And they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves if they only knew.” (Quran 2:102-103)
﷽
Is it not curious that, out of all the things that people learned concerning magic that an emphasis is put on causing separation between a man and his wife? That there are extremely dark forces at play working against the foundations of a family should be something that we really think about.
In Islam, marriage completes half of one’s faith. 60% of Shari’ah law is focused on the family.
There is a significant gap between the holistic guidance of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the often-mechanistic application of certain legal rulings, particularly concerning marriage and divorce.
The Reality of Supra-Natural Forces and Their Target.
The Qur’an explicitly confirms the existence of magic and the efforts of Shaitan to sow discord, especially within the most sacred of institutions: the family.
“The Shaitan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer.” (Qur’an 5:91)
“If an evil impulse from Shaitan provokes you, seek refuge with Allah; He is All-hearing and all-knowing.” (Qur’an 7:200)
“And march forth in the way of forgiveness from your Lord, and for Paradise as wide as the heavens and the earth, prepared for the pious. Those who spend in prosperity and in adversity, who repress anger, and who pardon the people; verily, Allah loves the good-doers.”(Qur’an 3:133-134)
“So whatever you have been given is but enjoyment for this worldly life, but that which is with Allah is better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord. And those who avoid the greater sins, and illegal sexual intercourse, and when they are angry, they forgive.” (Qur’an 42:36)
It can be seen from the aforementioned verses that enmity, anger, hate are things that Shaitan provokes us with. We also see that tempering our anger and forgiveness are more wholesome.
“Say: ‘I seek refuge with the Lord of Daybreak, from the evil of duality, and from the evil of the darkness as it gathers and from the evil of those who blow on knots (l-‘uqadi) and from the evil of an envier when he envies.'” (Qur’an 113:1-5)
From those who ‘blow on knots‘. The term ‘l-uqadi’ .
This term is used in the following instances of the Qur’an:
“There is no blame upon you for that to which you indirectly allude concerning a proposal to women or for what you conceal within yourselves. Allah knows that you will have them in mind. But do not promise them secretly except for saying a proper saying. And do not determine to undertake a (uq’data l-nikahi)marriage contract until the decreed period reaches its end. And know that Allah knows what is within yourselves, so beware of Him. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.” (Qur’an 2:235)
“And in case you divorce them even before you have touched them, and you have already ordained for them a marriage-portion, then give her one half of what you have ordained except in case the women remit, or he in whose hand is the (uq’datu l-nikahi) knot of marriage remits; that you remit is nearer to piety. And do not forget the virtue of grace among yourselves; surely Allah is Ever-Beholding of whatever you do.” (Qur’an 2;237)
When you look at those instances of the word, it becomes apparent that ‘blow on knots‘ means ‘blow on marriages’. “Devise plots against marriages.”
The phrase “those who blow on knots” (an-naffathati fil ‘uqad) has a primary meaning referring to sorceresses who literally tie knots and blow spells upon them. However, the linguistic drawn to the “knot of marriage” (‘uqdat an-nikah) in verses 2:235 and 2:237 is a powerful and valid tafsir (interpretation). It highlights that one of the primary objectives of these dark forces is to unravel the sacred bond (‘aqd) between spouses. This is not a minor issue; it is a direct assault on half of a Muslim’s faith.
Aqad literally means to ‘tie’ or to ‘bind’. In English, we have the interesting idiom of ‘tying the knot‘ as a reference to getting married.
The Arabic word Khul means to ‘untie or to disrobe’.
Whereas the word Talaq means to abandon or rid oneself of something.
“Definition of “divorce” (talaq) Literally, the word “divorce” (talaq) means to abandon a thing or get rid of a thing. When an animal tied with a string is untied it is called talaq. If the tied with a string she-camel is untied, the Arabs mention this state as: “talaqa al-naqata talaqan” 23 (The she-camel has been released).”
Source: (Pg 15. Islamic Law of Marriage and Divorce by Shehza Sham)
So, if the term Talaq means to untie, to abandon or to get rid of something, it makes no sense to say to someone “I abandon you” thrice, because in order to be abandoned the second time or the third time just like saying ‘I untie you thrice’. In order to be ‘untied’ a second or third time, you would need to be tied or in a state of ‘aqad’ for a second or third time.
If we take into account that supra-natural forces are at work in bringing about discord in Muslim marriages, why is it not taken into the calculation by certain Muslim jurists and especially those influenced by ‘tassawuf’ when deciding the fate of Muslim marriages?
Here is something that those of our brothers of the Ahl Sunnah need to take on board. If you believe the following haidth, we have a question for you.
Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah’s Messenger (saw) so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect)…….the hadith is longer.
If you believe the best of creation, the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), could be affected by magic to the extent that it created a false reality in his personal life, then it is a form of arrogance for any scholar or jurist to dismiss the possibility that ordinary Muslim couples could be acting under similar influences of anger, hatred, miscommunication, and irrational behavior provoked by Shaitan.
Until today, there has been no meaningful engagement in regard to this question.
We also need to keep the following verses in mind:
“O Prophet! When any of you divorce women, divorce them during their period of purity and calculate their ‘idda carefully. And have fear of Allah, your Lord. Do not evict them from their homes, nor should they leave, unless they commit an outright indecency. Those are Allah´s limits, and anyone who oversteps Allah´s limits has wronged himself. You never know, it may well be that after that Allah will cause a new situation to develop.” (Qur’an 65:1)
Even though this is what the Qur’an clearly states, the jurist will allow couples’ marriages to be dissolved without asking questions like:
“Did you intend to divorce your wife while she was in menses?”
If the answer is yes, then you cannot intend to divorce your wife while she is in her menses.
If the answer is “I don’t know”, then again, you cannot intend to divorce your wife on an “I don’t know.”
Yet, we, unfortunately, know of many Muslims who have gone through the divorce process, and they have informed us that the judge, the counselor, didn’t even bother to ask this question. Most unfortunate.
Another aspect of the revelation that unfortunately gets ignored is the following:
“Then, when they have reached their term (3 months), take them back in kindness or part from them in kindness, and call to witness two just men among you, and keep your testimony upright for Allah. Whoso believes in Allah and the Last Day is exhorted to act thus. And whosoever keeps his duty to Allah, Allah will appoint a way out for him…” (Qur’an 65:2)
People do not realize it, but it is very possible for people to part amicably. Sometimes a woman cannot produce children, and she has the option to be a co-wife. Whereas, if a man cannot produce children, he does not have the option to be the co-husband.
People can decide to amicably part if having biological children is an absolute deal-breaker in a relationship. They may find, for various other reasons, that they are not suitable as partners.
Yet, unfortunately, once again, the judges or the counselors do not ask about the emotional state of the man/wife when words are uttered? The answer is no.
“If any men among you divorce their wives by Zihar (calling them mothers), they cannot be their mothers: None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth. And in fact, they use words (both) iniquitous and false: but truly Allah is one that blots out (sins), and forgives (again and again).” (Qur’an)
This verse clearly repudiates those men who would use an idiom or simply a verbal expression to divorce women. This verse is also clear when coupled with other verses about having just two witnesses present, and consultation that it repudiates instant divorce simply through pronunciation.
“They are invited to the book of Allah to settle their dispute”. (Qur’an 3:23)
“And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing, so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy”. (Qur’an 6:155).
“Lo! this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright”. (Qur’an 17:9)
The Juristic (Fiqh) Response vs. The Holistic (Tazkiyah) Approach
The Problem: In many contemporary contexts, these two streams have become separated. A judge in a civil or family court, or even an imam acting in an advisory capacity, often wears only the hat of the jurist. They apply the law as a set of rules without the accompanying spiritual and pastoral context that is essential for dealing with something as sensitive as divorce.
The Qur’anic procedure for divorce is not a mere utterance but a process designed for contemplation and reconciliation.
Divorce during Menses (Tuhr): The ruling in (65:1) to divorce women during their period of purity is precisely to prevent a rash decision made in a state of emotional turmoil (which can sometimes coincide with a wife’s menses). A man who says “I divorce you” in a fit of rage during her menses has transgressed Allah’s law. The juristic consensus is that such a divorce is still legally effective but is considered bid’ah (reprehensible innovation) and a sin.
The practical consequence is that the marriage is often considered dissolved, and the crucial pastoral step of questioning the validity of the intention and context is skipped.
The Role of Witnesses and Kindness: Verse (65:2) emphasize kindness, witnesses, and a measured process. This stands in stark contrast to the instantaneous, often unilateral, and highly emotional divorces that occur. The Qur’anic ideal is a mediated separation, not a sudden outburst.
Before any divorce is finalized, a mandatory mediation process should be instituted that involves:
Questioning the emotional state and intention at the time of the utterance.
Investigating possible external factors (family interference, financial stress, etc.).
Recommending ruqyah (Qur’anic healing) if there is a legitimate suspicion of magic or evil eye.
Exhausting all avenues for reconciliation, as the Qur’an commands.
May Allah (swt) sanctify and bless all of your marriages. May Allah (swt) protect you all from the evil eye. May you and your spouse work out your differences. May Allah (swt) make your wife or wives appear as the most loving and beautiful of women. May Allah (swt) make your husband appear to you as the most kind, generous, understanding and handsome of men.
You might be interested in reading the following articles:
“This day are things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Lawful unto you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time when you give them their due dowers, and desire charity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” (Qur’an 5:5)
“O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” (Qur’an 5:87)
﷽
This entry will give the position of the Muslims, otherwise known as (Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama) or the Ibadi school. It will give our justifications from the Qur’an and Sunnah for marrying the people of the book (Jews and Christians).
Companions such as Ibn Abbas, Saad bin al-Musayyab, Said bin Jubair, Uthman, Talha, Tawus, Mujahid are all known to have married people of the book. The Blessed Messenger (saw) himself is known to have married from among the Ahl Kitab.
So, yes, in the Ibadi school, a Muslim man can marry a Christian or Jewish woman if certain conditions are met.
Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah.
The five necessities—religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property are defined.
This ruling would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage & preservation of religion.
Among our brothers from the Ahl Sunnah, there are two positions. The position of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa is that Muslim men can marry Christian and Jewish women and until today there are no restrictions put on this.
The position of Imam Ahmad and Imam Shafi’i is that Muslim men cannot marry Christian or Jewish women.
The position of the Ibadi school is in between these two camps. It is very clear that we cannot make impermissible what Allah (swt) made permissible.
That being said, there is a context to these verses and conditions that must be met.
Conditions placed on marrying the Ahl Kitab.
1st condition is that this takes place under Muslim governance, where there is full compliance of the shariah law.
The 2nd Condition is that the interest of the Muslims dominates. The children, for example, are to be raised as Muslims.
The 3rd condition is that the Muslim man actually is a practicing Muslim.
The 4th Condition is that the Jewish or Christian woman actually be practicing Judaism or Christianity.
The 5th condition is that she did not ever commit fornication or have an extramarital affair.
Understanding the first condition.
“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best way and best in result.” (Qur’an 4:59)
What happens today in North Africa and in Turkey is that many of these men who are exposed to the Maliki and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence will marry women from the United States, Europe, Russia. Often the children of these marriages are split between nationalities. The inheritance laws are not decided by the laws of Islam they are decided by secular institutions. The fate of the children will be decided by the laws of those lands. More often than not, the court awards the custody of the children to the mother. The children are brought up without a Muslim father, an Imam leading the prayers and teaching the deen of Islam. This is totally unacceptable.
Understanding the second condition.
“Our Lord, and make us Muslims that submit to You, and from our descendants a community that submits to You. And show us our rites and accept our repentance. Indeed, You are Ever-Accepting of our repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:128)
“O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your own families from a Fire whose fuel is mankind and stones, (and) over which are harsh, severe Angels, who do not disobey Allah in whatever He commands them and who perform whatever they are commanded to.” (Qur’an 66:6)
Anyone who loves their children does not want to expose them to the dangers of hellfire. The best and clearest way to help ensure this is to raise them as Muslims. To instill in them the articles of faith. The love and fear of Allah (swt). The love of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and following his noble example. Muslims cannot give blessings to their children to be raised by other religions because they were all abrogated with the coming of Islam. Qur’an 2:106 establishes this.
“Men are in charge of women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend for maintenance from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in the husband’s absence what Allah would have them, guard. But those wives from whom you fear ill/strange conduct advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; then if they persist strike them. But if they obey you once more, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.” (Qu’ran 4:34)
It is difficult enough to get Muslim-majority nations to want to establish the Imamate. Does anyone think that non-Muslim majority nations have a vested interest in doing so? They have different world views and different principles upon which they base their concepts of justice. Many of them promote egalitarianism. Too many times, Muslim men are taken by the charms and beauty of non-Muslim women. Non-Muslim women may make promises to them. However, none of those promises are legally binding. This will lead us to understand the third condition.
Understanding the third and fourth conditions.
“And do not marry polytheistic (l-mush’rikati) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men to your women until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite you to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
This verse is ‘Aam. There is an exception or allowance to marry the mush’rikati women. That exception is given in Qur’an 5:5
Many of these Muslim men who want to marry Christian or Jewish women are themselves not practicing Islam. That is not a good foundation to start a marriage with a Muslim woman, let alone a non-Muslim woman. The children are likely to be swayed by the parent who shows more conviction and practice of their faith tradition than the parent that does not show conviction or practice their faith tradition. That is why Allah (swt) says that marrying someone who is a slave is better than marrying a free, non-believing woman, even though her /his looks may please you.
Allah (swt) also said you can marry Christian and Jewish women.
Understanding fourth and fifth conditions.
“This day are things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Lawful unto you in marriage are not only chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time when you give them their due dowry, and desire charity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues. If anyone rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter, he will be in the ranks of those who have lost.” (Qur’an 5:5)
That Christian or Jewish woman has to be a practicing Jewish or Christian woman. She has to follow the tenets and edicts of her faith tradition. She cannot be a ‘nominal’ Jew or a ‘nominal’ Christian. If the Christian or Jew converts to Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, New Age spirituality, or anything of the kind, the marriage can become null and void.
Also, Allah (swt) says, ‘chaste women’—muhsanatu. This means if these women have committed fornication or adultery, you cannot marry them. So this only leaves you with the option of marrying someone who is a virgin or a divorcee.
These Muslim men should be aware of one of the very strong positions in the Ibadi school in regard to themselves (the Muslim men) being chaste.
The same rule applies to Muslims as well. Muslims who have committed fornication for adultery can only marry other Muslims who have done similar. They cannot marry chaste believers, nor can they marry those people they have done fornication/adultery with.
This is not an example of abrogation. This is an example of a specification. Now you ask yourself are these conditions met today?
The Ibadi school is priority to Muslim Women First.
What happens in places where the Maliki and Hanafi schools reign supreme? You do see Muslim men often marry “Christian” or “Jewish” women, many of whom are actually agnostic or even atheist. They do so while many hundreds of thousands of Muslim women go unmarried. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslim women who are widows, divorcees, orphans, single people, or simply never been married before.
Shouldn’t our priority be the Ummah of Muhammed (saw)? Remember the wisdom of Allah (swt)
“And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you.”
What happens in those places where the Shafi’i school is dominant? For example: places like Indonesia or Malaysia? What happens is that Muslim men or Muslim women will tell non-Muslims to convert to Islam, and then they will marry them. At least these approaches are more sensible. Bringing people to Islam. That, of course, is acceptable by Islamic law. However, every action is judged by intention and so too will be the fruit of that intention.
