“And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: “Now I repent;” nor of those who die while they are ungrateful (kuffarun). For them, We have prepared a painful torment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” –(Qur’an 4:31)
﷽
We can establish two quick points from the very beginning.
1. There is not a verse in the entirety of the Qur’an that gives a single example of a believer (mumin) entering hellfire.
2. There is not a verse in the entirety of the Qur’an that gives a single example of a kafir (ingrate) entering paradise.
“O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)
“And return in repentance to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped.” (Qur’an 39:54)
What should be important for us it is not important if our school is right or wrong on the matter.
What is important for us is that we are following the clear evidence as given by the Qur’an and the agreed-upon traditions of the Blessed Messenger (saw)- Al-Sunnah.
The only reason the title is put as such is to make a distinction between what we believe to be the truth of the matter. Other schools have their reasons and justifications.
It is important to understand how we understand the word ‘Muslim’ and the word ‘kufr’ and what they mean based on the agreed-upon sources.
There are states or conditions that we are born into that we can lose and those states or conditions that we cannot lose. For example, if you are born a man or a woman for the rest of your life you will be a man or a woman. (though in this day and age some may even scoff at this reasoning!)
There is one’s ethnic group to which you belong that you are born with. If one is born an Arab they will die as an Arab.
So your gender, your ethnicity you are born as such and die as such.
Now a status can change. You could go from being single to married. You could go from being married to single. You could begin a career as a lawyer and die as a farmer.
So this is why it is important to understand the word ‘Muslim’ as-a state of being.
You can be Muslim and you can lose your faith in Islam. One of the most obvious examples of this without resorting to proof text is that if a Muslim chooses to leave Islam for another religion or no religion at all. This person has gone out of the Milla of Islam.
“Say, My Lord has guided me to a straight path, and to an upright religion, the religion (millata) of Abraham the upright, who was not of those who associate partners with Allah. Say. Surely my prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds; No associate has He, and this am I commanded, and I am the first of those who submit (l-muslimina)” (Qur’an 6:161-163)
“And those who disbelieved said to their messengers: We will most certainly drive you forth from our land, or else you shall come back into our religion (millatina). So their Lord revealed to them: Most certainly We will destroy the unjust.” (Qur’an 14:13)
“Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor will He guide them on the way. Give tidings to the hypocrites that for them there is a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 4:137-138)
These verses are very clear that one can leave the Milla of Islam and that one can be upon faith and than kufr and than return to faith and then return back to kufr and than continue on in their kufr.
You want to make sure that when you die you die upon the cycle of iman (belief). Allah (swt) has mentioned several times that we are not to die except in a state of Islam. We should die while upon belief and in a state of surrender, submission, to die as Muslims. Amin for all of us!
“And you do not take revenge on us except because we have believed in the communications of our Lord when they came to us! Our Lord: Pour out upon us patience and cause us to die insubmission (muslimina) ” (Qur’an 7:126)
“And the same did Ibrahim enjoin on his sons and (so did) Yaqoub. O, my sons! surely Allah has chosen for you (this) faith, therefore die not unless you are Muslims (muslimuna). (Qur’an 2:132)
“O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)
So there are two points to be taken from the above text
We want to die in a state of surrender in a state of submission. For these commands to be there means it is possible for one not to die in a state of surrender and submission. We seek protection with Allah (swt) from that-for all of us!
We want to die while having belief/ faith in our hearts. We make supplication that this happens for all of us!
Notice that one of the three verses quoted above admonishes the following:
“Pour out upon us patience.” – In other words, grant us patience in doing what we need to do. & “be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him.”
So please understand that the word Muslim means action. It is more an adjective that describes a state of being rather than a noun -regardless of anything one says or does.
Muslims are not like our gender or ethnicity. Being in a state of Islam is not something that stays with us no matter what we do. So it is something we must be careful to guard.
Based upon the Qur’an and Sunnah have two types of kafir.
All mushriks (those who associate partners with Allah) are kafir.
However, not all kafir are mushriks.
An example of the first point. Mushrik are kafirs.
“Certainly they are ungrateful (KAFARA)who say: Surely, Allah– He is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Mary and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah’s is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things,” (Qur’an 5:17)
An example of the second point. Not all kafirs are Mushriks.
” And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers (l-kāfirūna).” (Qur’an 5:44)
While the immediate context is a reference to the Jews, it would be a strange thing to say that Jews who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are kafir while Muslims get a free pass.
“Now, surely, sincere obedience is due to Allah (alone) and as for those who take awliyaa besides Him, saying, We do not serve them save that they may make us nearer to Allah, surely Allah will judge between them in that in which they differ; surely Allah does not guide him aright who is a liar, ungrateful(kaffarun) (Qur’an 39:3)
So what or how do we understand the word kufr?
Some want to make the word kufr as that which brings one out of Islam. Often you may see in their books and translations of the Qur’an that the various iterations of the word kufr or kafir will be translated into English as: ‘infidel’ or ‘disbeliever’ or ‘nonbeliever’ or ‘unbeliever’.
However, we want to look at how Allah (swt) the lord of all the worlds uses the word and its different forms throughout the revelation that He (swt) has given to us.
“Know that this world’s life is a sport and play and gaiety and boasting among yourselves, and a vying in the multiplication of wealth and children, like the rain, whose causing the vegetation to grow, pleases the tillers (al-kuffara), then it withers away so that you will see it become yellow, then it becomes dried up and broken down, and in the hereafter is a severe chastisement and (also) forgiveness from Allah and (His) pleasure, and this world’s life is naught but means of deception.” (Qur’an 57:20)
Maa sha Allah! This verse is very powerful. It also has a double meaning on the word kuffar. You can see that people in this life are all about hedonism and narcissism, boasting, and competition. Yet these people are ungrateful. They are compared to tillers who cover the earth. They are happy with their efforts.
Yet, as Allah (swt) mentions that the produce itself becomes nothing. That the life of this world is but means of deception. The produce becomes nothing, we see our youth give way to the challenges of old age. Even the wealth and children disperse. How many families fight over wealth and inheritance? How many children, in turn, are ungrateful to their parents for the sacrifices they made to give them a better lifestyle?
So much can be said about this amazing verse! Subhan’Allah.
“And when your Lord made it known: If you are grateful (shakartum), I would certainly give to you more, and if you are ungrateful (kafartum) , then My torment will be severe.“ (Qur’an 14:7)
So here Allah (swt) contrasted gratefulness with kafar (ungrateful). He also again warned us that His ‘torment will be severe‘ for those who are ungrateful. Note in the above verse one is either grateful or ungrateful. There is no in between. It is akin to a light switch what is the position between on/off?
“How is it you are ungrateful (takfurūna) to Allah? You had been lifeless, then, He gave you life. again, He will cause you to die. Again, He will give you life. And, again, you are returned to Him.” (Qur’an 2:28)
“So when they ride in the ships they call upon Allah, being sincerely obedient to Him, but when He brings them safely to the land, lo! they associate others (yush’rikūna) with Him; being ungrateful (liyakfuru) for what We gave them. So let them take joy for soon they will know!” (Qur’an 29:65-66)
So with all these verses in mind, it should be known that in the Ibadi school we understand Kufr as a denial of truth and ingratitude-either by one’s actions or inaction.
So the second type as mentioned above is kufr ni’mah. So this kufr-ni’mah is when any of us as Muslims commit major sins -persist in those sins and do not repent.
So those Muslims are kafir ni’mah. Ungrateful to Allah (swt) for the overwhelming and manifest blessings that He (swt) has given to them. They show this by their actions or inaction.
Our view is that any Muslim who does this and does not repent before death reaches/him or her will be in eternal hellfire.
So to be clear this is our position. In this life, there are three groups.
There are the Mushrik -those who are outside of Islam. Kufr Ash-Shirk
There are the Mumin (those are the believers) -They are part of the millat of Islam.
There are those who are kafir ni’mah (nifaq).- They are part of the millat of Islam. They share the beliefs of the Muslims. The share with those outside of Islam in kufr.
The one in kafir ni’mah he/she shares with the Mushrik in kufr -not of associating partners with Allah(swt) but in covering up the truth and/or being ungrateful to Allah(swt).
The one in kafir ni’mah he/she shares with the Muslims, thee beliefs of Islam. They are part of the Millat of Islam. Yet, they are Muslim by their tongues and the affirmation of the people. But if they are truly people of wara, and taqwa and emaan they will rush to ask forgiveness from their Lord.
Some people may be familiar with the term:
“The difference between us and the Kharijis is that they oppose us only in that they judge of every punishable act of kufr entailing expulsion from the millah.”-Shaykh Ahmed b. Hamad al-Khalili
As regards the afterlife we believe there are two types of categories and two abodes and the inhabitants of one do not enter the abode of the other.
The two categories are:
One is a destination for the kufar
One is a destination for the mumin.
The two destinations are:
The paradise and the believers do not come out from it. There is no verse in the Qur’an that paradise is for the kafir.
The hellfire and no one comes out from it. There is no verse in the Qur’an that hellfire is for the mumin.
The following three ahadith are something to ponder.
Jabir ibn ‘Abd-Allah reported: The Prophet, (saw) said, “Verily between a man and shirk and kufr there stands his neglect of the prayer.”
“I heard the Messenger of Allah ( saw) ‘The covenant that distinguishes between us and them is the prayer, and whoever neglects it has disbelieved (become a kafir).’”
Abdullah bin Buraidah narrated that his father said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: The covenant that distinguishes between us and them is the prayer; so whoever neglects it, has become a kafir (committed kufr).”
When a person willfully, abandons the prayer he/she/ become a kafir.
They are in a state of Kufr.
The type of kufr is called: “kufr ni’mah” ungratefulness to Allah (swt), for his many blessings by covering or hiding the reality of what Allah (swt) has commanded and prohibited and enjoined upon us.
Muslims who do major sins and persist in this without tauba are in a state of “kufr ni’mah” -they are still part of the Milla of Islam, their children inherit from them. However, if these people die in such a state, without making repentance the position of the Qur’an is clear. That person will go to hell fire-where they will neither reprieve nor escape.
“And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: “Now I repent;” nor of those who die while they are ungrateful (kuffarun). For them, We have prepared a painful torment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
This verse is very clear.
Repentance is no use who continue to do evil deeds upon until death faces them (which could be at any moment) mind you. So it is risky to delay repentance and also shows a type of satisfaction with the sin.
Those who die while they are in a state of ungratefulness (kuffarun).
A painful punishment is prepared for such.
May Allah (swt) protect you and me and all of us!
“Surely as for those whom the angels cause to die while they are unjust to their souls, they shall say: In what state were you? They shall say: We were weak in the earth. They shall say: Was not Allah’s earth spacious so that you should have migrated therein? So those it is whose abode is hell, and it is an evil destination.” (Qur’an 4:99)
“The repentance accepted by Allah is only for those who do wrong in ignorance or carelessness and then repent soon after. It is those to whom Allah will turn in forgiveness, and Allah is ever Knowing and Wise..” (Qur’an 4:17)
So notice that it says even for people who do sins out of ignorance or carelessness that they should repent “soon after” How much more for those who do the major evil sins?
Now, this doesn’t mean if you did something out of ignorance or carelessness that you will be punished. Allah (swt) is merciful and does not want to punish someone for carelessness or slight acts of negligence.
What this verse is stating is that when it now becomes clear to you that what you were doing out of ignorance or carelessness is now made clear that you should repent from it immediately.
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” -(Qur’an 4:31)
This verse is conditional. If we do our level best to avoid the major sins than Allah (swt) will remove from us the lesser sins. Allah (swt) forgives sins because He is al-ʿAfūw & al-Ghafūr
For more on the above verse please read our article here:
“It is right to hope that Allah will pardon them. For Allah is The one who Effaces, The Ever Forgiving..” (Qur’an 4:99)
Even with this in mind, we should do our level best to avoid small sins. We should never despair of the Mercy of Allah (swt) nor should we take for granted the Mercy of Allah (swt). That is the point is that by taking for granted the Mercy of Allah (swt) is in and of itself ingratitude.
As regards the majority of Muslims supposedly not praying or keeping their duty to Allah (swt) that is not your problem nor mine. We love them and hope they quickly amend their ways. Our duty is to save ourselves and our family from the fire whose fuel is men and jinn, whose fuel is men and stones.
So what does taubah mean?
It means to return or to turn.
Return or turn to whom?
Why would you need to return or turn if you are already in a state of surrender?
The matter of whether or not hell is eternal.
This is another reason why I feel the Muslim community is in the state that it is in. Think about it. The majority Muslim position is telling everyone that:
“Don’t worry Allah will put you in hell for a while, and then you will come out of it.” “Don’t worry you will only be in hell for 257 million years and then you can come out of it!“
May Allah (swt) protect us from perverse doctrines!
As if hell were a light matter! Not only that but they teach that hellfire is not eternal for the Muslim who commits major sins and does not repent!
Now let me ask you, dear readers. What actually is a Muslim?
What do you think should be the case for the Muslim who says:
“I know killing people is wrong but I’ll do it anyway.” “I know drinking alcohol is forbidden, and extramarital affairs are wrong but I’ll do them anyway”
“O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains of interest if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of war against you from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – thus you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.” (Qur’an 2:278-279)
Can you imagine the condition of such a person? A person who says:
“I know that usury is forbidden, and I am in a state of war with Allah and His Messenger and I know that it is wrong, but I will do it anyway.” ?!?
So is simple lip service and acknowledging that it’s a sin and yet continuing to revel in it the hallmark of a Muslim? What is this based on?
Then you have to wonder about the moral decay in the Muslim community. Even though we could die at any moment, the personal reasons, “I can do this and Allah (swt) will just forgive me. Worst-case scenario I’ll go to hell for a while be purified and then released into heaven.” Authubillah min dhalik!
But a Muslim who neglect the prayers from simple laziness or no desire, you have to ask yourself what actually is a Muslim?
What is so hard about doing taubah?
Look at all the places it is mentioned in the Qur’an.
If you think about the major sins they are not things that are altogether to difficult to avoid.
Like do you personally find it difficult not to kill people?
Do you have some overwhelming desire to worship idols and associate partners with Allah (swt)?
Do you feel it’s absolutely necessary to cheat on your husband/wife when divorce is open to you?
The prayer takes discipline, but at the end of the day, it’s roughly 5 minutes (25 minutes) out of a 24 hour period.
You can perform it sitting down, lying on your side, you can combine prayers when traveling, shorten it during the conflict, and so forth.
