Tag Archives: muslim

The Differences between Ibadis and Khawarij by Shaykh Ibrahim Attfayish

“Oh my Lord advance me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:14)

﷽ 

The Differences between Ibadis and Khawarij

Written by: Shaykh (Abu Is’haq) Ibrahim Attfayish (hafidhullah)

To know more about this great Shaykh please see the write up our sister, Bint Ibadh.

https://bintibadh.blogspot.com/2021/05/a-brief-review-of-biography-and.html

“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.”

Prima Qur’an comments: See our article:

“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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?”

Prima Qur’an comments:

Please see our article here:

“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)

https://fitrahtawheed.com/kufr-duna-kufr

“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.

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.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Abd Allah b al-Abbas and the Muhakkima -Wilferd Madelung

“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!”

Source: (https://www.kalamullah.com/Books/The%20History%20Of%20Tabari/Tabari_Volume_17.pdf

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 .”

Source: (https://surahquran.com/tafsir-english-aya-33-sora-33.html)

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/purification-of-the-ahl-bayt/

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.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:788)

Interacting with the material in Paragraph 14

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).

You may wish to read the following:

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dr. Mahmoud Ismail: The Khawarij – Victims of History. Ali initially agreed with the Khawarij.

“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.

You may wish to read the following:

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Purification of the Ahl Bayt

“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?

  1. Then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech.
  2. And abide in your houses.
  3. Do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance.
  4. 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)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Abu Hanifa Ikrima and the Truth

“Do not confound the with falsehood, nor conceal the truth when you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)

﷽ 

Abu Hanifa, Ikrima and the truth. 

Abu Abdullah al-Madani, Mawla Abdullah bin Abbaas (r.a)

This is an article we had been wanting to write for some time now.  The companion Ikrima (ra) has come under attack by both Shaykh Atabek Shukurov An-Nafsi and his former student Sulaiman Ahmed in their joint book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith” as well as in the following article: https://sulaimanahmed.com/2017/07/28/ikrima-as-imam-of-modern-hanafis-part-1/

Shaykh Atabek Shukurov An-Nafsi

Curriculum Vitaehttps://emadina.com/our-team/shaykh-atabek-shukurov-al-nasafi/

Sulaiman Ahmed

Curriculum Vitae -There does not seem to be any third party academic institute and/or organization that verifies his education, training or background. It is not certain if he pays a third party to translate Arabic text or does so directly. To our knowledge, no independent demonstration of Arabic proficiency has been shown.

This article also contains statements taken from other websites/blogs wherein people have replied to the attacks on Ikrima (ra) and we have not seen any meaningful responses to it whatsoever. Thus we have linked to them. It is our hope that this article will be free from personal attacks, insults, and emotive language. 

Certainly, the article we linked to above is up to the reader to decide if personal attacks, insults, and emotive language are contained therein or not.W feel that people who are undecided on this matter deserve the very best from us. 

So let us just come directly to the point. 

The first point that nobody can escape from is the fact that Abu Hanifa had not a single jarh (criticism) against Ikrima (ra).  The second point that nobody can escape from is the fact that Abu Hanifa narrated from Ikrima (ra).

The first point is responded to by using an argument from silence. That is to say, because we do not have any historical documents from Imam Abu Hanifa that criticize Ikrima (ra). We can’t say that he never criticized him. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

However, we can say with certainty that we have nothing from Imam Abu Hanifa critiquing Ikrima. If there was even a modicum of evidence for it, certainly Shaykh Atabek and former student, Sulaiman Ahmad would have used it. 

The second point is responded to by showing Imam Abu Hanifa narrating from someone and then disparaging that same narrator.

Does this say something about everyone Imam Abu Hanifa narrates from or only that particular person?

So for us, when Imam Abu Hanifa critiques someone he narrates from, that only shows he critiqued the person he narrated from. Otherwise, how do you establish proof for Abu Hanifa from anyone he narrates from? 

The following bit is not directed at Shaykh Atabek nor former student Sulaiman but a person we had an exchange with on social media. Perhaps he may read this.

We have recently encountered a brother online who mentioned Abu Hanifa lived during the Umayyads. So what was he trying to suggest by this?

A) That Abu Hanifa was more terrified of Umayyads than Allah (swt)?

B) That the Umayyads forced Abu Hanifa to narrate from Ikrima (ra)?

In fact, if Ikrima (ra) is a so-called “khawarij”, it means he believed against the established opinion of the Sunni majority that Muslims can rebel against the unjust rulers. Abu Hanifa could have used this as a point against Ikrima (ra) but didn’t.