There are thousands of Muslim men and women who convert to Islam every year of their own free will and volition. Not under any social pressure to convert because of love. Would it not be wise to give preference to these people for marriage?
May Allah (swt) continue to guide the Ummah of Muhammed (saw)!
You may be interested in reading the following articles:
“Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your father’s sisters, and your mother’s sisters…” (Qur’an 4:23).
﷽
The short of it is that Imam Al Shafi’i is not going against the clear verses of the Qur’an.
This article will discuss the very controversial opinion held by Imam Al Shafi’i, which says that if you had a daughter born out of wedlock (marriage) that you could (on a technicality) marry her, and have intimate relations with her!
Here is a short article that got quite a bit of attention about the subject.
Now the issue with this article is that neither side really furnishes evidence for the claims that are made. One side claims that Imam Shafi’i held this opinion and the other side claims that it is a blatant misrepresentation of his viewpoint.
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf of Zaytuna spoke on this issue not long ago.
@058: “And if I say I am Shafi’i, they say, “Oh he permits marrying daughters. And everybody knows that the daughters are haram.” -Hamza Yusuf
“And this comes from a Mas’ala Fariyya. If a man fornicated and the woman had a child, and it was a girl, and then he married the girl later, that legally the contract would be valid. It’s a horrible thing; but it is one of those legal, legalisms. And so they said. “Oh, that’s he permits marrying the daughter and everybody knows that the daughter is haram.” -Hamza Yusuf
However, we have an official Shafi’iFiqh website with a reference that shows this indeed was the opinion of Imam Shafi’i.
The official position of the Shafi’i Madhhab is that a girl born out of wedlock is not a daughter, marriage to her is permissible but disliked. (Minhaj al-Talibin w/ Tuhfah 2/299) To claim that Imam Shafi’i said it is permissible for one to marry his ‘daughter’ is a misrepresentation of his opinion. Other scholars who wrote on this issue treated Imam Shafi’i and his opinion with a more mature and academic approach than what circulates in some contemporary discourses on this topic. For example, in Sharh Mukhtasar al-Rawd 3/434, al-Tufi mentioned this as an example of qiyas al-shabah. He pointed out that, from the biological angle, she is a daughter. But from where the Sacred Law stands, she is not: she does not inherit nor does he inherit from her, he is punished for accusing her of being unchaste, his hand is cut off if he steals from her, and he is executed if he takes her life. Tufi says that “we”, i.e. the Hanabilah considered the biological factor when ruling on marriage with her, considering it unlawful. And Imam Shafi’i considered that, in all other cases, the Sacred Law negates paternalistic rights, and therefore she is, likewise in this case, not his ‘daughter’ according to the Law. In his Muhalla 8/334, Ibn Hazm mentioned that there is no difference of opinion among scholars on the suspension of these rights, except for when it comes to tahrim.”
“With that, the As-hab al-Awjuh differed on how they understood Imam Shafi’i on this particular point. Some of them considered that a girl born out of wedlock was ruled lawful as there is no marital bed she may be ascribed to,and it is dubious as to who her father really is. This position is alluded to in the commentaries on Minhaj. In al-Hawi al-Kabir 11/393, Mawardi related from Abu Is-haq al-Marwazi that it is permissible as her being from him is only a mere possibility. However, if that would be a defiantly confirmed fact, then his marrying her would be unlawful. Marwazi gives the example of a man and woman being imprisoned together from the time of their relations until the child is born. He says if a child came from such a situation, then it would be unlawful.”
“After this citation, Mawardi cited another understanding from Abu Is-haq al-Marwazi’s student, Qadi Abu Hamid. According to him, Imam Shafi’i ruled it was disliked because of the differences of opinion on the matter [khurujan min al-khilaf]. But otherwise, she is not his daughter and therefore she is not unlawful for him. The reasons Mawardi cited for this ruling, those supporting Imam Shafi’s application of qiyas al-shabah, are the same as what was cited above. Tarjih in the Madhhab, at the hands of Shaykhayn and Shaykh al-Islam’s students, went with Qadi Abu Hamid on this particular issue.”
And Allah knows best.
Answered by Shaykh Yaqub Abdurrahman”
The screenshot is included because, as those who follow Prima-Quran know, sometimes these links have the unfortunate habit of mysteriously disappearing.
PRIMA QUR’AN COMMENTS:
So we all agree that marrying one’s daughter is forbidden in the Qur’an. What is actually very sad is that the Creator had to reveal this as a law, to begin with. You would think that it would be common sense for people not to want to have intimacy with their own daughter!
You would think the very idea would be disgusting and reprehensible.
So let us deal with the points in the answer above.
Point 1) It is without a shadow of a doubt that Imam Shafi’i has a position that one can marry their own ‘daughter’.
Point 2) The dispute is whether or not she is a daughter in a biological sense or a legal sense. Notice the use of apostrophe when using the word daughter as ‘daughter‘.
To address point 2 here above, we remember having a discussion in Singapore with a well-known Ustaz who mentioned to us a case of a young teenage boy who was notorious for sleeping with women and getting them pregnant. He is literally the father of children of a number of women. However, because of the viewpoint in the Shafi’i school, MUIS (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura) had their hands tied.
So what about the justice due to these women? Wham, Bam Thank you, Ma’am!
What about the justice due to the children?
So the scholars, to bring justice to the children and the women, had to develop a new fatwa in such a scenario. In the end, that sexually promiscuous young man had to pay support for the children. Such is the recourse in a secular nation state.
In Malaysia/Indonesia — where sexual promiscuity among Muslim teens is quite high, we are not certain how they handle such scenarios either. However, these things want to happen.
Especially when:
You make getting married a great difficulty, almost a burden.
You allow free mixing of the sexes all throughout society.
You have theological views that take such matters lightly. The All Merciful Creator will forgive you again and again and yet again, no matter how many times.
Not engaging the youthful and energetic with something worthy and laudable to occupy their time with.
“However, repentance is not accepted from those who knowingly persist in sin until they start dying, and then cry, “Now I repent!” nor those who die as disbelievers. For them We have prepared a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
For us and our position, there is no such thing as illegitimate children in Islam!
There are only illegitimate means to have children.
As one brother recently told us, people in many parts of the world, especially in the Indo-Pak region, treat children out of wedlock as though they are disease, scum of the earth or filth, and either they’re thrown in rubbish bins at birth or given to orphanages and throughout their entire lives deprived of all basic human rights and dignity!
You can read the following link to get an idea of the scope of damage that such jurisprudence has done to humanity!
The following verses in the Qur’an support the idea that children should not be deprived because of the actions of their parents.
“No one will bear the burden of another. Even if an overburdened soul should ask another to bear a part of his burden, no one, not even a relative, will do so.” (Qur’an 35:18)
“That no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.” (Qur’an 53:38)
“Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.” (Qur’an 17: 15)
The idea of making a daughter a ‘daughter’ in the case of the so-called sacred law deprives and punishes such children because of their parent’s actions.
Point 3) As the article shows, even the position of Imam Shafi’i collapses under the weight of logic.
“Marwazi gives the example of a man and woman being imprisoned together from the time of their relations until the child is born. He says if a child came from such a situation, then it would be unlawful.”
This is an excellent example of using the Allah given faculty of reason and logic.
Point 4) Why not err on the side of caution?
The article says:
“Some of them considered that a girl born out of wedlock was ruled lawful as there is no marital bed she may be ascribed to, and it is dubious as to who her father really is.”
So the logic here is: It’s dubious who her father is, Thus you can marry her and have sex with her?!
Why not let the logic here be: It’s dubious who her father is, so it’s a good idea if you don’t marry her and have sex with her?!
This is what we don’t get sometimes dear respected readers. We are told these Imams are unassailable in their jurisprudence. Yet here you will have the Shafi’i school, which will make it forbidden to marry Jews and Christians based upon what they believe is dubious grounds for them actually being Jews and Christians; and yet, say it is permissible to marry one’s daughter if she is born out of wedlock!
We are told to approach this topic with a more ‘academic’ and ‘mature’ mindset. This is certainly true. We deal with proofs and evidences. Emotions are not the metric for truth. However, often these statements are made to simply table discussion of controversial matters. May Allah (swt) rectify our condition.
There are two points alone that should give pause to those who hold to this position of Imam Shafi’i.
#1 Modern DNA testing.
#2 Those places that do not have DNA testing available the very inconsistency of the qiyas -analogy applied is enough to refute it. As mentioned before, instead of the dubious nature of who her father is giving a green light for permission to for the marital bed, why not simply err on the side of caution and let there be a red light for this?
Some people will say, “How brazen! You really think you can do better than these imams?”
We believe they want us to do better than them. We also believe that the future of Muslims depends on us adding to their monumental contributions and leaving aside their conclusions that are flawed.
Also, according to the Sunni Muslims, if an Imam makes an ijithihad, and he is mistaken in that, he still gets a reward. That being said, reflect for a moment on how many words you speak in a day. What is the tally of words that you speak in a year? Now take that and multiply by 10 or 15 or 20 years. Do you really think that you have not said something you regret? Even people who are astute in their fields of science make mistakes. This does not take away from their dedication and their tireless efforts for the Muslim ummah.
If you do not feel we were just representing this opinion with in the Shafi’i school, please feel free to leave a comment. All corrections and/or additional information is welcomed.
With Allah (swt) is success!
If you are keen, perhaps the following articles may interest you.
The Ibadi school’s position on marrying Jews & Christians. Should we give preference to the Ahl Kitab over Muslim women?
“And do not marry polytheistic (l-mush’rikati) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men [to your women] until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite [you] to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
﷽
“And do not marry polytheistic (l-mush’rikati) women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite [you] to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)
This verse is known as ‘Aam. It is general. The ruling applies in all situations unless there is an exception made.
The exception to this ruling is the following verse:
“This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith – his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:5)
This above verse is khaas — It is specific. Notice the words: “This day” meaning before that it was not the case. This often happens in the Qur’an. There is a general ruling and there is either further restriction on a certain aspect or an allowance to the general ruling.
This specific verse also has a further specification in that this allowance is only given to Muslim men to marry the mushrik women from among the People of the Book. Whereas a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry the mushrik men from among the People of the Book.
Why this specific allowance? The Qur’an mentions the Torah and the Injeel. There are shared histories, prophets and beliefs about angels and so forth. The thinking is that the mushrik women from among the People of the Book will be moved by the compassion, love, protection, warmth and guidance given by the Muslim husband. Also, considering that in the situation where such a marriage would be allowed, the children would be Muslim by default, there should be little barrier for these mushrik from the Ahl Kitab to embrace Islam.
For example: Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah (May Allah be pleased with her) was a Christian whom, after marrying the Blessed Prophet (saw), converted to Islam, and she died upon the haqq!
However, note the warning by Allah (swt).
“And whoever denies the faith — his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” An understanding that this could go the other way. The mushrik woman may convince the man to leave his faith.
This is why it becomes all the more clear under which situations and circumstances the Ibadi school allows such marriages to take place.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who were kafara (ungrateful disbelievers [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate (yush’rikuna) with Him. They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the (ungrateful disbelievers) dislike it. It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religions, although those who associate others (l-mush’rikuna) with Allah dislike it. (Qur’an 9:29-33)
“Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly become ungrateful disbelievers. The Messiah ˹himself˺ said, “O Children of Israel! Worship Allah—my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever associates (yush’rik) others with Allah ˹in worship˺ will surely be forbidden Paradise by Allah. Their home will be the Fire. And the wrongdoers will have no helpers. Those who say, “Allah is one in a Trinity,” have certainly become ungrateful disbelievers.There is only One God. If they do not stop saying this, those who disbelieve among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 5:72-73)
Those slippery followers of Perennialism and Qur’an 5:5
“This day [all] good food have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith – his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:5)
Now, the slippery among those who follow perennialism have three choices here.
Tell us the sect/denomination of Christians today that would meet the acceptable criteria of “believers” and those upon true understanding of Allah, that would be acceptable in accordance with declarations made by the Qur’an. Those that would not meet with damnation because of their theological positions? Would they be Orthodox Christians? Catholic Christians? Protestant Christians? Perhaps Jehovah’s’ Witness and/or Unitarian Christians?
Admit that such Christians from Ahl Kitab are no longer existent and thus, this verse, as much as it applies to such Christians, is no longer operational.
Concede the point to the correct understanding that the Ibadi school has of the verses.
“And to warn those who claim, Allah has taken to Himself a son, a thing about which they have no knowledge, neither they nor their ancestors. Dreadful is the word that comes out of their mouths. What they utter is merely a lie.” (Qur’an 18:4-5)
Why warn those who claim this?
Because anyone who makes false claims about Allah (swt) will be brought for punishment.
“Allah has children. They are simply liars. Has He chosen daughters over sons? What is the matter with you? How do you judge? Will you not then be mindful? Or do you have any compelling proof? Then bring us your scripture, if what you say is true! They have also established a relationship between Him and the jinn. Yet, the jinn themselves know well that such people will certainly be brought for punishment. Glorified is Allah far above what they claim!” (Qur’an 37: 152-159)
Furthermore, as we explained in our article about the correct understanding if Allah (swt) forgives shirk or not we have shown the text that is relied upon is a reference to the Ahl Kitab.
“Surely Allah does not forgive associating (yush’raka)˹others˺ with Him ˹in worship˺, but forgives anything else of whoever He wills. Indeed, whoever (yush’rik) associates ˹others˺ with Allah has clearly gone far astray.” (Qur’an 4:116)
“Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating (yush’raka) others with Him ˹in worship˺, but forgives anything else of whoever He wills. And whoever (yush’rik) associates others with Allah has indeed committed a grave sin.” (Qur’an 4:48)
“O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down, confirming that which is with you, before We obliterate faces and turn them toward their backs or curse them as We cursed the sabbath-breakers. And ever is the decree of Allah accomplished. Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin. Have you not seen those who claim themselves to be pure? Rather, Allah purifies whom He wills, and injustice is not done to them, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed]. Look how they invent about Allah untruth, and sufficient is that as a manifest sin. Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture,who believe in superstition and false objects of worship and say about the disbelievers, “These are better guided than the believers as to the way”? (Qur’an 4:47-4:51)
This particular issue is one in which an orientalist and western academic made a mistake in regard to the jurisprudence of the Ibadi school. You can see our comment on that error here:
“The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers.” (Qur’an 24:3)
﷽
One of the known positions in the Ibadi schoolis that one cannot marry a person whom they have committed fornication or adultery with. Rather, those people who have done so are to be punished, banished and then only to marry among those who have committed similar acts.
Those who associate partners with Allah or worship other than Allah are to be married among themselves. Those Muslims who have committed adultery/fornication are to only marry those Muslims who have similarly committed acts of adultery/fornication. They are forbidden to marry the ones they have committed fornication/adultery with.
Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah.
The five necessities—religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property are defined.
This ruling would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage.
The following is a presentation put forward by our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui. -May Allah continue to bless him and benefit us by him.
If you notice, many English translations of this text seem convoluted. It gives the impression that if a Muslim man or woman committed fornication that they could marry an idol worshiper. Nothing can be further from the truth.
We do want to comment that we personally feel that all translations and translators of the Qur’an have failed to convey what Qur’an 24:3 means and we have yet to see a translation that translates the meaning accurately. We put this right up there with Qur’an 4:157 as the worst translated text that translations and translators have failed to convey.
