice: with the people of Oman and in the conquest of Iraq.

      Also, the delegation of the women of Oman. As you know, women also used to go for Hajj. In Lawahaq Al-Musnad, Abu Sufyan (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Azwar (the best I met from Oman) told me that some women from Oman entered upon Aisha (RA) during the days of Hajj… They entered upon Aisha (RA), and she asked them, ‘Who are you?’ They said, ‘From the people of Oman.’ She said, ‘I heard my beloved (saw) say: “Many people from Oman will come to my Basin (Hawd).”‘”

      These are some of the delegations mentioned. See, even the women of Oman – from where did we take Islam? From the very heart of the Messenger’s (saw) house. We met the Mothers of the Believers and learned from Aisha (RA). Also, when the Messenger (saw) passed away to the Highest Companion, the news reached Oman. The people of Oman formed a delegation led by Abdul Janda, the ruler of Oman, accompanied by Amr bin Al-Aas. Seventy people from Oman went out with him. They came to Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (RA), expressed their condolences regarding the Messenger (saw), and pledged allegiance to his Caliphate. They accompanied Amr bin Al-Aas and said, “This is a trust that the Messenger (saw) sent to us, and we return your trust to you.” So, see, 70 people from Oman stayed with Abu Bakr, with Al-Khattab, and with the senior Companions. They sat among them and took Islam directly from them, meeting the senior Companions.

      Also, during the time of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (RA), the issue of the Dibba incident occurred. Khalaf bin Ziyad Al-Bahrani (a scholar from Oman around the 2nd century AH) wrote a letter (Sirah) explaining that when the Zakat collector came to Dibba to a woman there, he was supposed to take a mature (Musinnah) sheep, but she gave him a young one (Saghirah). He forcibly took a mature sheep from her. She sought help from her people. Hudhayfah bin Mihsan Al-Ghalfani thought she and her people had apostatized, so he surrounded them, captured them, and took them to Medina. The people of Dibba formed a delegation of three: Al-Hadid, Al-Hamhami… They came to Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA), explained the issue to him, clarified it, and met with senior Companions. Al-Khattab (RA) returned their wealth and offspring to them and gave each of them 300 dirhams.

      The conclusion is that the people of Oman – your forefathers and fathers – had a meeting with the Messenger of Allah (saw). They took Islam directly from the Messenger (saw), face to face. They also took it through continuous transmission (mutawatir), meaning group from group, not individual from individual. Therefore, transmitted knowledge is the most authentic form of transmission – group from group, making it impossible for them to agree on a lie. They preserved it from the time of the Messenger (saw) in their lands. They were far from other civilizations. Because of this, when they preserved it, Roman, Persian, Greek, or Indian ideas did not mix with it. Thus, they preserved it correctly and purely. Consequently, the people of Oman did not have unusual religious rituals like others, because they were not influenced by other civilizations. They were far away and preserved Islam correctly as they transmitted it from the Messenger (saw). So, this removes any doubt: we took it directly from the Messenger.

      This is the first path.

      The Second Path: The matter of codification (Tadwin) and the precise control of codification. (But time is short, the lesson would be long and people might get bored).

      The second phase is the phase of codification. After the Messenger (saw) began his call, every individual entering Islam had to learn the matters of the religion, especially those related to creed and faith in Allah. The Messenger established the first school for them: Dar Al-Arqam bin Abi Al-Arqam. He began to instill Islam and the foundations of the religion in them. In summary, the Messenger instilled in the souls of the Companions that Islam is a complete, integrated reality that does not accept partition, half-solutions, equality (with falsehood), or compromises. The Messenger alone was the ideal model and practical application of Islam. As you know, wealth and status were offered to the Messenger – did he agree? He was asked to compromise on the matter of Islam when they gathered with his uncle Abu Talib. He said his famous statement: “O uncle, by Allah, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left to leave this matter, I would not leave it until Allah makes it victorious.” A firm creed with no compromise, and it affected the Companions.

      Similarly, in the second situation when Utbah bin Rabi’ah came to him and said, “Muhammed, if you want wealth by this matter, we will gather wealth for you; if you want leadership or sovereignty, we will make you our master,” etc. The Messenger recited the beginning of Surah Fussilat to him, and Utbah saw no sign of compromise from him. Then they came with half-solutions, saying, “Alright, you worship your god one day, and we will worship our god one day.” Then Allah revealed: “Say, O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship…” Finally, they said, “Keep your religion, but stop criticizing our gods.” The Messenger said: “Say, ‘It is not for me to change it on my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me. Indeed, I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous Day.'” He told them all: Islam is a complete, integrated creed that does not accept partition. If part collapses, the whole collapses.

      This creed selected the men who led this nation. Allah tested them. An example of a test: the boycott of Banu Hashim lasted three years. But the Messenger instilled the creed, and it bore fruit; they did not compromise their faith or creed, despite the hardship and suffering during that boycott. Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (RA) said: “I went out one day to relieve myself. I heard a crunching under my feet. It was a camel hide. I took it, washed it, burned it, ground it, and subsisted on it for three days.”

      In short, the school of Al-Arqam produced in the Companions the correct creed that the Messenger (saw) instilled. They never compromised their religion and sacrificed themselves for Islam. Later, when the Islamic call spread and the number of Muslims increased, and the harm from Quraysh intensified, the Messenger (saw) permitted them to migrate first to Abyssinia, but it was far. Then, after Allah blessed him with the second pledge of Aqabah from the people of Medina, who promised him victory, he permitted the weak Muslims to migrate to Medina. When they migrated, the Companions who graduated from the school of Al-Arqam established a school called the School of the Reciters (Qurra’). At that time, terms like exegetes, jurists, hadith scholars didn’t exist. Anyone who memorized the Quran or part of it, studied under the Messenger, preserved the Sunnah, and knew the reasons for revelation was called a Reciter (Qari’).

      They built a school in Medina called the School of the Qurra’. The Companions would migrate to it and stay. These Qurra’ would go out in the morning, gather firewood, sell it, and bring food to the Qurra’. Every new convert to Islam would come to that school and sit there, and they would teach him the Quran and prayer matters. This school remained a beacon until the Messenger came to Medina and beyond. The Messenger relied on the graduates of this school for calling to Islam (Da’wah). He would send those who were proficient, had memorized the Quran, knew the Sunnah, and knew the reasons for revelation. Many Muslims in Medina, but he didn’t send just anyone. An example is the story of the companions of Ar-Raji’ when the delegations of Adal and Qarah came to the Messenger. They said, “Send with us those who will teach us the matters of our religion.” He sent with them seven or ten of the Qurra’. Also, when Al-Amir (Amr bin Malik) came to the Messenger and asked him to send a group to the people of Najd. The Messenger said, “I fear for them.” He said, “I guarantee their safety.” It is said he sent 40 or 70 of the Qurra’. He used the Qurra’ for Da’wah. They were the ones who led the army, presided over judgments, and upon them revolved the affairs of Islam and the Muslims. But the people of Najd betrayed them and killed them at Bi’r Ma’unah. This is called the Expedition of the Qurra’ or the Expedition of Bi’r Ma’unah.

      The school remained in Medina, and then after the Messenger, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (RA) relied on the Qurra’. In the battle of Al-Yamamah, the Companions said: “When the heat of battle intensified, we would seek refuge with the Qurra’,” as they stood firm on the battlefield because they sought death more than life and loved martyrdom. Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA) came to Abu Bakr and said, “O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah, preserve the memorizers of the Quran, for nearly 70 of the Qurra’ were killed in Al-Yamamah.” Abu Bakr ordered the Qurra’ to review the noble Mushaf written during the time of the Messenger and teach the people, so that the Qurra’ would not all be killed in battle, as they were the ones who stood firm.

      Then came the era of Umar bin Al-Khattab (RA). He relied on them, brought them close in his gatherings, they were his army leaders and callers to Islam. So, during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, the state was strong by relying on the scholars, the Qurra’. Then came the time of Uthman (RA). In the early years, he relied on them, but in later years, he brought his relatives closer, and the state began to show weakness. A rebellion occurred in Medina against Uthman, leading to his assassination. Then Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) assumed power, and the Qurra’ gathered around him. Some Muslims rebelled against him in the Battle of the Camel, and he defeated them. Then Muawiyah staged a military coup against Ali bin Abi Talib at Siffin. The Qurra’ gathered with him and fought with him, until victory was near for Ali, were it not for the trickery of Amr bin Al-Aas. What happened, happened.

      When the Qurra’ advised Ali bin Abi Talib not to accept arbitration and that Muawiyah was a transgressor, and that he should fight them, but Ali did not listen to their opinion. The Qurra’ withdrew themselves. When the arbitration occurred and Ali was removed from the Caliphate, they said to him: “You have removed yourself from the Caliphate.” So they withdrew from him. Those people who withdrew were called the “Muhakkamah” (those who declare ‘Judgment belongs to Allah’). This Muhakkamah pledged allegiance to Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi as their imam. They considered Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi as the fifth of the Rightly Guided Caliphs after Ali bin Abi Talib. Then what happened between Ali and the Muhakkamah at the Battle of Nahrawan occurred. Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi was killed, along with many of the Qurra’ and those who remained with him. Among them were Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Hudayr, his brother Urwah bin Udiyyah, and others.