So this very powerful fact should merit some reflection. 

“Imam Malik stated that he did not accept hadith unless it was taken from the fuqaha (jurist as opposed to simple hadith scholars). On one occasion, it is reported that Abu Hanifa took Imam Abu Yusuf to his library. Abu Yusuf saw that it contained many tomes of hadith but Imam Abu Hanifa said that he only narrated a few of them, namely those which would benefit people.”  

Source: (pg 89 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

Interestingly, out of this massive tome, Abu Hanifa managed to narrate from Ikrima (ra) 

In reality, when all was said and done, the best that could be brought against Ikrima (ra) was an argument by way of innuendo. Even then, the argument from innuendo doesn’t hold up. 

The following is from Mufti Zameel found here: https://ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/499/response-atabek-ikrimah-mawl-ibn#ixzz4EZJK4ckB

Atabek’s Double Standards in Assessing Reports from Abū Ḥanīfah

“Regarding a particular report from Abū Ḥanīfah that he regarded ‘Ikrimah as being from the ‘seniors/great ones’ (kubarā’), Atabek rejected it primarily on account of a problematic narrator in its chain of transmission. But at the same time he quotes the following with full confidence:

“Imam Abu Hanifa said; “Do not take knowledge from the scholars of Royal Palace. I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is.””

And:

“But, just to underline the dishonesty and poor level of Islamic knowledge on display, Abu Hanifa said; ”Take the knowledge from everyone except the following” and he listed the ones who are around the royals and rulers (as Ikrima most certainly was and as his erstwhile interlocutors accept). He said; ”But don’t take from the ones who are around the royals! I don’t say they lie, but they don’t say the truth as it is!””

He did not give a source for this quote. (My guess is he got it from the footnotes to Qawā‘id fī ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth).

The original source for this quote is al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah of al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī as follows:

‘Abū Bishr Muḥammad ibn ‘Umar al-Wakīl (350 – 438 H) reported to me, he said: ‘Umar ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān al-Wā‘iẓ [Ibn Shāhīn] (297 – 385) narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ [al-Naqqāsh] (266 – 351) narrated to us, he said: ‘Abdullāh ibn Maḥmūd al-Marwazī (d. 311) narrated to us: Aḥmad ibn Muṣ‘ab narrated to us, he said: ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhīm (d. ca. 220 H) narrated to us, he said: I heard Ibn al-Mubārak say:

‘Abū ‘Iṣmah asked Abū Ḥanīfah: “From whom do you order me to listen to narrations?” He said: “From every moderate one in his deviation, besides the Shī‘ah, since the foundation of their doctrine is to regard the companions of Muḥammad (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) as misguided; as well as those who attend the ruler wilfully. Pay attention, I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate, but they pave the way for them so the masses are loyal to them. These two ought not be from the imāms of the Muslims.”’ (al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, p. 126)

First, one will notice the clear differences between the actual account and the “translation” of Atabek. Atabek’s translation (deliberately?) omits the unfavourable reference to Shī‘ah. Atabek’s translation is also inaccurate, as the actual report says: ‘I am not saying that they lie to them or command them what is not appropriate’ from which Atabek somehow got: ‘I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is’.

But secondly, and more importantly, this narration is inauthentic. There are two highly problematic narrators in this chain:

1. Muḥammed ibn al-Ḥasan al-Muqri’ al-Naqqāsh (266 – 351). Ṭalḥa ibn Muḥammed al-Shāhid said: ‘He would lie in ḥadīth.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 7:78). Abū Bakr al-Barqānī said: ‘Every narration of Naqqāsh is rejected’ (ibid.); Khatib said: ‘In his narrations are absurdities despite the chains being famous’ (ibid. 7:79). Al-Dāraquṭnī regarded him as extremely weak (ibid.). Ibn al-Jawzī mentioned two ḥadīths which he believes al-Naqqāsh falsified (ibid.). Dhahabī said: ‘My heart is not satisfied with him; according to me he is suspect [i.e. of being a liar].’ (Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, 15:576)

2. ‘Umar ibn Ibrāhim ibn Khālid al-Kurdī (d. ca. 220). Al-Dāraquṭnī said: ‘A rotten, flagrant liar.’ (kadhdhāb khabīth). (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62) Al-Khaṭīb said: ‘He narrates absurdities from reliable narrators.’ (Lisān al-Mīzān, 6:62)

These are the most serious issues with the chain. As one can see from the above, it can never be accepted according to the standards Atabek applies to the other narration. Yet he accepts this report and rejects the other. Is this anything but clear double standards (i.e. agenda-driven bias)?”