One may see for themselves the disparate translations of Qur’an 24:3 here:
The major reason why we loath all translations of Qur’an 24:3 is that when you look at it:
“The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress.” It gives the impression that a Muslim male or female or committed fornication has two options for his/her future.
a) marry a believer who has done a similar offense.
b) marry a mushrik who has done a similar offense.
We would translate it as: “The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress.” The reason that the mushirk is put in this context is to show the level of disdain that Allah (swt) has for people who commit fornication.
Looking at the verse itself:
“T”The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress. This is all forbidden to the believers” (Qur’an 24:3)
The believer does not marry the mushrik
The believer who commits fornication marries only a believer that similarly has committed fornication.
What becomes very strange is how some will agree to point 1. They will say yes, a believer can never marry a mushrik. Yet, those same people will say, but a believer who has committed fornication can marry a believer who has not done such an act!
This is clearly inconsistent.
We wanted to comment on two sections of this article. The first is the following paragraph.
“There are cases where some men pursuing an illegal sexual relationship, trick and deceive women that resist their sexual advances. The most commonly deceptive trick used by these men is to entice women into fake marriage proposals in order to coerce an unlawful relationship with them. Many women, especially younger women, are duped by these men, so they accept and yield to their seduction only to realize later that it was an utter lie.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
“It is logically conceivable, therefore, that the legalization of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been an open invitation for committing adultery among young Muslim men and women. The permissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages has been the reason for moral corruption and carefree attitude among young people when it comes to sexual relationships. In such societies, men see no consequences for their conduct; and a gullible woman thinks she will be rewarded with marriage by succumbing to a pre-marriage sexual relationship. She will have no reason not to believe, since the society she lives in has accepted such marriages. Had the idea of the impermissibility of post-fornication and post-adultery marriages prevailed in Muslim societies and been entrenched in their culture, a Muslim woman would not have been taken advantage of: she could recognize a lie when she heard it. She could respond to it by saying that post-fornication and post-adultery marriages are not allowed in the Islamic religion. So the fact is that there will be no marriage between us after we engage in an illegal sexual relationship.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
Prima Qur’an comments:
The above paragraph are very sound in reasoning. Our respected teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui has made a very forceful argument.
“That is because each of the two partners, in such marriages, is most likely to doubt the other to be an adulterer, since as adulterers they found each other prior to their marriage. The fact that one spouse knows what mischief the other spouse is capable of doing can be utterly destructive to their mutual trust and mutual respect, and eventually to the marriage itself. Thus, it can be conclusively said that mutual trust and mutual respect lead to happiness and tranquility in any marriage. Conversely, the lack of trust and respect between spouses, which could be very much the result of their premarital mating, nourishes the meltdown of love and increases tension in the marriage.” -Shaykh Juma Muhammed al-Mazrui
Prima Qur’an comments:
Here we disagree with our respected teacher because the reasoning is not sound.
It is not explained how a person who has committed fornication/adultery and then marries another person who has similarly committed fornication/adultery would not suspect their spouse of mischief. After all, the reason they know they are able to marry each other is because of the very fact that both are equal for doing the same sin.
Meaning the only reason I have access to you for marriage is because you have been guilty of committing the exact same thing that I have been found guilty of.
Note — this is not an argument against the fiqh position; this is an argument against the use of rai’ (reason) that does not seem to follow through.
By limiting those who have committed fornication/adultery to marrying only those who have similarly done such things, it is one possible safety measure to stop the spread of sexual infectious diseases. Or, perhaps, to allow those who may have contracted an infectious sexual disease to enjoy the fruits of marriage and companionship among themselves.
The position is strong the practical implimentation is wanting.
This particular position in our school is very strong. We do not dispute this point. However, our school would struggle with practical implimentation of this ruling.
No one is saying that a person who committed fornication can never get married, but if the ruling is that they can only marry someone who has similarly committed fornication (not the one they did the deed with), how does this work?
Those in our school who hold this position there is a real disconnect here between the ruling and the practicality. This is especially true when we consider the following.
Islam does not encourage one to broadcast the sins that Allah (swt) has covered.
Islam allows for and encourages the safeguard of one’s honour.
A brother or sister does not necessarily approach friends or respected elders and say: “Excuse me, I have committed fornication. Do you have anyone among your friends or relatives that has committed fornication that is looking to get married?”
There is an encounter that was mentioned to me concerning Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h). He was in the middle of Oman and approached by a man from the Hanafi school. The man said, “Oh Shaykh, I have committed Zina and I really love this woman and I want her to be the mother of our children.” The Shaykh replied to the man: “May Allah give you better than her.”
Though it is not polite to say to the man’s face, we imagine that the Shaykh also thought: “May Allah give her better than you.”
Jabir reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
There is a remedy for every malady, and when the remedy is applied to the disease it is cured with the permission of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
Do note that this is a widely known position in the school. There are other voices in the Ibadi school that do not agree with the above position. If you are thinking of adopting the school or have questions on this matter, kindly consult a scholar of the school.
“But why do they come to you for judgment when they have the Torah containing Allah’s judgment, then they turn away after all? They are not believers.” (Qur’an 5:43)
“Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light, by which the prophets, who submitted themselves to Allah, made judgments for Jews. So too did the rabbis and scholars judge according to Allah’s Book, with which they were entrusted and of which they were made keepers. So do not fear the people; fear Me! Nor trade my revelations for a fleeting gain. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the disbelievers.” (Qur’an 5:44)
﷽
There is a very, very easy way to avoid the legal punishments for adultery in Islam. In fact, a person could live in a political entity in which punishments for committing adultery are enacted and never even have to worry about them at all.
It is very similar to living in a nation in which there are strict punishments for killing someone. The very easy way to avoid the repercussions and legal punishments is simply not to do the acts.
Can you imagine our opponents? “No, a man should have the right to cheat on his wife!” “No, a woman should have the right to cheat on her husband!”
Rather than discuss the sternness of the punishment, the discussion should really centre around questions of intelligence and decision-making.
Is cheating on your husband or wife a good decision or a bad decision?
Is cheating on your husband or wife an intelligent decision in a society where you could be stoned to death for such actions?
Is cheating on your husband or wife an intelligent decision when one has recourse to more wives (in the case of a man) or recourse to divorce (man and woman)?
Notwithstanding the Islamic legal punishment for adultery we read numerous reports across numerous countries, and cultures about the rash acts that husbands and or wives commit when they find that their partner has cheated on them.
Any search engine can pull up the latest murders, murder-cum-suicides and rage-fueled actions taken by those who felt betrayed by the man or woman most dear to them. Someone they never felt would betray them in such a manner.
So, before we even get to the punishment for adultery, an ideal Islamic society would have several measures and safeguards in check before an individual were to make unintelligent decisions.
One would be taught: Ad-Darooriyyat Al-Khams—The Five Basic Necessities that are protected and recognized by Islamic law-shari’ah.
This would fall under the category of: preservation of lineage.
Growing up in a strong family household with emphasis upon respect for oneself. Emphasis upon reverence to Allah (swt).
A strong emphasis upon proper interaction between the genders.
A strong emphasis upon the respect that is due to marriage and a strong desire not to cause discord between a wife and husband.
Understanding that sexuality is something sacred and intimacy can create strong bonds between two people.
Marriage is the completion of half of one’s Islam.
Marriage is the backbone upon which healthy communities and healthy socities are brought about.
That your spouse will be your partner through joy and hardships.
That such a relationship should be built upon trust and not lust.
The understanding that if one commits a major sin and does not repent from that sin and dies while in that state that one will be in an eternal agony far worse than any prescriptive punishment meted out by human beings on Earth.
The understanding that if one’s marriage is not working out that one has the recourse to divorce. Divorce can be a solution to a marriage which lacks love, intimacy, passion, friendship, companionship, mercy, trust, cooperation and depth.
That divorce is not a source of shame nor does one need to be stigmatized because of it.
Before we continue, let it be known to the reader that, under previous administration of this site, our brother was of the incorrect view that rajm (stoning) for adultery was not part of the Islamic penal code. He has publicly recanted and publicly repented from that position. May Allah (swt) forgive him and guide any who has been misled about this.
He held the position not because he had liberal or modernist leanings or tendencies. He held that position that rajm (stoning) for adultery was not part of the Islamic penal code because he believed that it was the strongest position based on the evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Thus the importance of taking knowledge from the learned.
He did not hold the position due to liberal or modernist leanings for three reasons.
He believes in the eternality of the hellfire for all who enter it. This is not a liberal or modernist position.
He believes in a penal punishment that we imagine could be more painful and excruciating than rajm (stoning) and that is to be ‘lifted up’ or impailed according to the Qur’an 5:33. He has informed us this was always his view.
He believed that, due to what he saw as the ambiguity of ‘rajm’ as a punishment, that he was following Qur’an 5:32 “Whoever saves a life it’s as if he saved the whole of mankind.”
Insh’Allah we link to his original article so people can see the evolution in his thought process.
So consider this article a self-refutation. A more learned primaquran refuting a less learned primaquran.
It is also our sincere hope that, at any point, we are mistaken in a position, or misrepresent the views of others that Allah (swt) guides us to the right action and the correct course.
Let us start with this insightful hadith concerning the Mother of the believers.
Narrated Yusuf bin Mahk:
While I was with Aisha, the mother of the Believers, a person from Iraq came and asked, “What type of shroud is the best?” `Aisha said, “May Allah be merciful to you! What does it matter?” He said, “O mother of the Believers! Show me (the copy of) your Qur’an,” She said, “Why?” He said, “In order to compile and arrange the Qur’an according to it, for people recite it with its Suras not in proper order.” `Aisha said, “What does it matter which part of it you read first? (Be informed) that the first thing that was revealed thereof was a Sura from Al-Mufassal, and in it was mentioned Paradise and the Fire. When the people embraced Islam, the Verses regarding legal and illegal things were revealed. If the first thing to be revealed was: ‘Do not drink alcoholic drinks.’ people would have said, ‘We will never leave alcoholic drinks,’ and if there had been revealed, ‘Do not commit illegal sexual intercourse, ‘they would have said, ‘We will never give up illegal sexual intercourse.’ While I was a young girl of playing age, the following Verse was revealed in Mecca to Muhammad: ‘Nay! But the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense), and the Hour will be more grievous and more bitter.’ (54.46) Sura Al-Baqara (The Cow) and Surat An-Nisa (The Women) were revealed while I was with him.” Then `Aisha took out the copy of the Qur’an for the man and dictated to him the Verses of the Suras (in their proper order)
This insightful hadith teaches us that the priority of teaching Muslims was not given to the penal aspect of Islamic law. Rather, when one looks at which verses are said to have first to the Blessed Prophet (saw), priority is given to establishing faith in Allah, believing in the life to come. The promise of heaven and the promise of hellfire.
The punishment for sexual impropriety in the early days of Islam was a temporary light punishment because people were from the days of ignorance and were new to following a moral code that called them to a higher standard of behavior. This is indicated by the hadith where Aisha (ra) spoke about the matter.
The way of Allah (swt) with the early Muslim community in legislation was to guide the nation gradually, by which is more successful in treatment, wiser in application, and easier for the souls to accept with satisfaction and reassurance, as we saw in the prohibition of alcohol and usury, and other Shariah rulings.
Faahish in Islam is an immoral act, either done by mouth, meaning to say something immoral, or it is done by action of the body to do something immoral. It means something that exceeds the limit. Something excessive.
The punishment for an unspecified type of Faahishah: (Anything short of fornication or adultery)
The punishment in the early days of Islam was as given by Allah (swt) in the following:
“As for those of your women who are accused of committing a (fāḥishata) immoral deed, call four witnesses from among you, and if they testify to their guilt, keep the women at home until death comes to them or until Allah shows them another way. Punish both of the guilty parties, but if they both repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. Allah is always ready to accept repentance. He’s the Mercy Giver.” (Qur’an 4:15)
So, the punishment for an unspecified type of immorality (fahishata) for a woman was confinement in the house and not allowing her to go out. The punishment for an unspecified type of immorality (fahishata) for the man was reproach and scolding with harsh words. In the early days of Islam, Muslims did not have jails or prison complexes. The home was an efficient holding facility.
However, from the above text (Qur’an 4:15) this is where the practice and basis of establishing such acts via four witnesses comes from.
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Fornication.
The following verse of the Qur’an came by way of takhsees(specification) for a particular type of sexual impropriety, namely fornication.
“(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving them) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement. The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.” (Qur’an 24:2-3)
It is very clear that the above verses are not talking about married couples. This can be seen from the text: “The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress.” Meaning the default is they are unmarried.
We do want to comment that we personally feel that all translations and translators of the Qur’an have failed to convey what Qur’an 24:3 means and we have yet to see a translation that translates the meaning accurately. We put this right up there with Qur’an 4:157 as the worst translated text that translations and translators have failed to convey.
One may see for themselves the disparate translations of Qur’an 24:3 here:
The major reason why we loath all translations of Qur’an 24:3 is that when you look at it:
“The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress.” It gives the impression that a Muslim male or female or committed fornication has two options for his/her future.
a) marry a believer who has done a similar offense.
b) marry a mushrik who has done a similar offense.
We would translate it as: “The fornicator marries none but the fornicator and the idolater marries none but the idolatress.” The reason that the mushirk is put in this context is to show the level of disdain that Allah (swt) has for people who commit fornication.
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Adultery.
Islamic law differentiates between the hadd for a non-married person by flogging for 100 hundred lashes and intensifying the punishment for the married person by making it stoning to death. This is because the crime of adultery after marriage is more severe and graver in Islam’s view.
The rest of the explanation deals with the rationale behind these punishments, their legitimacy, and how they are derived from Islamic law.
As regards flogging (lashing), it has been firmly established by the explicit Quranictext:
“(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes.”
That verse refers to the punishment for someone who is (non-muhsan) not married.
As regards rajm (stoning), it has been established by the implicit Quranic text as well as the explicit Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw)
The implicit textual evidence of the Qur’an is as follows:
“But why do they come to you for judgment when they have the Torah containing Allah’s judgment, then they turn away after all? They are not believers.” (Qur’an 5:43)
The only reason why this group of Jews would go to the Blessed Prophet (saw) is because they were hoping for a lighter judgement than what was already established among them.
They were familiar with the penal code on general Faahishah and specific Faahishah: fornication they were hoping that the Blessed Prophet (saw) had something light for them in regard to those who committed adultery.
All the commentators in regard to the asbab an nuzul of this verse point to a group of Jews who went to see if they would get a judgement other than what was in the Torah.
We also have numerous hadith to this effect.
“When they have the Torah containing Allah’s judgment.”
“We have revealed to you this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires over the truth that has come to you. ” (Qur’an 5:48)
Those who maintain that the punishment for adultery is the same as those who are unmarried—namely, 100 lashes would have to come to terms with the following powerful contention:
There is no manuscript evidence from any Torah from the time of the Blessed Prophet (saw), or before him that the punishment for adultery was anything other than rajm (stoning).
The other powerful point that the detractors would have to deal with is the fact that the statement in the Qur’an: “But why do they come to you for judgment?” has been related on account of nothing other than the Jews coming to the Blessed Prophet (saw) over an incident of adultery.