      Those who remained gathered around Jabir bin Zaid (may Allah have mercy on him). Discussions took place among them. Imam Jabir bin Zaid established his school. When was that? Imam Jabir bin Zaid was born in 18 AH (or 21 AH). He abandoned fighting and that affair and returned to Da’wah. He began to establish this school, meaning he codified and wrote it down. Imam Jabir bin Zaid (may Allah have mercy on him) began to collect authentic narrations from the Companions from the Messenger of Allah (saw). Abu (?) Jabir bin Zaid traveled from Basra to Medina and Mecca in 40 journeys, during 40 Hajj seasons, to meet as many Companions as possible, ask them about the Messenger (saw), the situations they experienced with him, the events they witnessed, what they heard from the Messenger, and what he told them. It is narrated that Imam Jabir said: “I met 70 of the Badriyyun (those who fought at Badr) and took from their knowledge.” (He meant Abdullah bin Abbas was considered young on the day of Badr…). Imam Jabir bin Zaid would codify what he heard from those narrations. He said, “I met a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saw),” and “A number of Companions narrated to me,” indicating the many he met. It was said to him, “The Messenger (saw) wrote a letter on Sadaqat to Amr bin Hazm Al-Ansari when he sent him as governor over Yemen.” So he traveled specifically from Basra to Medina, went to the house of Amr bin Hazm Al-Ansari, knocked on the door of his sons, and asked them to show him the letter the Messenger (saw) had written to their father. They gave him the letter, he saw it, and he copied it. It is said he wrote it down and transmitted it. Imam Jabir was extremely keen on transmitting these narrations.

      Imam Jabir was not alone; with him were Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Hudayr, Abdullah bin Ibadh, Salim bin Dhakwan Al-Hilali, and Salim bin Hatti. Imam Jabir bin Zaid began to codify the narrations with those with him.

      Firstly, the school of Imam Jabir bin Zaid and his followers was called the School of the People of Truth and Righteousness (Ahl al-Haqq wal-Istiqamah). The founders were some Companions, like Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Rasibi, Zaid bin Husn Al-Ta’i, and other Companions – the Qurra’ who were martyred at Nahrawan. The Followers (Tabi’un) met the senior Companions. Imam Jabir bin Zaid met all the Companions. He met the leaders who participated with Ali bin Abi Talib during the days of turmoil: the Day of the House (siege of Uthman), the Day of the Camel, the Day of Siffin, the Day of Nahrawan, the Day of Nakhlah. He met all of them and asked them in detail. He asked the Companions about these events. It is said that Imam Jabir bin Zaid and Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Hudayr (may Allah have mercy on him) entered upon Aisha (RA) – who was one of the Prophet’s wives well-acquainted with events – sat with her, and asked her in detail about the life of the Messenger (saw), what she heard, about the events, including the era of Abu Bakr, the events of Umar, the Day of Uthman, and the Battle of the Camel (in which she participated). She repented and sought Allah’s forgiveness. Imam Jabir and Abu Bilal had vast knowledge of the complex political events.

      So, the summary: Firstly, the school of Imam Jabir bin Zaid met the Companions who met the Messenger (saw), so their transmission was correct and firmly established from the Messenger (saw). Secondly, they met the leaders who participated in those complex political events and battles, starting from the Day of the House, the Day of the Camel, Siffin, Nahrawan, Nakhlah. They met the leaders and knew who was correct and who was in error, so their understanding of the events was clear. Thirdly, they were residents of Basra, Iraq, and most of these events occurred in Iraq – they were present. So, they had a wide understanding of these matters. For example, Abdullah bin Ibadh wrote a letter (still extant, needing explanation and commentary) in which he says he met Uthman, Ali bin Abi Talib, and Muawiyah, and knew these events in detail. It is one of the oldest Siyar. Also, there is a Sirah by Salim bin Dhakwan Al-Hilali, a contemporary of Imam Jabir bin Zaid. The manuscript still exists, not yet printed, needing verification. There is also a Sirah by Salim bin Hilal, I don’t know if it exists or not. These Siyar were written in the first half of the first century AH or shortly after. They are codifications proving they were correct and on the right path because they witnessed the events, knew those who participated in them, met their leaders, took it directly from the correct sources, had full detail, and codified it. Therefore, their beliefs and narrations are truthful. It is not narrated that they fabricated a single narration attributed to the Messenger (saw).

      Then, after Imam Jabir bin Zaid came Abu Ubaidah Muslim bin Abi Karimah, who further clarified and expanded the school. Then after Abu Ubaidah came Al-Rabi’ bin Habib. Then the school divided: to Oman, to Yemen, and to North Africa. In Oman, during the time of Imam Al-Rabi’ bin Habib, he came to Oman and settled there. He had students of knowledge (or bearers of knowledge) with him. Mahbub Al-Rahil established a school in Sohar. Scholars from the Al-Rahili family and others emerged from Sohar. Upon this school revolved the learning of this family and scholars, as you read in Omani history: the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th centuries AH. Also, Abu Al-Mundhir Bashir bin Al-Mundhir was in Nizwa, established a school, built a mosque (later the Great Mosque), and was given the title ‘Sheikh’ in Omani heritage. He established his school, which continued. Also, Abu Ali Musa bin Ali Al-Azri in Izki. These schools branched from the school of Al-Rabi’. So, the chain connects: Al-Rabi’ from Abu Ubaidah, Abu Ubaidah from Jabir, Jabir from the senior Companions from the Prophet (saw). It is said that the books written by Imam Jabir bin Zaid were transmitted to Oman with Mahbub Al-Rahil, then Muhammed bin Mahbub carried them to Mecca. From Mecca, the people of the Maghrib (North Africa) copied them. But, by Allah, the books of Imam Jabir bin Zaid are still lost. What remains is what the students of Al-Rabi’ recorded from Abu Ubaidah or from some sheikhs from Imam Jabir bin Zaid. These were collected by Maghribi scholars in a book called Al-Diwan Al-Muarad ‘ala Al-Ashyakh (The Anthology Presented to the Sheikhs), consisting of 22 books. It is a compilation authored by scholars of Ahl al-Haqq wal-Istiqamah in the first and second centuries AH.

      Among them is the Jami’ Abi Safrah, which are narrations of Al-Rabi’ from Dhamam from Jabir bin Zaid from the Companions. The second book is the Musnad of Imam Al-Rabi’, which are narrations of Al-Rabi’ from Abu Ubaidah from Jabir bin Zaid. The difference is that the narrations of Al-Rabi’ from Dhamam are one type, and his narrations from Abu Ubaidah are another. This book also contains the Book of Marriage (Nikah al-Shighar) by Imam Jabir bin Zaid, as well as the Fatwas of Al-Rabi’, narrations of his fatwas, his effects (Athar), letters from scholars of Basra, letters from scholars of Medina, Mecca, Mosul, and Kufa. This book is still a manuscript, not printed. May Allah provide someone to review it, publish it, and bring it to light. This is a very brief summary of the codification of this period.

      Thus, we realize fully that the Companions codified it before others. The arrangement of the Noble Quran – the arrangement of the surahs (Alif-Lam-Mim, Al-Baqarah, An-Nisa’, Aal-Imran) – this arrangement according to the narration of Imam Jabir bin Zaid was written down. The first to codify the Prophetic Sunnah was Imam Jabir bin Zaid. Al-Khalil bin Ahmad Al-Farahidi (may Allah have mercy on him), who was from Oman, was the one who established the science of Arabic prosody (Al-Farahidi), the science of diacritical points (dotting), as writing was without dots. He established the vowel marks (fatha, damma, kasra, shadda). He established the dictionary (lexicon) – his first dictionary is Kitab Al-Ayn. He established the science of grammar (Nahw). All of this was in service of the Quran. The people of Oman were the foremost in serving the Noble Quran.

      …Does anyone have a question about the topic? Discussions, comments, or a point not understood? Please, go ahead.

      (The speaker continues)

      The arrangement of the Mushafs (written copies of the Quran)… Al-Aswad. It is said – and Allah knows best – that some books mention this point. I have found references to it. But it is also said regarding Al-Khalil bin Ahmad, though they do not make explicit the favor of the people of Oman. I even found that Al-Khalil bin Ahmad Al-Farahidi (may Allah have mercy on him) used to make this supplication: “My Lord, forgive me and grant me knowledge that no one after me will need, for You are the Bestower.” He always made this supplication, so Allah opened for him the science of the Arabic language; he was the one who founded and established its principles.

      Excellent.

      Glory be to You, O Allah, and with Your praise.

      Questioner: Shaykh, the reasons for marginalizing this history – ancient and modern Omani history – are there reasons that have led to its marginalization among many of the people, in their books or in their Siyar?

      Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani: There are many reasons. The people of Oman themselves neglected it. A period came upon the people of Oman during the days of economic blockade, famine, and drought. They were preoccupied with earning a living. They migrated, and many went to Africa. At that time, so much history was lost because no one studied it or taught it. Also, the neglect of history, lack of reading, lack of study, and no institutions existed for them. For example, if we look at Egypt, they have Al-Azhar, which codified that jurisprudence and took charge of education, teaching, and instruction. It has been like a university since the time of the Fatimids. In the Maghrib (North Africa), the University of Qayrawan also played this role. In Iraq, Karbala and Najaf Al-Ashraf have their own Hawzas (religious seminaries), strong institutions supported by funds, and there are those who take on (the role). All of them have students of knowledge. As for us, we have absolutely nothing. Add to that our love for tribal histories and wars, and so on. It was all lost. And none of our Imams tried, except Imam Al-Arab bin Sultan (may Allah have mercy on him), who built Jabrin Fort as the first university for students of knowledge. But later, due to division and disagreement, it was lost, and no one followed up after that. The hope now is that history is being investigated, the Siyar are being printed, reviewed, and so on.

      Questioner: Shaykh, are there existing (manuscripts) or effects of our companions?

      Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani: In Rustaq? In Nizwa? We mean great libraries. But due to war… due to the Abbasid wars and the (campaigns) of (the Abbasid general) Ibn Bur? They burned these libraries. Our companions truly had large libraries… However, some of them are in the forts. But they were burned. Some remain in the private collections of individuals. For example, in Oman, more than 12,000 titles of manuscripts, documents, and Siyar have been discovered. The Omani Siyar contain more than 300 Sirah (singular of Siyar), which need verification and review – they exist. Many manuscripts exist now, but there is no institution to print them, publish them, review them, nor anyone to support them. Nor are there people to buy them. Even if someone prints the books, no one buys from him. So all circumstances pressure the reality, preventing publication. We truly call upon the Omani people and the scholars to do something, even a small thing, so that people can access it.