Prima Qur’an comments:

It is crystal clear to us that Mufti Zameel exposed a fundamental flaw in Shaykh Atabek’s reasoning.

Not only that but the point about Imam Abu Yusuf being employed by Harun Al Rashid was completely sidestepped.

“Also, I saw the hilarious ‘argument’ being proffered on these secret forums that if we criticise Ikrima for accepting money and being in thrall of genocidal maniacs such as the rulers of his time, then we must likewise criticise Imam Abu Yusuf, the student of Imam Abu Hanifa, because he was in the employ of Harun Al Rashid. Obviously, this is not even an argument at all and barely even qualifies as emotional blackmail – it is merely saying that ignore the bad stuff that one person did because other people perhaps did it too. So I eagerly await the canonisation of this ‘principle’ which can excuse anything and everything which more than one famous person does. Thus the Iraq War mist have been good, because if you criticise the West for doing it you would have to criticise Saudi and Muslim countries for supporting it too. So you shouldn’t criticise anyone. Excellent moral ‘principles’!”-Sulaiman Ahmed 

 “It is merely saying that ignore the bad stuff that one person did because other people did it too.”

Our response: Is it really saying that or is it saying that we should apply consistent standards and consistent principles? 

“Thus the Iraq War mist have been good, because if you criticise the West for doing it you would have to criticise Saudi and Muslim countries for supporting it too.”   

Our response: Or how about we be consistent and criticize both the West and Saudi Arabia? What would not be moral or consistent is to suggest that the West (Ikrima) be castigated for his involvement in the war and Saudi Arabia (Abu Yusuf) be let off the hook for his involvement. 

An argument from Ra’y:

“as well as those who attend the ruler wilfully.”

Let’s assume that the hadith that Shaykh Atabek brought was sound. Doesn’t both histories testify to the fact that there has been Muslim faithful in every court of rulership in Muslim history? Is it not within reason to say that, just like Abu Yusuf, that not every person is corrupt due to some affiliation with rulers?

Wouldn’t the reasonable thing to do in this situation be to sift through the reports individually and see where a report actually might be something that benefits rulers etc.? 

In fact, the hadith narrated by Ikrima (ra) can be used against rulers. How often do you think rulers used siege engines and firebombed besieged strongholds? In the process of killing innocent men, women, and children? In fact, couldn’t that very hadith be used against, let’s say, the use of nuclear weapons? 

So the following statement is absolutely rejected. “Imam Abu Hanifa rejected all narrations from Ikrima as well, but this reasoning was different. He held a principle that he would not take any narration from a person associated with the rulers, as it could affect their righteousness due to the loyalty they may hold to those in authority.” 

Source: (pg 227 Hanafi principles for testing Hadith)

Prima Qur’an conclusion:

Imam Abu Hanifa has no jahr (criticism) of Ikrima (ra).  Out of the ‘tomes of hadith’ that Imam Abu Hanifa had in his collection, Imam Abu Hanifa narrated from Ikrima (ra). The hadith about the rulers has problems in its chain of narrators. If consistent principles were applied, this would mean we would need to steer clear of Imam Abu Yusuf. Also, the objection doesn’t pass the test from Ra’y.  

That should really be the end of the article at this point.

However, there are many other ancillary issues surrounding this that we feel should be addressed.

So you have to wonder what is the issue they have with Ikrima (ra) to begin with?

If the main point was to establish evidence against killing apostates?  They themselves admit:

It is largely based on the following hadith, which both groups like to use to justify the killing of those who leave Islam and to portray this as the ‘true teachings of Islam’. ” 

Source: (pg 226 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

If it has to do with weakening the view of killing apostates, then why not go after the other narrators? Or why not go after Ali Ibn Abu Talib himself, who is said to have narrated this hadith about killing people who go out of Islam.

Let’s analyze the text of this hadith.

“Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (saw), believe it to be absolutely true, as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (The Holy Prophet) which he never said.”

Such a disclaimer. Have you ever noticed Ali ever preface a hadith like that? 

“When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is outwitting.”

An interesting statement. Errors might creep into things he said and battle is about outwitting. Hmmm.

“There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So, when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you will get a reward from Allah on the Day of Judgement.”

At the very least, it is an open license to kill apostates and, at the most, it’s an open license to kill fellow Muslims. “They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats.”

On what consistent basis is an attack launched upon Ikrima(ra) but not Ali? 