Abū ‘Ubayda narrated from Jābir that ‘Ibn ‘Umar said: “The Jews went to the Prophet (saw), to tell him that a man and a woman of their community had committed adultery. The Prophet,(saw), said: “What does the torah say about stoning?” They said: “They must be branded and inflicted with the punishment of the whip.” ‘Abd Allah ‘Ibn Salām said to them: “You lie, it says that they should be stoned. Bring the torah and let’s check.” We brought the torah. One of the Jews got his hands on the stoning passage and read what preceded that passage and what followed it. ‘Abd Allah ‘Ibn Salām said to him: “Take away your hand.” Once the hand was raised, we found the passage relating to stoning. At this time, the Jews said: “It is true, O Muḥammed, there is a passage on stoning.” The two culprits were then stoned by order of the Prophet, (saw). ‘Ibn ‘Umar said: “I then saw the man leaning over the woman to protect her from the stones being thrown at them.”
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) passed by a Jew with a blackened face who had been flogged. He called them and said: ‘Is this the punishment for the adulterer that you find in your Book?’ They said: ‘Yes.’ Then he called one of their scholars and said: ‘I adjure you by Allah (SWT) Who sent down the Tawrah (Torah) to Musa! ‘Is this the punishment for the adulterer that you find in your Book?’ He said: ‘No; if you had not adjured me by Allah (SWT), I would not have told you. The punishment for the adulterer that we find in our Book is stoning, but many of our nobles were being stoned (because of the prevalence of adultery among them), so if we caught one of our nobles (committing adultery), we would let him go; but if we caught one of the weak among us, we would carry out the punishment on him. We said: “Come, let us agree upon something that we may impose on both noble and weak alike.” So we agreed to blacken the face and whip them, instead of stoning.’ The Prophet (saw) ‘O Allah (SWT), I am the first of those who revive your command which they had killed off,’ and he issued orders that (the man) be stoned.”
Notice what the man said about passing over the punishment among the nobles and imposing it upon the weak.
Recall the following hadith:
Narrated `Aisha:
Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”
Now this becomes very interesting when we later turn our attention to Qur’an 4:25 where in Islam, the weak and the poor are given lesser punishments than the rich and the powerful.
The mission of the blessed Prophet (saw) is to clarify, as Allah says:
“So that you may explain to the people what was revealed to them.” (Qur’an 16:44).
The explanation and clarification provided by the Blessed Prophet (saw) suffice to detail and elucidate the general meaning of the Quran!
As for stoning, it has been established by the actions, sayings of the Blessed Prophet (saw), as well as by the consensus of the Companions and their followers.
Authentic narrations that leave no room for doubt have confirmed this, and it has been transmitted through reliable sources that the Blessed Prophet (saw) implemented the punishment of stoning on some Companions, such as Ma’iz and the woman from the tribe of Ghamid. The Caliphs/Imams after him continued to enforce this punishment during their rule, repeatedly announcing that stoning is the prescribed punishment for adultery after marriage.
Islamic scholars in every era and region have unanimously agreed that this ruling is a well-established, followed Sunnah and a definitive divine law, supported by abundant evidence that leaves no room for doubt or skepticism. This ruling has remained in place until our time, with no one dissenting except for what has been claimed concerning certain groups from among the Kharijites, who claimed that stoning is not prescribed. The fallacy of their argument will be clarified below:
The truth is that this is found in the books of their opponents, and there are no known books of theirs now. So we cannot be certain whether they made this statement or not.
In this link, you will find a book by the respected scholar, Shaykh (Abu Is’haq) Ibrahim Attfayish (hafidhullah),who explained that the Kharijites do not deny stoning, but they have an interpretation which you will find in the book. Here is the link:
“This matter, according to me, is not as many think it is; some non-Ibadi Muslims’ claim that Khawarij reject stoning is an insinuation. This claim backfires on them because they narrated a verse that states “if an old man and old woman commit adultery, stone them as a punishment from Allah and Allah is Almighty All-Wise” was recited in the Holy Quran in Al-Ahzab but was eaten by a goat. Based on this false narration, an imperfection has occurred in the Qur’an. This terrible error will always accompany them despite their claims that its recitation is being abrogated while its ruling remains in effect! However, our Ibadi scholars say that stoning is not prescribed in the Holy Qur’an but in the hadith. Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Hujjah Ar-Rabi bin Habeeb narrated in his Sahih that Imam Jabir bin Zaid said, “Istinja, circumcision, witr and stoning are obligatory Sunnah.” -Shaykh Attfayish (h).
The opponents of stoning or rajm have four basic arguments.
Argument 1: They said stoning or rajm is the severest of punishments; if it were legitimate, it would have been mentioned in the Quran. Since it is not mentioned, this indicates that it is not legitimate.
Argument 2: The punishment for a female slave is half that of a free woman as we find here:
“They should receive half the punishment of free [unmarried] women.” (Qur’an 4:25) Since stoning cannot be halved, it cannot be the prescribed punishment for a free woman.
Argument 3: The ruling in the verse is general for all adulterers, and specifying the (married adulterer) is contrary to the Quran.
Response to these arguments:
Response to argument 1: As mentioned, the absence of stoning in the Qur’an is only by way of explicit evidence and not by implicit evidence as has already shown. Plus the historical, archeological and manuscript evidence of what the prescribed punishment in the Torah was/is.
The absence of stoning in the Quran does not indicate its illegitimacy. Many legal rulings are not mentioned in the Quran but are explained by the Sunnah. Allah has commanded us to follow the Blessed Prophet (saw) and adhere to his orders:
“And whatever the Messenger has given you — take; and what he has forbidden you — refrain from.” (Qur’an 59:7)
The Blessed Prophet (saw) conveys on behalf of Allah Almighty, and everything he brought is by divine revelation:
“Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is but a revelation revealed.” (Qur’an 53:3-4)
How can stoning be considered illegitimate when the Blessed Prophet (saw) implemented it, and his Companions did so as well, as he clarified this through his words and actions?
Furthermore, the Quran explains the mission of the Blessed Prophet (saw) in the verse:
“And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” (Qur’an 16:44)
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Adultery of Malakat Aymanukum
“So marry them, with their people’s leave, and give them their wages honourably as women in wedlock, not as in licentious or taking lovers. But when they are in wedlock, if they commit indecency (bifahishatin), they shall be liable to half the chastisement of freewomen. That provision is for those of you who fear fornication; yet it is better for you to be patient. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”(Qur’an 4:25)
This indicates that the intended punishment here is flogging, not stoning, as indicated by the halving of the punishment. Allah knows that stoning cannot be halved, as it is impossible for people to half-kill a person. Therefore, reason and sound understanding suggest that the punishment mentioned here is flogging, not stoning.
A married female slave is flogged fifty lashes, while a free, unmarried woman is flogged one hundred lashes. The reason for this leniency towards the female slave compared to the free woman is that the crime committed by the free woman is more heinous and detestable, as she is less likely to be tempted and is further removed from the cause of immorality, whereas the female slave is weaker in resisting it. Therefore, Allah, in His mercy, reduced her punishment.
Regarding the evidence that stoning cannot be halved, you will find more on this in the book “Tafsir Ayat Al-Ahkam” (2/19) by Shaykh Muhammed bin Ali Al-Sabuni.
Notice that in Islam the punishment for the weak and the poor, in this example, is less than for the powerful and wealthy. Recall the hadith narrated by Aisha (ra):
“The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich.”
Also, recall the exchange the Jews had with the Blessed Prophet (saw):
“The punishment for the adulterer that we find in our Book is stoning, but many of our nobles were being stoned (because of the prevalence of adultery among them), so if we caught one of our nobles (committing adultery), we would let him go; but if we caught one of the weak among us, we would carry out the punishment on him.”
That is why, in our school, the punishments for adultery and pre-marital sex are meted out like so:
Free Woman/Man that are married =Rajm.
Free Woman/Man that are unmarried =100 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that are married =50 lashes.
Slave Woman/Man that is unmarried = Taazir.
A tazir punishment is when there is nothing explicit from the Qur’an or Sunnah. It is discretionary. It could be corporeal in nature, it could be harsh words of admonishment.
Recall the meaning of Faahish.
Faahish in Islam is an immoral act, either done by mouth, meaning to say something immoral, or it is done by action of the body to do something immoral. It means something that exceeds the limit. Something excessive.
Thus, they differ in degree and severity.
Response to argument 3:
The claim that the ruling is general and specifying it is contrary to the Quran is complete ignorance. Don’t we see that many rulings came in general terms and were specified by the Sunnah?
For example, the verse:
“As for the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands.” (Qur’an 5:38)
This statement is general and includes all thieves, even if the theft is of something insignificant (trivial). According to their claim, we would have to cut off the hand of someone who steals a penny or a needle, even though the Sunnah specified and limited this ruling to a quarter dinar or its equivalent value of ten dirhams.
Similarly, the verse:
“And your mothers who nursed you, and your sisters through nursing.” (Qur’an 4:23)
This only mentions the prohibition of the mother and sister through nursing, while the Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that nursing forbids all the relationships that blood does. Hence, according to their argument, the prohibition of (a daughter through nursing) would contradict the Qur’an. The Qur’an prohibits marrying two sisters simultaneously, so anyone who says it is forbidden to marry a woman and her maternal or paternal aunt should be judged as contradicting the Qur’an
Unfortunately, some of the jurists and some of the schools have obfuscated this matter for the people so that they remain in a state of confusion about these matters.
All four types of punishments in regard to the different types of Faahish remain valid should the need arise. None of them are abrogated!
The punishment for an unspecified type of Faahishah: Confinement in homes. (Qur’an 4:15)
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Fornication. 100 lashes. (Qur’an 24:2-3)
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Adultery. Stoning for free married persons. (Qur’an 5:43)
The punishment for a specific type of Faahishah: Adultery of Malakat Aymanukum 50 lashes for the malakat aymanukum and discretionary “punishment” for the Malakat Aymankum who is unmarried. (Qur’an 4:25)
When we look at the four above. We can see that none of these can be enacted where Islam is in a state of Kitman. Where Islam is in a state of Zuhur (Manifestation), may Allah (swt) grant guidance and justice to the people of those lands.
MISUNDESTANDINGS REGARDING UMAR IBN AL KHATTAB (RA) AND FLAT LIES ATTRIBUTED TO HIM IN REGARD TO RAJM (STONING)
The following is correctly attributed to Umar bin Al Khattab (ra)
Umar bin Al-Khattab said:
“Verily Allah sent Muhammed (saw) with the truth, and he revealed the Book to him. Among what was revealed to him was the Ayah of stoning (Qur’an 5:43). So the Messenger of Allah (saw) stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that time will pass over the people such that someone will say ‘We do not see stoning in the Book of Allah.‘ They will be misguided by leaving an obligation which Allah revealed. Indeed, stoning is the retribution for the adulterer if he was married and the evidence has been established, or due to pregnancy, or confession.”
What Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) means is similar to the following hadith:
It was narrated that ‘Abdulleh said:
“The Messenger of Allah cursed the woman who does tattoos and the one who has them done, and those who pluck their eyebrows and file their teeth for the purpose of beautification, and those who change the creation of Allah.” News of that reached a woman of Banu Asad who was called Umm Ya’qub. She went to him and said: “I have heard that you said such and such.” He said: ‘Why should I not curse those whom the Messenger of Allah cursed ? And it is in the Book of Allah.” She said: “I read what is between its two covers ‘and I have not found that.” He said: “If you read it properly you would have found it. Have you not read the words: ‘And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammed) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it).’?” She said: “Of course.” He said: ‘The Messenger of Allah forbade that.” She said: ‘I think that your wife does it.’ He said: “Go and look.” So she went and looked, and she did not see what she wantedShe said: “I have not seen anything!’ ‘Abdullah said: “If she was as you say, I would not have kept her with me. “
This is what Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) was referencing when he said that it (stoning) was mentioned in the Qur’an in the way the companion mentioned (plucking the eyebrows) was mentioned in the Qur’an.
The following is incorrectly attributed to Umar bin Al Khattab (ra)
‘Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned. If I didn’t dislike that I add to the Book of Allah. I would have written it in the Mushaf, for I fear that there will come a people and they will not find it in the Book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it.”
Now this is either incorrectly attributed to Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) or it is very possible that when we read this we are missing the point!
It cannot be that Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) meant to write down something as if it was the Qur’an! This is clear from the following verse:
“So woe to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from Allah”—seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned.” (Qur’an 2:79)
Thus, the statement:
“If I didn’t dislike that I add to the Book of Allah. I would have written it in the Mushaf.”
It is a reference to Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) writing his own personal commentary or notes to (Qur’an 5:43) or that Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) was speaking in hyperbole. That is possible as well, because we all know he ended up not writing it down.
a note about the four witnesses need four stoning.
They all four must have witnessed the actual act of penetration. Simply catching a man and woman naked would not suffice.
The four witnesses must be mentally sound. They cannot be small children, for example; or those who have not reached the age of puberty.
There are discussions about people who wear too much kohl, if it causes blurry vision.
Lastly: the very easy way to avoid the repercussions and legal punishments is simply not to do the acts! Don’t cheat on your wife! Don’t cheat on your husband! If the marriage is so lacking in passion and intimacy that you feel the urge to cheat, then seek a dissolution of the marriage. Otherwise, you are playing with fire, both literally and metaphorically speaking.
“The Khawarij [Kharijites] were groups of people who appeared at the time of Al-Tabieen and those who came after them. Their leaders were Nafi’a bin Al Azraq, Najdah bin Aamir, Abdul-Allah bin Al-Asfer and their followers. They were given this name because of their radical approach of accusing others of unbelief, which set them apart from the truth and the Muslim community. For Khawarij, a sinner was a heretic whom it was permissible to kill and whose properties could be despoiled. This false accusation was all based on their misinterpretation of the A1mighty’s words: “If you were to obey them, you would indeed be heretics”, (Qur’an 6:121).“
“They claimed that this verse meant if you obey heretics in eating carrion, you will be deemed one of them. However, the correct understanding of this verse is that those who make carrion lawful are heretics.”
“When the news reached Imam Al-Rabi bin Habeeb bin Amr Al-Basri Al-Farahidi Al-Ibadhi, the author of Al-Musnad As-Sahih, (r), he said: “Leave them until they apply what they say. If they do so, we will apply Allah’s ruling on them”. Thus, when their wrong innovations [bid’ah] became apparent, and they applied their incorrect and dangerous doctrines, and started killing Muslims, the Ibadis declared their dissociation from them, expelled them from their meetings and fought them in different places. Ibadis announced, based on clear and assertive verses from the Qur’an, that Khawarij were Kufaar [unbelievers] for they permitted what Allah forbade.“
“Omanis, for example, stood with Al-Muhalab to confront the Khawarij armies. (For more information see Al-Kamil written by Al-Mubarad). The famous Umayyad Azdi Omani warrior, Al-Muhallab bin Abi Sufrah, took the responsibility of suppressing this group and motivating people to fight them. However, to give a stronger motive for fighting the Khawarij, Al-Muhallab started creating fabricated hadith against the Khawarij. This doubled the crisis of the Khawarij as not only many Muslims were killed, but also, fabricated hadiths were made up. Because these groups of Khawarij were against arbitration, Ibadis who were against it as well were falsely and unjustly attached to them.”