Look at this hadith.
On the authority of Anas (ra), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: Allah the Almighty said: O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you, O Son of Adam were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the Earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as it.”
“He said: “O my people! why do you seek to hasten on the evil before the good? Why do you not ask forgiveness of Allah so that you may be dealt with mercifully? (Qur’an 27:46)
You really have to be a person actively fleeing from the mercy of Allah, an individual actively fleeing from Allah’s forgiveness and mercy to end up in hell. You actively have to want to participate in that end. You do so by continuing to disobey Allah (swt) and not seeking forgiveness, and not wanting transformation in your life. May Allah suffice us!
“The day when neither wealth nor sons shall profit except for him who comes to Allah with a pure heart.” (Qur’an 26:88-89)
“Nay! But on their hearts is the Ran (covering of sins and evil deeds) which they used to earn.’” (Qur’an 83:14)
Can a heart that is filled with ingratitude and hypocrisy be said to be a pure heart?
Look at what the great Shaykh and teacher of spirituality, Imam Al Ghazali has quoted:
“The Messenger of Allah “Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him,” said: “There are four kinds of hearts: a heart which is stripped clean in which a lamp shines and this is the believer’s heart; a heart which is black and upside down, and it is the unbeliever’s heart; a hardened heart bound n its sheath of evil, and it is the heart of the hypocrite; and a broad heart in which there is both belief and hypocrisy. Its belief is like green herbage which pure water causes to abound, and its hypocrisy is like an ulcer which purulent matter and pus cause to spread. This heart is judged to belong to whichever of the two prevails over the other.” This heart is judged to belong to whichever of the two prevails over the other.”
Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire – and never will you find for them a helper – Except for those who repent, correct themselves, hold fast to Allah, and are sincere in their religion for Allah, for those will be with the believers. And Allah is going to give the believers a great reward. Why should Allah punish you if you are grateful and believe? And ever is Allah Appreciative and Knowing.” (Qur’an 4:145-147)
“Allah does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity. It will have the consequence of what good it has gained, and it will bear the consequence of what evil it has earned. “Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred. Our Lord, and lay not upon us a burden like that which You laid upon those before us. Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear. And pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy upon us. You are our protector, so give us victory over the ungrateful (l-kafirina) people.” (Qur’an 2:286)
“O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)
“And return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped.” (Qur’an 39:54)
Oh Muslims die in a state of surrender to Allah (swt) and not in a state of rebellion to Allah (swt)
There is not a verse in the entirety of the Qur’an that gives a single example of a kafir (ingrate) entering paradise.
One final note. Anyone who in a state of kufr will go to hell. Hell is not for the mumin.
So how to avoid this fate?
Avoid major sins. If you find that you fall short, repent immediately! Return to Allah (swt).
Allah is our success!
You may also be interested in the following articles:
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, their reward will be Hell—where they will stay indefinitely.Allah will be displeased with them, condemn them, and will prepare for them a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
﷽
The following article is a translation of the wonderful presentation by the respected Shaykh
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and prayers and peace be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers, our master Muhammed, and upon his family and his righteous, guided companions. To proceed:
Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you.
Introduction: The Allegations Answered Once and For All.
My brothers, in this article we continue responding to a persistent allegation—that the Ibadis declare the Companions to be disbelievers, that we excommunicate them from Islam. This accusation is repeated endlessly by those who either misunderstand our creed or deliberately misrepresent it.
As we have said before, this attack against the Ibadis is the result of these people’s ignorance regarding the principle of loyalty and disavowal (al-walāyah wa’l-barā’ah) among the Ibadis. Likewise, these people are trying to conceal what they themselves call the faults of some of the Companions—namely, the events that occurred during the civil strife (fitnah). These events are what led those scholars to declare disavowal from some of the Companions.
These people are not only ignorant of the principle of loyalty and disavowal, but they are also trying to conceal and avoid discussing these events.
When these people throw this accusation at the Ibadis, they simply say directly: “The Ibadis declare the Companions disbelievers,” without discussing the reasons. There are reasons that led those scholars to declare disavowal regarding those Companions.
What Our Opponents Say: Documenting the Accusation
Let us document exactly what our opponents claim. Listen carefully to their own words:
“Look, regardless of my disagreement with them, they declare ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to be a disbeliever, and they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Yet despite that, they do not openly state it. Rather, you find this in their major books. You find it in their books. They also have an element of taqiyyah (dissimulation). Even so, I do not know whether this expression will be understood properly or not, but I respect in them the absence of sectarianism. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. Yes, we declare Muʿāwiyah a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare Marwān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿUthmān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿAlī and al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn disbelievers, but we still narrate from al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. This is the Ibadi belief.”
Another says:
“Therefore we are not surprised by this stance, for the position of the early Ibadis regarding the Companions—especially the two caliphs—is contrary to the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah. It included criticism, takfīr, and false disavowal from the best of this nation. As for the other two Rightly Guided Caliphs, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān and ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may Allah be pleased with them, the Khawārij, including the Ibadis, remained deeply astray concerning them, attributing to them things from which Allah declared them innocent, and speaking grievously against them.”
And another:
“They called themselves the people of truth and uprightness, but they are the people of falsehood and misguidance. Hatred toward Ahl al-Sunnah. Let me add even more: they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and ʿUthmān disbelievers—and also al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, of course. As for Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, he exited Islam through its widest gates.”
As you have heard, these people claim that the Ibadis declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say that the Ibadis do not openly state this and that they practice a kind of taqiyyah. They say this is our creed.
The Reality: No Taqiyyah, No Doctrine of Takfīr
The reality is that this is not our creed, nor is there any taqiyyah. Rather, it is their ignorance. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension (wuqūf) among the Ibadis.
One of these opponents commented on an interview with one of our shaykhs. The interviewer asked the shaykh about Sayyidunā Abū Bakr and Sayyidunā ʿUmar, then afterwards about Sayyidunā ʿUthmān. They claim that he stuttered. The reality is that the shaykh did not stutter. Rather, he was avoiding reopening the fitnah and the events that occurred among the Companions. He did not want to stir up these matters, so he avoided them. Yet they claim he hesitated and faltered.
The shaykh did not hesitate or stutter. He answered. The problem is not with the shaykh—the problem is with them. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. Anyone who understands this doctrine would know that the shaykh did answer the question.
The shaykh did not want to bring out what is found in their own books regarding the events that occurred among the Companions. He was avoiding this issue.
The shaykh said—according to the meaning of his words—that there were those who had one opinion and others who had another opinion. This is the reality. The issue returns to the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. There are people with one opinion and others with another. That is the answer. The shaykh cannot specify which of those opinions is correct because the matter returns to our doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
They want the shaykh simply to say: “Disbeliever” or “not a disbeliever.” But the matter is not that simple. This black-and-white approach belongs to them. The shaykh is not obligated to adopt their methodology, nor are the Ibadis obligated to adopt their methodology in these issues. We Ibadis have our own methodology and doctrine: the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
Now, these people claim that we declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say we do not openly state it and that we practice taqiyyah. Then they say this is the creed of the Ibadis.
The reality is that there is neither taqiyyah nor a doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers. Declaring the Companions disbelievers is not a doctrine among the Ibadis. We do not have a chapter in our creed titled: “The Ibadi doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers.” This is their ignorance.
If we focus on their words and these responses and clips they produced, we find them constantly repeating the term takfīr, the term kufr. They say: “They declared disbelief,”“acts of disbelief,”“so-and-so is a disbeliever.”
One of them even distorted the shaykh’s words in that interview, lied, and played with expressions. Anyone who watches the interview and his commentary will find that he distorted the shaykh’s words and attributed to him statements he never made. The shaykh never uttered the term takfīr. Yet this man attributes to the Ibadis things they never said.
Did the Ibadis Invent the Term Kufr?
Now, does this term—takfīr—have any basis? Did the Ibadis invent it out of thin air, as they claim, or does it have a basis in religion?
Let us establish this. Let us speak and cite from the books of these people themselves. We will not use Ibadi sources. Rather, we will prove everything we say from the sources of these people.
The Prophetic Evidence
In Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, the most authentic book after the Qur’an according to Ahl al-Sunnah, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“Do not revert after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”
This is another ḥadīth proving the usage of the term kufr for actions committed by Muslims against other Muslims.
What Sunni Scholars Say About this Kufr
Now let us see what these people’s own scholars say regarding these ḥadīths and the term kufr.
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn, one of the most revered contemporary Sunni scholars, says in his commentary on Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn, volume 4, page 70:
“Then the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ … This indicates that believers fighting one another is kufr.”
Notice: He says “believers fighting one another is kufr.” He does not say the fighters have left Islam. He affirms they are believers, yet their fighting is kufr.
However, you know what has happened to soften this in some English translations? They translate it as: “This indicates that believers fighting one constitutes some disbelief.”
In Al-Thamar al-Mustatāb fī Fiqh al-Sunnah wa al-Kitāb, page 53, al-Albānī says:
“Know that many ḥadīths have come attributing kufr to those who commit major sins … among them: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr’… and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ All these ḥadīths are authentic. So if we know that kufr has levels (darajāt), and that some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell, then there is no need for reinterpretation.”
Al-Albānī explicitly affirms three critical points:
Kufr has levels (darajāt).
Some forms of kufr do not eternally condemn a person to Hell.
Therefore, there is no need to reinterpret these ḥadīths away—they mean what they say, but kufr does not always mean apostasy.
“Based on this principle, a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith. Thus the Prophet ﷺ named many sins as kufr, though the person committing them may still have more than an atom’s weight of faith and therefore not remain eternally in Hell. Such as his statement: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr,’ and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ This is widespread from the Prophet ﷺ in authentic narrations.”
Then he says:
“He called those who strike one another’s necks unjustly ‘disbelievers.’”
And he says this is “kufr less than kufr,” as some Companions said.
This is extraordinary. Ibn Taymiyyah—the scholar revered by many of our opponents—explicitly affirms:
A person can have “a branch of disbelief” while still possessing faith.
The Prophet called certain sins kufr.
This kufr does not necessarily mean eternal damnation.
Some Companions themselves called this “kufr less than kufr.”
“If hatred is for worldly reasons only, then this is lesser disbelief and does not reach major disbelief. Hence the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’”
Then on page 852 he says:
“The fact that some Companions fought others involves entering into traits of disbelief … therefore he said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers.’”
He then says this disbelief may be lesser or greater depending on the nature of the hatred.
Sources: (
Ibn Taymiyyah on the Authenticity of These Ḥadīths
In Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, volume 4, pages 499–500, Ibn Taymiyyah is responding to the Rāfiḍah (Shīʿa). In this section he imagines an argument from the Nawāṣib against the Rāfiḍah. He says:
“If the Nawāṣib said to you Rāfiḍah: ‘ʿAlī permitted the blood of Muslims and fought them without the command of Allah and His Messenger, merely for leadership,’ and then cited the Prophet’s words ‘Fighting him is kufr’ and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another,’ then ʿAlī would thereby be a disbeliever…”
Then Ibn Taymiyyah says:
“Your argument, O Rāfiḍah, would not be stronger than theirs, because the ḥadīths they used are authentic.”
Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that these ḥadīths containing the term kufr are authentic. He does not deny their application to Muslims who fight Muslims.
In his book on trustworthy narrators, al-Dhahabī says on page 23:
“If we opened this door for ourselves, many Companions, Followers, and imams would enter into it. Some Companions declared others disbelievers based on interpretation.”
Al-Dhahabī affirms takfīr occurring among the Companions themselves—based on interpretive ijtihād, not because the target of takfīr had actually left Islam.
Imam al-Nawawī said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim: “To insult a Muslim without right is forbidden by the consensus of the Ummah, and the one who does it is a fāsiq (morally corrupt), as the Prophet (peace be upon him) informed. As for fighting him without right, it does not constitute kufr that expels one from the religion according to Ahl al-Haqq, unless one deems it lawful. Now that this is established, there are several interpretations of the hadith: First — it applies to the one who deems such acts lawful. Second — it is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Third — it leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences. Fourth — it resembles the actions of disbelievers.”
First — it applies to the one who deems such acts lawful.
Their interpretation is if you kill a fellow a Muslim but you don’t believe that it is lawful to do so then it is not kufr.
We wonder if the companions who killed each other thought that what they were doing was lawful or unlawful?
If it was unlawful then they participated in the unlawful in masse.
Second — it is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Hence, kufr ni’ama. Welcome to the Ibadi view.
Third — it leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences. Fourth — it resembles the actions of disbelievers.
Summary of Sunni Scholarly Consensus on the above matter.
Scholar
Affirmation
Ibn Taymiyyah
Kufr has levels; “kufr less than kufr” exists; a person can have a branch of kufr while still having faith.
Al-Dhahabī
Some Companions declared other Companions disbelievers based on interpretation (ta’wīl).
Al-ʿUthaymīn
Believers fighting one another is kufr—but they remain believers.
Al-Albānī
Kufr has levels (darajāt); some forms do not eternally condemn to Hell.
Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh
Lesser disbelief exists and does not reach major disbelief.
al-Nawawī
Meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah
The Sunni Understanding of Qur’anic Reconciliation vindicates the Ibadis
Now we return to the Qur’anic verse that seals this matter.
The Sunnis translate the verse as:
“And if two groups of the believers fight each other…” (Qur’an 49:9)
Allah did not say: “If two groups, one of which has left Islam…” He said: “of the believers.”
Therefore:
Statement
Implication
Allah calls fighting groups believers
They have not left the millah of Islam.
The Prophet calls fighting a Muslim kufr
The act is kufr in the lesser sense.
Conclusion
Kufr in the ḥadīth and in Ibadi usage does not mean expulsion from Islam.
This term—kufr—was not invented by the Ibadis out of thin air or from their own pockets. These scholars did not invent it. Rather, this term is established and has a basis in the explicit words of the Prophet ﷺ and the explicit text of the Qur’an.
The Prophet said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr.” And he also said: “Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”
The question is: did the Companions strike one another’s necks? No rational person can deny that this happened during the fitnah.
The Ibadi Doctrinal Framework: Walāyah, Barā’ah, and Wuqūf
Now that we have established the legitimacy of the term kufr in its lesser sense, let us explain the actual Ibadi doctrine—the framework our opponents either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent.
The issues related to the stance on historical events (the Great Fitnah) are among the most intricate topics in Ibadi theology, and they have witnessed significant methodological development while preserving their theoretical foundations.