Atabek nor Sulaiman have engaged with this question in any meaningful way. In fact, they have not engaged with it at all.

We have demonstrated how the dog whistle of Khawarij has been used in the past and is currently being used to effectively crush any opposition to government authority.

Please see our article here:

They seem to have taken issue with the fact that Ikrima (ra) narrated hadith about Ali, which shows Ali being criticized by Ibn Abbas (ra) for setting people on fire.

This report was narrated by al-Bukhary (6922) on the authority of `Ikrimah who said: Heretics were brought before Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and he burnt them. When Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) was informed about this, he said, “If I were in his place, I would not have burnt them for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade this saying, “Do not torment with the torment of Allah” and I would have killed them, for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”

What will be noted is that neither Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah nor Bassam Zawadi attacked the chain of narrators nor Ikrima (ra) himself. 

You can see a fuller discussion on that here:

Next, you would have to go after the other narrators. You would have to weaken the chains of the following hadith:

It was narrated from Anas that :

Ali came to some people of Az-Zutt, who worshipped idols, and burned them. Ibn ‘Abbas said: “But the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.’”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/nasai:4065)

Narrated Abu Musa:

“A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7157

As regards the above hadith Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman have stated in their book: 

The Known Narrators

“The known narrator is one who is recognized by knowledge and rulings such as The rightly guided Caliphs, Abdullah bin Masood, Abdullah bin Abbas, Zayd bin Thabit, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and Aisha, etc.”

“Their narrations are considered as proofs, irrespective of their conflict with analogy or conformance with it.”

Source: (pg 53-54 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith). 

Narrated ‘Abdullah:

“Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6878)

So what is deficient about Mu’adh bin Jabal according to Shaykh Atabek and student Sulaiman Ahmed?

Shaykh Atabek and hist former Sulaiman Ahmed on pages 228 and 229 of Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith give ample evidence from the Qur’an that murder without right is imperssible. They give examples from the Qur’an and ahadith that seem to justify the freedom of disbelief. 

However, they both seem to miss that quoting all of that does nothing to attack the chain of the narration from Ikrima (ra).  They are holding assumptions that Ali didn’t do that act because it would go against established principles.  However, if we are making assumptions, we could also assume that Ali did do that act. Ibn Abbas (ra) reprimanded him for it and Ikrima (ra) is simply narrating the incident.   

We hope they are not making the argument that, just because the Qur’an mentions doing or not doing something that Muslims automatically follow these dictates. Wouldn’t that be amazing if they did! 

It is possible that people who have philo-Shi’a tendencies would be troubled by Ali making an error in his ijtihad.  After all, Bassam Zawadi stated:

“Nevertheless, if someone is not willing to accept any of the above explanations and is persistent that `Ali (ra) actually burnt these criminals to death, even then the most that can be said is that `Ali’s decision of burning the criminals to death was not correct, in view of the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) to the contrary. This, obviously, would amount to criticism on Ali’sdecision – not a criticism on Islam.”

After all, `Ali (ra) was but a human being, he may have erred in his decision.” 

Source: (https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_ali_burn_some_apostates___by_understanding_islam

Shaykh Atabek and former student, Sulaiman Ahmed are not suggesting that criticism of Ikrima (ra) is a criticism of Islam, right? Likewise, criticism of Ali is not a criticism of Islam. 

Likewise,

There is something similar in Imami Shi’i sources.

Narrated from Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq), who said: Amīr al-Muʾminīn (ʿAlī), said:
“If it were possible for me, and if I found someone to help me, I would kill all the adherents of these sects (aṣnāf), and I would burn them with fire
. And this is [in accordance with] the saying of Allah, Mighty and Exalted:

‘Say, I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your God is but one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate anyone in the worship of his Lord’ (Qur’an 18:110).”

Source: (Bihār al-Anwār al-Jāmiʿah li-Durar Akhbār al-Aʾimmat al-Aṭhār Volume and Page: Vol. 25, p. 265, Hadith #30)

So what do Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed do with information like this? Ikrima(ra) is not a narrator on him? So you cannot use your sectarian bias against him.

It is also possible that people who have philo-Shi’a tendencies would be troubled by Ikrima (ra) given his weight on the tafsir of a key point of conflict between Ahl Sunnah and the Shi’a..

Because he (Ikrima) said the following:

Ibn Jarir recorded that `Ikrimah used to call out in the marketplace:(Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification. (33:33)) “This was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.

Source: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 33:33).

Ikrimah said: “Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet, I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.”

Source: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 33:33)

However, he either got that information.