However, this unjust attachment can be refuted as follows:
“Ibadis do not approve of the ruling of tyrant kings. For them, it is a must that the Caliph should follow the steps of the rightly guided Caliphs, among them Abu Bakr and Umar. This was clearly stated by the Prophet (saw) as he said in an authentic hadith, “Follow the examples of those who came after me, Abu Baker and Umar.” When the hadith was narrated concerning Ammar bin Yasir, (r), “you’ll be killed by the transgressing party”, it was used by the opponents of arbitration as well as the other party. Although its authenticity was confirmed by both parties, Mu’awiyah’s group interpreted it in a way that twists the reality in their favor.”
“Second, driven by their desires, many people claim that the people of Al-Nahrwan rebelled against Ali. This is an unsound claim, for Ibadis had insisted that Ali should stay as the Caliph of the Muslims.”
“However, when he accepted arbitration, they freed themselves from the allegiance because they didn’t see any point in negotiating his right as an elected Caliph by Muslims. His concession to the arbitration with Mu’awiyah’s group means that his election was questioned; therefore, they elected their own Caliph.“
“The Caliph they chose was among the most pious companions of the Prophet (saw). This person was none other than Abdul-Allah bin Wahab Ar-Rasbi Al-Azdi. When Wahab was elected, Ibadis asked their brothers, including Imam Ali, to give allegiance to the newly chosen Imam. However, Ali bin Abi Talib saw that allegiance was given to Azdi, a non-Qurashi, so he fought them before they could get any stronger and thus, the Quraish would lose the Imamate. This was the only reason for the Battle of Al-Nahrawan. Ali’s attack upon the people of Nahrawan was politically motivated.”
“In Dawmat Al-Jandel, Mu’awiyah took the Caliphate after the negotiation of the two arbitrators, Amr bin Alas and Abu Musa Al’Ash’ari. Consequently, Ali debated with and asked Wahab’s group to fight Mu’awiyah and his followers once more, but by this time it was too late as they were free from their allegiance to him. Ibadis didn’t elect a new Caliph, until the result of arbitration appeared. What they warned against happened, for arbitration was hatched by Al’Ash’ath bin Qais, who was put into Ali’s group by Mu’awiyah.”
Prima Qur’an comments: For those who do not know, Abu Bakr (ra) made the following statement:
But the three things I did not do and wish I had: the first is that when Al-Ash’ath bin Qais was brought to me in captivity, I wish I had struck his neck, because I suspect he will enforce evil wherever he finds it; and the other one is that I wish when I sent Khalid Bin Waleed to the battle of the apostates I had remained at Zil Qissah so that I could help the army if they were defeated; and the third one, I wish that when I delegated Khalid to Sham I had sent Omar to Iraq so that I had opened my two hands in the cause of Allah.
Then he opened his hands and added:
I wish I had asked the Messenger of Allah (saw)that to whom the caliphate belonged, so that nobody would go to war on it; and I wish I had asked him did Ansar have any right in this matter; and I wish I had asked him if the the brother’s daughter and the father’s sister would inherit anything [from the deceased], because I’m not sure about it.
Source: (Târîkh Tabarî, v 3 p 429 ; Târîkh Ya’qûbî, v 2 p 137)
Shaykh Attfayish continues…
“Thus, it is not as claimed by falsifiers of history and extreme sectarians that the Battle of Al-Nahrawan happened because of a rebellion against Ali. On the contrary, they did not leave his group when his allegiance was valid. Therefore, people looking for the truth should be aware of making a mistake in this regard, as it is apparent that desires are pervasive among such people.”
“Third, the name Khawarij didn’t appear until the spread of Azariqah’s movement. Thus, the people of Al-Nahrwan were not described as Khawarij. We challenge such claimants to bring forth their evidence.”
“The first use of this name was by Mu’awiyah, using it against one of his visitors from the people of Mu’awiyah, Al-Ahnaf bin Qais. He said to him, “Why do people admire you when they know that you are from Khawarij?” Al-Ahnaf replied, “If people had found water bad, they wouldn’t have drunk it.” Mu’awiyah meant here those who refused to accept him as Caliph (see Al-Amali by Abdu Ali Al-Qali).”
“Was Mu’awiyah’s accusation of Al-Ahnaf as being Khariji because Al-Ahnaf was with the people fought by Ali in the Battle of Al-Nahrwan? Or was it because he did not pledge allegiance to Mu’awiyah? If it were because of the former reason, Mu’awiyah’s party would have been more eligible for this description as he was the one who fought against Ali on the Day of Siffin and freed himself of Ali’s allegiance, knowing that he was given allegiance by prominent companions and his allegiance must be followed by all Muslims.”
“Fourth, Ibadis have never fought against any monotheists [Muslims], even when AI-Hajjaj and Ziyad bin Abeeh got tough on Muslims based on their own doubts. However, they were rebelled against by a group called At-Tawwabun (The Penitents) headed by great scholars like Saeed bin Jubair and Ibrahim A’Nakh’i. Later, Al-Hajjaj killed Saeed bin Jubair, who was a scholar in the interpretation of the Qur’an. What was surprising was that this big group of scholars who took up the sword against the horrible injustice done by Al-Hajjaj were not called Khawarij, but they were called At-Tawaboon [the people of repentance]. They were all carriers of knowledge who died in the fighting. Certainly, a mind is stunned because of such a tragedy, yet many readers overlook it.”
“However, those who scrutinize history objectively will find out that the word Khawarij was unjustly given to Ibadis because they only believed that the Imamate [Caliphate] should not be restricted to the tribe of Quraish.”
“This position is the right of whoever is elected by Muslims to lead them, because it is clearly unwise to accept that Allah places the leadership of all humankind in the hands of only one tribe irrespective of whether it does right or wrong. Common sense supports what Ibadis believe on this issue, and how they have used this belief to interpret the hadith that “the Imams are from Quraish.” It is a kind of arrogance and avoidance of the truth to claim that leadership is restricted to the Quraish.”
“Even the supporters [Ansar] of the Blessed Prophet (saw), who understood his teachings, said to Abu Bakr, “A leader from us and a leader from you.” With the same token, the reply of Abu Bakr was as follows: “Leaders are from us, and ministers are from you as Arabs are subservient to this tribe” does not support the restriction of the Caliphate Quraish. He justified it with Arabs being subservient to the Quraish but not for any other reason as claimed by people of political and sectarian desires. Would nations of different races accept being driven by a man from Quraish only because of his tribe?! It is unlikely.”
“Fifth: Ibadis desire justice to disseminate the application of the Quran and Sunna, and to follow the political paradigm of rightly guided Caliphs whether the person in charge is Qurashi, Habashi [Ethiopian], Arab, or non-Arab, as it was narrated in sound hadiths.“
Prima Qur’an comments: For more on this please see our article:
“This is why they accepted the leadership of Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, and they sent a group of six great Ibadi scholars, J’afer bin A’Simak, Abu AlHur Ali bin AlHusain Al’Anbri, AlHattat bin Kateb, AlHabab bin Kulaib, Abu Suyan Qanber AlBasri, and Salim bin Thakwan among other unnamed scholars, but these were the names I came across, may Allah have his mercy upon them all. “
“Non-Ibadi historians mentioned these delegates to Umar bin Abdul-Aziz, though they said with their usual insinuation: “The Khawarij sent him a delegation.” However, they did not mention what happened between them and the Caliph Umar and his acceptance of all their suggestions about spreading justice and purging the country of the Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali from the pulpit. The Ibadi delegation said to Umar, “Muslims are cursing from pulpits in mosques, so this evil tradition must be changed.” Thus, Umar replaced it with the words of Allah: “Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that you remember.” (Qur’an 16: 90)“
Prima Qur’an comments: For more on this please see our article here:
Often we hear this in our Friday Prayers during the Khutbah. At the council of these Ibadi luminaries in place of cursing Ali at the pulpit we get the following:
“Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that you remember.” (Qur’an 16: 90)“
What it Orders:
Al-‘Adl (Justice): This is the foundation of all social interactions, governance, and even personal conduct. It means giving everyone their due rights and being fair.
Al-Ihsan (Goodness/Excellence): This goes beyond mere justice. It is to do good, to be kind, generous, and to perform acts of excellence in worship and dealings with others, as if you are seeing Allah.
Ita’i Dhi al-Qurba (Giving to Relatives): This emphasizes maintaining family ties, fulfilling the rights of kin, and treating them with extra kindness and financial support if needed.
What it Forbids:
Al-Fahsha’ (Immorality/Shameful Deeds): This includes all major sins and lewd behavior.
Al-Munkar (Bad Conduct/Evil): All that is recognized by sound human nature and scripture as wrong and objectionable.
Al-Baghy (Oppression/Transgression): Wronging others, tyranny, and exceeding the limits set by Allah.
Shaykh Attfayish continues…
“Despite this, many historians still do not admit the good that Ibadis have done to this Ummah [Muslim nation]. Blindly, they overlook many incidents that prove how Ibadis were always there defending justice and truth and fighting injustice with words not swords, as was done by Abdul-Allah bin Ibadh, with Abdul-Malik bin Marwan and Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Hudair as well as Ziyad bin Abeeh.”
“They have never accepted that it is permissible to shed blood among Muslims or lawful to despoil their properties. Ibadis have always believed in freedom of choice and opinions, as everyone is accountable for what he/ she has. They were unlike others who used the sword to establish their states or to force people to follow their sects. Ibadis gave people the freedom of expression and the freedom to choose their sects, for there is no compulsion in religion. For Ibadis, truth is acceptable from whoever brings it, and falsehood is returned to whoever brings it.”
“Thus, Ibadism is the only sect that grants a slave freedom once he/ she agrees with his/her lord, even if s/he does not pay the full price of his/her freedom. The remaining amount is a debt the slave must pay later. This shows how Ibadis were ahead of others in understanding the essence of Shari’ah [Islamic Law].”
Prima Qur’an comments: Let us elaborate more on this point.
The Ibadi Position vs. Other Schools
The Ibadi View: The Ibadi school holds that the mere agreement between the master and the slave on the terms of the kitabah is sufficient to enact the contract and grant the slave a new legal status as a mukatab. The payment of the money is not a precondition for the contract’s validity but becomes a debt to be paid afterwards. This means freedom begins with the agreement, not with the final payment.
The Majority Sunni View (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali): The prevailing view in the four major Sunni schools is that the contract is not binding until the first installment is paid. They argue that the kitabah is a contract of sale (of one’s freedom) and, like any sale, requires an exchange of value at the time of agreement to be valid. Therefore, if the slave has no money to make an initial payment, the master is under no obligation to grant the contract.
Why This Difference Matters: “Ahead in Understanding the Essence of Shari’ah”
Ibadis were ahead in understanding the essence of Shari’ah is astute. Here’s why this legal opinion is considered so progressive and aligned with the spirit of Islamic law:
Primacy of Freedom: The Ibadi position places the ultimate objective—freeing a human being—above the commercial formalities of the contract. It prioritizes a person’s liberty immediately upon mutual agreement.
Practicality and Empowerment: It provides a practical path to freedom for those who have no means to make a down payment. By allowing the debt to be incurred after the fact, it empowers the enslaved person to go out, work, and earn the money as a free person, which is psychologically and economically much more feasible than trying to save while still enslaved.
Reducing Barriers: The majority view creates a significant barrier for the poorest slaves. The Ibadi interpretation removes this barrier, making the Islamic directive of facilitating freedom more accessible to all, regardless of their current financial state.
Emphasis on Goodwill and Trust: The ruling is built on the principle of trust and goodwill (husn al-dhann) between the master and the slave, encouraging a merciful and cooperative relationship rather than a purely transactional one.
Shaykh Attfayish continues…
“By mentioning Khawarij’s hideous actions, it has become clear that Ibadis do not have any connection with Khawarij. These differences between Ibadis and Khawarij have become clear for just those non-Ibadi intellectuals who realized the truth and admitted it, for returning to the truth is an obligation and a great virtue.”
“Sixth, Ibadis allow intermarriages between them and all other monotheists, while Khawarij do not because the Khawarij see others as polytheists [heretics] — as explained before. Based on this, they also do not allow inheritance between them and those who disagree with them because heresy that prevents intermarriage prevents inheritance as well. So, did the falsifiers of history turn a blind eye to these differences?”
“That is what a person sees when turning the pages of history in the records and books of other Muslims [non-Ibadis] who have not learned from what Allah says in the Holy Quran: “And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear on themselves the crime of slander and plain sin” (Qur’an 33: 58).“
“Allah says: “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do”, (Qur’an 5:8).“
“Indeed, a Muslim gets bewildered by those calumniators on the People of Truth and Straightness, (The lbadis). How dare they say those things for no other reason than for their hidden desires. We seek refuge with Allah from following desires and denying the truth. Do they not know that they would meet Allah with this slander? Or is it their belief that leaving Hell Fire has eased everything for the sake of following desires?”
“Seventh, Ibadis have turned their efforts to serve Islam through knowledge and practice since the Fitnah started. They were the first to write down the hadith of the Prophet; our Imam, Jabir bin Zaid (ra), was the first to write down the hadith and the Blessed Prophet (saw) of the companions’ sayings in his Diwan [volumes of books] which was described to be as large as a load of a camel. Then after him, his students, carriers of knowledge to the east and the west, followed his steps.”
“The Khawarij practiced bloodshed, terrified the people and abolished the rulings of Islam. None of the Khawarij were known to have written a book and those who are attributing books to Khawarij mean Ibadis. Undoubtedly, they want to distort the Ibadis’ repute through this obfuscation.”
“The same thing is said about the Sufriya, Azariqah, and Najdiyah; they did not care about the narrations of the Blessed Prophet (saw) or writing down hadith except a narration by Najdah bin Amer who narrated one hadith and Nafe bin Al-Azraq who had questions addressed to Ibn Abbas, yet this is not the place to mention them. Rather, the Khawarij were concerned about warring rather than the compilation and narration of knowledge. All those who were mentioned as scholars of Khawarij by other non-Ibadi Muslims were in fact Ibadi scholars!”
“Our ancestors [Ibadis] came with wonders in recording knowledge, and they were well known for their piety, trustworthiness, and honesty to a status none but them attained. Therefore, some non-Ibadi Muslim writers resorted to distorting the facts with false and promiscuous propaganda when they were shocked by those bright lights. They did not mix Ibadis with Khawarij except to blur the lines of truth in envy.”
“How would a person who has taken distortions as his principles and whose insight has gone blind admit to the truth?! You find that those false writers would never mention our companions [Ibadis] with any good virtue even when they were to be mentioned. Rather, they would ignore their greatness in knowledge and religious perfection. Indeed, I have come across some books on history and literature in which there must have been a mention of our companions [Ibadis] as to what they have contributed. Yet, with no piety, those authors ignored them as if they did not exist. This is a transgression and indulgence in blurring the truth that you never find with our companions [Ibadis]. Praise be to Allah, the Most High, the Most Great.”
“Eighth, when our Muslim brothers [non-Ibadis] recorded history, and they mentioned our companions [Ibadis], they failed to tell the truth. Instead, they mixed Ibadis with Khawarij. Sometimes, they attribute Ibadis to Khawarij, while other times they attribute Khawarij to Ibadis, as done by many authors in Usul [the Fundamentals of Islamic Law] attribute the sayings of Mutazilah to Ibadis and vice versa. This resulted in mixing things up and distortion, because those authors who depended on copying from these sources fell in the same mistake. To me, they do not have any excuse, for the one who spreads the truth should request it from its source and not forge it as he wants.”