First: The Three Doctrinal Concepts
These concepts represent a “system of analogy” that defines a Muslim’s relationship with others based on behavior and actions:
Walāyah (Loyalty): This is love for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for every Muslim whose outward conduct is in accordance with Allah’s commands. It is of two types: general walāyah (for all believers) and specific walāyah (for those known for their righteousness).
Barā’ah (Disavowal): This is hatred for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for anyone who openly commits a major sin, persists in a wrong, or introduces something into the religion that contradicts its fundamental principles (from the perspective of the school of thought). It is not a “curse” or “insult,” but rather a severing of religious allegiance from the action or innovation.
Wuqūf (Suspension): This refers to refraining from judging someone’s loyalty or innocence due to unclear evidence, conflicting reports, or because the person was unaware of the events and not legally obligated to pass judgment on them.
A Detailed Overview of Positions Throughout the Ages
Prevailing Position: Innocence of the events and those responsible for them. Early Ibadis did not hold the Companions (as a whole) responsible for the fitnah in a way that condemned them.
Estimated Percentage: 95% innocence. The overwhelming majority of early Ibadi scholars maintained that the Companions (as a whole) were not to be held blameworthy for the civil strife.
Even if we granted a theoretical 5% Allowance for disavowal.The remaining 5% allows for the possibility that some Companions, as human beings, may have committed acts prior to the fitnah that deserved punishment under the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is not a blanket condemnation of any Companion, nor is it specific to the events of the fitnah. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that Companions—like all humans—were not infallible (ma’sūm) and could commit individual sins for which the Qur’an and Sunnah prescribe accountability. This is not unique to Ibadis; Sunni scholars also acknowledge that Companions were not infallible and could commit sins, though they are generally considered righteous overall.
Examples: What is mentioned in the letters of Imam Jābir ibn Zayd (although his letters are characterized by piety) and what biographers have reported about the position of the people of Nahrawān towards ʿUthmān (due to the issue of protected areas and positions) and towards ʿAlī (due to the arbitration).
Logic: The position was directly political and doctrinal. Early Ibadis considered certain actions during the fitnah to be innovations, but they did not translate that into condemning the Companions as individuals. Rather, their barā’ah (disavowal) was directed at the actions and innovations, not at the persons as disbelievers or as having left the millah of Islam.
Stage 2: Establishing and Remaining Silent (5th–13th centuries AH)
Prevailing Stance: Expressions of “remaining silent” began to appear explicitly.
Estimated Ratio: 50% disavowal (in educational texts) and 50% wuqūf (in practical application).
A well-known saying: Imam Abū Saʿīd al-Kadāmī (one of the leading scholars of the 4th century AH) said: “We do not disavow ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib or ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān unless we have definitive proof that necessitates it, and silence is safer.”
Logic: The principle of “scholarly integrity” began to emerge, whereby statements of disavowal were transmitted as part of the heritage, but remaining silent was practiced out of respect for the status of these Companions.
Contemporary Phase (14th century AH – Present Day)
Prevailing Stance: Remaining silent and accepting (the principle of good faith).
Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn al-Sālimī: Despite his adherence to the fundamentals, he opened the door to wuqūf for those who were unaware of the fitnah, saying: “You may abstain from judgment regarding the people of the qiblah, for Allah will not question you about what they did.”
His Eminence Shaykh Aḥmad bin Ḥamad al-Khalīlī (Grand Mufti of Oman): He always emphasizes the unity of the Ummah and purity of heart. In his lessons and writings, he prays for mercy upon all the Companions and affirms that historical differences should not divide Muslims today.
The Principle of Purity of Heart: This is the principle adopted by the Ibadi school today, meaning that the contemporary Muslim is not obligated to investigate the bloodshed of the Companions, and it is safer for him to meet Allah with a pure heart towards everyone.
Why Do Classical Texts Continue to Contain Statements of Disavowal?
The continued presence of these statements in books does not necessarily mean they are being implemented today. Rather, it stems from methodological reasons:
Scholarly Integrity: Ibadi scholars consider the books of the early scholars an inheritance that should not be censored or deleted. Instead, it should be transmitted as is, with explanations within its historical context.
Preserving Historical Memory: Transmitting these statements aims to explain why the Ibadis differed from others initially (the political and legal reasons for the revival), not to incite hatred.
Distinguishing Between “Statement” and “Religious Practice”: The statement of disavowal exists “intellectually” in the books as an interpretation by earlier scholars, but wuqūf and acceptance are what are practiced “religiously” and as acts of worship today.
Should One Take a Doctrinal Stance Regarding the People of Nahrawān?
This is a fundamental question within the school of thought, and the answer can be summarized as follows:
The Ibadi position on their predecessors: The Ibadis believe that the people of Nahrawān were “people of righteousness” and that their disavowal of ʿUthmān and ʿAlī was based on a legitimate interpretation of Islamic law, which they considered justified in their time, to protect the core of the faith (as they perceived it).
Are you obligated to disavow them as they did? No. The principle among the Ibadis is: “There is no blame on one who remains neutral.” A contemporary Muslim who refrains from judging ʿUthmān and ʿAlī, while simultaneously respecting the people of Nahrawān as scholars and predecessors, is not considered an “innovator” or “outside the school.”
Conclusion of the Doctrinal Section
There is no religious obligation within the Ibadi school that compels you to disavow any of the Companions today. The required doctrinal stance is loyalty to the believers and hatred of oppressors in general. However, regarding specific historical events, the best and safest course is to remain neutral. (Wuqūf)
Accordingly, the Ibadi approach today is one of unity, not division, whereby the Companions (including ʿUthmān and ʿAlī) are treated with respect as a general virtue, while the interpretations of the early scholars who took strong stances are also respected, and this is considered part of the history of scholarly interpretation that does not preclude present-day harmony.
Kufr in the Ibadi School Does Not Expel from the Millah
Let us state this as clearly as possible:
Kufr in the Ibadi school is not something that takes one out of the millah of Islam.
This is the fundamental distinction that our opponents either cannot grasp or deliberately conceal.
When early Ibadi scholars used the term kufr regarding certain actions during the fitnah, they did not mean:
That the person had left the millah of Islam.
That their shahādah was invalidated.
That they were forever condemned to Hell.
Rather, they meant precisely what Ibn Taymiyyah meant when he wrote “a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith” and “kufr less than kufr.” They meant what al-Albānī meant when he wrote “kufr has levels, and some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell.”
They meant that the action—fighting a fellow Muslim unjustly, or introducing innovation into the religion—is an act of kufr in the lesser sense: a grave violation that necessitates barā’ah (disavowal) but not the complete negation of faith.
Even in how we understand the word كفر or kufr in Arabic. This ensures us that we have a creed that is based upon the Qur’an, the primary source of Islam, the revelation Allah sent to his Blessed Prophet (saw). Allah (swt) never defined كفر as exit from the religion of Islam. This is concept is theologically superimposed upon the word. The proof of this is evident. In light of the clear text from the Prophetic Sunnah, Sunni scholars have provided an array of understandings and levels concering the word.
Why the Accusation of Taqiyyah for the Ibadi Is False
Our opponents also claim that we, the Ibadis practice taqiyyah—that we conceal our “true” belief that the Companions are disbelievers.
This is false for several reasons:
There is no concealment. We are explaining our doctrine openly in this very article, citing our sources and demonstrating our distinctions.
Wuqūf is not taqiyyah.Taqiyyah is concealing one’s true belief out of fear of harm. Wuqūf is a principled theological position: suspending judgment when evidence is unclear or when the matter does not affect one’s own religious obligation.
The accusation is ironic. Our opponents accuse us of taqiyyah while ignoring that we openly state: “We do not declare the Companions disbelievers in the sense of expulsion from Islam.” What are we supposedly concealing?
The burden of proof is on them. They claim we secretly believe something. But they provide no evidence—only misinterpretation of early texts that they refuse to read in light of their own understanding of Qur’an (49:9) and the distinction between lesser and major kufr.
The Rhetorical Question Our Opponents Cannot Answer
Let us conclude with a question for those who accuse the Ibadis of excommunicating the Companions:
According to their own undersatnding of Qur’an 49:9, when two groups of believers fight each other, are they still believers or not?
They cannot say “no” without contradicting the Qur’an.
And according to your own ḥadīth in Bukhārī and Muslim, fighting a Muslim is kufr. So how do you reconcile the Qur’an calling fighting believers ‘believers’ and the ḥadīth calling fighting ‘kufr’?
The only possible reconciliation is that kufr here does not mean apostasy. It means a lesser kufr, a grave sin, an act of major transgression—but not expulsion from the millah of Islam.
That is exactly what we Ibadis have been saying all along.
This is not meant as a ‘gotcha’ for the Sunnis, but a call for sincere reflection, bridge-building, and moving forward as an Ummah
Final Summary
Accusation
Reality
“Ibadis declare Companions to be disbelievers (apostates).”
Ibadis use kufr in the lesser sense (kufr ni’ma), as affirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Albānī, al-ʿUthaymīn, and others.
“Ibadis declare companions to be mushrik (polytheist).”
Ibadis have not declared a single companion to be a mushrik.
“Ibadis practice taqiyyah to hide their true beliefs.”
There is no concealment. Wuqūf (suspension) is a principled theological position, not taqiyyah.
“Ibadis invented the term kufr for Muslims.”
The term comes from how Allah defined it in the Qur’an.
“Ibadis are Khawārij who excommunicate Muslims.”
Ibadis distinguish themselves from extremist Khawārij precisely by affirming that kufr does not always entail expulsion from the millah.
“Contemporary Ibadis still declare the Companions disbelievers.”
The contemporary Ibadi position is overwhelmingly wuqūf and acceptance, with scholars praying for mercy upon all Companions.
Conclusion and Call for Fairness
We Ibadis do not ask anyone to agree with our historical interpretations. We do not ask anyone to adopt our doctrine of barā’ah. What we ask for is fairness—that we be judged by what we actually believe, not by the distorted caricature our opponents present.
We ask that our accusers to read their own understasnding of Qur’an (49:9) and the authentic ḥadīth. We ask that they read their own scholars—Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabī, al-ʿUthaymīn, al-Albānī—who affirm the very distinctions we make..
We ask that they stop accusing us of taqiyyah when we are explaining our doctrine openly.
If they insist that our definition of kufr means apostasy, they bear the burden of proof is upon the accuser—not us.
“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)
“As for those who struggle in Our cause, We will surely guide them along Our Ways. And Allah is certainly with the good-doers.” (Qur’an 29:69)
﷽
One of the searchers for truth among the Shi’i has had some questions to the Ibadi in regard to the matters of Siffin and Nahrawan.
Question: Why did the people who differed with Ali over the arbitration not continue fighting if Ali had stopped fighting?
Answer: It is not permissible to continue the fighting while they are without an imam, for fear that they will die a death of ignorance. They must be under the banner of an Imam. So, a new imam should have been appointed. It is not reasonable to appoint an imam while they are at war. They must rest a little and agree on a specific person away from the battle front.
The people were angry with him because the consensus of the nation is that he (Ali) is the legitimate caliph and those who rebelled against him are rebels according to the text of the Qur’an and must be fought. But his pledge of allegiance was broken, so how could Imam Ali be a caliph when he submitted to the rule and accepted the two arbitrations, and how could they pledge allegiance to him as caliph when he was not of their opinion and did not join them?
Question: Why didn’t the people of Nahrawan after electing Abdullah ibn Wahb Al-Rasibi press the attack against Mu’awiya and his forces?
Answer: How do we know if the people of Nahrawan wanted to fight Mu’awiya?
Did Ali give them a chance to do as such? He surprised them with his army and caused their deaths through the treachery of al-Ash’ath himself, whom had forced (Ali) into arbitration. Likewise, the people of Nahrawan are innocent because they were never followers of Mu’awiya, otherwise they would not have refused to pledge allegiance to Mu’awiya and they were fought against the Umayyad state. This is well known from history.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” (Qur’an 5:32)
﷽
Our colleague recalls this when they were at Zaytuna, California. So, one of the views of the Sunni school of Islam is that as long as someone hides their kufr/nifaq among the believers, they are safe.
However, in the Shafi’i school of jurisprudence, if a Muslim is knowingly negligent in prayer, he is killed and buried with the Muslims. It is recommended he repent, but not a must.
f1.3 Someone raised among Muslims who denies the obligatoriness of the prayer, zakat, fasting Ramadan, the pilgrimage, or the unlawfulness of wine and adultery, or denies something else upon which there is scholarly consensus (ijma`, def:b7) and which is necessarily known as being of the religion (N: necessarily known meaning things that any Muslim would know about if asked) thereby becomes an unbeliever (kafir and is executed for his unbelief (O: if he does not admit he is mistaken and acknowledge the Obligatoriness or unlawfulness of that which there is scholarly consensus upon. As for if he denies the obligatoriness of something there is not consensus upon, then he is not adjudged an unbeliever).
f1.4 A Muslim who holds the prayer to be obligatory but through lack of concern neglects to perform it until its proper time is over has not committed unbelief (dis: w18.2). Rather, he is executed, washed, prayed over, and buried in the Muslim’s cemetery as he is one of them. It is recommended, but not obligatory, that he be asked to repent (and if he does, he is not executed)).
Source: (‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) by Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri Translated by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller)
Prima Qur’an comment: “It is recommended, but not obligatory, that he be asked to repent (and if he does, he is not executed)).”
This is a position that would never be accepted in the Ibadi school. This is because it is the right of every Muslim who falters to be called to repentance. What to do with a Muslim who is willfully negligent in his prayers will be decided by the ruling Imam, Hakam etc.
Taking a life is a huge matter in Islam and one of the things that reached us on taking a life of the believer from the sunnah are:
1. Adultery
2. Apostasy coupled with fighting the Muslims.
3. A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas)
So someone who is negligent in the prayer (as in just doesn’t even care) is executed?
Would this fall under the category of:
Adultery?
Apostasy?
Manslaughter?
Spreading corruption in the earth?
If the Shafi’i are honest with themselves and with you, it must be reasoned that, according to their principles of interpretation of all that which is based on their understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah, the clearest category would be that of apostasy.
f1.4 A Muslim who holds the prayer to be obligatory but through lack of concern neglects to perform it until its proper time is over has not committed unbelief (dis: w18.2). Rather, he is executed, washed, prayed over, and buried in the Muslim’s cemetery as he is one of them. It is recommended, but not obligatory, that he be asked to repent (and if he does, he is not executed)).