A) Directly from Ibn Abbas (ra) because Ibn Abbas (ra) said:

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 .”

Source: (https://surahquran.com/tafsir-english-aya-33-sora-33.html)

B) Simply by looking at the context of the Qur’an itself.

C) Lastly, this is due to the poor reading or gross misunderstanding that Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed have. has. Neither of them have brought any evidence of ‘Ikrima stating it “excludes his kin, daughter and grandsons.” 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).

Which as stated was the view of Ibn Abbas (ra). This can be determined via the context of the Qur’an itself.

More investigations into Ikrima (ra).

There are some interesting points from Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed in their book.

“So regardless of who he is, we need to bear in mind that scholars also have biases and sometimes sectarian affiliations too.” Sources: (pg. 195 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

A very good point!

Scholars can have biases and sectarian affiliations that may colour their investigations. 

“Therefore criticism needs to be valid and not based on sectarian or personal reasons and as we have seen, even some of the senior scholars were not above this.”

Source: (pg. 197 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith). 

“An Innovator is someone who holds to a view which does not conform to the position of the ‘Ahl Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah’ which are the Maturidi and Ash’ari Schools of creed.”

Source: (pg. 94 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith).

This statement itself merits reflection. The statement itself is biased and sectarian. It means that the Shi’a are innovators. Ibadi’s are innovators. Sunni Muslims from the Mutazalite and Athari schools of theology are innovators.

“The narrations of all innovators are accepted unless there is an innovator who believes that lying is permissible or their view constitutes disbelief.”

Source: (pg. 133 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

“So for example, Imam Bukhari takes hadith from the Khawarij such as Ikrima and Waleed ibn Kathir, who believe lying equates to disbelief.”

Source: (pg. 133 Hanafi Principles for Testing hadith) 

“If the narrator is from the Khawarij, some do not accept them as they are a deviant sect, whereas others do as they state that for the Khawarij lying equates to disbelief and therefore they would be even more careful to ensure that the hadith were narrated accurately.

Source: (pg. 199 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 

Classifying someone as being from a ‘deviant sect‘ is itself a sectarian reason to discard a hadith. Also, it is quite clear that Shaykh Atabek and his former student,  Sulaiman Ahmed, believe that Ikrima (ra) is a “Khawarij” (a sectarian term applied by sectarians, rest assured).  They also show in their book that the belief of the “Khawarij” is that lying equates to disbelief.

Prima Qura’n comments:

Firstly, we do not need to rely upon anyone concerning rather or not lying is kufr when we have the words of Allah (swt).

“Surely, the religion is for Allah only. And those who take Auliya’ (protectors and helpers) besides Him (say): “We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allah.” Verily, Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly, Allah guides not him who is a liar, and ungrateful (kadhibun kaffarun).” (Qur’an 39:3)

“let us sincerely invoke Allah’s curse upon the liars.” (Qur’an 3:61)

“And a fifth oath that Allah may condemn him if he is lying.” (Qur’an 24:7)

The cursed the condemened such a one is described as a believer?

Ironically, the issue of integrity and who is truthful became very public between Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmad, when they had their very public divorce. Issues of integrity and honesty were at the heart of the court case.

Bringing the subject back to Ikrima (ra)

So, as the narrations of all innovators are accepted, unless they believe in lying (the Khawarij don’t) or unless their view constitutes disbelief, we have a very pointed question for both Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed. 

  • Do either of you regard Ikrima (ra) as a kafir? 
  • If your answer is: “Yes, Ikrima is a kafir” What is this based upon?
  • If your answer is no, then our next question is: “Was Ikrima (ra)  a liar?”
  • If your answer is: “Yes, Ikrima is a liar” What is it based upon? 

Especially in light of the overwhelming view that the “Khawarij” equate lying to disbelief. 

Contradictions and no sources quoted in regards to Ikrima (ra) 

“The next topic that needs to be analysed is Kirma’s religious idealogy. it is agreed by consensus that he was from the Khawarij. He ALLEGEDLY declared many Muslims to be disbelievers due to the extreme methodology of the Khawarij. Dhahabi, a hadith scholar who considers Ikrima reliable wrote “the first reason for rejecting the narrations of Ikrima is based on the fact that he is Khawarij. The second reason is that being a Khawarij, he justified the killing of his fellow Muslims.” 

Source: (pg. 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 

So he ALLEGEDLY (no proof, no evidence) declared many Muslims to be disbelievers. This is a far cry from what Sulaiman Ahmed states in a tirade that is filled to the brim with emotive language. Dhahabi (raheemullah) considers Ikrima (ra) reliable.   