“We find those who claim that Abu Bilal bin Mirdas bin Hudair was among the Khawarij and Qatri bin Al-fuja’a was among the Ibadis! Yet, the reality is the opposite. Another confuses that Imam Talib Al-Haq Abdu-Allah bin Yahya Al-Kindi was Imam Abdu-Allah bin Ibadh, but that was not right. Imam Abdul-Allah bin Ibadh died in the last days of Abdul-Malik bin Marwan, while Talib Al-Haq Abdul-Allah bin Yahya appeared during the time of Marwan Al-Himar [Marwan the donkey] in l30H. This is how those authors mix facts up to distort the Ibadis’ reputation. Looking at the history of Andalusia, you will not see a mention of Ibadis. The truth is that lbadis have attained in Andalusia a great status in knowledge and wealth. Ibiza island in Andalusia was fully inhabited by Ibadis until the sixth century, Hijri, or even further until the fall of Andalusia.”
“When reading Tabakat Ibn S’ad, there is no mention of Ibadis except for Imam Jabir bin Zaid, who had to be mentioned as he was too famous to be ignored.”
“The indisputable truth is that important figures are closer to [well known by] their people and history is better known by its people than others. Allah says the truth, and He guides us to the right path.”
“The innovations of the Khawarij necessitated Islamic guidelines against them. Muslims said that there must be a distinction between major sins, so Muslims do not fall into the crimes of Khawarij. Major sins are of two types: sins of heresy [shirk], and sins of hypocrisy [nifaq].”
“Major sins of heresy [shirk] include every sin that violates Islamic creed, like allowing what Allah forbids, forbidding what Allah allows, rejecting what must be known about religion, or rejecting Islamic rulings such as stoning. The sins of hypocrisy are sins of ingratitude to Allah’s bounties. This is what scholars of hadith call a deviation without unbelief [kufr duna kufr]; they are the major sins of corruption [fisq] to non-lbadis. These sins include committing adultery, anal intercourse, eating unlawful food, perjury, disobedience of parents, and other similar acts and deeds. More examples include ceasing the performance of obligatory orders of Allah without believing that they are non-obligatory.”
Prima Qur’an comments: Kufa duna kufr is an understanding that is attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra)
“Ibadis call all these sins major sins of hypocrisy [nifaq] and ingratitude to Allah’s bounties [kufr ne’mah]. When Ibadis call a sin ‘kufr’, this would lead to the next question: does it affect the major belief [creed] or is it part of doing acts of worship or not? Accordingly, the type of disbelief [kufr] can be recognized whether it is kufr of hypocrisy or kufr of shirk. Our Ibadi companions do not call others kuffar [unbelievers] without a legitimate reason, and they do not call the people of Qibla [Muslims] kuffar [disbelievers] if they are under the word of sincerity [ikhlas].“
“The truth is that they are distinguished by this method even if it is claimed by other Islamic schools of thought. If you realize this, you will know that there is a marked distinction between Ibadis and Khawarij and nothing links them together except rejecting the arbitration, which is the truth that is supported by the Qur’an, Sunnah, the path of Omarein and the consensus of Muslims. So, hold firmly to the truth as anyone who depends on Allah will be guided to the straight path.”
“Some of our scholars and other non-Ibadi scholars said that Khawarij deny stoning. In my opinion, this is not true unless we consider their ruling that a person who commits a major sin is an unbeliever whose blood is lawful. In this case, the one who commits adultery is killed because he is considered a non-believer, not killed as a punishment for adultery; therefore, there is no need to deny stoning.”
“This matter, according to me, is not as many think it is; some non-Ibadi Muslims’ claim that Khawarij reject stoning is an insinuation. This claim backfires on them because they narrated a verse that states “if an old man and old woman commit adultery, stone them as a punishment from Allah and Allah is Almighty All-Wise” was recited in the Holy Quran in Al-Ahzab but was eaten by a goat. Based on this false narration, an imperfection has occurred in the Qur’an. This terrible error will always accompany them despite their claims that its recitation is being abrogated while its ruling remains in effect! However, our Ibadi scholars say that stoning is not prescribed in the Holy Qur’an but in the hadith. Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Hujjah Ar-Rabi bin Habeeb narrated in his Sahih that Imam Jabir bin Zaid said, “Istinja, circumcision, witr and stoning are obligatory Sunnah.”
Praise be to Allah Who has protected our companions from error and may Allah bless our Prophet Muhammed, his righteous family, followers and his companions.
Abu Is’haq Ibrahim Attfayish
________________________________________________
1 This book hopes to clear out some misconceptions that many people hold about Ibadis based on other inaccurate or biased sources written long time ago.
2 Two ways of spelling the same word.
3 Those who met the companions of the Prophet but did not see him.
4 Carrion means here a dead animal meat that is not slaughtered in the lawful way.
5 Once, while Allah’s Messenger, peace be upon him, was reciting the above verse, ‘Adi bin Hatim said, “O Allah’s Prophet! They do not worship them (rabbis and monks).’ Allah’s Messenger said, “They certainly do. They (i.e., rabbis and monks) made legal things illegal, and illegal things legal, and they (i.e., Jews and Christians) followed them; and by doing so they really worshiped them”. Narrated by Ahmed, At-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Jarir. (Tafsai AT-Tabari, Vol. 10, p.114)
6 Died in 175H.
7 A book that has very authentic Prophet’s tradition because the narrators are described as golden chain.
8 This is the author’s note within the original text.
9 Hadiths: The Prophet’s traditions, his sayings and practices and sometimes called ‘the Sunnah of the Prophet’.
10 Arbitration was a trick used by Amr bin Alas, who was in Mu’awiyah’s side, to take the Caliphate from Ali during the Battle of Siffin in 37H/ 657G.
11 They were the first two successors after the Prophet peace be upon him.
12 An authentic hadith narrated by Al-Hakim, and At-Tirmidhi.
13 He was one of the loyal companions who accepted Islam early and was killed in Siffin in 37H.
14 Mu’awiyah claimed that Ali killed Ammar because he brought him and threw him at Mu’awiyah’s lances (or swords)
15 A Place in Iraq, in the southeast of Baghdad
16 The fourth Caliph elected by Muslims and the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet.
17 He was a companion of the Prophet described as a knowledgeable brave person and one of the reciters of the Qur’an. He supported Imam Ali in his battles, and he participated in the conquest of Iraq with S’ad bin Abi Waqas. He died in 38AH.
18 Azdi is an attribution to a person who belongs a famous Arabic tribe called Azd.
l9 Qurashi is an attribution to a person who belongs a famous Arabic tribe called Quraish from Meccah.
20 Some Ibadi scholars question the validity of this claim.
21 A place 1n the far north of current Saudi Arabia.
22 Falsifiers of history.
23 Died in 67H.
24 A note by the author.
25 Khariji: a singular form of the plural form of Khawarij.
26 An Umayyad Caliph who followed the way of the rightly guided Caliphs. He died in l0lH/ 720CE.
27 He was the political spokesman of a group of Muslims who were attributed to his name, Ibn Ibadh. He lived during the time of Umayyad.
28 He was with Imam Ali’s group then after the arbitration, he was one of the main leaders in Al-Nahrawan and among the few who survived the Battle of Al-Nahrawan. Later, he became the closet companion of Jabir bin Zaid and was killed in 61H.
29 Fitnah, an Arabic word, refers to the time when Muslims split into political groups and fought each other in 37H/ 657CE.
30 of Khawarij.
31 He was the founder of An-Najdat’s group, a group of Khawarij, and took over Bahrain during Umayyad’s era and he was killed in 73H.
32 He was the founder of Azariqah’s group.
33 A metaphor means great scholars.
34 A school of Islamic theology based on rational thought. It emerged in the Umayyad Era, and flourished in the Abbasid period.
35 There are many explanations why he was called the donkey.
36 Al-Andalus was the old Arabic name for the land conquered by Arabs including Spain and Portugal.
37 Hijri refers to the Islamic calendar starting from the emigration of the Prophet from Mecca to Madinah in 622CE.
38 Ibn S’ad was born in 168 AH / 784CE and died in 230 AH/ 845CE. This book is an eight-volume work that included the biographies of outstanding Islamic personalities.
39 This is one level of disbelief. It means a person is insisting on committing sins, but he is still a Muslim.
40 Unbeliever or non-believer is outside the faith, either by choice or because they haven’t been told. Disbeliever implies a deliberate and definite rejection of the belief, ideas, concepts in a religion.
41 The word of sincerity means that people witness that there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is His messenger.
42 The first two rightly guided Caliphs after the Prophet peace be upon him.
43 Chapter 33 in the Holy Qur’an.
44 These names are titles given to Ar-Rabi and many other great scholars as they are distinguished in their field of knowledge.
45 Cleaning private parts by water.
46 An Islamic prayer performed at night after Isha’a (night-time prayer (or before Fajr (dawn prayer)
47 The sayings and practices prescribed by the Prophet Muhammed; (peace be upon him).
48 Ibadi scholars.
Reference:
The Differences between Ibadis and Khawarij, written by: Shaykh Ibrahim Attfayish, translation and commentary by: Muneer Al-Hadhrami and Abdullah Al-Rawahi. May Allah bless them both.
“O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allāh against yourselves a clear case?” (Qur’an 4:144)
﷽
Who is Wilferd Madelung?
For those not familiar with Wilferd Madelung. He has had a deep engagement with Islamic scholarship, in particular the Shia tradition. He was a highly respected scholar of Islamic and Iranian studies. He dedicated his career to studying Islamic history and theology, including the nuances of different Islamic sects like Twelver, Ismaili, and Zaydi Islam. He was honoured as an Iranian dignitary and received praise for his works supporting the Shia view on the succession to the Prophet Muhammed (saw).
Curriculum Vitae-
Wilferd was educated in Stuttgart (Eberhard Ludwig Gymnasium), Washington DC (Woodrow Wilson High school, Georgetown University), Cairo (Fuad I University), Göttingen, and Hamburg, where he obtained his PhD in 1957. Between 1958 and 1960, he served as cultural attaché at the West-German Embassy in Baghdad, followed by a visiting professorship at the University of Austin, Texas (1963). Following his Habilitation in Hamburg, he taught as Privatdozent in Hamburg during the academic year 1963-64. Since 1964, Madelung has taught at Chicago University as Assistant professor (Associate Prof., 1966; Professor of Islamic History, 1969). Between 1978 and 1998, Madelung taught as Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford University. Between 1999 and 2021, Wilferd Madelung was affiliated with The Institute of Ismaili Studies as a Senior Research Fellow. Wilferd Madelung passed away on 9 May 2023 in Oxford.
Rumors of conversion to Imami Ismaili Nizari Shi’ism.
What fuled the rumors and speculation?
His relationship with the Aga Khan, Madelung’s rigorous and sympathetic work, earned him immense respect within the Ismaili community. He was appointed as the Head of the Department of Academic Research and Publications at The Institute of Ismaili Studies (IIS) in London, an institution established by His Highness the Aga Khan IV (the current Imam of the Nizari Ismailis). This close association with the spiritual leader of the Ismailis fueled speculation.
To outsiders, the combination of deep, sympathetic understanding and a high-ranking position within an Ismaili institution seemed to suggest something more than academic interest. The conclusion some jumped to was that he must have converted.
The counter to the rumor.
No public declaration or evidence: There has never been a public statement from Madelung, his family, the IIS, or the Ismaili community claiming he converted. In the absence of any evidence, the claim remains a baseless rumor.