This view would have many Muslims today executed. As there are a great many Muslims who are negligent in performing the prayer.
‘Abdullah bin Buraidah narrated that his father said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘The covenant that distinguishes between us and them is prayer; so whoever leaves it, he has committed Kufr.’”
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Zubair that he heard Jabir b. ‘Abdullah saying. I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him) observing this:
“Between man and polytheism and unbelief is the abandonment of salat.”
Buraidah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “That which differentiates us from the disbelievers and hypocrites is our performance of Salat. He who abandons it, becomes a disbeliever.”
We have seen from the text above that their belief is as follows:
A person can neglect every aspect of Islam — prayer, fasting, zakat, enjoining good and forbidding evil, as long as they acknowledge through some lip service that what they are doing is wrong.
Only if a person states that the above aspects are not obligatory do they become a kafir (apostate, as Sunnis define it).
“Do you enjoin right conduct on the people, and forget to practice it yourselves, and yet you study the book? Will you not understand?” (Qur’an 2:44)
Dear Muslim brothers and sisters, this Murji’ah doctrine of Sunni Islam is plain error.
May Allah suffice us!
Do you not want certainty in your life? Do you not want certainty in your heart?
Do you not want to know if you are truly a believer or not?
“Say: “If you do love Allah, Follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
Do you love Allah?
Than follow the Prophet Muhammed (saw) by doing such.
Allah will love you AND forgive your sins!
One of the signs that Allah loves us is that we actually obey Allah by following his commands and prohibitions. One of the signs that we are under the wrath of Allah is that we do not follow his commands and prohibitions.
Qur’an (23:1-9) The self-measurement test.
Read for yourself and see that prayer is an essential ingredient to being a believer!
“And they who carefully maintain their prayers.”
Ask yourself: “Am I in a state of ingratitude towards Allah? After everything our creator has given us, that which is beyond counting will I not be a Muslim? Will I not submit? Will I not surrender?”
There is no verse anywhere in the Qur’an where Islam means 51% submission. There is no verse where Islam means even 90% submission.
Read the following and may Allah flood your heart with light!
“Certainly will the believers have succeeded “ (Qur’an 23:1)
﷽
Faith is not based on inheritance. We don’t inherit it from a family. You get it through conviction. Through understanding. Through contemplation. You can get rituals from your parents, from your family. However, faith is not an inheritance.
What are the signs that you have faith?
We do not have a device that can measure the faith of others. We do not have the right to measure the faith of others. We do not have a device where we can measure the faith of others. You are a level 10 and your faith is at level 2. No! Faith is in the chest (concealed).
“So whoever Allah wants to guide – He expands his breast to [contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide – He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky. Thus does Allah place defilement upon those who do not believe.”(Qur’an 6:125)
However, what are some of the manifest signs that are the signs of faith?
Allah (swt) himself has given each of us a way to check ourselves. Allah (swt) himself has given a unit of measure.
Allah (swt) gave us Qur’an 23:1-9 as a means of self assessment.
Qur’an (23:1-9) The self measurement test.
Certainly will the believers have succeeded:
“They who are during their prayer humbly submissive.”
Question: Are we humbly submissive during our prayers or is it a ritual you seek to get done and over with?
“And they who turn away from ill speech.”
Question: Do we turn away from ill speech? Or do we tolerate it, and indulge in it ourselves?
“And they who are observant of zakah.”
Question: Have we payed our Zakat Fitri and our Zakat Harta? Have we given what is due to others?
“And they who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed.”
Question: Do we guard our private parts? Do we act modestly with our speech our eyes and our tongues? Are we involved in looking at what we should not be looking at?
“But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors.”
Question: If we do beyond what Allah (swt) has enjoined will we not be among the transgressors?
“And those who are to their trusts and their promises attentive.”
Question: Are we keeping our promises? Are we keeping to our commitments?
“And they who carefully maintain their prayers.”
Question: Are we being vigilant about our prayers? Are we constantly missing prayers or not even praying at all? Are we aware of what we need to do to perform our prayers correctly?
This check list is not for us to measure others. This is a self-check list that Allah (swt) has given to each of us to measure ourselves.
“Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].” (Quran 5:27)
﷽
His Eminence, Shaykh Masoud Al Miqbali (h) informs us about a most dangerous matter. It is a false understanding that it is widespread and pervasive among the Muslims today!
We have translated his warning to us below.
“Among the misconceptions that have come to us is that someone tells you, “Do good deeds and bad deeds, and Allah will hold you accountable for this and for that.” But what is more common is the idea that “Allah willing, if your good deeds are many, the bad deeds will not harm you.” This concept is completely incorrect, absolutely false.”
“Take, for example, the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari about one of the Companions, nicknamed the “drunken donkey,” who used to drink wine. They flogged him once, twice, and three times. One of the Companions became very angry with him and said something bad about him. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied to that person, saying: “Do not say that. For indeed, this drunkard, this addict to wine, loves Allah and His Messenger.”
“If an alcoholic hears this hadith, what would he say? Once, an alcoholic heard people speaking on a ‘Mawlid’ occasion—they were using symbolisms, like Sufi poets. He said: “Only a hero drinks wine.” And this is a person who is immersed in wine 24 hours a day, getting drunk. He said into the microphone: “Only a hero drinks wine.”
“He hears the religious preacher say, “Wine is forbidden, wine is forbidden.” Then he hears what the ‘Mawlid’ speaker says: “Only a hero drinks wine.” They might mean spiritual wine—the wine of remembrance and love of Allah. But he… they raise their banners, and I raise the banner of Najd. Every eye weeps over what grieves it.”
“This is the essence of “La ilaha illa Allah” (There is no god but Allah). It does not permit any person, no matter how high-ranking, even if he were Adam (peace be upon him), to deviate from its requirements. The presence of a sin that a person persists in blocks the acceptance of all his good deeds, even if he says “La ilaha illa Allah.“
“Take the son of Adam (Cain and Abel). The one whose offering was not accepted from him was not a disbeliever, nor was he a monotheist? He was a monotheist, not a disbeliever. Evidence for this is that he offered a sacrifice to Allah. If he had been a polytheist, he would not have drawn near to Allah. If he had been an atheist, he would not have drawn near to Allah. His drawing near to Allah indicates that he believed and affirmed Allah’s existence. So, an offering was presented. One was accepted from one and not accepted from the other. So, the one from whom it was not accepted—he has a problem. Monotheism alone is not sufficient for his deeds to be accepted. It is not enough. He affirms “La ilaha illa Allah.” Where is the flaw? What is the problem? What prevented and barred the acceptance of his deed?
Allah says: “Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him].”(Quran 5:27)
“Acceptance is for those who remain within the framework of “La ilaha illa Allah” and do not step outside it. It is for those who make “La ilaha illa Allah” a way of life, not just a phrase muttered on the lips or believed in the heart, then sometimes they act according to its requirements and sometimes they step outside it. “La ilaha illa Allah” entails commitment, belief, application, adherence, and steadfastness upon it.”
“Allah says to His Prophet (peace be upon him): “So be steadfast as you are commanded.” (Quran 11:112)
He says: “So be steadfast towards Him and seek His forgiveness… Indeed, those who have said, ‘Our Lord is Allah,’ and then remained steadfast – no fear will be upon them, nor will they grieve.” (Quran 46:13)
“One cannot take part of the religion and leave part of it.”
“So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment.” (Quran 2:85)
Allah did not say, “We will reward you for your faith in what you believed in and punish you for your disbelief in what you disbelieved in.” He made that faith as if it were nothing.”
“So, a person must not dare to transgress any of Allah’s boundaries under the pretext that “the statement ‘La ilaha illa Allah’ will intercede for me.”
Do you know about whom the following verse was revealed?
The verse: “O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet or be loud to him in speech like the loudness of some of you to others, lest your deeds become worthless while you perceive not.” (Quran 49:2)
About whom was this verse revealed? It was revealed about Abu Bakr and Umar, as narrated by Al-Bukhari.”
Narrated Ibn Abi Mulaika:
The two righteous persons were about to be ruined. They were Abu Bakr and `Umar who raised their voices in the presence of the Prophet (ﷺ) when a mission from Bani Tamim came to him. One of the two recommended Al-Aqra’ bin Habeas, the brother of Bani Mujashi (to be their governor) while the other recommended somebody else. (Nafi`, the sub-narrator said, I do not remember his name). Abu Bakr said to `Umar, “You wanted nothing but to oppose me!” `Umar said, “I did not intend to oppose you.” Their voices grew loud in that argument, so Allah revealed: ‘O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet.’ (49.2) Ibn Az-Zubair said, “Since the revelation of this Verse, `Umar used to speak in such a low tone that the Prophet (ﷺ) had to ask him to repeat his statements.” But Ibn Az-Zubair did not mention the same about his (maternal) grandfather (i.e. Abu Bakr).
(O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet,) This contains another kind of favorable behavior. Allah the Exalted is teaching the believers that they should not raise their voices above the voice of the Prophet. It was stated that this Ayah was revealed about Abu Bakr and `Umar. Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn Abi Mulaykah said, “The two righteous ones, Abu Bakr and `Umar, almost earned destruction when they raised their voices before the Prophet who was receiving the delegation of Bani Tamim. One of them recommended Al-Aqra` bin Habis the member of the Banu Mujashi` while the other recommended another man. Nafi` (a subnarrator) said: “I don’t remember his name.” Abu Bakr said to `Umar, `You only wanted to contradict me,’ while `Umar said, `I did not intend to contradict you.’ Their voices then became loud, thereupon Allah the Exalted sent down this Ayah,يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تَرْفَعُواْ أَصْوَتَكُمْ فَوْقَ صَوْتِ النَّبِىِّ وَلاَ تَجْهَرُواْ لَهُ بِالْقَوْلِ كَجَهْرِ بَعْضِكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ أَن تَحْبَطَ أَعْمَـلُكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَشْعُرُونَ(O you who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk as you speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds should be thwarted while you perceive not.)’‘ `Abdullah bin Az-Zubayr said, “After that, `Umar’s voice was so low that the Messenger of Allah had to ask him to repeat what he said so that he could understand what he was saying to him.” `Abdullah bin Az-Zubayr did not mention the same regarding his father, Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him. Muslim did not collect this Hadith. In another narration collected by Al-Bukhari, he said that a delegation from the tribe of Banu Tamim came to the Prophet and that Abu Bakr recommended Al-Qa`qa` bin Ma`bad to be appointed as their leader, while `Umar recommended Al-Aqra` bin Habis. Muslim did not collect this narration.
“How will you comprehend what the steep ascent is? It is freeing a slave (raqabatin -a neck) or giving of food at the time of famine to an orphan or near of kin or some needy person in distress.” (Qur’an 90:12-16)
“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves (l-riqābi) freeing the necks -slaves); to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.” (Qur’an 2:177)
“When it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they reply, “No! We follow what we found our forefathers practicing.” (Qur’an 2:170)
﷽
This topic is not a difficult one to address. Especially when we realize some very basic things about human beings and human nature.
Humans have engaged in wars, slavery, marriage, divorce, and trade before the coming of the final revelation, the Qur’an.
The Qur’an comes to address the reality of what was happening in society. It addresses the situation on the ground. The Qur’an did not come to bring slavery but rather to address it. When Allah addresses slavery, He is giving rules to manage an existing situation, not expressing His endorsement of it.
The issue of Raqab (Slave) & Milk Al Yamin (Those whom your right hand possess) is through one means and one means only. That is via the context of war.
Outside the context of war, there is not a single verse in the Qur’an that calls for holding anyone as captive.
The other point that one will not fail to notice is that Raqab (slave) in the Qur’an is never in the context of the Muslims having them. Rather, it is in the context of the disbelievers having them and Muslims are encouraged to free them from the disbelievers.
Raqaba (Those whose necks are bound =under non Muslims) We should clarify that this also does mean Muslims who had slaves prior to embracing Islam. Ma-Malakat Aymanukum (Those whom your right-hand posses /those whom you are your oath of protection/You are a custodian over them)
The decision on what to do after victory over one’s opponent.
This decision affects men, women and children. This decision would be delegated to the commander who is able to best access the situation.
The commander can to decide to:
Kill them all (except women and children), as in the case of Bani Qurayzah, because the Blessed Prophet (saw) explicitly forbade the killing of women and children.*
They could ransom them, as in the case of the battle of Badr, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners.
Or they can take them as Ma-Malakat Aymanukum.
It really depends on the context and the assessment of the commander.
*It is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade the killing of women and children.
The first call is not to bring these people in as Ma-Malakat Aymanukum. The following verse demonstrates this:
“So, when you encounter those who disbelieve, then (aim at) smiting the necks, until when you have broken their strength thoroughly, then establish the covenant (or terms). Then choose (to release them) either (as) a favour (shown to them,), or (after receiving) ransom, until the war is over. That (is Our command.) If Allah willed, He would have (Himself) subjected them to retribution, but (Allah ordered you to fight,) so that He may test some of you through some others. And those who are killed in Allah’s way, He will never let their deeds go to waste.” (Qur’an 47:4)
The Muslim commander assesses the situation. If the enemy forces are decimated thoroughly, it is most likely in such a situation that bringing the people in like Ma-Malakat Aymanukum is at that point a mercy to them.
Rather than leave women and children to wonder and roam hoping others would take them in.
“It is not fit for a Prophet that he should take prisoners of war until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You settled with the fleeting gains of this world, while Allah’s aim is the Hereafter. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 8:67)
This verse was sent down as a rebuke to the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw). The reason is given in the verse itself: “until he has thoroughly subdued the land,” and “You settled with the fleeting gains of this world.” During the battle of Badr, when the enemy was fleeing, many of the companions started to immediately turn their attention to the war booty. However, they should have subdued their enemy completely. Enemies that you let get away are people who regroup, and you have to face another field of battle.
Not everyone would necessarily want to have extra mouths to feed.
Ma’rur b. Suwaid reported:
I saw Abu Dharr wearing clothes, and the slave wearing similar ones. I asked him about it, and he narrated that he had abused a person during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (saw) and he reproached him for his mother. That person came to Allah’s Messenger (saw) and made mention of that to him. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: You are a person who has (remnants of) ignorance in him. Your slaves are brothers of yours. Allah has placed them in your hand, and he who has his brother under him, he should feed him with what he eats, and dress him with what he dresses himself, and do not burden them beyond their capacities, and if you burden them, (beyond their capacities), then help them.