“The second reason is that, being a Khawarij, he justified the killing of his fellow Muslims.” 

Our response to this is who didn’t find justification for killing fellow Muslims?

“Ali directed his army to attack the Khariji camps, and his forces MASSACRED many of them at Nahrawan. At this point, Ibn ‘Abbas seems to have doubted his initial support of ‘Ali. He resigned from the governorship of Basra and stigmatized ‘Ali’s killing of his Khariji opponents”

Source: (Scott Riraj Al Haqqa Kugle in his book: Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender pg. 107) 

Did Ali feel he had justification to kill the forces of Muawiya in Syria? Did Ali feel he had justification to kill Muslims at the battle of the camel?

“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)

Bakrah Ath-Thaqafi reported – The Blessed Messenger (saw) is reported to have said: “If two Muslims meet each other with their swords, then both the killer and the killed will be in the Hell-fire.” I said, “O Allah’s Messenger, that is the case for the killer but why should that be the case for the killed?” He answered, “Because he wanted to kill his companion.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/nasai:4118)

Narrated Ibn `Umar 

“I heard the Prophet (saw) “Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another.” Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7077)

In light of this verse of the above Qur’an and these ahadith every group among the early Muslims is trying to find justification for what they are doing.

Recall what we quoted above: So “he ALLEGEDLY (no proof, no evidence) declared many Muslims to be disbelievers.” 

Yet Shaykh Atabek’s former student, Sulaiman Ahmed says:

“Since releasing my https://sulaimanahmed.com/2017/07/28/ikrima-as-imam-of-modern-hanafis-part-1/ on Ikrima the Liar and Kharijite, I have received a lot of positive feedback from readers who were either blissfully unaware of the genocidal propensities of some of the people that groups such as Deobandis and Salafis expect them to ‘respect’ as ‘Imams’ or had already heard about Ikrima (who narrates some of Salafis favourite hadiths, such as those about burning apostates and gays) and his ‘tendencies’ and had their faith shaken, as they mistakenly believed that such individuals who sanction the murder of senior Sahahbah were somehow nonetheless indispensable to Islam. I also received a few sincere emails with requests of clarification of some issues.” -Sulaiman Ahmed 

The questions put Sulaiman Ahmed are as follows: 

  1. What are these ‘genocidal propensities’ of Ikrima (ra)?
  2. Ikrima (ra) didn’t burn apostates, Ali did. Ali also narrated the above hadith about getting a reward for killing ex-Muslims. Why is this not touched by yourself or your former teacher?
  3. Believed in and sanctioned the “murder” ? of senior sahabah? What’s the source for this? 

As regards point 3. above. Let us say, for the sake of argument, this was proven. In what way did he ‘sanction’ the murder of senior Sahaba in a way that Talha, Zubayr, Muaviya, Ali, didn’t? 

“I have to clarify, because these peoples’ feelings and ‘right’ to display academic incompetence are not more important than the reputation of Islam.” -Sulaiman Ahmed

What is contained in the following paragraphs is so far from academic.

“What is sad is that despite endangering the faith and reputation of Muslims whilst ‘responding’ to my article and insisting that someone who takes money from tyrannical governments that kill sahabah, calls Ali and Uthmaan, senior companions of the Prophet, apostates who will burn in Hell forever, is a ‘reliable Imam’ that is ‘accepted by everyone’, these people never explain how this is the case: they in no place denied that he is a Kharijite (and a Safari and Ibadi i.e worst type at that) nor his attacks on the Sahabah nor his genocidal tendencies: they merely keep repeating that he was ‘accepted’ by Abu Hanifa because he (they claim) quoted from him (as if everyone who quotes from George Bush for any reason is automatically a Republican). They never, you will note, stop to explain how you can be reliable if you have such beliefs and practices nor will they ever once even condemn him for holding these beliefs. It is entirely lost on these people that by prostituting the reputations of Imams Abu Hanifa and Bukhari to rescue that of Ikrima all they do is cast doubt on the latter two real imams for ‘accepting’ such a vile and deranged individual in the first place. “-Suliman Ahmed

Questions for Shaykh Atabek’s former student, Sulaiman Ahmed:

What is the source that he called Ali and Uthman apostates?

“Kharijite (and a Safari and Ibadi i.e worst type at that.”   

One of our team members almost spit his drink out reading this. If you realized what he said was akin to saying ‘Sunni’ (and a Shafi’i and Hanafi i.e. the worst type at that”!  Does that even make sense to anyone?  This person did not read on the subject of the Ibadi school, or he would not have made the most rudimentary of mistakes.