      Questioner: (Insha’Allah, we will write, Mr. Shaykh Ahmad?) I understand.

      Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani: Insha’Allah.

      Questioner: Alright.

      Shaykh Hilal Al Barwani: Excellent. Glory be to You, O Allah, and with Your praise. I bear witness that there is no god but You. I seek Your forgiveness and repent to You. O Allah, make this gathering of ours a blessed gathering, and make our dispersal after it a protected dispersal. Do not let there be among us or with us any wretched or deprived person. O Allah, make us doers of good with knowledge and avoiders of indecency. Remove from us the injustice of the oppressors. And may Allah send prayers and peace upon our Master Muhammed, and upon his family and all his companions.

      Well done, may Allah reward you with good.

      Attendee: Well done, (even though it was) long.

      May Allah Guide the Ummah.

      May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

      Leave a comment

      Filed under Uncategorized

      Do only Ibadis go to heaven?

      “Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided” (Qur’an 16:125)

      “Do they feel secure from Allah’s plan? None can feel secure from Allah’s plan except the people who are losers.” (Qur’an 7:99)

      ﷽ 

      Our colleague recalls the first time they encountered this sentiment from an individual from another school. “Look! This Ibadi scholar says that Non Ibadis are going to hell!” They claimed they had the Arabic text, the book, the quote of the author, the whole package.

      It turns out that the statement was that Non Ibadis are guilty of kufr ni’ama (ungrateful of blessings). However, this same nomenclature is used by Ibadis, who commits major sins as well.


      So we find these claims incredulous and extremely insincere. Contrary to popular belief, takfir is not a known way with us (those who follow the Ibadi school).

      Anyone who says the shahadatayn is a Muslim by default. Just to be clear, this means the Ahmadis, Sunnis (including the Salafis, Sufis, Deobandis, Dhahiri, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Hanafi schools), The Shi’i (including the Ismaili, Zaydi, Ithnā ʿAshariyyah). This is the default position with us. All of them are afforded what is afforded a Muslim brother or sister.

      That is because it is common knowledge that when you meet any individual you deal with them on the basis of their dhahir (their apparent). People’s beliefs are not known unless they divulge them. When they do, one of their rights upon us is that we correct their errors.

      It is important to know that we are not Ibadis who follow Islam. Rather, we are Muslims who follow the Ibadi school. If we put our sectarian label first, how can our commitment ever be to the truth?

      In fact, in our experience, we have known of Ithnā ʿAshariyyah Shi’i, who left the beliefs of his sect behind but retrained the fiqh (jurisprudence of their prayer). Possibly he did not see the need to reinvent the wheel. The same can be said of a Nizari Ismaili who kept the label because he wanted the social contacts that came with the affiliation, but he no longer believed in their creed. Or the Sunni who doesn’t believe the Qur’an is uncreated or that he will see Allah in the hereafter.

      So who knows best the inward state and condition of any individual at any given time?

      So all we have are labels and dealing with the dhahir (the apparent).

      Who is truer than Allah (swt) who says:

      “You cannot guide whoever you please: it is Allah who guides whom He will. He best knows those who would accept guidance.” (Qur’an 28:56)

      The simple fact that all schools of traditional Islam (even pseudo-Islamic groups) have exclusivist statements.

      We have said it before, and we will say it again: Every Muslim is some other Muslims non-Muslim.

      It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said:

      “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The main body.”

      Source: (https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:3992)

      In a recent irony, someone from another school brought up that view among some Ibadi scholars that followers of other schools are in kufr ni’ama (ungrateful of blessings). Then this same person claimed that his school was saved, and he quoted the hadith of the 73 groups.

      Imagine the irony of the thinking involved here: “Did you know that your school has exclusivist views and, therefore, it is flawed. However, my school has exclusivist views and it is correct.”

      Like, really, what was the thought process here? “Look! Your school has scholars who have this view and others who do not. Yet, come and join my school, where there is unanimity that everyone else but us goes to hell. That is because they are the people of innovation.”

      We advised concerning dealing with people like him the following:

      “Ask him about the 73 sects hadith, are we Ibadi that magical saved group or are we on Pan Am Flight 72 with an express ticket to hell?”

      “If we are on Pan Am Flight 72, ask him how long we are in hell for? If he says, 17 minutes, 100 years, a billion, reply: “See you in heaven big guy!” If he says “forever”, then put your hand on your hip and say it in your best Southern Mississippi accent and say: “Darling, look at you over here kicking up a fuss!”

      For those who do not understand our sense of humor, the question is very straightforward.

      It is to ask this individual how they understand the ultimate destiny of the other 72 sects — aka Pan Am Flight 72? If the rest of us (Ibadi and others) go to hell, what is the duration?

      a) If it is only for a little while, then as per instructions to reply to him: “See you in heaven big guy!”

      b) If it is forever well, then our second reply is equally relevant: “Darling, look at you over here kicking up a fuss!” Meaning to say: Then why is it a big deal if we have exclusivist views which you, yourself and your school hold onto? This also means they believe that Muslims burn in hell forever.

      c) A way out of the dilemma presented by a and b is to make takfir of the other 72 groups. Which expells them from Islam altogther; andn makes the group or individuals takfiris. If that is not exculusivist we don’t know what is.

      EXCLUSIVIST VIEWS ARE NOT SOMETHING NOVEL TO THE IBADI SCHOOL.

      Recall what what we said above:

      The simple fact is that all schools of traditional Islam (even pseudo-Islamic groups) have these types of exclusivist statements.

      The Qadiani sect, which is considered pseudo-Islamic due to its belief in another Prophet after Muhammed (saw) has a similar position to some in the Ibadi school on the concept of kufr ni’ama (though they do not use this terminology). Their moto is : Love for All, Hate for None. However, all Muslims who do not accept their views are Kafir.

      Source is from their website: (https://www.alislam.org/articles/are-non-ahmadis-muslim-or-non-muslim-ahmadiyya-muslim-perspective/)

      12er Shi’i and a very moderate position towards other Muslim sects.

      Source: (https://www.al-islam.org/ask/are-the-narrations-authentic-that-talk-of-the-creation-of-73-sects-in-islam-out-of-which-all-but-one-will-be-condemned-to-hellfire-if-so-in-which-place-are-the-shia-and-sunni-in-those-73-sects)

      The above stance is very clear who those will be going to heaven. The title Muslim for other sects is futile when it comes to the day of judgment. This, however, is actually a very moderate position.

      An example of more extreme 12er Shi’i views:

      Source: (https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/part-4-it-mandatory-know-imam-time)

      The above belief you will findamong 12er Shi’i and Imami Shi’i in general, that whoever does not recognize the Imam of the time dies the death of a kafir (unbeliever).

      This would mean that different Imami Shi’i groups would takfir each other after splits or schisms.

      A concerned member of the Ismaili sect sent us the following concerning the refutation of the Nizari Ismaili (he himself) being a Mustaali Ismaili. He wrote to us of his concern that Nizar, in their view, was a shyster and a fraud.

      “Hey brother , I’ll send a reply to the first question later on. Concerning the Nizari-Mustaali split and how to know who is the actual Imam. The primary evidence for any Imam is the Nass from the previous Imam, we as Fatimid Ismailis can demonstrate that Imam Mustaali is the true Imam through the following points :

      1-His Nass from his father Imam Mustansir as mentioned in our sources you can find it in Al-Sijillat Al-Mustansariya and Uyun Al-Akhbar. Our Nizari friends fail in providing Nizars Nass.

      2- The big Dais of Imam Mustansir in Yemen one of them the Sayyida Arwa Alsulaihi who was the Imams Hujjah (a hujjah is someone very close to the Imam and knows his secrets in a nutshell) all recognized Mustaali as Imam even those in Egypt recognized his Imamate.

      3- The family of the Fatimids also recognized Mutaalis Imamate including all his brothers and even Nizars close sister witnessed that Nizar was never an Imam.

      4- Nizars fishy behavior makes it even more doubtful that his claims in Imamate were Genuine. e.g Al-Maqrizi mentions in his book that when Mustaali became Imam-Khalifa Nizar refused to accept his Imamate and claimed that he has a Nass from his father, he was given time to go and bring his alleged Nass to the Fatimid officials but instead he secretly escaped to Alexandria and caused a civil war.

      “IF he was indeed an Imam and has a Nass why didn’t he show it to the Fatimids and their officials? That would be strong evidence for his case, instead he ran away not demonstrating any evidence for his claim. This behavior shows that his claims were not true and he just wanted the power and prestige of being a Caliph for his own good.

      We wish the brother would do some introspection. Because, by his own admission, this statement itself is enough to show that not everyone who is a descendant of Ali is an upright individual. 

      Among the Zaydi Shi’i we have, for example, the following:

      Watch and listen to what he says, citing what came in the book “Al-Ahkam” by Yahya al-Rassi, who brought Zaydism to Yemen. “Islam is not complete except by the guardianship of Ali. The imamate of Ali is one of the pillars of Islam. No one escapes the punishment of the Merciful, nor is the name of faith fulfilled for him, until he believes in the guardianship of Ali with certainty of certainty.”

      For us, we do not find this to be a creedal issue or even one of its branches. For Zaydi, this is obviously not the case.

      Making Takfir upon other groups or sects is not a known way with us.

      Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah (The People of the Sunnah and the Group). The name itself implies that ‘They’ are the only people following the Sunnah: as if Shi’i or Ibadis do not eat with their right hands, wear beards etc.

      Does Imam Malik get hard core on the Ibadis?

      What does the text attributed to Imam Malik say?

      1. And DO NOT pray behind the Ibadis-Neither should their dead be prayed over nor should they’re deceased be followed to the burial. Nor, should their sick be visited.
        It is more beloved to me that one should leave the home/city/country where the Ibadis are.
      2. The Ibadis/ Hururis, and all people of desire: I believe they should repent; either they
        repent or they are to be killed.