Paragraph 1
“Among the prominent Companions of the Prophet Muhammed, ‘Abd Alla b. Al-Abbas (d. 68/687), paternal cousin of Muhammed and of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, became the primary religious teacher of the muhakkima who after the slaying of the caliph Uthman had been vigorous supporters of Ali, but then deserted him in protest against his arbitration agreement with Mu’awiya. Ibn al-‘Abbas evidently had been well known to them, and highly regarded by them, long before their revolt against ‘Ali. Born three years before the hijra and still a minor at the time of the death of the Prophet, he had first been drawn into a political role by the caliph ‘Umar, who took him into his intimate confidence as a representative of the Banu Hashim, the kin of Muhammed. The caliph Uthman, while besieged by rebels from Egypt in his place in Medina, appointed him a leader of the pilgrimage to Mecca and entrusted him with reading a lengthy message to the assembled pilgrims in which ‘Uthman defended his conduct in office and appealed for their help. Ibn al-Abbas read the message to the Mecca pilgrims on 7 Dhu-l-Hijja 35/6 June 656, just eleven day before the caliph was killed. He then became a close adviser of ‘Ali and was appointed by him governor of Basra after the Battle of the Camel. Like ‘Ali, he did not view the rebels against ‘Uthman as culpable in his death.”-Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 2
“When after ‘Ali’s arbitration agreement with Mu’awiya some 12,000 muhakkima seceded in protest from his army and camped at Harura outside Kufa in Rabi’ I 37/Aug-Sept, 657. ‘Ali first sent Ibn al-‘Abbas to them as a mediator. The majority of the seceders, however, rejected his unsound argument that arbitration was generally allowed by the Qur’an and only a few of them returned to Kufa. ‘Ali then was able to persuade all of them to return by promising them to resume the war against Mu’awiya in six months. He evidently expected the arbitration attempts to have failed by then. Quarrelling between the muhakkima and the supporters of arbitration in Kufa delayed ‘Ali’s expedition of his arbitrator, Abu Musa l-Ash’ari, beyond the six months, and when Abu Musa left for the site of arbitration in Dumat al-Jandal accompanied by Ibn al-‘Abbas and an escort of 400 Kufan warriors, the muhakkima decided to leave Kufa secretly and to assemble in al-Nahrawan near al-Mada’in. This time they chose ‘Abd Allah b’ Wahb al-Rasibi as their chief and asked their muhakkima brethren in Basra to join them. Some 2,000 men thus gathered in al-Nahrawan while the meeting of the two arbitrators took place in Dumat al-Jundal in Shawwal-Dhu l-Qa’da 37/March-April 658.“--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 3
“After the breakup of the arbitration meetings in failure to resolve the conflict, ‘Ali immediately denounced the arbitrators and ordered his army to mobilize for a new campaign against Mu’awiya. He wrote to the muhakkima in al-Nahrawan inviting them to join. Their position, however, had now hardened and they demanded that ‘Ali publicly repents of his earlier agreement to arbitration. As ‘Ali led the Kufan army northward toward al-Anbar, some of the muhakkima vented their frustration in wanton murder of Muslims, including ‘Abd Allah, the son of the Companion Khabib b al-Aratt, his pregnant wife and an envoy sent by ‘Ali to them. ‘Ali saw himself forced to abandon his campaign against Mu’awiya and to deal with the muhakkima rebels. In the battle of al-Nahrawan in Dhu l-Hijja 37/ May 658u more than 1,000 of them were killed.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 4
“‘Abd Allah b al-‘Abbas, it should be noted, was not present at the Battle of al-Nahrawan, as ‘Ali had deputed him to lead the pilgrimage to Mecca for the year. Ibn al-‘Abbas evidently regretted the assault on the rebels collectively and the resulting massacre. Had he been present, he would no doubt have counseled to restrict any punishment to the actual perpetrators of criminal violence and to leave the others alone, whatever their incendiary rhetoric. As it were, he soon advised ‘Ali, when the latter bitterly complained about the lack of support he had from his men for his campaign against Mu’awiya, to treat them kindly in patience, since they might change their mind in the future. His different attitude toward the seceders soon turned Basra into a safe haven for the muhakkima. While they were unable to establish themselves as a dissident community in the extremely hostile environment of Kufa under the rule of ‘Ali, they found refuge as a tolerated opposition party in Basra under the governorship of Ibn al-‘Abbas, who would not interfere with their activity as long as they abstained from acts of violence and breach of the peace in the city. The muhakkima in Basra fully appreciated the policy of Ibn al-Abbas and looked to him as their trustworthy religious teacher, even though he had defended the legitimacy of ‘Ali’s agreement to arbitration. The bulk of them were tribesmen of Tamim, and they kept the peace with the majority of Tamim and the other tribes in the arbitration.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 5
“When Mu’awiya, after the surrender of al-Hasan b ‘Ali in the year 41/661, claimed the rule of Basra, the muhakkima, who had declared him an infidel (kafir), refused to pledge allegiance to him. Mu’awiya then appointed Ziyad b Abih, his bastard paternal brother, who had been Ibn al-‘Abbas trusted assistant in the government of Basra, governor of the town. Although personally less sympathetic to the muhakkma, Ziyad prudently treated them as Ibn al-Abbas had done. They were now led by the Tamimi Abu Bilal Mirdas b Udayya, the brother of ‘Urwa b Udayya who was reputed to have been the first in the army of Ali to proclaim the takhaim: “la hukma illa li-illlah-No rule but God’s”. Abu Bilal continued to keep the peace in the town for two decades during the Caliphate of Mu’awiya. In his later years of leadership he befriended Abu l-Sha’tha Jabir b. Zayd, a pupil of Ibn al-‘Abbas ,and accepted him as his adviser in matters of religion.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 6
“Mu’awiya’s professed policy of seeking revenge for the slaying of the caliph ‘Uthman on all of his opponents and even on neutrals who had failed to rally to his defense, as well as his affirmation of the exclusive right of the Qurash to the caliphate in Islam drove many Muslims in Iraq and the eastern provinces, who had not objected to the arbitration or had even supported it, to join the ranks of the seceders. During Mu’awiya’s divisive caliphate, the muhakkima became a widespread, nonviolent opposition movement in the eastern Islamic world. Especially the eastern Arabian tribes of Rabi’a were now attracted to the ideology of the muhakkima. The seceders basic dogma that Islam implied the sovereign rule of God rather than any human being, be he of Quraysh or not, and the recognition that the rule of God meant to obey the Qur’an to the letter, appealed to them. Rabi’a, especially Bakr b Wa’il, had made up the backbone of ‘Ali’s army at Siffin and he thwarted Mu’awiya’s hope for outright victory in the battle. After the surrender of al-Hasan b ‘Ali, Mu’awiya sought to humiliate them by seizing from them the sword of the caliph ‘Umar, called Dhu-l-Wishah, which they had acquired as war booty after killing Umar’s son, Ubayd Allah at Siffin. The bulk of Rabi’a would not pledge allegiance to Mu’awiya and remained in opposition to his caliphate.”-Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 7
“Special was the case of the Banu Hanifa, a sub-tribe of Bakr b. Wa’il mostly sedentary in al-Yamama. Their grievance against the pretention of the Quraysh was long standing. Their king Hawdha had offered Muhammed to accept the religion of Islam if the Prophet allowed him to share in the political rule of his people. His negotiations with Muhammed, however, failed and when he died, his successor Musaylima claimed to be a prophet to his people, presumably as a rival to Muhammed, not a denier of his prophethood. Only a small group of Hanifa at the time opposed Musaylima and accepted Muhammed as their prophet.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 8
“After the death of Muhammed and the establishment of the caliphate of Quraysh, the Muslims viewed Hanifa as apostates and followers of a false prophet. In the Battle of al-‘Aqraba, they subdued them breaking fierce resistance. While many companions of the Prophet fell, the Banu Hanifa were decimated and some of their women and children enslaved. They were excluded form the wars of conquest under ‘Umar, stayed neutral in the revolt against ‘Uthman, and unlike the bulk of Rabi’a, did not join the army of ‘Ali. There were no tribesmen of Hanifa among the original muhakkima. Busr b Abi Artah, Mu’awiya’s general sent to subdue Arabian towns and countryside, and to punish former supporters of ‘Ali and neutrals alike, carried off the son of the former chief of Hanifa, Mujja’a b Murara, as a captive to Mu’awiya and recommended that the caliph kill him as a punishment. Mu’awiya, however, accepted the pledge of allegiance of the captive and confirmed him as chief of his people. He then claimed the agricultural land of Hanifa in al-Yamama as crown property and had it cultivated by his slaves. The majority of the Banu Hanifa joined the muhakkima movement evidently early during the caliphate of Mu’awiya.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 9
“Two of the leaders of the Hanifa muhakkima, Nafi b al-Azraq and Najda b ‘Amir, are known to have had ‘Abd Allah b al-‘Abbas as their authoritative teacher in religion. They are described as rivals for the leadership in their community and as seeking to bolster their own authority by relying on religious verdicts of the cousin of the Prophet. Nafi’ b. Al-Azraq al-Hanifa-Hanzali, who later became the chief of the most radical sect of the Kharijis, was the son of a freedman of Greek origin. He put questions to Ibn al-‘Abbas, presumably in Mecca during the pilgrimage season, about the meaning of Qur’anic terms and then asked him for confirmation of that meaning by their use by Arab pre-Islamic poets. Numerous such masa’il were later transmitted and collected by Sunni scholars. While western scholars following J. Wansbrough have viewed all reports of Masa’il Nafi’ b. Al-Azraq as entirely fictitious, the authenticity of at least a core of them has been defended by A. Neuwirth with strong arguments. Given the paramount importance of the correct understanding of the meaning of the Qur’an for the muhakkima, it is evidently quite reasonable that a non-Arab mawla should have put such questions to Ibn al-‘Abbas and have asked for proof-text form Islamic poetry. Neuwirth suggested that the meeting of Nafi’ and Najda with Ibn al-‘Abbas most likely took place in the year 60/680. It seems more likely, however, that the two interrogated Ibn al-‘Abbas earlier during the caliphate of Mu’awiya, when Ibn al-‘Abbas is known to have regularly taught and responded to questions during the pilgrimage season.”-–Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 10
“Najda b ‘Amir, a native Arab tribesman of Hanifa who evidently had a much larger following among them than Nafi’ b. Al-Azraq, put question on theology to Ibn al-‘Abbas. ‘Abd Allah b. Yazid al-Fazari, the 2nd/8th century Kufan Ibadi kalam theologian, quotes a report according to which Najda asked Ibn al-‘Abbas about how he recognized his Lord remarking that there was disagreement among the people in that regard. Ibn al-‘Abbas answered with a lengthy statement that he recognized his Lord as He described Himself in His Book. Ibn al-‘Abbas then denied that God could be seen or perceived by the senses and rejected any anthropomorphic concept of God (tashbih). He affirmed God’s justice in all His decisions and judgement, but emphasized His determination of all acts of His creatures by His decisive will and foreknowledge.”-–Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 11
“The great expansion of muhakkima ideology in the eastern Muslim world came into the open during the second inter-Muslim War (fitna) that raged for over a decade from 61/681 to 73/692. The war was provoked by Mu’awiya’s appointment of his son Yazid as his successor and his demand for an immediate pledge of allegiance to him. The refusal of several prominent Companions, especially ‘Abd Allah b. Al-Zubayr, al-Husayn b ‘Ali and ‘Abd Allah b. Al’Abbas, to pledge allegiance encouraged tribal chiefs to withhold their pledge. Mu’awiya’s poisoned murders of potential rivals and opponents of his son then inflamed the latent enmity against him. Mu’awiya first poisoned al-Hasan b. Ali whom he had contractually promised an election of his successor by consultation (shura), thus inciting Shi’i revolt. When the tribal leaders in Syria expressed their preference for ‘Abd al-Rahman, the son of the ‘Sword of Islam’ Khalid b. Al-Walid, for the succession, he had him poisoned. This drove the Banu Makhzum, Khalid’s kinsmen in Mecca to solid support of the counter-caliphate of ‘Abd Allah b. Al-Zubayr. In Basra the Rabi’a resisted Mu’awiya’s demand that they pledge allegiance to Yazid, and many of them left the town. Mu’awia then put pressure on Khaild b al-Mu’ammar, the chief of Bakr b. Wa’il, who promised him to secure the loyal support of Rabi’a to him. Mu’awiya now appointed him governor of Armenia, but still distrusting him as a former supporter of ‘Ali, he had him poisoned when he reached Nasibin.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 12
“After the death of Mu’awiya in 60/680, the muhakkima came in large number to Mecca, where ‘Abd Allah b. Al-Zubayr was then seeking asylum, preparing to defend the Holy City against any Syrian assault and to recognize Ibn al-Zubayr as their imam. When they questioned about his views concerning the caliphate of ‘Uthman and he insisted that ‘Uthman had been wrongfully killed, they turned away from him. They continued, however, to protect Mecca against any Syrian encroachment. In 64/683-4 they aided Ibn al-Zubayr’s supporters in holding off the Syrian attack on Mecca before the death of caliph Yazid. Ibn al-Zubayr now claimed the caliphate and gained wide recognition throughout the central and eastern regions of Islam. The muhakkima and the Shi’a, however, would not recognize him, and in Syria the Umayyad Marwan b. Al-Hakam soon found recognition as caliph. By 67/687 Najda b. ‘Amir, the leader of the Hanifa muhakkima, gained control over all of Arabia except Mecca and Medina. Ibn al-Zubayr now expelled Muhammed b. Al-Hanafiyya, whom the Shi’a in Kufa recognized against his will as the imam and mahdi from Mecca. When Ibn al-‘Abbas publicly protested the expulsion, Ibn al-Zubayr furiously expelled him, too, from his home town. The two and their families sought refuge in al-Ta’if which was under Najda’s rule. Najda again consulted Ibn al ‘Abbas on questions of religion. When he considered blocking the food supply to the two holy cities, ‘Abd Allah b. Al-‘Abbas remonstrated with him, and he desisted. Internal conflict among the Hanifa about the leadership weakened his position gradually and eventually he was killed by his rival Abu Fudayks in 72/691. Abu Fudayk in turn was killed in al-Bahrayn a year later by the Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik’s commander ‘Umar b ‘Ubayd Allah b. Ma’mar, and Ummayad rule was finally restored over all of Arabia.”-–Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 13
“After the death of Ibn al-‘Abbas in 68’687 in exile in al-Ta’if, his Berber freedman ‘Ikrima d. ca. 105/723) became an active propagandist for the muhakkima, ‘Ikrma had been given a slave boy to Ibn al-‘Abbas when he came to Basra as governor. Ibn al-‘Abbas educated him in Qur’an exegesis and the sunna and then employed him to teach and give legal counsel in his master’s place. ‘Ikrima took part in the burial of Ibn al-‘Abbas in al-Ta’if. Shortly afterward he is mentioned during the pilgrimage to Mecca serving Najda b ‘amir as his doorman. Since he is called in the report the slave (ghulam) of Ibn al-‘Abbas, it seems not unlikely that the latter had before his death attached ‘Ikrima to Najda to counsel him in religious law He was then manumitted by Ibn al-‘Abbas son and heir ‘Ali b. ‘Abd Allah. In any case, ‘Ikrima became widely recognized as the foremost and best informed transmitter of the Qur’an exegesis of Ibn Al-‘Abbas, but was also accused of falsifying his master’s teaching in promoting muhakkima doctrine. He is described as traveling throughout the Muslim world spreading Khariji ideology. His teaching now became radically anti-Shi’i. Thus he proclaimed that the ahl al-bayt whom according to the Qur’an 33:33 God wanted to purify meant specially the wives of the Prophet, excluding his kin, daughter and grandsons. This was entirely contrary to the view of Ibn al-‘Abbas, who ever upheld the divinely privileged religious rank of the Prophet’s kin and progeny, and ‘Ikrima could not have asserted it during his life-time. ‘Ikrima is further described as coming jointly with an Ibadi missionary sent by Abu ‘Ubayda to the Maghrib in the early 2nd/8th century where he summoned to the Sufriyya. It was at this time that the muhakkima expanded widely in the Maghrib as they had expanded a generation earlier throughout the eastern Muslim world and Arabia. The Sufriyya are known to have constituted a substantial community in the far western Maghrib for some time, but later the Ibadiyya prevailed.”--Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 14
“The long term impact of Ibn al-‘Abbas’s teaching on the muhakimma and the Ibadiyya in particular has been significant. In theology they have consistently repudiated the tendencies to anthropomorphism apparent in the Sunni traditionalist doctrine including the dogma of the visio beatifica of God in the hereafter. Against Murj’i tendencies they have vigorously upheld the eternal punishment of Muslim wrongdoers by God. Against Mu’tazili rationalist doctrine divine justice entailing free will, they have mostly affirmed the determining effectiveness of God’s eternal will and foreknowledge. There were, however, significant groups in the 1st/7th and 2nd/8th centuries who inclined the Mu’tazili position on divine justice.”-–Wilferd Madelung
Paragraph 15
“In religious law and ritual, the muhakkima were in general less influenced by the teaching of Ibn al-‘Abbas than the Shi’a. Fully supporting the caliphate of ‘Umar, they, unlike the Shi’a, did not question the legitimacy of ‘Umar’s religious reforms, such as the change of the wording of the call to prayer and the prohibition of the mut’ah temporary marriage. However, in the question of the permissibility of al-mash ‘ala l-khuffayn, the rubbing of the footwear instead of washing the feet for ritual purification, they sided with the Shi’a denying it against the Sunni consensus. While there was apparently no ruling of the caliph ‘Umar concerning al-mash ‘ala l-khuffayn, it was definitely declared impermissible by Ibn al-‘Abbas.”=–Wilferd Madelung
Source: (‘Abd Allah b. al-‘Abbas and the Muhakkima by Wildred Madelung pgs 69-73)
Our thoughts on what Professor Wilferd Madelung has stated.
You will notice there are basically two source materials thath Madelung draws upon.
Al Baladhuri – 9th century Sunni historian
Al-Tabari 9th – 10 century Sunni historian
Reading this we did not feel that there were any new discoveries or any particular breakthroughs. There did not seem to be any original thoughts, ideas or contributions. Perhaps the readers could glean something from the material that we could not.
For example, you could read the above information and make the horrible mistake that Madelung is sharing his own personal thoughts. In reality, in today’s world we call this copypasta.
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 2
Madelung states: “The majority of the seceders, however, rejected his unsound argument that arbitration was generally allowed by the Qur’an and only a few of them returned to Kufa.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Where does Madelung get this information from? Is this truly their position? Who is reporting that this is their position? Where do they get this information from or base this information on?
Madelung states: “Ali then was able to persuade all of them to return by promising them to resume the war against Mu’awiya in six months.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Source for this?
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 3
Madelung also curiously states: “As ‘Ali led the Kufan army northward toward al-Anbar, some of the muhakkima vented their frustration in wanton murder of Muslims, including ‘Abd Allah, the son of the Companion Khabib b al-Aratt, his pregnant wife and an envoy sent by ‘Ali to them.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Wanton killing of Muslims (plural) who?
Which of the muhakkima vented these frustrations?
We thought the point of academics and historians was not to embellish accounts.
Madelung: “Hey guys, I am feeling very frustrated about what happened.”
Bob: “Me too, Wilferd.”
Madelung: “Not only am I very frustrated, I am also quite bored.”