“Finally, if Ikrima is ‘truthful’ and ‘doesn’t lie’, then is he being truthful and accurate when he says that the Sahabah are kaafir and should be killed?” — Sulaiman Ahmed

Where did Ikrima (ra) state this? A source until this very day has not been given.

“Also, if you have to believe everything that an authority you quote believes, then do these guys, who so vociferously quote Ikrima, believe that Ali and the senior Sahabah were apostates and should be killed?” — Sulaiman Ahmed

We saw no source given for this.

“Also, maybe these people can show us where in their books this ‘presumption of reliability’ for narrators, i.e narrators are all reliable even if they takfir or anathematise the Sahabha or call for mass genocide, unless specifically mentioned otherwise, is found?” -Suliman Ahmed.   

Ikrima (ra) called for mass genocide? Is there a source for this?

“He ALLEGEDLY declared many Muslims to be disbelievers due to the extreme methodology of the Khawarij.”

Source: (pg. 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith) 

So did he indeed say the things you are claiming, Sulaiman, or is this alleged? If he said these things, can you furnish the proofs for them?  If he did not say those things, and they are alleged, are you willing to repent to Allah (swt) and retract these comments?

We have also noticed this in their book:

“This means Wasil ibn Ata would thus take the utmost precautions before narrating anything. As we have seen, many top Muhaditheen narrated from the Khawarij, who were violent radicals who attacked Ali (r.a) since they too believed that lying equates to disbelief, Anthropomorphist (who attribute a human or other form to God) and those who insulted Ali(r.a).”

 Source: (pg. 197 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)

To put ‘Anthroporphism’ next to the Khawarij, or to attribute that to them is to speak ignorantly about their views. That is not something that can be attributed to them at all. Certainly not well-read nor informed. It is gross ignorance. Of all the ignorance that was proclaimed this has to be the most jarring.

Then you have to wonder about all that time and association with Ibn Abbas (ra). Was it hidden from Ibn Abbas that Ikrima (ra) was a “Kharijite”? Wasn’t Ibn Abbas (ra) aware of Ali and the command to kill such people?

Especially in light of Ibn Abbas (ra) and his known correspondence with Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi (ra), a known “Kharijite”. 

“If I were not afraid of hiding the knowledge (and of the severe punishment) I would not have replied to him.”

Source: (pg. 42 Studies in Early Hadith Literature M.M Azami)

For that matter, aren’t all those people who take hadith from Ikrima (ra) aware of the so-called hadith that commands the killing of “Kharijites”?

We’ve always found it interesting that the Orientalists think that Ikrima (ra) was enticed by the ‘Kharjite” doctrine due to egalitarianism. Is that not a tacit admission that Sunnism was not a champion of egalitarianism? 

However, why can’t it be conceivable that, as a slave of Ibn Abbas (ra), that Ikrima(ra) was privy to some of the thoughts of Ibn Abbas (ra) and possibly overheard Ibn Abbas (ra) make comments that were pro “Kharijite” and/or at the very least hear Ibn Abbas (ra) admit that they were right?

If we are going to question centuries-long assumptions about Ikrima (ra) in relationship to the Hanafi school, why not question the centuries-long assumptions the Hanafi school has towards the so-called “Kharijites”?

Why not question the centuries-long-held assumptions about the “Kharijites” from the Ahl Sunnah altogether? 

So, after having failed to establish that Imam Abu Hanifa had criticism of Ikrima (ra) Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed, pulled out all the stops. Any criticism against Ikrima (ra) throws it onto the wall and let’s see what sticks.

Attacks upon Ikrima (ra) from the sciences of jarh wa ta’dil

“After the death of Ibn Abbas, his son Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas imprisoned Ikrima and when he was asked for the reason he said: “He is narrating likes on behalf of my father.” Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib, A tab’i, was one of the leading Faqih scholars. He is renowned as one of the seven Fuqaha of Medina, one of the pillars upon which the Maliki School is based and the most eminent of those Fuqaha’ He is narrated to have said to his servant Burd; “O Burd, do not lie and attribute to me like Ikrima lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas” Ibn Umar also said the same to his slave Nafia, “Do not lie on behalf of me as the slave of Ibn Abbas lied on behalf of him.” (although this specific narration of Ibn Umar is disputed by the Muhaditheen.) Sa’eed ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sirin also considered him a liar. Ibrahim Nakhai the grand-teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa also rejected all narrations of Ikrima.” 