      What is important to note about the above image is that only the green part of the text is attributed to Imam Malik. All the red parts indicate that the rest of the page belongs to Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam. So, even if not authentically attributed to Malik there were certainly people who held such views and wanted to attribute them to Malik.

      The vast majority of their scholars uphold the validity of the hadith of the 73 groups (though they have dissenting views). Those that uphold that hadith believe that every other group (Ibadis, Shi’i, Mu’tazilah etc….are on that Pan Am Flight 72, meaning we are all bound for hellfire.

      However, it doesn’t stop there.

      And among them are major divisions.

      Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah (The People of the Sunnah and the Group)

      Salafi/Athari — very often believe that followers of the other schools of aqidah (creed), Ashari/Maturidi, are going to hell and vice versa. (Though there are dissenting views).

      There is the Deobandi and Barelvis split. With many among them considering the other to be outright kafir (and for them that means outside the fold of Islam).

      If you think for one moment that those loveable hugable Sufis are all above the board when it comes to politics, mud slinging and even violence. Well, let us hold up a mirror and show you a person who has never been affiliated with a Sufi Tariqa.

      Lots of rivalry and fighting (often leading to violence among them.

      The “Battle of the Book Seven” (Internal Mevlevi Conflict)
      A fascinating example of rivalry within a single order is the controversy over Rumi’s Mathnawī in the 17th century. This dispute shows how doctrinal interpretation could split a community and draw in outside authorities.

      The Spark: The renowned Mevlevi shaykh Ismāʿīl Rusūkhī Anqarawī wrote a commentary on what he claimed was the “Book Seven” of Rumi’s Mathnawī. The problem was that the vast majority of Mevlevis believed Rumi’s masterpiece consisted of only six books and considered the seventh text apocryphal.

      The Rivalry: This created a bitter internal rift within the Mevlevi order. Anqarawī and his followers were pitted against other Mevlevi shaykhs who saw his work as an illegitimate innovation.

      Source: (https://themaydan.com/2020/03/rumis-book-seven-of-the-mathnawi-intra-sufi-debates-in-the-seventeenth-century-ottoman-empire/)

      THE HADITH OF THE 73 SECTS ANALYZED & NEUTRALIZED BY THE IBADIS

      From what we know (and we admit our collective ignorance of the other schools in this regard), from what we know is that we are the first among the schools of Islam to interpret the hadith of the 73 groups under a lens and either reject it, or interpret it in a more ecumenical fashion.

      We are not aware of any school of Islam that has preceded us in this. If you, the reader, find information to the contrary, feel free to correct us.

      The above book is: Kitab al Wada’ Al Mukhtasar Fi Usul Al -Fiqh Abu Zakariyah Yahya B. Abil Khayer Al Jannawiny. Commentary by: Shaykh Ibrahim At-Fayyish.

      The comment is concerning Muslims being divided into 73 sects. All will be in loss, except one, and they will all claim that their group is the one that is correct.

      In the comments under the line: He states: “It is better to bring the sayings or the view of Shamsu-Deen Abu Ya’aqub Yusuf B. Ibrahim al-Warijilani (May Allah have abundant mercy on him) (d. 570 ah)

      Shaykh Shamsu-Deen says: “Whoever worshiped Allah, that which came to him from Islam and that one was ‘wara in his din (that means that person was pious). He was not eating haram. This person had ‘wara (self vigilance against the haram). This one does not say, ‘I am right, and he is wrong’ This one will escape and be on the path to safety. This applies to everyone who follows Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of his Prophet (saw) up to what has reached that individual from his madhab (his school) and this one has not said bad things by his tongue to the Muslims. That would be enough for him because this is what has reached him of his religion by his striving and sincere efforts and ability. The group that escapes is the one that follows the Prophet (saw) and his companions (the pious among them).”

      When you look at the time in which the venerable Shaykh al-Warijilani (r) lived, his view would be quite progressive by today’s standards.

      Next we have this intelligent insight into the hadith by the Ibadi master Shaykh Ali Yahya Muammar (r). This is a very short, concise and insightful read.

      We are in agreement with the assessment of this master, Shaykh Ali Yahya Muammar (r)

      ““The hadith states that each of these sects will claim that it is saved. The claim of every sect that is alone is the saved one is only natural: only a madman would insist on following a sect that will perish. The members of each of the sects have tried hard to prove that they follow the truth and are on the right path, the one followed by the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace and his companions, and that all others have strayed from the way of God, in both doctrine and conduct.”

      We would also like to bring your attention to the understanding of the hadith of the 73 groups by Shaykh Hatim Abdis-Salam (May continue to bless him).

      The following video is titled: PARADISE IS FOR WHO? (Shaykh Dr. Majid Al Kindi. The general custodian of the Iftaa office in Oman. A very knowledgeable scholar with two PhDs.

      The following is a translation of the respected Shaykh

      تِلۡكَ ٱلۡجَنَّةُ ٱلَّتِى نُورِثُ مِنۡ عِبَادِنَا مَن كَانَ تَقِيًّا (Qur’an 19:63)

      “That is Paradise, which We give as inheritance to those of Our servants who were fearing (of Allah).”

      “And not for the one who was an ibadi, nor a hanafi, nor a shafi’, nor a maliki and not for other than them from every group, whether it being from a school of theology or a school of jurisprudence, (but) for the one who was God-fearing (God conscious).”

      “That which we have affection for and desire, is that people leave all of these labels and commit to that which Allah the Almighty has labelled us when He said, 

      وَجَٰهِدُواْ فِى ٱللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِۦۚ هُوَ ٱجۡتَبَىٰكُمۡ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيۡكُمۡ فِى ٱلدِّينِ مِنۡ حَرَجٍۚ مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمۡ إِبۡرَٰهِيمَۚ هُوَ سَمَّىٰكُمُ ٱلۡمُسۡلِمِينَ مِن قَبۡلُ وَفِى هَٰذَا لِيَكُونَ ٱلرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيۡكُمۡ وَتَكُونُواْ شُهَدَآءَ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِۚ فَأَقِيمُواْ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتُواْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَٱعۡتَصِمُواْ بِٱللَّهِ هُوَ مَوۡلَىٰكُمْۖ فَنِعۡمَ ٱلۡمَوۡلَىٰ وَنِعۡمَ ٱلنَّصِيرُ (Qur’an 22:78)

      “And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [It is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you “Muslims” before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give zakah and hold fast to Allah . He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.”

      This is what we want.

      And the Imam (May Allah have mercy on him), when he was asked about the school (ie. al-Ibadiyyah) and its naming, he (May Allah have mercy on him) replied by saying, “We don’t have any school except Islam.”

      So, we don’t take the individual’s understanding as Islam or the Shariah of Allah. It is instead ideas that people have come with and call to.”

      THERE ARE NO SECTS AT THE GATES OF HELL.

      Even though Shaykh Dawud Al BuSinan (h) is of our school, he is giving us a clear and sobering reminder!

      So where does your aqidah lead you to? Does it lead you to cause fasad; have pride, disobey Allah; sin more and fear him less? Make light of his promises and punishments and that of his blessed Prophets (upon them all be peace). Does it encourage you to do good and speak good. There is no gate in heaven called: “Ibadiyyah gate.” There is most likely someone who follows our school, and they are the worst sinner than any of the other groups and Allah (swt) knows best!

      Shaykh Khalfan ibn Muhammad Al Esry (may Allah have Mercy on him), a prominent Omani scholar, and a member of the state council


      SECTARIANISM IS CAUSING DIVISION: OUR MISSION A UNIFIED UMMAH — By Shaykh Khalfan ibn Muhammed Al Esry (May Allah have mercy on him) He is a prominent Omani scholar, and he was a former member of the Omani state council (before he passed away)

      IF IBADIS ARE NOT GOING TO CHUCK EVERYONE IN HELL THAN WHY FOLLOW THE SCHOOL?

      In an interesting and unfortunate turn of events that once happened in our English WhatsApp group, a brother objected: “Well, if we are not sure if they are all going to hell, then what is the point?” What he means is what is the point of propagating this school of thought?

      We feel there is a huge misunderstanding here. How can we be deciders of who goes to heaven or hell when we are not certain about ourselves? How can we be deniers of who goes to paradise when we are not guarantors of paradise ourselves?

      In fact, this very much sets us apart from those schools that believe they will all go to heaven (even after a brief sojourn in hell). We have no such position.

      For many of us, we follow this school because it is the most sensible and honest about what happened in the past. We discuss it and move on. We are not fiaxted with the past.


      We find this school most cohesive and cogent in its theological positions and that gives me peace of mind and peace of heart. We find this school to be a school frozen in time, as if we can see and live the very Islam of the companions. May Allah be pleased with them. We find this school holding fast to the Qur’an and being fervent in calling to the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

      Though we have our hardline views, we are also welcoming and willing and ever ready to work with other schools of Islam. We marry Sunni and Shi’i. Our scholars read the works and writings of all other schools of Islam because we recognize and believe what Allah (swt) says:

      “He gives wisdom to whom He chooses, and whoever is given wisdom is blessed abundantly. But only insightful people bear this in mind.” (Qur’an 2:269)

      Knowledge is not an exclusive to the Ibadi school.


      We are probably the only school in Islam in which our scholars have given legal verdicts given the permissibility to pray behind the Imams of other schools. Nor do we issue fatawa saying to kill other Muslims who have different aqidah.

      WE HAVE NOT DONE A GOOD JOB OF CLARIFYING THESE POINTS TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE OUR SCHOOL

      Observe:

      So recently this website received the following comment:

      So, we head on over to Shaykh Wikipedia and what do we see? We see impossible feats of mathematics!

      Ibadism is currently the second-largest Muslim denomination in Oman with over a third of its population being adherents.”

      Ibadis still form the majority of the contemporary Omani population and the royal family of Oman are Ibadi.”

      Prima Qur’an has a question for Shaykh Wikipedia. How are we the second-largest denomination and yet still form the majority of the population? Your math is not mathing.