Let us think of today’s example of a domestic helper. Not everyone can afford to have a domestic helper even if they want one. Also think of accommodation. We are surprised at all the discussion on this topic. It is not approached from a practical and pragmatic aspect of whether everyone would put their hands up to volunteer to have a slave. Keep in mind, the vast majority of the companions were people who were already under a great deal of duress and many of them were not people of means. It is likely those who took such people were those who handed livestock or fields to tend to. In other words, they saw a practical and pragmatic benefit in taking in and taking care of such people.
The objective of the Muslim man in war.
We also need to bear in mind that the objective of the Muslim man in war is to seek shahada. Why would any Muslim man in their right mind and right state of emaan settle for the paltry gains of this worldly life when the hereafter and all its blessings awaits!
“O believers! Do not be like the unfaithful who say about their brothers who travel throughout the land or engage in battle, “If they had stayed with us, they would not have died or been killed.” Allah makes such thinking a cause of agony in their hearts. It is Allah who gives life and causes death. And Allah is All-Seeing of what you do. Should you be martyred or die in the cause of Allah, then His forgiveness and mercy are far better than whatever ˹wealth˺ those ˹who stay behind˺ accumulate. Whether you die or are martyred—all of you will be gathered before Allah.” (Qur’an 3:156-158)
“Never think of those martyred in the cause of Allah as dead. In fact, they are alive with their Lord, well provided for rejoicing in Allah’s bounties and being delighted for those yet to join them. There will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.” (Qur’an 3:169-170)
What is ultimately the objective in Islam of having Ma-Malakat Aymanukumfrom wars?
Firstly, Islam and the Muslims would prefer not to have wars to begin with. Let’s establish this.
Secondly, the ultimate objective is the re-integration of such people into society. That is what we need to keep in mind when going forward. Does the Qur’an encourage, allow, or find avenues for this? Does Islam really set about to do this or does it just talk? Let us see.
The Qur’an and the New Testament & TNCH
There is not a single verse in the New Testament encouraging anyone ever to free a slave. Not one.
Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament, had two interactions with slaves. Both of whom he healed. But not once was there a command to set the slave free — which shows, morally speaking, he was quite fine with it as a reality of society.
In fact, Christians have had to turn this Messianic Prophecy into some Christological view about Christ Jesus (as) saving people from sins!
“The spirit of the Lord God was upon me, since the Lord anointed me to bring tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to declare freedom for the captives, and for the prisoners to free from captivity.” (Isaiah 61:1)
Jesus (as) during his ministry (according to the NT) did nothing of the kind. So the captives here must be interpreted as captives to sins.
Christians will often quote the following verse to claim this abolishes slavery.
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
This verse says nothing about abolishing slavery. It simply speaks of all being equal in Christ. The proof of that is that this verse has been read down through the ages and Christians had no issues with keeping slaves.
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God, submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” (1 Peter 2:18)
In fact, in the entire TNCH of Judaism (what Christians call the Old Testament) there were no examples of encouraging the freeing of slaves! What you will find is that if your slave is a Hebrew, he cannot be a slave beyond 6 years, and you must set him free. There is no such law for non-Hebrew people!
“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free.” (Exodus 21:1-6)
Freeing of slaves was only in relation to their own people.
Then the Holy Trinity (Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) commanded:
“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)
The Holy Trinity (Father Jesus and The Holy Spirit) did not chide or stop Moses when he stated:
“And Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that have known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:15-18)
Then the Holy Trinity (Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) commanded:
“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
Then the Holy Trinity (Father, Jesus and The Holy Spirit) commanded:
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” (Leviticus 25: 44-46)
Partus sequitur ventrem or descent-based slavery in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
What does this mean? In other world views, if a person is born to a slave woman, they too would be born into slavery. This is not the case in Islam. The person born to a slave is a free person. We do not have baby slaves. The first documented recorded example in the history of getting rid of descent-based slavery is in Islam!
Now, what does the Bible (New Testament/TNCH) say in regard to this? Nothing.
ATONE FOR SINS BY FREEING A (RAQAB/NECK) SLAVE.
The first point is what we have already covered in regard to (Qur’an 47:4) above. That is immediate emancipation. Either by a good will gesture, ransom or via prisoner exchange.
Now what we are going to share with you, dear readers, leaves no good options for the haters of Islam.
They will have to admit the (raqab) were not something in abundance among Muslims. Or.
That the Qur’an is a divine revelation as it’s author (Allah), being the All-Knowing, laid out a plan for Muslims to get atonement when no (raqab) would be available: -for example, in the future.
Thie following verses demonstrate that the institution of slavery need not endure.
“Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten poor people from the average of that which you feed your families or clothing them or the liberation of (raqabatin) a slave.” “But if none of this is affordable, then you must fast three days. This is the penalty for breaking your oaths. So be mindful of your oaths. This is how Allah makes things clear to you, so perhaps you will be grateful.”(Qur’an 5:89)
“It is not lawful for a believer to kill another except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer unintentionally must free a believing slave and pay blood-money to the victim’s family—unless they waive it charitably. But if the victim is a believer from a hostile people, then a believing (raqabatin) slave must be freed. And if the victim is from a people bound with you in a treaty, then blood-money must be paid to the family along with freeing a believing slave (raqabatin). Those who are unable, let them fast two consecutive months—as a means of repentance to Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:92)
“And those who pronounce thihar from their wives and then [wish to] go back on what they said – then [there must be] the freeing of a slave (raqabatin) before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished thereby; and Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” “But if the husband cannot afford this, let him then fast two consecutive months before the couple touch each other. But if he is unable, then let him feed sixty poor people. This is to re-affirm your faith in Allah and His Messenger. These are the limits set by Allah. And the disbelievers will suffer a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 58:3-4)
Prima Qur’an comments: If you look at the expiation for sin, it is clear from this that Allah (swt) offers several solutions if one is unable to free the neck (of a slave).
Freeing slaves
Freeing slaves along with blood money.
Feeding 60 poor people.
Fasting, depending on the nature of the sin; 3 days or up to 120 days consecutively.
Fasting can only be an option if the person does not have the means to free a neck (slave) or there are simply no slaves (necks) to be freed!
That is to say that freeing a neck (slave) is given priority in terms of expiation of sins!
Zakat — one of the five pillars of Islam and forced tax collection on the Muslim faithful by the Amir is used to set slaves free!
“Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives (l-riqabi) and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler – an obligation [imposed] by Allah. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 9:60)
Zakah, which comes from an Arabic root word meaning to purify, is one of the five pillars of Islam. In the context of Zakah distribution, it is the purification of one’s wealth. This means that the money that is generated by this forced tax collection is used to free slaves!
There are 8 ahsnaf (beneficiaries of Zakah).
Fakir -One who has no means of livelihood or material possession.
Miskin -One who has insufficient means to sustain their livelihood.
Amil -The person who collects the Zakah, to reward the dutiful.
Muallaf-Assistance for those who recently embraced Islam.
Riqab-Freeing of slaves.
Gharimin-One who is in debt needs assistance to pay off a debt.
Fisabillah-Those who fights in the cause of Allah-or to sustain those who lost bread winners in the war.
Ibnussabil-Those who are travelers or on a journey
At this point, a Muslim should lift his/her head up with pride and say: “Al hamdulillah, I am a Muslim! What other system is there like this in any other faith tradition?”
Islam encourages the freeing of slaves and especially tells us that it is a quick path to righteousness & spiritual elevation.
How will you comprehend what the steep ascent is? It is freeing a slave (raqabatin -a neck) or giving of food at the time of famine to an orphan or near of kin or some needy person in distress.” (Qur’an 90:12-16)
“It is not righteousness that you turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves (l-riqābi) freeing the necks -slaves); to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing.” (Qur’an 2:177)
The Qur’an informs us that when it comes to choosing a life partner and whom to continue our lineage with that a believing slave is better than a disbelieving free person.
“And do not marry mushrik women until they believe. And a believing wala-amatun (bondwoman) is better than a mushrik, even though she might please you. And do not marry mushrik men until they believe. And a believing wala-abdun (bondman) is better than a mushrik, even though he might please you. Those invite to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
In the scenario above, the slave has a low status before the people.
The free person has a high status before the people.
In both situations, when a believer is to access who to give their son or daughter to for the continuation of their lineage, the believer is always superior to the unbeliever in every scenario. The believing slave is leagues above the unbelieving free person.
The above verse is used by our school, the Ibadi school, as a proof against anyone who states that someone who is Quraysh is, by default, superior to a non-Qurashi. Or, that an Arab is superior to a non-Arab. This verse is definite proof against that position.
Various hadith about slaves
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan:
When the delegates of the tribe of Hawazin came to the Prophet (saw) he stood up amongst the people, Glorified and Praised Allah as He deserved, and said, “Then after: Your brethren have come to you with repentance and I see it logical to return to them their captives; so whoever amongst you likes to do that as a favor, then he can do it, and whoever of you like to stick to his share till we give him his right from the very first Fai (war booty) (1) which Allah will bestow on us, then (he can do so).” The people replied, “We do that (to return the captives) willingly as a favor for your sake.”
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward.”
I came to Ibn ‘Umar when he set his slave free. He took a stick or something else from the earth and said; for me there is no reward even equivalent to this. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: If anyone slaps or beats his slave the atonement due from him is to set him free.
The Prophet (saw) said, “Allah says, ‘I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.’ “
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
None of you should say: My bondman, for all of you are the bondmen of Allah, but say: My young man, and the servant should not say: My Lord, but should say: My chief.
It is also clear from the above hadith that someone who had the status of slave can rise to the ranks of being the commander of the faithful. That is the Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful) of the entirety of all Muslims!
In fact, the above hadith is used by our school; The Ibadi school against the Shi’i and Sunni schools, which state the ruler of the Muslims must only be from the Quraysh (Sunni from any member of Quraysh) and (Shi”i from the Prophet’s lineage which is Quraysh).
Addressing the issue ofMa-Malakat Aymanukum
First, who are the Ma-Malakat Aymanukum?
Recall the definition.
Ma-Malakat Aymanukum (Those whom your right-hand posses /those who you are your oath of protection/You are a custodian over them)
The expression: right-hand posses is an idiom or expression which means those under your authority, custody, care, provision. The right hand is always used as an expression of something noble and good.
“So as for he who is given his record in his right hand, he will say, “Here, read my record!” (Qur’an 69:19)
The Ma-Malakat Aymanukum are never titled as those whom your left-hand posses. As if they were something disposable and ignoble.
They are those who have been taken under the protection of Muslim households (who have the means and capacity to care for them). Not all Muslim households would volunteer for this. So this offered Muslims from different social economic backgrounds an opportunity to receive reward in different ways.
To simply let such people go.
To earn rewards by bringing in these people under the care and provision of a Muslim household.
Also, bear in mind that option 2 was most likely, in many cases, the preferred choice even from the vantage point of those captured. Once your men, husbands, protectors, army have been decimated, where will you go? To whom will you turn to? Also, do keep in mind that Ma-Malakat Aymanukum is not simply women and children as it also includes men.
So let us tackle the first supposed topic of controversy head on.
Can Muslim women /Muslim men rape, molest or sexually exploit their Ma-Malakat Aymanukum against their will?
“Why should you not fight in the cause of Allah when weak men, women, and children are imploring: “Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master.” (Qur’an 4:75)
How would this du’a to Allah to send people who deliver them from oppression make sense if Muslims turned around and did the same thing?
“And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give though.” (Qur’an 30:21)
One of the means by which a Muslim woman may find her future husband or by which a Muslim man may find his future wife is by means of milk al yamin. Is it really to be believed that this Muslim woman or man can now rape or molest his/her milk al yamin without his/her consent and he/she (the victim) will be among those who are filled with affection and mercy for his wife or her husband?
Remember that Allah (swt) has mentioned that this category of people, as believers, are better for our sons and daughters as future partners than disbelievers, who are free people.
“And do not marry mushrik women until they believe. And a believing wala-amatun (bondwoman) is better than a mushrik, even though she might please you. And do not marry mushrik men until they believe. And a believing wala-abdun (bondman) is better than a mushrik, even though he might please you. Those invite to the Fire, but Allāh invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
What kind of healthy or wholesome relationship does one think will come out of those who suffered abuse?
Even this day, those of us who have married men and women who have been raped or molested by their mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, guardians know the trauma and immense challenge it takes building trust with our partners.
Next point:
Zadhan said:
I came to Ibn ‘Umar when he set his slave free. He took a stick or something else from the earth and said; for me there is no reward even equivalent to this. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: If anyone slaps or beats his slave (mamluka) the atonement due from him is to set him free.
If you are not to slap or beat your slave, how is that you can force them against their will?
The Qur’an commands Chastity.
“You shall maintain chastity, not committing adultery, nor taking secret lovers.” (Qur’an 5:5)
“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity. That is purer for them. Surely Allah is All-Aware of what they do.” (Qur’an 24:30)
“As for the one who reverenced the majesty of his Lord, and enjoined the self from sinful lusts. Paradise will be the abode.” (Qur’an 79:40-41)
“Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom (malakat aymanukum) your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are stingy and boastful.” (Qur’an 4:36)
Allah (swt) has put the malakat aymankum on the same level, and they should be treated with good as their parents, relatives, orphans, needy, neighbor, traveler, companion and even neighbor not adjacent to you.
Can it be said that if these people are molested against their consent, that they are being treated with good?
“Marry off the singles among you, as well as the righteous of your bondmen and bondwomen(Ibadikum wa-imaikum). If they are poor, Allah will enrich them out of His bounty. For Allah is All-Bountiful, All-Knowing. And let those who do not have the means to marry should (walyyasta’fifi)-show restraint and/or keep themselves chaste until Allah enriches them out of His bounty. And if any of those who your right hand posses (malakat aymanukum) desires a contract, make it possible for them, if you find goodness in them. And give them some of Allah’s wealth which He has granted you. Do not force your girls into prostitution (l-bighai)for your own worldly gains while they wish to remain chaste. And if someone coerces them, then after such a coercion Allah is certainly All-Forgiving, Most Merciful . Indeed, We have sent down to you clear revelations, along with examples of those who had gone before you, and a lesson to the Allah-fearing. (Qur’an 24:32-34)
Prima Qur’ancomments:
1) Allah tells us to marry those who are single among us. As well as marry the bondmen and bondwomen.
2) Those who do not have the means to marry should remain chaste/show restraint. — Not that a Muslim woman can go and rape or molest a man, or that a Muslim man can go and rape and molest a woman. In fact, if they were allowed to do so, there would be no injunction for them to show restraint.