Bob: “Yeah, what can we do with all this pent-up frustration?”
Madelung: “Well, we could always go ambush someone, and if we happen upon a pregnant woman we could just gut her and take her child out.”
Bob: “Wil my man sounds like a plan!”
Nevermind this very interesting piece of information from At Tabari.
Ali heard that the men were saying among themselves, “If only he would go with us against these Haruriyyah (Ahl Nahrawan) , and we dealt with them first and then, having finished with them, we turned our attention to the profaners of Allah’s law (al-mu1 illin-Syrians)!” So Ali addressed them, and after praising Allah and extolling Him, said, “I have heard what you have been saying : ‘If only the Commander of the Faithful would go with us against this group of Kharijites that has rebelled against him, and we dealt with them first and then, having finished with them, we turned to the profaners of Allah law.’ But others are more important for us than these Kharijites. Stop talking about them and march instead against a people who are fighting you so that they may be tyrants and kings and take the servants of Allah as chattel .” And the men shouted from every side, “Commander of the Faithful, lead us wherever you wish!”
So these sources which are not Kharijite sources admit to the fact that there were people (agitators) who wanted to go and fight the Haruriyyah (Ahl Nahrawn) first!
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 4
Madelung states: “‘Abd Allah b al-‘Abbas, it should be noted, was not present at the Battle of al-Nahrawan, as ‘Ali had deputed him to lead the pilgrimage to Mecca for the year. Ibn al-‘Abbas evidently regretted the assault on the rebels collectively and the resulting massacre. Had he been present, he would no doubt have counseled to restrict any punishment to the actual perpetrators of criminal violence and to leave the others alone, whatever their incendiary rhetoric.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: The implication here by Madelung is that Ibn ‘Abbas would have participated in the battle of al-Nahrawan.
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 6
Madelung states: “as well as his affirmation of the exclusive right of the Qurash to the caliphate in Islam drove many Muslims in Iraq and the eastern provinces, who had not objected to the arbitration or had even supported it, to join the ranks of the seceders.“
Prima Qur’an comments: Seems like the idea that the Qurash or a particular family of the Qurash was certainly not embedded among the Muslim masses.
Note that Madelung states: “During Mu’awiya’s divisive caliphate, the muhakkima became a widespread, nonviolent opposition movement in the eastern Islamic world.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: That certainly really does not sound like the crazed, sword-wielding Kharijites declaring all who differ with them infidels that we hear all too often from the Sunni and Shi’i.
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 12
Madelung states: “When they questioned about his views concerning the caliphate of ‘Uthman and he insisted that ‘Uthman had been wrongfully killed, they turned away from him.”
He also states: “When he considered blocking the food supply to the two holy cities, ‘Abd Allah b. Al-‘Abbas remonstrated with him, and he desisted.”
Prima Qur’an comments: So, Ibn al-Zubayr would not denouce Uthman they kill him? They cut him into tiny pieces? They stuffed him in a donkey and burned him? No! “They turned away from him.” When they considered blocking the food supply to the two holy cities they considered ‘Abd Allah b. A’-‘Abbas advise and headed it. Seems these people are capable of reason.
Interacting with the material in Paragraph 13
Madelung states: “but was also accused of falsifying his master’s teaching in promoting muhakkima doctrine. He is described as traveling throughout the Muslim world spreading Khariji ideology.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: In what way did Ikrima (ra) falsify his master’s teaching in promoting the muhakkima doctrine? Do tell us.
Madelung states: “His teaching now became radically anti-Shi’i. Thus he proclaimed that the ahl al-bayt whom according to the Qur’an 33:33 God wanted to purify meant specially the wives of the Prophet, excluding his kin, daughter and grandsons. This was entirely contrary to the view of Ibn al-‘Abbas, who ever upheld the divinely privileged religious rank of the Prophet’s kin and progeny, and ‘Ikrima could not have asserted it during his life-time.“
Prima-Qur’an comments: This is due to the poor reading or gross misunderstanding that Madelung has. Madelung, nor any other historian or orientalist will bring any evidence of ‘Ikrima stating it “excludes his kin, daughter and grandsons.” This is lazy. What Ikrima (ra) is saying is that concerning the Asbab an-Nuzool (the occasion for the revelation) it was due soley to the wives of the Prophet (saw).
Ikrima (ra) simply taught what the Qur’an teaches. Alas, it is what Ibn Abbas (ra) taught as well.
Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said concerning the Ayah: ( Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, ) “It was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet .”
You also have to wonder why Ikrima (ra) transmits instances where Ibn Abbas (ra) admonishes him (Ikrima).
Narrated `Ikrima:
I prayed behind a Sheikh at Mecca and he said twenty two Takbirs (during the prayer). I told Ibn `Abbas that he (i.e. that Sheikh) was foolish. Ibn `Abbas admonished me and said, “This is the tradition of Abul-Qasim.”
Madelung states: “Against Mu’tazili rationalist doctrine divine justice entailing free will, they have mostly affirmed the determining effectiveness of God’s eternal will and foreknowledge.”
Prima-Qur’an comments:
We believe the reason why Madelung makes such claims is that in his mind he sees the Muhakkima as people who leave all matters up to Allah (swt) in the sense that no human element is involved in anything related to the laws of Allah (swt).
We can see this where he states above:
“The majority of the seceders, however, rejected his unsound argument that arbitration was generally allowed by the Qur’an and only a few of them returned to Kufa.”
At the very least Magdelung states in the very next sentence:
“There were, however, significant groups in the 1st/7th and 2nd/8th centuries who inclined the Mu’tazili position on divine justice.”
Again, just to reiterate a small irritation we have with people who use Orientalist is this. An example. So someone writing a paper wanting to discredit Ikrima as a narrator may have a section that states: “He is described as traveling throughout the Muslim world spreading Khariji ideology. His teaching became radically anti-Shi’i. ” They will quote Magdelung.
O.K. so now what are we supposed to do with that information? It must be true because Magdelung said so! No, based upon what? Give us some examples. Let us explore this further.
We say this not only about Orientalists, but the same standard applies to Muslim historians. It is obvious that we question historical narratives, or we would be following the majoritarian narrative concerning Siffin.
Many on our team are people who are converts who had to go through a process of inquiry to arrive at the conclusions they did.
We leave it to you the respected reader to do the research and come to your conclusions.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
“And do not conceal the testimony, for whoever conceals it, their hearts are indeed sinful. And Allah knows what you do.” (Qur’an 2:283)
﷽
The following snippet is part of a much larger program with Dr. Mahmoud Ismail.
The episode is titled: The Kharijites, History’s Wronged
Again, as with others, it is unfortunate the nomenclature of the word ‘Kharijite’ or ‘Khawarij’. It is something we are unfortunately going to be accustomed to by historians and academics.
They were the most loyal soldiers of Ali. Firstly, they were from the Qurra’, who read the Qur’an, recite it, and teach it. They taught in the Masjids of Basra and Kufah.
They were the most loyal to Ali and the bravest.
They rejected arbitration from the beginning, opposite to the Sunni narrations and some Shi’i ones, which say they forced Ali to accept arbitration. Then they turned around and forced him to reject it! This never happened!
I have written about this with evidence. Text has been cited with high importance and relevance.
Their banner was: “There is no rule except from Allah.”
Everyone pledged to Ali except a man from the Levant called Muawiyah bin Abi Sufian-from the off-hand Muslims. You understand?
The accusation of accepting arbitration they distanced themselves from the camp of Ali. They headed to a village called Harura.
So they were called ‘Harauris’. These are those who rejected it(arbitration) from the beginning.
So how can it be when the results of abritration came they reject it?
Ali was with their opinion. The opinion of the Khawarij.
Hence, when Ali sent Ibn Abbas to debate them he said be nice witih them, speak to them softly.
Ali was with the opinion of Khawarij. However, he indeed was forced. Who forced him?
Who forced him to accept arbitration? Al-Ash’ath Bin Qaid Al-Kindi
If you wish to watch the full discussion kindly see the following:
In fact, they quote a Sunni historical source as a provocative claim about Abu Bakr (ra) in regards to the house of Fatima (ra). Yet these same Shi’a do not ponder the implications of someone so hated by Abu Bakr (ra) being among one the confidents of Imam Ali!
“Yes, I am not upset for anything in this world, except three things I have done and I wish I had not done them and three things I have not done and I wish I had done them and three things I wish I had asked the Prophet (saw). But what I wish I had not done, first is that I wish I had not invaded the house of Fatima even if they closed it to me for war, second is that I wish I had not burned Fuja’a Sullami and instead I either had killed or released him. The third is that I wish on the Day of Saqifa, I had left the caliphate on either of these two men ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubayda that one of them would become the caliph and I would become his minister.
But the three things I did not do and wish I had: the first is that when Al-Ash’ath bin Qais was brought to me in captivity, I wish I had struck his neck, because I suspect he will enforce evil wherever he finds it; and the other one is that I wish when I sent Khalid Bin Waleed to the battle of the apostates I had remained at Zil Qissah so that I could help the army if they were defeated; and the third one, I wish that when I delegated Khalid to Sham I had sent Omar to Iraq so that I had opened my two hands in the cause of Allah.
Then he opened his hands and added:
I wish I had asked the Messenger of Allah (saw)that to whom the caliphate belonged, so that nobody would go to war on it; and I wish I had asked him did Ansar have any right in this matter; and I wish I had asked him if the the brother’s daughter and the father’s sister would inherit anything [from the deceased], because I’m not sure about it.
Source: (Târîkh Tabarî, v 3 p 429 ; Târîkh Ya’qûbî, v 2 p 137)
You really have to wonder how someone like Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, an apostate who came back to Islam and found such high favour, station and status in the ranks of Imam Ali.
“Also, abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as was the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.” (Qur’an 33:33)
﷽
If one is already pure, there is no need to purify. If one claims there are degrees and grades of purification, then this does not indicate absolute perfection.
The totally pure cannot become purer and the totally perfect can’t be purified.
The very verse that the ’12er Shi’i’ rely upon to establish their position gives them trouble from the outset.
This verse is clearly talking about the women of the Prophet (saw) his wives.
Two points within the verse preclude this being a reference to men.
Point 1)
It would be odd to think of any male of the Prophet (saw) household “displaying themselves” in a feminine manner. Unless now people are going to tell us that the males of the ‘Ahl Bayt’ were displaying themselves in a feminine manner in previous times.
Tabarrajna — display yourselves.
Understand this in light of the following verse:
“Also, women of post-menstrual age who have no desire for marriage — there is no blame upon them for putting aside their outer garments but not displaying adornment. But to modestly refrain from that is better for them. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 24:60)
Mutabarrijātin—displaying your adornment
Point 2)
Also, do the men of the ‘Ahl Bayt’ abide in their houses? No! Obviously, they don’t.
Also, note that the text is an admonition to the people of the ‘Ahl Bayt’ who were doing something that deserves admonishment.
So let us look at the text in context.
“O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality – for her, the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah, easy. And whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does righteousness – We will give her reward twice; and We have prepared for her a noble provision. O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech. And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification. And remember what is recited in your houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom. Indeed, Allah is ever Subtle and Acquainted with all things.” (Qur’an 33:30-34)
Wives, women, her.The wives of the Prophet (saw) are all pure and purified. These verses, in their context, have absolutely nothing to do with any male relations of the Prophet (saw).
Keep the following in mind.
The controversy surrounding the Blessed Prophet (saw) parents.
The fact that Abu Muttalib did not die as a believer is well known.
The fact that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is reported to have had three sons, Qasim, Abdullah and Ibrahim (May Allah’s mercy cover them all). None of them lived beyond the age of 2.
The following verse makes it abundantly clear that Allah (swt) will purify whomever He (swt) wills.
“So if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, not one of you would have been pure, ever, but Allah purifies whom He wills, and Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 24:21)
O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.
How does Allah (swt) intend to purify the household?
Then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech.
And abide in your houses.
Do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance.
And establish prayer and give zakah.
However, the Imams of the ’12er Shi’i’ have come along and made a huge exegetical stretch out of these verses.
So they come along and isolate the following text from context:
“Allah intends only to remove from you (ʿankumu) the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.”
So they will focus on (ʿankumu) as it is in the masucline form. In Arabic grammar this is quite natural. The presence of many women but only one man the prounoun switches to the masculine. So, the presence of the Blessed Prophet (saw) renders this masucline. Members of the household =the women. Whose household? The household of Muhammed (saw)-whom is masculine.
From this lens, the grammatical argument isn’t a “clue” left by Allah; it’s a “hook” found by later interpreters to hang a doctrine onto a verse that originally had a different, clearer meaning.
Another example is here:
“They said, “Are you amazed at the decree of Allah ? May the mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you (ʿalaykum), people of the house. Indeed, He is Praiseworthy and Honorable.” (Qur’an 11:73)
Sarah (as) is being addressed in the feminine singular. However, when they address her as a member of the household of Ibrahim (as) the pronoun becomes masculine plural.
The purification of the wives are on account of the Blessed Prophet (saw). So that his consorts may resemble him in purifcation and perfection.
The term l-rij’sa (the impurity) is originally dirt that soils bodies. It is borrowed here for sins and religious defects. As they render a persons reputation in this world and the hereafter despised and disliked, like a body stained with dirt.
Does being a descendant of a Prophet guarantee you to be sinless and free from error?
Keep in mind the following:
“Moreover, it sailed with them through waves like mountains, and NOAH CALLED TO HIS SON who was apart [from them], “O MY SON, come aboard with us and be not with the disbelievers. [But] he said, “I will take refuge on a mountain to protect me from the water.” [Noah] said, “There is no protector today from the decree of Allah, except for whom is given mercy.” And the waves came between them, and he was among the drowned.”(Qur’an 11:42-43)
Then Allah (swt) informed Noah…
“So Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed MY SON IS OF MY FAMILY and indeed, your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges! He said, “O NOAH, INDEED HE IS NOT OF YOUR FAMILY; indeed, he is [one whose] work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant. [Noah] said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 11:45-47)
“Moreover, remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: “I will make you an Imam to the Nations.” He pleaded: “And also (Imams) from my offspring!” He answered: “But My Promise is not within the reach of evildoers.” (Qur’an 2:124)
If you notice Allah (swt) didn’t write a blank check for the descendants of Abraham. If you were made virtuous by being a descendant of a prophet, then Allah(swt) would have simply granted Abraham’s du’a; however, he did not. He made a caveat, “My promise is not within reach of the evildoers.”
Is this not interesting? Make Imams of me and my offspring!
In other words, I will grant your du’a to those who hold on to my commands and strive their utmost to be righteous servants.
Cain killed his brother Abel. Both were descendants of the Prophet Adam (upon whom be peace). Yet, one was righteous and the other became the ‘first’ murderer. Such that Allah (swt) made an example of this particular incident throughout time.
“So his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:30)
In reality, if you want to be technical, from the perspective that we all came from Adam, or are ‘Bani Adam’—the children of Adam, we are in reality all descendants of the Prophets.
Is this not interesting? He murdered his own brother. Both had the blood of a Prophet in their veins.
We love, and we honour the noble Prophet Muhammed (saw) and his family. However, we have no evidence from the Qur’an to substantiate the position that they were infallible or beyond reproach. No one can establish this from the Qur’an.
“Look how We make the signs clear; then look at how deluded they are.” (Qur’an 5:75)
Prima Quran 