      However, it looks like the real source of the misunderstanding with Shaykh Wikipedia was from Ms. Valerie Hoffmans book: Source: The Essentials of Ibadi Islam:-Valerie J. Hoffman.(pg. 30)

      “Although one must treat non-Ibadi Muslims with the courtesy that all monotheists deserve, according to classical Ibadi doctrine, neither they nor sinning Ibadis will be allowed into paradise. They are doomed to hellfire.”-Valerie Hoffman

      This is extremely reckless and can be the cause of real-life physical attack upon those in our community. For example, it has NEVER been the position of the Ibadi school that sinning Ibadi or sinning non-Ibadi Muslims are doomed to hellfire. The position has ALWAYS been that Ibadi’s who repent are subject to the mercy of Allah. Second, as regards non-Ibadi, at the very least a person needs to be: mukallāf—someone pubescent and sane. Next, the clear evidence has to be presented to the individual, and we take as evidence the following:

      “So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32). That judgement can only be passed on non-Ibadi on the basis of masail al-din and not masail al-ra’y.

      If she bothered to look into the position of the school in regard to the theological position as regards those who Islam may not have reached (isolated islands etc.) she would have appreciated it as much.

      Again, personally, we find it a bit of a disrespect. Here you are being welcomed in a country by its people. They open up their libraries and manuscripts to you. The claim is that you are exposing the Western world to Ibadhism. Yet, you leave comments like the above which could have been clarified. It is certainly not helpful. In regard to one passing comment, it is actually dangerous in today’s hyper-sectarian world not to clarify the position of the school or at the very least pass over the matter.

      One thing you will get from Prima Qur’an is full disclosure, transparency and the fact that we believe in laying the cards on the table.

      THE “HARD LINE POSITION” AMONG IBADI SCHOLARS CONCERNING NON IBADI MUSLIMS.

      So remember what we said about the term: “Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah”. Well, in general we call ourselves as: Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness). So the very name can imply that others are not people of truth or straightness. Just as the term Ahl Sunnah can imply that others are not following the Sunnah.


      If you watch this video on YouTube, do take note of the comments below. The updated comments in the black text are provided by our sincere brother. The brother that is doing his level best to provide all of you with unfiltered information. May Allah (swt) reward him for his sincere efforts! We will provide those comments below:

      This is an important video by the late Qadi, Shaykh Salim bin Khalfan al Rashidi(May Allah have mercy on him) where he talks about who will go to heaven and refutes the common notion put forth by people that Ibadis believe only they will go to heaven.(May Allah make this video open our hearts and ease us all and make us amongst the people of Jannah, Ameen. * I think that I need to make this clear to not misunderstand the qadi. Basically, for us Ibadis, all those who disagree with us on anything of aqeeda/belief/whatever you call it, is in Bara’ah. Because in Aqeeda there can only be one absolute truth, unlike fiqh issues where khilaf is possible. But does that mean we say they’ll go to hellfire? No (as they may have repented). Go to Jannah? No. Rather, their judgment is up to Allah (swt). And when someone says it’s not only Ibadis that’ll enter Jannah, then that’s true, as the name is not necessary rather the belief is.* This translation was done by the Ahlul Haqq wal Istiqamah English group, link to our discord is below.

      Prima Qur’an comments: May Allah (swt) bless this brother.

      So, basically, this is the so-called “hardline view.” We have already mentioned that every sect, or school in Islam has exclusivist views. This is nothing novel to the Ibadi school.

      So this line of thinking is that Non-Ibadi Muslims are in a state of “Kufr Ni’ama” — recall the perspective of the Qadiani sect above. That they are still Muslims but because they have rejected the truth. Rejecting the truth = being in a state of sin.

      1. The evidence must be presented.

      “So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).

      So we can see in the first verse the first condition. “How then are you turned away?”

      The proof must come to them by proof it can be : from (messengers, scholars, TV, Internet), whichever way by invitation. Even reading this blog.


      You have to present the evidence. You cannot be turned away from something not presented to you. We are 100% supportive of this position, not because this is due to our desires, it is because it is self-evident. If one sees the truths and strengths and evidence of this school, acknowledges it and turns away, they are without doubt in ‘kufr ni’ama’ and if they die in that state, then the apparent with us is that they will meet a terrible ending. As do all who reject the truth. However, in the end, ultimately, Allah is the judge.

      “And those who argue about God after having answered His call, their argument has no basis whatsoever with their Lord. Anger enfolds them, and a severe punishment awaits them.” (Qur’an 42:16)

      2. Being Baligh, Mukallak or Muhallaq!

      “And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and under the wall was a treasure that belonged to them, and their father had been a righteous man. So your Lord willed that these children should come of age and retrieve their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord. I did not do it ˹all˺ on my own. This is the explanation of what you could not bear patiently.” (Qur’an 18:82)

      Test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then, if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them.” (Qur’an 4:6)

      It is clear that for one to be able to be entrusted to receive their property and or wealth, they must be both physically and mentally capable to care for it. If this is for the dunya — which is dust and perishing, how much more for the hereafter which is forever and enduring?

      Baligh, Mukallak or Muhallaq, one who has reached puberty and mentally matured. That is when they come under Taklif responsibility. Considering that out of 1.8 billion Muslims with an explosion in youth population, how many countless millions who are not of the Ibadi school and at any given time and are not baligh, mukallak or muhallaq!

      3. Masa’il Ad-Din & Masa’il Al-Ra’y What the differences must be concerning:

      As mentioned above: “Because in Aqeeda there can only be one absolute truth, unlike fiqh issues where khilaf is possible.

      Masa’il Ad-Din: Matters that are proven from the clear nass (text) on aqeeda — the Ahl Khilaf (People of the opposition, those who oppose our school) should not disagree with us on matters of aqeeda, or they would be in “Kufr Ni’ama.”

      Masa’il Al-Ra’y: Matters that pertain to (usul al fiqh), if it is a clear text, then there is no room for ijtihad; however, if it is not a clear text, the ijtihad is in the text itself.

      4. The different categories of Ahl Khilaf.

      A) Muqallids: Understanding that the majority of the people of all schools (including the Ibadi school) are Muqallid—That means one who practices Taqlid. They follow qualified scholars according to their school without knowing the evidence (dalil, burhan, and hujat).

      B) Scholars of the different schools.

      Further divided into two:


      B1) Scholars who have received the evidence, understood the evidence, acknowledge the evidence. Or they knowingly reject the evidence = “Kufr Ni’ama” (Judgement is based upon the dhahir in this case, we are correct) — We judge according to the apparent.

      B2) Scholars that are not catching the evidence are not comprehending the evidence. (From the outward we perceive they are rejecting the truth) (Judgement is based upon the dhahir in this case, we are in error) — We judge according to the apparent.

      5. A clear delivery of the truth.

      “And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Quran 64:12)

      The Blessed Messenger (saw) is said to have delivered the message clearly. So how about non-Messenger humans that use our own styles and methods to speak and demonstrate and use of reasoning which may or may not be flawed?

      “˹Say to the believers, O Prophet,˺ “Whatever you may differ about, its judgment rests with Allah. That is Allah—my Lord. In Him I put my trust, and to Him I ˹always˺ turn.” (Qur’an 42:10)

      5. Factor of Time. The time needed to comprehend and implement the truth of any particular subject.

      For example, a new individual just embraces Islam. The upcoming time for prayer is coming. Is this person excused from the prayer? No they are not. However, they do not know the dalil, burhan, and hujat concerning the prayer. How much time is needed for someone to know the akham — meaning what is wajib (obligatory), mustahabb (recommended), muharram (outright forbidden), makruh (disliked), halal (permissible).


      And this is only for prayer. How much more time is needed to establish certainty in other disciplines, like aqeeda.

      TOP SCHOLARS OF THE IBADI SCHOOL HAVE SIGNED THE AMMAN MESSAGE.

      Ibadi Muslims signed the Amman accords.

      The Grand Mufti and Assistant Grand Mufti both signed.

      Top scholars of our school have signed the Amman Message. Shaykh Ahmad bin Hamad Al -Khalili (h) the Mufti of the Sultanate of Oman.

      Shaykh Dr. Kahlan bin Nahban Al-Kharusi (h) The Jurisprudential Advisor in the Office for the Issuance of Fatwas.

      The Muslims can continue to compete and vie with one other for influence over the Ummah of Muhammed (saw).

      So respectful engagement is absolutely key to having meaningful discussion. We have Husn al-Dhan, that Muslims from other sects are generally brought up with good parenting. This is the default thinking in regard to them. However, when a Muslim from another sect starts to hurl abuse and insults, we shut down. The dialogue stops immediately. Is this because we wish to retreat? No. Because at that moment the thinking among us is that your parents brought you up with good mannerisms. Mannerism that you are now ignoring. Which means you must not respect your parents. If you do not respect your parents, how can you respect us or even the conversation?

      “So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you ˹of the truth˺ regarding your differences.” (Qur’an 5:48)

      However, it is also incumbent upon us to work together when ever and however we can for the betterment of the communities and countries that each of us live in. Social cohesion is a prerequisite to convey the truth. For, after all, who can convey the truth among the piercing sounds of gunfire and the terrified screams of little children?

      “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)

      You may also be interested in reading the following:

      May Allah Guide the Ummah.

      May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

      5 Comments

      Filed under Uncategorized

      The Ibadis do not encourage revolts against their Imams in order to avoid bloodshed.

       “And do not obey the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend.” (Qur’an 26:151-152)

      ﷽ 

      The Ibadis do not encourage revolts against their Imams to avoid bloodshed. It is justifiable only as a last resort and in extreme circumstances. It is the right of every Muslim to be given consultation. The history of the Ibadi Imamate in Oman speaks for itself.

      Let us see who really presided over chaos and death and who were beacons of stability.

      These excerpts are taken from the book: Ibadhism The Cinderella of Islam.