3)If any malakat aymanukum wants to get into a contract to buy their freedom, make it possible for them, in fact give them some of the wealth Allah gave you! (Allah swt is reminding us that, after all, he is the source of all wealth).
4) Do not force your girls into prostitution. If this is done, then Allah forgives this coercion (of the girl), not the one who forces them as some twisted Anti Muslims claim. In fact, if it was fine for them to force them into prostitution, the warning to tell them not to do so when be redundant to begin with.
5) (l-bighai) means more than prostitution it means any type of lewdness. Certainly, having inappropriate relations with someone to whom you are not married constitutes exactly this.
6) You will also see this is why no punishment is meted out to unmarried women from Malakat Aymanukum when we discuss Qur’an 4:25. Because of her social and economic condition, it could be quite challenging to tell if she is being forced to do something because she is doing it of her own volition. This ambiguity in the law is also proof enough that they cannot be coerced into intimacy. As stated, if they were forced the fault is with the one who coerces and not the coerced.
“And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then from those (malakat aymanukum min fatayatikumu l-mu’minati) what your right hands possess that are believers. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people ahlihinna (of their people/family)and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be (muh’sanatin ghayra musafihatin) chaste not those who commit immorality) nor those who take [secret] lovers (akhdanin). But once they are in the sacred bond of marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:25)
Prima Qur’an comments:
1) If you cannot afford to marry free believing women, then you marry those whom your right hand possesses. Due to the social and economic status of free women, it is possible that they may demand a higher dowry, among other things.
2) If they have family or tribe that you, or they know of, then you seek permission from their family or tribe.
3) They should be chaste. One cannot be chaste if it is allowable to be unchaste.
4) They should not have secret lovers.
It should be very clear that these women are not being fondled, molested or raped. Also, the inverse is true; that it should be clear that when Muslim women marry such men that they are not being fondled, molested or raped. Because then they would not be from the category of the chaste; nor are they from those who do not have secret lovers.
By the way, in many cases, in the above scenario, the mahr (the bridal dowry) was to grant her freedom. In other cases, this was not so.
5) But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them there is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This point is something that is quite phenomenal that many people do not ponder over. Usually, in a society, a person of lower socioeconomic status would be treated as a lesser person than those with higher social economic status. Quran 4:25 goes against that norm.
That is why, in our school, the punishments for adultery and pre-marital sex are meted out like so:
Free Woman/Man that are married =Rajm.
Free Woman/Man that are unmarried =100 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that are married =50 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that is unmarried = Taazir.
A tazir punishment is when there is nothing explicit from the Qur’an or Sunnah. It is discretionary. It could be corporeal in nature, it could be harsh words of admonishment.
“Do not force your girls into prostitution (l-bighai)for your own worldly gains while they wish to remain chaste.”
Due to the social and economic condition of this person, it would be very difficult to pin anything on them. Especially in light of the fact that they very well could be forced.
We have not found any cases in the Ibadi school of said individuals (category 4) being punished.
“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then one or those your right hand possesses (malakat aymanukum). That is more suitable that you may not incline (ta’ulu)-injustice, oppression. And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts graciously. But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then take it in satisfaction and ease.” (Qur’an 4:3-4)
Prima Qur’ancomments:
1) If you fear that you will not do justice when marrying many orphan women, then marry one from among them (malakat aymanukum). In other words, these women from the malakat aymanukum are there for your consideration.
2) Orphan girls here are still free women. They are simply free women that do not have any known family or guardians.
3) Give them (malakat aymanukum)their bridal gift.
And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. (malakat aymanukum)[This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse (muh’sinina ghayra musafihina So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. (Qur’an 4:24)
If we Muslims were such immoral people, why would we need to be consoled that it is fine to marry women from those whom our right-hand posses that were already married?
In other words, this verse says that those women who are already married to those whom Islam would not recognize the validity of their marriage contract, you can marry them.
Notice that, again, the malakat aymanukum are spoken of in the context of marriage. That beyond them are other women who are lawful to you provided you desire chastity and not unlawful intercourse.
Let us put it like this. We will use the example of the law of the former United States. The former United States has a law that says if a person is married, and then they seek to get married to another individual, this is called bigamy.
So here is the scenario. A married woman in the former United States converts to Islam and seeks a divorce from her husband. The divorce proceedings are taking a long time. In the meantime, this woman does not live with her husband, nor does she receive sustenance or care from him. Over the course of time, she has been made known of an interest in her by a Muslim man. After meeting up with the suitor in the appropriate settings, they decide to marry. The Imam of the Masjid performs the nikah. Technically, this woman is married to her husband (by U.S. law). However, in Islam, the moment she became a Muslim and her husband did not follow suit, that marriage dissolved. They are married in the sight of Allah (swt) and that is what matters. As long as they do not go and try and register their marriage, the wife would be free from the charge of bigamy in U.S. law.*
*Note as Muslims we have to respect the laws of the nations that we reside in.
If we were an Imam in the former United States, we would officiate such a nikah.
“O you who have believed, when the believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. Allah is most knowing as to their faith. And if you know them to be believers, then do not return them to the disbelievers; they are not lawful [wives] for them, nor are they lawful [husbands] for them. But give the disbelievers what they have spent. And there is no blame upon you if you marry them when you have given them their due compensation. And hold not to marriage bonds with disbelieving women, but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgement of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 60:10)
So it can be asked is it not inherently morally wrong to marry a woman who is already “lawfully” married to another man according to their custom, beliefs or creed?
Notice we said “lawfully” in quotes. That is because who determines what is or is not lawful marriage? Thus, in the above text, a believing woman is indeed married to a disbelieving man according to the laws, customs and beliefs of his society and his people. Thus, she is in adultery in accordance with them. However, Allah (swt) has made that marriage null and void!
In fact, Allah (swt) is being rather magnanimous by ordering: But give the disbelievers what they have spent. When Allah (swt) could have ordered that they receive nothing!
Now we could turn around and ask the Jews and Christians the following: What do you say on these matters? It is easy to talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? So let us give them a scenario.
Let us say a Muslim woman has now converted to Christianity. She wanted to leave a horrible marriage she was in. Her husband would in no way divorce her. This woman left Islam and became a Christian. She flees to the former United States. What is the position of Judaism and Christianity on her matter?
Does she remain single for the rest of her life or does not the law of the land have the power to nullify or make null her marriage? Technically, she is still married to that man and will be until he divorces her (according to the laws of his land).
“O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those (malakat yaminuka) whom your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess,(malakat aymanuhum) in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:50)
Daughters of paternal uncles.
Daughters of paternal aunts.
Daughters of maternal uncles
Daughters of maternal aunts.
Any believing woman who gives herself to you. If the Prophet wishes to marry her.
Does anyone believe for a moment that the above verse is saying that if the Blessed Prophet (saw) so wished that he could be intimate with his cousins without being married to them?
In fact, category 5 (any believing woman) is explicitly followed up by the desire to marry her.
Thus, those whom your right hand possesses (malakat yaminuka) are also under these categories. That they are among the women the Blessed Prophet (saw) can marry if he so chooses. As he did so with Safiyah (ra).
“You, [O Muḥammed], may put aside whom you will of them or take to yourself whom you will. And any that you desire of those [wives] from whom you had [temporarily] separated – there is no blame upon you [in returning her]. That is more suitable that they should be content and not grieve and that they should be satisfied with what you have given them – all of them. And Allah knows what is in your hearts. And ever is Allah Knowing and Forbearing.” (Qur’an 33:51)
THE MALAKAT YAMIN BECAME THE ONLY OPTION FOR THE BLESSED PROPHET (SAW).
“Not lawful to you, [O Muḥammed], are [any additional] women after [this], nor [is it] for you to exchange them for [other] wives, even if their beauty were to please you, except what your right hand possesses (malakat yaminuka). And ever is Allah, over all things, an Observer.” (Qur’an 33:52)
“Not lawful to you, [O Muḥammed], are [any additional] women after [this], nor [is it] for you to exchange them for [other] wives, even if their beauty were to please you.”
This directly refutes two major accusations that have been leveled against the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The accusation that he made up the revelation to suit himself.
Him having unrestrained and unchecked desires.
Allah (swt) prohibits the Prophet to: a) Marry more free women. Even if he feels a magnetic pull towards them. b) Divorce any of his current wives.
By means of this verse, they were secured from divorce. Allah (swt) decreed that they would be his wives in this world and in the world to come. The very definition of soul mates!
The only exception or clause is: “(malakat yaminuka).” Those captives seized in war. They are permissible for you to marry.
Verses concerning relaxed dress code around malakat aymanukum
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard (wayaḥfaẓna) their modesty(furūjahunna); that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or (malakat aymanuhuna (their right hands possess), or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers! turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.”(Qur’an 24:31)
Except for: their husbands. Their fathers. Their Father-In-Law. Their Sons. Their husbands sons (other marriages). Their brothers, their brother’s sons. Their Sister’s Sons. Other women. Malakat Aymanukum. The male attendants who have no desire: examples: eunuchs or the very old. Children who are unaware or naive.
Prima Qur’an comments: It should be clear that the malakat aymanukum are treated in a sense as family. They are not locked outside the home in some cold barn. They are part and parcel of the family unit, hence why a relaxation in the dress code. It is almost unavoidable at times.
“O you who have believed, let those whom your right hands possess (malakat aymanukum) and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among (yablughu l-huluma (reached puberty) you ask permission of you [before entering] at three times: before the dawn prayer and when you put aside your clothing [for rest] at noon and after the night prayer. [These are] three times of privacy for you. There is no blame upon you nor upon them beyond these [periods], for they continually circulate among you – some of you, among others. Thus does Allah make clear to you the verses; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 24:58)
“No blame will be attached to the blind, the lame, the sick. Whether you eat in your own houses, or those of your fathers, your mothers, your brothers, your sisters, your paternal uncles, your paternal aunts, your maternal uncles, your maternal aunts, houses malakat mafatihahu (those of whom you been granted victory), or any of your friends’ houses, you will not be blamed: you will not be blamed whether you eat in company or separately. When you enter any house, greet one another with a greeting of blessing and goodness as enjoined by Allah. This is how Allah makes His messages clear to you so that you may understand.” (Qur’an 24:61)
“Whether you reveal anything, or whether you conceal it, surely Allah has knowledge of everything. There is no blame on the Prophet’s wives if they should appear before their fathers, their sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their fellow women, and those (malakat aymanuhunna) whom their right hands posses. And be mindful of Allah ˹O wives of the Prophet!˺ Surely Allah is a Witness over all things.” (Qur’an 33:54-55)
“And when the inviolable months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 9:5)
The hands in the cookie jar verses?
These are the two verses which are often misquoted and misunderstood as allowing violation of the malakat aymanukum.
“And those who guard (hafizuna)) their modesty (lifurujihim) except with their wives or those (malakat aymanuhum (they possess rightfully) for then they are free from blame, but whoever seeks beyond that are the transgressors.” (Qur’an 70:29-31)
“And who guard (hafizuna) their modesty (lifurujihim) – Save from their wives or those their right hands possess (malakat aymanuhum), for then they are not blameworthy.” (Qur’an 23:5-6)
Recall the verse:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard (wayaḥfaẓna) their modesty(furūjahunna).” (Qur’an 24:31)
hafizuna/wayahfazna & lifurujihim/furjuahunna
These two verses, Qur’an 70:29-31 & Qur’an 23:5-6 likewise speak in the same manner. These verses are not about sex.
They are about guarding modesty. The phrase “except with their wives or those their right hands possess” simply defines the boundaries of what is modest — not permission for sexual activity outside of marriage.
In other words, those verses tell a man what is permissible to look at or be uncovered around, not what he may do sexually. To read them as blanket permission for intercourse without marriage is to confuse the category of modesty with the category of sexual relations.
This becomes reinforced with the following verse:
“Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard (wayaḥfaẓū) their private parts (furūjahum). That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do.” (Qur’an 24:30)
Now have you ever heard anyone argue that in Qur’an 24:31 that women can molest and rape their male servants?
Read again the above verse:
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard (wayaḥfaẓna) their modesty(furūjahunna); that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or (malakat aymanuhuna (their right hands possess), or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers! turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.”(Qur’an 24:31)
However, if one wants to have sexual access to their malakat aymanukum, the following verses tell us how this is done:
We get here through marriage to the (malakat aymanuhum)
And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then from those (malakat aymanukum min fatayatikumu l-mu’minati) what your right hands possess that are believers. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people ahlihinna (of their people/family)and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. They should be (muh’sanatin ghayra musafihatin) chaste not those who commit immorality) nor those who take [secret] lovers (akhdanin).” (Qur’an 4:25)
“But if you fear that you will not be just, then one or those your right hand possesses (malakat aymanukum). That is more suitable that you may not incline (ta’ulu)-injustice, oppression. And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts graciously.” (Qur’an 4:3-4)
We think most people have no idea how simple a nikah really truly is in Islam. Why would any Muslim, much less the Blessed Prophet (saw) rush to the questionable when the established and good is so easy to do and accessible?
What is the status of humanity before Allah?
“O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware.” (Qur’an 49:13)
Narrated AbuHurayrah:
“The Prophet (saw) said: Allah, Most High, has removed from you the pride of the pre-Islamic period and its boasting in ancestors. One is only a pious believer or a miserable sinner. You are sons of Adam, and Adam came from dust. Let the people cease to boast about their ancestors. They are merely fuel in Jahannam; or they will certainly be of less account with Allah than the beetle which rolls dung with its nose.”
There were three classes of people when Islam was seeking to be established:
In regard to freedom of movement, there were three social classes of people when Islam was seeking to be established. Free Person Milk Al Yamin -from wars. Raqib (slave) -from the non Muslims. We should clarify that this also does mean Muslims who had slaves prior to embracing Islam.
In regard to freedom of movement, there were two classes of people when Islam was established.
Free Person Milk Al Yamin-from wars against Muslims. (If no wars =no Milk Al Yamin)
Muslims can marry the following:
1) Can marry a free Muslim- (open to men and women) 2) Can marry a Jew or a Christian (under Islamic governance) — open only to men. 3) Can marry the believer from the milk-al-yamin -open to men and women.
Will this system ever come back?
Some people think certain injunctions and guidelines in the Islamic legal code are outdated. We say there is absolutely nothing in the Islamic legal code that is outdated or redundant. It is there when needed.