      First let us take a look at house Uthmaniyyun

      *notes* The above text says:

      Uthman ibn Affan—murdered by fellow Muslims — This is because he was not killed by the Uthmaniyyun. He was killed by fellow Muslims as he would not be deposed peacefully.
      Ali bin Abi Talib—murdered by a fellow Muslim. He was killed by Ibn Muljam in retaliation for the slaughter at Nahawan.

      We would personally have switched out the negative word ‘murdered’ with a more neutral word ‘killed’.

      Because Muslims can kill if it is with in the limits set by Allah. But murder would imply that a person had no right.

      Now, let us take a look at house Abbasids

      Now let us take a look at House Ibadi

      Btw, when it says above: * deposed * this is like when the president of the former United States gets impeached, or removed from office, for example. Or like the CEO of a company being asked to step down due to negligence and/or other reasons.

      The one who is deposed is not sought out and not killed. They are simply deposed for either being incompetent and/or not fit to lead. No favoritisms based upon tribal, clan, ethnic group or family loyalty.

      Deposed is the graceful exit from public office.

      However, if that individual does not go quietly, revolution is on the table. The Amir of the Muslims is in service to the Muslims and is not above the commands of Allah nor above public backpacks for lacking in issues of statecraft.

      If you wish to read more, you are invited to read:

      Ibadhism: The Cinderella Story of Islam.  This is an excellent book by the noble  Shaykh Soud H. Al-Ma’awaly (May Allah continue to benefit us by him)

      May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah.

      May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.

      Leave a comment

      Filed under Uncategorized

      There is no single verse in the Qur’an that gives praise to the daughters over the wives of the Blessed Prophet (saw)

      “O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women: if you are mindful, then do not be overly effeminate in speech or those with sickness in their hearts may be tempted, but speak in a moderate tone.” (Qur’an 33:32)

      ﷽ 

      In Islam, the preference of the Mothers of the Believers over all other women of this Ummah is by the text of the Qur’an.

      So, they are not like any of the other women.

      “And whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does good, We will grant her double the reward, and We have prepared for her an honourable provision.” (Qur’an 33:31)

      Thus, their reward is doubled, and this is a distinction that Allah has made only for the Prophets and the Mothers of the Believers.

      Narrated `Abdullah:

      I visited Allah’s Messenger (saw) while he was suffering from a high fever. I said, “O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! You have a high fever.” He said, “Yes, I have as much fever as two men of you.” I said, “Is it because you will have a double reward?” He said, “Yes, it is so. No Muslim is afflicted with any harm, even if it were the prick of a thorn, but that Allah expiates his sins because of that, as a tree sheds its leaves.”

      https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5648

      In Islamic theology, the doubling of reward (mudā‘afah) for trials and obedience is typically a characteristic reserved for prophets and those with the highest stations, further solidifying their unique status

      “It is not lawful for you to marry more women after this, nor can you replace any of your present wives with another, even if her beauty may attract you—except those whom your right hand posses. And Allah is ever Watchful over all things.” (Qur’an 33:52)

      It is not lawful for the Messenger of Allah (saw) to exchange them, because they are virtuous and Allah-fearing.

      “O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized and not be harassed. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:59)

      Allah has given precedence to the wives of the Messenger of Allah (saw) over his daughters in the mention, because they are superior.

      “And it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. This would certainly be a major offence in the sight of Allah.” (Qur’an 33:53)

      The understanding of this is obvious. Do not marry the wives of the Blessed Prophet (saw) after his death. Allah (swt) considers an offence.

      However, there was no problem for any of his daughters to be married multiple times.

      Ruqayyah (ra) married Utbah ibn Abu Lahab (divorced), then married Uthman Ibn Affan.

      Umm Kulthum (ra) married Utaybah ibn Abu Lahab (divorced), then married Uthman Ibn Affan after Ruqayyah’s death.

      Zaynab (ra) the favourite daughter of the Prophet (saw) married Abu al-As ibn al-Rabi, then later married Abdullah ibn Jahsh.

      Fatima (ra) married only Ali ibn Abi Talib.

      And the Qur’an is full of praise for the Mothers of the Believers, and there is not even a single verse that praises the daughters of the Messenger of Allah in terms of their being daughters.

      Although you will find praise of the daughters in the hadith literature. Even then the hadith literature is coloured by the hatred that the Umayyads, Abbasids and pro Alids had for each other.

      So, for example, when Urwah ibn al-Zubayr narrated that Zaynab bint Muhammed (ra) was mentioned by the Blessed Prophet (saw) to be the best of his daughters, he (Zubayr) was accosted by Zayn al-Abidin who approached Urwah ibn Al-Zubayr in a very hostile manner demanding why he would put anyone anywhere near the rank of Fatima (ra).

      A kind of terrorism and suppression by the Abbasids and the Alids towards anyone who would put someone else other then Fatima and Ali first. Here we narrate to you how Ali ibn al-Husayn went after Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (ra) like a raving madman.

      Ahmad Abu Bakr ibn Muhammed ibn Hamdan al-Sayrafi in Marw told me, Abu Ismail Muhammed ibn Ismail told us, Saeed ibn Abi Maryam told us, Yahya ibn Ayyub informed us, Ibn al-Had told me, Amr ibn Abdullah ibn Urwah ibn al-Zubayr told me, on the authority of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, on the authority of Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, (saw) When the Messenger of Allah, (saw), arrived in Medina, his daughter Zaynab left Mecca with Kinanah—or the son of Kinanah—and they went after her. Habbar ibn al-Aswad caught up with her and kept stabbing her camel with his spear until it felled her, and she miscarried and bled. The Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah then quarreled over her. She said… The Banu Umayya said: We are more entitled to her, and she was married to their cousin Abu al-As, and she was with Hind bint Utbah ibn Rabi’ah, and Hind used to say to her: This is because of your father. So the Messenger of Allah, (saw), said to Zayd ibn Harithah: “Won’t you go and bring me Zaynab?” He said: Yes, O Messenger of Allah. He said: “Then take my ring.” So he gave it to him. Then Zayd set off and made his camel kneel. He kept being polite until he met a shepherd and said: Whose sheep do you tend? He said: For Abu al-Aas. He said: And whose sheep are these? He said: To Zainab bint Muhammed, so he walked with him for a while, then he said to him: Would you like me to give you something to give to her, and not mention it to anyone? He said: Yes, so he gave him the ring, so the shepherd went and brought his sheep in, and gave them the ring, and they recognized it, so she said: Who gave you this? He said: A man, she said: Where did you leave it? He said: In such and such a place. He said: So she remained silent until night came, then she went out to him. When she came to him, he said to her: Ride in front of me on his camel. She said: No, but you ride in front of me. So he rode and she rode behind him until she came. The Messenger of Allah, (saw), used to say: “She is the best of my daughters, and she was afflicted because of me.” This reached Ali ibn al-Husayn, so he went to Urwah and said: What is this hadith that I heard you narrate in which you diminish Fatimah’s right? He said, “By Allah, I would not wish to possess everything between the East and the West if it meant depriving Fatima of a right that belongs to her. And after that, you have the right to never speak of it again.” Urwah said, “This was before the revelation of the verse: {Call them by their fathers’ names; that is more just in the sight of God} [Al-Ahzab: 5]. This is an authentic hadith according to the criteria of the two Sheikhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim), but they did not include it in their collections.”

      Source: (https://al-hadees.com/mustadrak/2812 Mustadrak Al Hakim 2812)

      There is a fascinating article by Professor Deborah G Tor: “The Parting of Ways between ʿAlid Shiʿism and Abbasid Shiʿism: An Analysis of the Missives between the Caliph al-Manṣūr and Muḥammed al-Nafs al-Zakiyya.” That gives some background in regard to the landscape.

      Wouldn’t be suprised to see Professor Deborah G Tor on podcast in the future. You’re welcome.

      However, we have digressed.

      The Mothers of the Believers hold a textual precedence over all other women of the Ummah—including the Prophet’s own daughters in terms of legislated distinction—is consistent with the principles of usul al-fiqh (legal theory) and the explicit wording of Surah Al-Ahzab. Their status is derived from a direct divine address that establishes a unique category, whereas the virtue of other women (including the daughters) is derived from specific narrations regarding personal piety rather than a categorical divine address.

      May Allah Guide the Ummah.

      May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

      Leave a comment

      Filed under Uncategorized

      Two AI bots have a conversation about the Ibadi school.

      “My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)

      ﷽ 

      This fascinating video came to our attention. It appears to be two AI bots having a conversation about the Ibadi school. As regards the YouTube channel, CIISR is not affiliated or registered with any known university or college in the world. Dr. M A Mufazzal seems to be an individual not known to be attached to any reputable college or university in the world. In fact, leave the reputable aside, he is simply not known at all.

      This is the video. We give our comments below.

      @4:37 minutes, we were curious where the idea came from that we upheld divine predestination (qadar) in the sense of fatalism. Which was curious given that the AI bots speak about the Ibadi, avoiding binaries. We do not uphold the view of the Mutazil’i nor the Jabariyyah. We hold to the doctrine of kasb (acquisition). This is something the Ash’ari followed us on.

      @6:16 this is also incorrect. We do not believe that Ali was a divinely appointed leader. A good portion of the community made shura and among them were the ansar and the muhjirin, who agreed upon him. Once that is done, it is obligatory for the others to pledge allegiance. No such thing as being divinely appointed.

      This becomes abundantly clear in our article here:

      In fact in that article we stated the following:

      The battle of Siffin and practical implications of the above verse.

      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 the result. (Qur’an 4:59)

      The battle of Siffin gives us a demonstration of how some of the companions understood the above verse. If we are to believe the historical narrative as told by Shi’i and Sunni sources.

      If we are to believe the Shi’i narrative.

       Ali agreed to arbitration with Muaviya on the basis that they would judge by the Qur’an. If Ali understood that he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw) he would not have submitted to arbitration. He would have been on the same page as those in his army who wanted to continue the fight.  However, if he did think he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw), then he would be a hypocrite for going against what he himself believed. Or he was not sincere in submitting to the authority of the Qur’an. 

      If we are to believe the Sunni narrative. 

      If those in Muaviya’s camp believed that the Shi’i held any of the views about Ali that Imami Shi’i held, namely that he (Ali) was maʿṣūm (معصوم) and he (Ali) held ʿiṣmah (عصمة) they themselves would have never asked for arbitration as it too would have simply been a ruse. This becomes very clear that these concepts were not among the followers of Ali because Muaviya’s camp would have known this and would have never cooked up the idea of raising the Mushafs as it would have easily backfired.

      @9:03 “They also believe that Ali was wrong to arbitrate.” So this is a contradiction with the AI chatbots. You cannot have a belief in a divinely appointed Imamate and then believe that same Imam is wrong in a decision he makes!

      @6:34 is also a tired trope that we hear time and again. Fiqh and Itjihad are a part of Islam. It is something that has been with us in the beginning. The companions who opposed Ali were not claiming you cannot arbitrate God’s law with mortal men. That is a flawed misunderstanding. It is that you cannot make a ruling in place of where the rule is already established and clear.

      None of our scholars say that human beings cannot arbitrate. The Qur’an specifically says they can in several places. It is just that humans cannot arbitrate on a matter on which Allah judged. If Allah (swt) gave his ruling on a matter, a human being cannot come along and do otherwise. This is a huge miss by this AI-generated dialogue.

      This was established by the companions in their debate with Ibn Abbas (ra). And Ibn Abbas (ra) eventually understood that the people of the river were correct.

      And by repeating these same tired tropes, the Sunnis have actually mocked their own Imams. With stories that make Imam Abu Hanifa look ignorant of other people’s positions.

      The same ignorant trope that was used by Shi’i reformist Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri here:

      @12:02 to miss out on the robust populations of the Ibadi in Tunisia, Zanzibar, Tanzania, Ghana is unfortunate. To skip the presence in East Africa altogether is unfortunate.

      @13:09 We didn’t quite get the point the AI bots were making: “But again, like with the kharijites question, they take it to its most extreme logical conclusion.” We don’t see the connection they were trying to draw?

      @13:40 we were curious as to which verse mentions Allah “sitting” on a throne?

      There were other things we could have picked apart, but we did not want to be overly pedantic.

      Other than that, for an AI-generated dialogue over all it is o.k. It is what you would expect from agnostic secular academics or historians discussing the matter. Although they would probably refrain from throwing in the occasional ‘eww’ as we saw from the female AI bot. The lasting thoughts were very profound, especially from an AI algorithm.

      May Allah Guide the Ummah.

      May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

      Leave a comment

      Filed under Uncategorized

      A critique of Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology

      Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)

      “Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)

      Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Reflect deeply upon the creation, but do not reflect upon the essence of the Creator. Verily, His essence cannot be known other than to believe in it.”

      Source: (Musnad al-Rabī’ 742 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَلْقِ وَلا تَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَالِقِ فَإِنَّهُ لا يُدْرَكُ إِلا بِتَصْدِيقِهِ 742 مسند الربيع بن حبيب 2976 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن في صحيح الجامع)

      ﷽ 

      This is a (PrimaQur’an) critique of it. So, rather than this being any robust response or engagement from our school, this is an endeavor from a team of non-specialists in philosophy.

      The arguments contained here are by no means original from us either. However, this article is sprinkled with our thoughts and conclusions when looking at this particular approach to theology.

      For those not formally trained traditionally or academically in theology or philosophy, it is also by no means a deep dive. These are very elementary critiques that we think would appear before any seasoned mind.

      Apophatic theology is another name for theology by way of negation. From the Greek ἀπόφημι (apóphemi) ‘to say no’. This is to say that God is known by negating concepts that might apply to him using the insufficiency of human language and rational concepts to describe God.

      Ultimately, it is the theology of making no affirmative or positive attributes or assertions of any kind about God. That God is so completely unknowable that we can only engage in conversation about the divine by means of negation. What God is not.

      Hopefully, one might appreciate the irony in such an approach, in that both negative and positive statements about God are both equal propositions about divine nature. One is put forward in the positive and the other in the negative. For apophatic theologians, ultimately they must take on the mantle of mysterions and appreciate the complete mystery, otherness and unknowability of God rather than say what could lead to misleading theological concepts about God.

      One of our colleagues has said before in this article about an encounter they had while giving a guided tour of a Masjid where a man from California just out of nowhere blurted out the statement: “There is no truth, nothing is true!”

      So they turned to the man and said: “Is that true?”

      It entails a logical contradiction. It is a logical contradiction because we can be certain that we do not know anything for certain. Which in turn renders our uncertainty very uncertain itself!

      Rather, one states that a triangle has three sides or one states that it does not have three sides. Both statements, rather positive or negative, are still both propositions.

      That you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)

      So you could approach this statement: “and that you say about Allah that which you do not know,” from two angles.

      Both angles do not support apophatic theology at all.

      The first approach may seem clever. That would be to question: “What is it that we actually know about Allah?” They would affirm: “We do not know anything about Allah.” The proponents of apophatic theology would begin with negations.

      What is it that we actually know about Allah? Which entails the opposite of an Apophatic theological approach.

      What we say about Allah that which we do not know itself entails there are things that we do know about Allah.

      You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.

      How can we say in any consistent and meaningful way what God is not like unless we have a model or conception of what God is like?

      What is a hamburger not like?

      How could one provide an answer to this question unless he/she has some idea of what a hamburger is like?

      “Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing(Qur’an 42:11)

      This verse poses a number of problems for proponents of apophatic theology.

      The verse does not negate Allah (swt) being a ‘shay’. It simply states that there is no shay like unto him.

      The verse in context then affirms that Allah (swt) is the Hearing the Seeing. Thus, it immediately supplies us with two affirmations about Him.

      So even if we give ta’wil interpretations to Hearing, Seeing and Him, they would be interpretations that would tell us something about Allah (swt).

      This immediately shows that apophatic theology is inherently contradictory. In saying that God is unknowable or inexpressible, we have already described God’s nature that it is unknowable and inexpressible, thus asserting propositions about God.

      Just as they would when trying to exegete the above text of the Qur’an.

      In fact, apophatic theology is not something that can be derived from revelation as one of the purposes of revelation is to tell us the will of God.

      Apophatic theology cannot affirm a will for God. Therefore, apophatic theology is an exercise in philosophy(not a belief in revealed revelation).

      It relies upon using the very limitations of 3D carbon-based lifeforms, existing in the space/time continuum equipped only with their very limited abilities of perception and reason — via a 3D carbon-based lifeform -via from the vantage point of existing in the space/time continuum.

      In apophatic or negative theology, we cannot know or affirm that Allah is Love. We do not know or cannot affirm that Allah is Loving.

      We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Muhammed (saw).

      We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves Ali ibn Abu Talib.

      We cannot know or affirm that Allah loves the Ahl Bayt.

      At best, we could still advance propositions: Allah is not hateful. Allah does not hate.

      Allah does not hate Muhammed (saw).

      Allah does not hate Ali.

      Allah does not hate the Ahl Bayt.

      Because just as Allah (swt) does not love Muhammed (saw) or love Ali or love the Ahl Bayt, he does not hate any of them either.

      The greatest mysterions are those who can give no definite propositional answers about God at all!

      In fact, in negative theology, God may not be simple at all. Because to state that God is simple is a positive statement.

      God is possibly more complex and more complicated than anything we could imagine. Hence, the very premise of apophatic theology could, in a very real sense, be self-defeating.

      Ultimately, it is a belief in an unknown ‘other’ that one cannot explicate. Rendering itself more complicated than the Trinitarian Athanasian creed by far!

      Because this concept (which is what it is at this point) is completely unknowable, it gets to the point of asking rather or not if it is even God we are talking about.

      We could, for all intents and purposes, talk about God-1.

      In other words, the philosophers could have beguiled themselves into believing in an entity that is God in every aspect except the most important, ‘the unknowability’. Surely this itself presents a conundrum.

      We simply would not have a basis for knowing at all.

      We could simply be talking about a being or entity that is beyond our capacity to fathom but would still not necessitate that entity being God/Allah.

      That is because, ultimately, in negative theology, God cannot be perceived and is not perceivable.

      We cannot say anything in relation to God and space/time. We cannot really say anything in relation to God and God’s relation to any creation. Because we would not have the slightest clue what a relationship would be like.

      Allah is nothing? Allah is something? Allah is everything? Which is correct?

      Which of the statements has textual support from the Qur’an?

      “Say (O Muhammed): What thing is of most weight in testimony? Say: Allah is Witness between me and you.” (Qur’an 6:19)

      The above text clearly states in response to the question of what thing has most weight in testimony that Allah (swt) is that thing which has most weight in testimony.

      There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is no-thing.

      There is no text in the Qur’an that states that Allah is everything. This too would be defeated by logic as there would not be a creator-created distinction.

      Apophatic theology leads to bizarre, contradictory conclusions about the attributes of God.

      We cannot say that God Creates Perfection.

      We cannot say that God Creates Perfection because we cannot say that God Creates at all.

      There are also problems with affirmation of negatives to Allah/God.

      So when we don’t say that Allah is Hate or Allah is Love. We can only say that Allah does not Hate and Allah does not Love.

      But can we affirm the negatives for the following?

      Does God have power and control over himself? Is this something to affirm or negate?

      Does God have autonomy?

      Does God have sovereignty?

      Because the moment we assert negative prepositions for these questions, we are now introducing another force besides God.

      If you say that the Divine Essence is not autonomous or not sovereign, then this necessitates another actor.

      So, logic dictates that we must assert that the Divine Essence has the positive attributes of Autonomy and Sovereignty at the very least; or we are now redirecting our conversation and our interest away from this supposed ‘God’ to that force that God submits to.

      Another conundrum of this philosophical discourse is that if this God has the qualities of essence, the very fact there is conversation concerning it makes it among the categories of things that conversation is being held concerning. Even if the conversation is philosophical or speculative in nature.