Some people have this idea that Earth will become a utopia in the near future. We have eliminated racism, tribalism, bigotry, hate, poverty, illiteracy, disease. We colonize Mars, Ceres and one day meet a galaxy spanning alien civilization. MAYBE.
Maybe not.
If you look at what holds a society together, it is basically these five things: access to food, access to drinking water, access to medical treatment, a stable government, A military/police force to enforce laws.
Now if you just take away two of these five things — you can pick any two, and you will see the most so-called civilized country become Mad Max in very little time. People take stable, cohesive government for granted. The reality is what we call ‘civilization’ hangs on a very delicate thread.
We have already shown in Qur’an 5:89 and Qur’an 4:92 and Qur’an 58:3-4 where Allah (swt) anticipates a society or periods of time in human civilization in which there will be no slavery.
However, in case the current order breaks down we would rather have laws on the books that can be utilized when needed than not have that guidance at all.
Five times a day throughout the world there is a beautiful call that goes out. Hayya Al Salah -Come To the Prayer. Hayya Al Falah -Come to Success. This beautiful call was first delivered by a freed slave of Ethiopia. He is one of the most blessed and treasured companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw). His name was Bilal ibn Rabah (ra). The first muezzin.
“O you who have believed, eat from the good things which We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.” (Qur’an 2: 172)
﷽
“‘Abū’ Ubayda reported, according to Jābir ‘Ibn Zayd, after ‘Anas’ Ibn Mālik, that the Prophet (saw) had allowed the people of the tribe to ‘Urayna to drink both the urine and the milk of camels and other cattle, if necessary.” (1)
1 ) Manuscript having said in case of necessity, does not exist in the copy of AlQuṭb.
One of our respected teachers, Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi (h) has said the following:
“One of the established principles in our pure religion (Hanifiyyah) is the preservation of the five necessities: religion, life, intellect, honor/lineage, and property.”
Allah has explicitly stated in His Book: “O you who have believed, eat from the good things which We have provided for you and be grateful to Allah if it is [indeed] Him that you worship.”(Qur’an 2: 172)
And He described His Messenger (saw)in the following way:
“He commands them to do good and forbids them from evil, permits for them what is lawful and forbids to them what is impure, and relieves them from their burdens and the shackles that bound them.” (Qur’an 7:157)
It is not hidden from any rational person that the urine of animals — including camel urine — is inherently impure (khabith) and harmful to the one who drinks it. Accordingly, drinking urine is forbidden, whether it is camel urine or the urine of any other animal.
It is true that some narrations have come regarding the drinking of camel urine, but they do not rise above the level of conjecture (dhann). Therefore, it is not appropriate to rely upon them.
In any case, whoever insists on acting upon those hadiths should first verify with medical specialists and through laboratory testing. If it is proven that camel urine is harmful to health, then it is not permissible to consume it. But if it is medically established as a valid treatment, then there is no harm in it.
If camel urine were truly a cure for bodily diseases, doctors and pharmaceutical companies around the world would have rushed to it.
That is the end of the response from respected Shaykh on this matter.
What the hadith does and does not state.
There is no hadith that we (Ibadi) rely upon to say that this is mandated or prescribed by the Blessed Prophet (saw) for the generality of the Muslims.
There is no hadith that we (Ibadi) have that says the Blessed Prophet (saw) ever drank urine of any kind.
This particular hadith comes down with a variation in wording. This variation cast doubt on rather it was a command or recommendation.
The Sunni hadith corpus has the following in relation to the matter.
Narrated Anas:
The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.
A group of eight men from the tribe of ‘Ukil came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Provide us with some milk.” Allah’s Apostle said, “I recommend that you should join the herd of camels.”So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after whey were Muslims. When the Prophet (ﷺ) was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.”)
I embraced Islam and my (ignorance of the) religion made me anxious (to learn the essentials). I came to Abu Dharr. Abu Dharr said: The climate of Medina did not suit me. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ordered me to have a few camels and goats. He said to me: Drink their milk. (The narrator Hammad said): I doubt whether he (the Prophet) said: “their urine.” Abu Dharr said: I was away from the watering place and I had my family with me. I would have sexual defilement and pray without purification. I came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) at noon. He was resting in the shade of the mosque along with a group of Companions. He (the Prophet) said: Abu Dharr. I said: Yes, I am ruined, Messenger of Allah. He said: What ruined you ? I said: I was away from the watering place and I had family with me. I used to be sexually defiled and pray without purification. He commanded (to bring) water for me. Then a black slave-girl brought a vessel of water that was shaking as the vessel was not full. I concealed myself behind a camel and took bath and them came (to the Prophet). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Abu Dharr, clean earth is a means of ablution, even if you do not find water for ten years. When you find water, you should make it touch your skin.
Abu Dawud said: This is transmitted by Hammad b. Zaid from Ayyub. This version does not mention the words “their urine.” This is not correct. The words “their urine” occur only in the version reported by Anas and transmitted only by the people of Basrah.
In our (Ibadi) hadith collection there is no mention at all of this tribe killing the shepherd or any subsequent punishment.
What is interesting is that in the second hadith in Bukhari it states: So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Which means they did this of their own accord and the Blessed Prophet (saw) di dnot order it. Also the statement: they became healthy and fat, is the comment of the narrator and not an observation of the Prophet (saw).
The hadith recorded in Abu Dawud also shows doubt.
Lastly, even if it was established as a recommendation from the Blessed Prophet (saw) that would have been in his capacity as a human being.
This is explained by Dr. Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al Kharusi (h) in our article here:
Some people have used this as a polemic against Islam and Muslims. This usually comes from Hindus because Muslims themselves have unwisely attacked rituals where Hindus have bathed in urine and cow faeces.
Some Christians too have used this as a polemic against Islam.
You do have in the Bible where God commands Ezekiel to use human faeces as fuel to cook his food. He wants Ezekiel to this openly but Ezekiel refuses.
“Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” The Lord said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.” Then I said, “Not so, Sovereign Lord! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No impure meat has ever entered my mouth.” “Very well,” he said, “I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement.” (Ezekiel 4:12-15)
In this bizarre text God is commanding Ezekiel to bake bread using human faeces and to do so openly.
Ezekiel seems repulsed by God’s suggestion and reminds God that he has never eaten anything unclean. In a compromise God basically says to Ezekiel: “Very well you can use cow faeces instead.”
“Indeed, Allah showers His blessings upon the Prophet, and His angels pray for him. O believers! Invoke Allah’s blessings upon him, and salute him with worthy greetings of peace.” (Qur’an 33:56)
﷽
This article aims to tell the reader about the Tashahhud in the Ibadi school as well as the proper meaning about Āl Ibrahim and Āl Muhammed (peace be upon them both)
The Āl in the Tashahhud is a reference to the people of Ibrahim (as) and the people of Muhammed (saw). This is inclusive of the familes but is not exclusive to them. This is important.
The Āl cannot be excluisve to the families for the following reason:
“Ibrāhīm’s plea for his father’s forgiveness was only because of a promise he had made. But when it became clear that his father was an enemy of Allah, he disassociated from him. Indeed, Ibrāhīm was tender-hearted and forbearing.” (Qur’an 9:114)
Likewise the uncle of the Blessed Prophet (saw), Abu Lahab was condemned and destined for Hellfire, as in the Qurān.
“”May the hands of Abu Lahab perish, and he perish! Neither his wealth nor gains will benefit him. He will burn in a flaming fire, and his wife, the carrier of kindling around her neck will be a rope palm fibre.” (Qur’an 111:1-5)
As regard the status of the uncle Abu Talib and Parents of the Blessed Prophet (saw) their status is disputed.
Thus The Āl is a reference to the followers of the Blessed Prophets Ibrahim (as) and Muhammed (saw).
Āl simply means people. Āl Kitab the People of the Book. Not the Family of the Book.
“And then he went to his people, swaggering [in pride]. (Qur’an 75:33)
Another example:
“The Fire, they are exposed to it morning and evening. And the Day the Hour appears [it will be said], “Make the people of Pharaoh (ala fir’awna)enter the severest punishment.” (Qur’an 40:46)
You can see how the following have translated (with 7 translators translating al as family)
ahlihi -his family, or his people. So we can read the prayer as:
“Say: ‘O Allah exalt the mention of Muhammed and the people of Muhammed as you exalted the mention of Ibrahim. And bless Muhammed and the people of Muhammed as you blessed Ibrahim and the people of Ibrahim in all the Worlds. You are the Praised, the Glorified.”
Here the very straight forward meaning would be the Muslims in general.
That is to say is a general prayer asking one to send blessings upon the Muslims of the people of Ibrahim (as) and the Muslims of the people of Muhammed (saw) be they of their families or not of their families.
Certainly, the Āl cannot be asking for blessings exclusively upon families as we have mentioned above.
It is very clear that the father of Ibrahim (as) is missed by such an invocation for example.
Or even the descendants of Ibrahim (as) that were evil doers, for example.
“And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: “I will make thee an Imam to the Nations.” He pleaded: “And also (Imams) from my offspring!” He answered: “But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers.” (Qur’an 2: 124)
This is the very clear understanding.
Another point of consideration.
Let us take a closer look at the innovation:
“”Say: ‘Oh Allah, exalt the mention of Muhammed, and the family of Muhammed as you exalted the mention of Ibrahim. And Bless Muhammed and the family of Muhammed as you Blessed Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim in all the Worlds. You are the Praised, the Glorified.”
If Muhammed (saw) is already a descendant of Ibrahim (as) this du’a is redundant.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) is already blessed -being included in Ibrahim’s family lineage.
This strengthens a view that the du’a is a general du’a of the people of Muhammed (saw), inclusive of any of his family, followers or descendants that held fast to the Qur’an and the example of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Here are some examples of how the Tashah-hud looked in the early Muslim community.
They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: Apostle of Allah, how should we bless you? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Say:” O Allah! bless Muhammed, his wives and his offspring as You did bless Ibrahim, and grant favours to Muhammed, and his wives and his offspring as You did grant favours to the family of Ibrahim; You are the Praiseworthy and Glorious.”
Allah’s Messenger (saw) taught me the Tashah-hud as he taught me a Sura from the Qur’an, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashah-hud was) all the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allah. Peace and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allah, I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and I also testify that Muhammed is Allah’s slave and His Apostle. (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw) , but when he had died, we used to say, “Peace be on the Prophet.”
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az- Zubayr from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abd al-Qari that he heard Umar ibn al- Khattab say, while he was teaching people the tashahhud from the mimbar, “Say, Greetings belong to Allah. Pure actions belong to Allah. Good words and prayers belong to Allah. Peace on you, Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun. I testify that there is no god except Allah. And I testify that Muhammed is His slave and His messenger.”
‘At-tahiyatu lillah, az-zakiyatu lillah, at-tayibatu wa’s-salawatu lillah. As-salamu alayka ayyuha’nnabiyyu wa rahmatu’llahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi’llahi s-salihin. Ash-hadu an la ilaha illa ‘llah wa ash-hadu anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluh.”
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar used to say the tashahhud saying, “In the name of Allah. Greetings belong to Allah. Prayers belong to Allah. Pure actions belong to Allah. Peace be on the Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be on us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun. I testify that there is no god except Allah. I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
“Bismillah, at-tahiyatu lillah, as-salawatu lillah, az-zakiyatu lillah. As-salamu ala’n-nabiyyi wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi’llahi’s-salihin. Shahidtu an la ilaha illallah. Shahidtu anna Muhammadu’r-rasulu’llah.”
He used to say this after the first two rakas and he would make supplication with whatever seemed fit to him when the tashahhud was completed. When he sat at the end of the prayer, he did the tashahhud in a similar manner, except that after the tashahhud he made supplication with whatever seemed fit to him. When he had completed the tashahhud and intended to say the taslim, he said, “Peace be on the Prophet and His mercy and blessings. Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah who are salihun.“
“As- salamu ala’n-nabiyyi wa rahmatu’llahi wa barakatuhu. As-salamu alayna wa ala ibadi’llahi’ssalihin .”
He then said, “Peace be upon you” to his right, and would return the greeting to the imam, and if anyone said “Peace be upon you” from his left he would return the greeting to him.
There is a great deal of information that has been kept from the public in regard to this subject.
الإمام مالك بن أنس إمام دار الهجرة:
ينقل لنا بأسانيد ذهبية صحيحة صيغة “التشهد في الصلاة” على لسان: الفاروق عمر بن الخطاب، وابنه الفقيه عبدالله بن عمر بن الخطاب، وأم المؤمنين عائشة.
وكلها ليس فيها ما تعلمناه منذ الصغر: (اللهم صلي على محمد “وعلى آل محمد” كما صليت على إبراهيم ….).
يقول النووي: (ولنا -يعني عند الشافعية- وجهٌ (شاذ) أنه يجب الصلاة على ” الآل ” وليس بشيء).
Imam Malik bin Anas, Imam of the House of Migration: He transmits to us, with authentic golden chains of transmission, the formula for “testifying in prayer” on the tongues of: Al-Farouq Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra), his son, the jurist Abdullah bin Omar bin Al-Khattab, and the Mother of the Believers Aisha (ra). None of them contain what we learned from childhood: (O Allah, bless Muhammed and the family of Muhammed as you blessed Abraham ….) . Al-Nawawi says: (We – meaning the Shafi’is – have an (odd) view that it is obligatory to pray for the “family” and that is nothing).
ننقل الآن قول الأحناف والأمر كما ترون أيضاً ليس في التشهد عند الأحناف أي ذكر للـ “آل”.
We will now quote the Hanafi view, and the matter is as you can see. The Hanafi view also does not mention the “Al” in the testimony of faith.
In an Ibadi fiqh book on prayer published in the English language we find on page 271 the following:
Source: (The Reliable Jurisprudence of Prayer (Al -Mu’tamad fi’ Fiqh as-Salah -written by al-Mu’tasim b. Sa’id al-Ma’wali. page 271)
So we reached out ot Shaykh al-Mu’tasim about this. And his reply was the following:
“Regarding the issue at hand, you made a valid point: the correct understanding is that the Prophet’s Āl are his followers. If it is exclusive to his blood relatives, then the term would include the likes of Abū Jahl, the Prophet’s uncle, who was condemned and destined for Hellfire, as in the Qurān. This is the outweighing opinion on the issue.”
We as Ibadi follow the wording in Mudawwana of Abu Ghanim al-Khorasani (a prominent early Ibadi jurist).