      In other words, another defeat for apophatic theology is that God is being discussed, even if it is only in the sense of negation. Thus, we are affirming a positive about God. That positive being that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.

      We can only discuss subjects that have come to our consciousness. Even if those subjects are abstract concepts like time, infinity and nothingness.

      We are using language to describe, negate or affirm the concept just as we would use language to negative or affirm any other thing.

      So apophatic theology is helpless to deny that God is beyond the realm of pontification, reflection or discussion, or it would render its own position vain. This is because apophatic theologians themselves discuss, pontificate and muse over what is not God.

      Apophatic Theology and Proving Negatives.

      Apophatic theologians think they can make negative assertions about God without having to prove those negative assertions.

      This gets into the debate we have with atheists, where (the uneducated among them) state one cannot prove a negative.

      For one thing, a real actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
      This law states that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law.

      For example: the very statement: “you cannot prove a negative” is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true!

      Here is another negative we can prove via mathematics.

      There is no rational number whose square is 2. 

      https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/1092/University/Maths/Is-there-any-rational-number-whose-square-is-2/

      Thank you, Andrei S!

      So, when making negative statements about God. God is not like this and God is not like that. What is the contrast?

      Remember the earlier question:

      What is a hamburger not like?

      You would have to know what something is in order to negate what it is not.

      This would lead us to some intrusive and counter-intuitive conclusions. Such as the bizarre perspective that perhaps the one who has never ever thought about God is the closest to the truth concerning God.

      Here we are not talking about the Atheist who has made a propositional stance against God. Here we are talking about such a hypothetical person that has never considered God at all.

      Recall that even apophatic theologians are among those who believe that God’s very nature can be discussed and mused over like any other subject known or unknown.

      Apophatic Theology Is Hostile Towards Certain aspects of Mysticism and Sufism in particular.

      Those aspects of mysticism and Sufism that Apophatic Theology is a virulent enemy of the idea of Fan’a (annihilation of the self in the divine) or having a direct experience with the Divine. This is not possible and the aspirant, according to apophatic theology, is in a state of grand disillusionment. How would they objectively know that they have arrived? That arrival could be a veil itself and, in the face of apophatic theology, it most certainly is.

      The argument from the Qur’an is that God must be something.

      “Or were they created by no-thing (ghayri shayin), or are they ˹their own˺ creators?” (Qur’an 52:35)

      A no-thing would be a non-shay. Non-existence. Unless one wants to argue that the Qur’an is utilizing a spacious argument. May Allah protect us from the Shaitan!

      Why would the argument be used that they were created from nothing if the first creation was created from nothing?

      Thus, logically, a true negative theology would entail that we cannot say anything about God, which ultimately you will see is the conclusion that many of them end up reaching, by stating that God does not exist (has existence).

      Maybe their perspective is similar to the Ein-Sof of Kabbalist philosophy. Maybe they reduce the perceivably complex to the least complex. A name which is still a composite consisting of letters; such that to escape even that multiplicity in the naming of the nothing they chose ע

      Even then, that is problematic.

      The Christian tradition has the following:

      “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

      “For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.” (Acts 17:23)

      If God is unlike anything that we can understand or relate to at all, then how could one justify any response to God? Prayer, worship, obeying his commands and shunning that which is prohibited?

      “Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you.” (Qur’an 2:143)

      Again, these are some of our initial thoughts on the subject.

      The Claim: Apophaticism states that no positive predicate can be applied to God. God is beyond all human categories and language.

      The Contradiction: To claim that “God is beyond all predicates” is itself a predicate. To say “God is unknowable” is to claim a piece of knowledge about God (namely, that He possesses the property of being unknowable). The statement “No statement about God is true” must, if true, apply to itself, rendering it false.

      In essence, the apophatic approach attempts to use language to assert the failure of all language, which is a logical paradox. It tries to climb a ladder of negation and then kick it away, but the act of kicking it away is still a use of the ladder.

      God, beyond being, must have the quality of being able to give or ground being.

      As the philosopher Anthony Kenny quipped, “The God of the apophatic theologian and the God of the atheist seem to share a remarkable similarity.”

      Meaningful negation logically depends on some prior understanding of what is being negated.

      This leads to an infinite regress of negation: to negate a concept, you must use another concept, which you must then also negate, ad infinitum. This process can never logically conclude, as every step requires a conceptual framework that the theory itself claims is invalid.

      The Unjustified Starting Assumption
      The entire apophatic edifice is built on one key premise: that the human mind is utterly incapable of forming any true concepts about a transcendent God.

      This is an epistemological claim presented as an absolute truth. However, it is not logically proven within the system; it is merely asserted.

      A critic can ask: How do you know that human concepts are entirely inadequate? To know this would require having access to God’s nature to compare it to our concepts, which is precisely what the apophatic theologian claims is impossible.

      Therefore, the foundational premise of apophaticism is both unproven and, by its own standards, unknowable.

      Self-Referential Problem

      If we say “God is ineffable” or “God cannot be described,” we are still making a positive assertion about God.

      This seems self-contradictory: the claim “God cannot be spoken of” is itself a way of speaking about God.

      Epistemic Vacuity

      If all positive descriptions are denied, what content remains to distinguish God from nothingness?

      A purely negative theology risks collapsing into nihilism: saying “God is not this, not that” could equally describe a void or absence.

      This makes it hard to explain how believers know they are actually speaking of God rather than simply of “not-X”.

      Dependence on Positive Knowledge

      Negation requires a prior positive reference. To say “God is not finite,” one must know what “finite” means and apply it meaningfully.

      Thus, negation parasitically depends on the very affirmations it claims to reject.

      Pure apophaticism may be logically impossible without at least some cataphatic (positive) foundation.

      Oh Allah, if anything that was penned by us was in error, we turn ourselves over to your Mercy. You, the knower of intentions.

      With Allah (swt) is success.

      May Allah Guide the Ummah.

      May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

      Leave a comment

      Filed under Uncategorized

      Professor Joseph Lumbard Agrees with the Ibadi on an important point.

      “Who respond to their Lord, establish prayer, conduct their affairs by mutual consultation, and donate from what We have provided for them.” (Qur’an 42:38)

      ﷽ 

      Professor Joseph Lumbard made a very interesting assertion during a teaching/lecture in New Mexico on Islam.

      For those not familiar, Professor Lumbard He received a Ph.D and M.Phil in Islamic Studies from Yale University, an M.A. in Religious Studies and a B.A. from the George Washington University.

      He is an American Muslim scholar of Islamic studies and associate professor of Qur’anic studies at the College of Islamic Studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar. He is the author, editor, and translator of several scholarly books and many articles on Islamic philosophy, Sufism, and Quranic studies


      So let us get the disappointment out of the way. Disappointing because the respected Professor knows better than to label one according to the epitaph of their opponents.

      @1:36 he says: “That was against the Kharijites, from which the Ibadis came out.”

      Well, so with that disappointing statement out of the way we can get to the interesting point.

      @1:55 “What the Ibadis have done which is different very different from the Sunnis and the Shiites is that they claimed that somebody outside of Quraysh could be the leader. They, their basic claim was that they most…shall we say…what is the word I’m looking for? Um, the most qualified person was the person who should be the leader. And that actually the community can force that person to be the leader if that person doesn’t want to be the leader.” -Professor Lumbard.

      “And so remember how we went through and this is where it becomes very important, remember we looked through that the that For the Umayyads and for the Abbasids, the Caliph came through the lineage of the Quraysh. Of course for the uh for the Shiites the caliph is going to be from the lineage of the Quraysh; because its a descendant of the Prophet. Right?” -Professor Lumbard.

      “So, Here they were the first ones to come out and say, “No!” Actually that doesn’t matter that is not where it needs to be located. It needs to be the most qualified person and they said theologically in a reading of the Qur’an, this is the best theological understanding of what God intended in the Qur’an. “On that particular point I agree with them, actually. ” -Professor Lumbard.

      Al hamdulillah.

      What makes this a particularly powerful admission is that Professor Lumbard has not shown himself invested in sectarianism. He is certainly familiar with Sunni claims, as well as that of the Shiites that the ahl bayt are the crème de la crème.

      When the respected Professor stated:

      “They said theologically in a reading of the Qur’an, this is the best theological understanding of what God intended in the Qur’an.”

      Personally I am not quite sure what the respected Professor intended by this. Or what his reading of the Qur’an that makes this clear for him. It is just that these ideas of leadership being from the Quraysh or from the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw) were not seen as established from their point of view.

      Though, we do have our justifications from the Qur’an for the position that we hold. I would have been keen to see the respected Professor flesh that out.

      In fact, for us it was Al-Ash’ath bin Qais who had as one of his motivating factors to get Ali to move against the people of Nahrawan because of the election of Imam Ar Rasibi (ra). -aka a Non Qurayshi.

      Al-Ash’ath bin Qais motive was clear.

      1. Divert Ali’s attention away from the Syrians. Giving them more time to strengthen and solidify their positions.
      2. Pit Ali against the former die hard loyalist knowing full well that the killing of these companions and tabi’un would leave a bitter taste in the mouth of many -as we will see with Ibn Abbas (ra).
      3. Ensure the nexus of power remains among the Quraysh and that any non-Quraysh would not even have a whiff of authority over the Quraysh.

      Any qualified righteous believer, be they Arab, Jewish, Ethiopian, or any ethnic group or tribe you can think of, can be the Amir Al Mumineen. That is to say: The Commander of the Faithful for the entirety of the Muslim Ummah.

      Here are some reasons on why we do not believe the leadership of the Muslims needs to be exclusively from the Quraysh(though it can be).

      Perhaps the follower articles will be of interest to you.

      https://primaquran.com/2024/04/28/the-ibadi-view-being-from-the-quraysh-is-not-necessary-for-leadership/

      https://primaquran.com/2024/04/15/the-ottoman-empire-was-betrayed-by-descendants-of-prophet-muhammed-saw/

      May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.

      May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah.

      Leave a comment

      Filed under Uncategorized