The text translated into English states:
Chapter on the Tashahhud and what comes after it
You recite (1) when you sit for every two rak’ahs: “All greetings, blessings, and good prayers are due to Allah. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of Allah. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without any partner, and I bear witness that Muhammed is His servant and His Messenger.” [Abu ‘Ubaydah said, according to what was narrated (2): Then you make a supplication [silently] (3) after the fourth rak’ah, after this tashahhud, whatever you wish, and whatever is appropriate (4).]
Abu al-Umurrij said: Abu ‘Abdih said: This is the tashahhud of ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud (5). He said: ‘Abdullah bin ‘Isa recited it (6) (as): “All greetings, blessings, and good prayers are due to Allah. Peace be upon the Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings, and peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of Allah. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, alone, without any partner, and that Muhammed is His servant and His Messenger.” (8)
Ibn ‘Abbas said: We used to say “Peace be upon you, O Prophet” when he was still alive among us. But when the Prophet ﷺ passed away, we said “Peace be upon the Prophet and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.” (9)
Footnotes from the original text:
(1) In ‘A and S: “And the tashahhud from.” (2) Addition from ‘A. (3) Addition from ‘A. (4) The editor said: His statement “after the fourth rak’ah,” etc. This is after the second rak’ah in the Fajr prayer, and after the third in Maghrib. Had he said “after completing the tashahhud” it would have included all cases, and there is no requirement for silence in what is added beyond the tashahhud. (5) The phrase “Abu al-Mu’arrij said: Abu ‘Ubaydah said: This is the tashahhud of ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud” is missing from ‘A and S. (6) In ‘A and S: “And he said: ‘Abdullah bin ‘Isa recited.” (7) The editor said: His statement “His servant and His Messenger” is the end of the tashahhud. Whoever believes that the phrase “and what he brought is the truth, etc.” is part of the prayer, his prayer is feared to be invalid, except according to those who hold that the tashahhud is not obligatory. (8) In the original and T: “idha” (when/if), but what we have confirmed from ‘A, S, and B. (9) In ‘A and S: “So when.”
You will find some interesting points about the above.
The chain of transmission (isnad): The names mentioned (Abu ‘Ubaydah, ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Isa) are key figures in early Ibadi legal tradition. Abu Ghanim’s Mudawwana is a foundational text for the Ibadi school, comparable in some ways to the Mudawwana of Sahnun in the Maliki school, though the Ibadi work is more focused on hadith and reports from early authorities.
The tashahhud wording: The Ibadi school is known for preferring the tashahhud attributed to Ibn Mas’ud (as opposed to the versions attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas or others that became more common in Sunni practice). The variant reading noted—”al-salam ‘ala al-nabi” (peace be upon the Prophet) rather than “‘alayka ayyuha al-nabi” (peace be upon you, O Prophet)—reflects the well-attested position that the latter formulation was appropriate only during the Prophet’s lifetime.
Editorial commentary: The footnotes (marked as “qala al-murattib” or “the editor said”) likely come from later Ibadi scholars who transmitted and commented on Abu Ghanim’s work. Their concern about additions to the tashahhud (footnote 7) reflects intra-madhab debates about what constitutes a valid prayer.
The instruction on silent supplication: The direction to supplicate silently after the fourth rak’ah (with the parenthetical noting application to Fajr and Maghrib) is characteristic of the detailed procedural guidance found in Ibadi fiqh manuals.
You will note that the earliest Ibadi formula matches what we find in the Qur’an here:
“Indeed, Allah showers His blessings upon the Prophet, and His angels pray for him. O believers! Invoke Allah’s blessings upon him, and salute him with worthy greetings of peace.” (Qur’an 33:56)
In fact there is no prayers upon Ibrahim and his Āl .
During the Shiaf’ication of Sunnism during the Abbasid era the Āl became exclusive to the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
For about a century, from 945 to 1055, the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad were effectively puppets of the Buyid dynasty.
A Shi’a “Protectorate”: The Buyids were a powerful Shi’i dynasty from Iran. They kept the Abbasid Caliph as a figurehead to appease the majority Sunni population. While they held the real political and military power. It is likely that the transformation of Āl was influenced by them. Allah knows best.
“Your Lord is best aware of what is in your hearts. If you are righteous, He will indeed forgive those who relent and revert.” (Qur’an 17:25)
May Allah (swt) help the Ummah to purify the community from Bid’ah.
May Allah (swt) forgive our scholars who are not free from error.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
“And give full measure when you measure out, and weigh with a true balance; this is fair and better in the end.” (Qur’an 17:35)
﷽
The Asymmetry No One Talks About
When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous body of material to work with. They cite the sīrah (biography), the ḥadīth (sayings and actions), and the maghāzī (campaign literature). From his first revelation at age 40 to his death at approximately 63, that is roughly 23 years of public prophetic activity. Even if one includes his life before prophethood, from age 25 (his first marriage to Khadījah-ra) to 40, that adds another 15 years of documented context. In total, critics have 35+ years of recorded material to analyze, critique, and polemicize.
But what about Jesus?
Most Christians have never stopped to ask a simple question: How many actual words attributed to Jesus are even in the New Testament? And more importantly: How much of Jesus’s life is actually recorded?
This article is not an argument for Islam. It is an argument for intellectual honesty. The comparison Christian apologists make between Jesus(as) and Muhammed (saw) is not balanced — not because Islam/Christianity is true/false, but because the evidentiary basis for each figure is radically different.
The Raw Data – How Many Words of Jesus Actually Exist?
According to a detailed analysis from synopticgospel.com, the total number of words attributed to Jesus Christ in the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is 31,426.
But that number includes duplicate material. The same speeches and parables appear in multiple Gospels. Once you exclude the duplication of Jesus’s speeches across the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the total unique words drop significantly.
If you enter 31,426 words into a standard “Convert Words to Minutes” speech calculator, you find that it would take approximately 242 minutes — or about 4 hours — to read all of Jesus’s words aloud.
That is the sum total. Four hours of reading. That is everything Jesus is recorded as saying in the four Gospels.
Beyond the Gospels – Jesus’s Words in the Rest of the New Testament
Most Christians assume the Gospels are where Jesus speaks. That is correct. But what about the rest of the 27-book New Testament canon (the one accepted by Latin Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants)?
Here is the complete inventory of words attributed to Jesus outside the four Gospels.
Acts of the Apostles
Acts 1:4-8 – The risen Jesus commands the apostles to wait for the Holy Spirit.
Acts 9:4-16 – Jesus appears to Saul (Paul) on the road to Damascus: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” and subsequent instructions to Ananias.
Acts 11:16 – Peter recalls Jesus’s words: “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 18:9-10 – Jesus speaks to Paul in a vision at Corinth: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking… I am with you.”
Acts 20:35 – Paul recalls a saying of Jesus not found in the Gospels: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 22:7-10 – Paul’s retelling of the Damascus road experience.
Acts 22:18-21 – Jesus tells Paul to leave Jerusalem: “Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.”
Acts 23:11 – Jesus stands by Paul: “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”
Acts 26:14-18 – Paul’s third retelling, with additional detail: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 – The institution of the Eucharist: “This is my body… This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”
2 Corinthians
2 Corinthians 12:9 – A saying of Jesus to Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Revelation
Revelation 1–3 – The risen Christ speaks to the seven churches: “I am the Alpha and the Omega… Write to the angel of the church in Ephesus…” (approximately 20-30 verses of direct speech).
The Rest – Complete Silence
The following New Testament books contain zero direct words attributed to Jesus:
Romans
Galatians
Colossians
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
That is 19 books out of 27 with absolutely no direct quotation of Jesus.
The 27-Book Canon – A Closer Look
It is worth remembering that the 27-book New Testament was not the only canon in early Christianity. There were rival Christian communities with 22-book New Testaments and others with 35-book New Testaments. The canon we have today is the result of debates, disputes, and eventual ecclesiastical decisions.
But even granting the 27-book canon as authoritative, the fact remains:
Only 8 books contain any direct words of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation.
19 books (70% of the New Testament by book count) have no words of Jesus in them at all.
Most Christians never stop to think about this. They assume the New Testament is full of Jesus speaking. In reality, the vast majority of the New Testament is written about Jesus — not by him, and not quoting him.
The 90% Problem – Jesus Lived 33 Years. We Have 3.
According to Luke 3:23, Jesus began his public ministry when he was “about thirty years old.” Traditional dating places his birth at approximately 4 BC and his crucifixion around AD 30 or 33. That gives him a lifespan of roughly 33 years.
His public ministry — the period from which we have any recorded words at all — lasted approximately 3 years.
3 years out of 33 = approximately 9% of his life.
That means 91% of Jesus’s life is completely silent in the New Testament.
From birth to age 12: one brief episode in the temple (Luke 2:41-52).
From age 12 to age 30: absolute silence. Nothing. No words. No actions. No teachings.
From age 30 to 33: roughly 4 hours of unique sayings (after excluding Synoptic duplicates).
Think about that. God incarnate, according to Christian theology, walked the earth for 33 years. The Christian record gives us only a handful of episodes from a 3-year window. The rest is silence.
Christian theology has an answer for this: the “hidden years” demonstrate Jesus’s full humanity, his ordinary life, his obedience. But that answer does not solve the historical or polemical problem. It simply explains why the silence is theologically acceptable.
For the purpose of comparing Jesus (as) to Muhammed (saw), the silence is not a theological virtue. It is an evidentiary void.
Age and Life Experience: The Unasked Question
There is another layer to this asymmetry that is almost never discussed: age. Jesus (as) died at approximately 33 years old. Muhammed (saw) died at approximately 63 years old. That is a 30-year difference. A full generation.
Now ask yourself: If Jesus had lived to 63 — if his public ministry had continued for another three decades beyond the brief three years recorded in the Gospels — how much more material would the New Testament contain? How many more sermons? How many more parables? How many more interactions with political authorities, with families, with enemies, with disciples who failed him? How many more decisions under pressure, more moments of moral complexity, more spoken words?
We cannot know, of course. The New Testament does not tell us. But that is precisely the point.
The Christian apologist who contrasts 23 years of prophetic activity (or 35+ years of documented adult life) with Jesus’s 3 years of public ministry is not comparing like with like. They are comparing a life cut short in its early thirties — a life whose longest documented period is measured in hours of speech — with a life that spanned more than six decades and produced enough literature to fill multiple volumes of hadith, sīrah, and tafsīr.
It is entirely possible that a 63-year-old Jesus would have said and done things that a 33-year-old Jesus did not. Perhaps he would have married. Perhaps he would have wielded political power. Perhaps he would have led what looked like military campaigns. Perhaps he would have said more things that later generations found morally uncomfortable. More so even than what we find today. We will never know. Because the claim is he died young. And the Gospels, as they exist, give us almost nothing from the first 30 years of his life and only a sliver from his final three.
To pretend that the silence of the New Testament is a moral or theological victory for Christianity — is to mistake absence of evidence for evidence of moral superiority. That is not scholarship. That is polemics dressed up as piety.
4 Hours vs. 35 Years – The Evidentiary Chasm
Now let us put the two figures side by side.
The data
Jesus (canonical NT)
Muhammed (sīrah, ḥadīth, maghāzī)
Public prophetic ministry
~3 years
~23 years (610-632 CE)
Total documented life
~9% (3 of 33 years)
~100% of prophetic period
Unique spoken words
~4 hours of reading aloud possibly 2 hours without repetitions from the synoptics.
Hundreds of thousands of ḥadīth (of various grades of authenticity)
Narrow: rural Galilee, Jerusalem, Roman occupation
Broad: Medinan state, marraiges, diplomacy, law, economics, community governance
When Christian apologists attack the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have an enormous dataset. They can point to specific battles, specific marriages, specific political decisions, specific legal rulings, and specific moments of apparent moral failure — all dated, documented, and debated within Islamic tradition itself.
When Muslims (or anyone) try to respond symmetrically, they cannot. Not because Jesus was morally superior/inferior, but because the New Testament gives us almost nothing to work with outside a handful of sayings and a short public ministry.
The Christian Apologist’s Blind Spot
Here is the uncomfortable question this raises:
If your case against Muhammed (saw) depends on comparing his documented actions to Jesus’s silence, are you truly making a fair argument?
The Christian apologist will often say: “Jesus never married multiple women. Jesus never led raids. Jesus never owned slaves. Jesus never wielded political power.”
All of that is true — if we limit ourselves to the 3 years and 4 hours of material we have.
But the apologist rarely adds the necessary caveat: “And we have almost no information about what Jesus did or said for the other 30 years of his life.”
The comparison is not between two equally documented figures. It is between:
A man with 35+ years of dense, varied, politically and militarily detailed documentation (Muhammed), and
A man whose recorded words can be read aloud in an afternoon, and whose entire public ministry fits into a 3-year window (Jesus).
That is not a level playing field. It is not a fair comparison. And the Christian apologist who pretends it is has either not thought about the asymmetry or is deliberately ignoring it.
Conclusion – Not a Win, Just an Asymmetry
This article is not arguing that Christianity is false. It is not arguing that Islam is true. It is not even arguing that the Blessed Prophet Muhammwd was a better or worse prophet than Jesus.
It is arguing something much simpler — and much more uncomfortable for the Christian polemicist:
You cannot build a fair case against Muhammed (saw) by relying on a Jesus who barely speaks.
The New Testament is 90% silent about Jesus’s life. He spoke for approximately 4 hours of unique material over a 3-year public ministry. The rest of his 33 years are a blank slate.
The Islamic sources for the life of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) are vastly more detailed, more diverse, and more extensive. That gives the Christian apologist more material. It gives them more material because there is simply more material.
If the Gospels had recorded Jesus from age 12 to 30 — his words, his actions, his relationships, his work, his political views, his family life — the Christian polemic against the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) might look very different. Or it might collapse entirely. We will never know.
Because the New Testament is silent.
And that silence is not the Christian apologist’s ace in the hole. It is the very thing that makes the comparison impossible from the start.
A Note to Christian Readers
If you are a Christian reading this and feeling defensive, ask yourself honestly:
Would you want your case for Jesus to rest on a comparison with the Prophet Muhammed (saw) that requires ignoring 30 years of Jesus’s life and the thinness of the Gospel record?
Or would you rather admit: “We don’t have much from Jesus outside a short ministry. That doesn’t prove Christianity false. But it does mean comparing him to Muhammed (saw) on deeds and sayings is apples to oranges.”
That is all this article asks. Honesty about the data. Just a recognition that the scales are not balanced — and they never were.
May Allah Guide the Jews and the Chrisitians to the truth!
Prima Quran 