Source: (pg. 227 Hanafi Principles on Testing Hadith)

This in turn is taken from Source: (Muhammed ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman Al-Dhahabi al Shafi Mizan al I’tidal fi Naqd Arrijal) -Darul al-Ma’rifah , Beirut Lebanon, Volume 3 pg. 93 and Biography number 5716.)

So the primary source that Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed, used to disparage Ikrima (ra) is from Imam Al-Dhahabi.

So what was Al-Dhahabi’s conclusion after having access to the same information that Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed used him for? 

Dhahabi, a hadith scholar who considers Ikrima reliable.” 

Source: (pg. 228 Hanafi Principles for Testing Hadith)  –from their own book!

Yazid bin Abi Ziyad.

Yazid bin Abi Ziyad reported that Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas once tied up Ikrimah with a door when he was asked about the reason, he said: “This filthy person lies upon my father”

Source: (Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/373)

Yazīd ibn Abī Ziyād was from the great leaders of the Shīʿa

Source: (Al-Dhahabī records this in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (vol. 4, p. 423, no. 9727)

What can we say about Yazid bin Abi Ziyad?  Well…..https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?lid=1&mid=250316&typeinfo=23&catid=24374

Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib  

“do not lie and attribute to me like Ikrima lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas”

Sources: (Al-Ma’rifa wal Tarikh: 2/5) & (Siyar A’lam An Nubala, 5 page 22)

As this is criticism among peers. Ikrima (ra) and Sa’id Ibn Al Mussayib (ra) had characteristic of personal animosity.

Imam Malik called Ibn Ishaq a liar and an imposter for writing false stories about The Blessed Prophet Muhammed. Imam Malik has said that Ibn Ishaq “reports traditions on the authority of the Jews”. 

Source: (Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila. Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7)

“When Sufyan ath-Thawri heard the news about the death of Imam Abu Hanifa, he said: ‘Praise be to Allah that such a man had died as he was gradually destroying Islam. There could not be a worse person born in Islam.”

Source: (Ta’rikh Saghir, Biography of Imam Abu Hanifa)

Ibn Umar.

Abu Khalf Abdullah bin Isa al-Kharaz narrated from Yahya bin Muslim Yahya al-Baka: I heard Ibn Umar say to Nafi: “Fear Allah O Nafi’ and do not lie upon me as Ikrimah lies upon Ibn Abbas.” 

Source: (Tahdhib al-Kamal fi asma’ al-rijal 20/279)

Ibn Hajar al-Asqlani said: “He is Thiqah Thabat, the Scholar of Tafsir. The accusation of lying about him from Ibn Umar is not proven, nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) proven from him.”  

Source: (Taqreeb: 4673)

Also, are we to regard Nafi (ra) as someone who lied about Ibn Umar (ra)?

The golden chain? 

Even Shaykh Atabek and Sulaiman Ahmed admit: 

“Ibn Umar also said the same to his slave Nafia, “Do not like on behalf of me as the slave of Ibn Abbas lied on behalf of him.” (although this specific narration of Ibn Umar is disputed by the Muhaditheen).”

Source: (pg. 227 Hanafi Principles on Testing Hadith)

Sa’eed ibn Jubayr 

Actually, Imam Sa’eed bin Jubayr said: “If Ikrimah stops narrating his hadith to them, people would travel to him”

Source: (Tabaqat al-Kubra: 2/294)

Ibn Sirin

We do not have l-Dhahabi’s source to see how he dismissed Ibn Sirin’s critique. 

Ibrahim Nakhai

We do not have l-Dhahabi’s source to see how he dismissed Ibrahim Al Nakhai’s critique. 

In the end, Imam Dhahabi looked at the justifications and various statements attributed to the 5 above and his conclusion is that Ikrima (ra) is reliable.

As regards the personal accusations that Shaykh Atabek and his former student, Sulaiman Ahmed, have towards each other, we can only say that there can only be one victor in their struggle. If the court ruled in favour of Shaykh Atabek, this would mean that Sulaiman Ahmed was not honest in his claims against his former teacher. Also, if the court ruled in favour of Sulaiman Ahmed, this would mean that Shaykh Atabek was not honest in his claims against his former student.

May justice be done.  May our pens write the truth. May our tongues speak the truth. May our hearts desire the truth. May Allah (swt) guide us to the truth and may the destination of us all be the truth.

“And whatever strikes you of disaster – it is for what your hands have earned, but He pardons much.” (Qur’an 42:30)

You may also wish to read the following:

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The narrator Ikrima: You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)

﷽ 

Narrated `Ikrima:

that Ibn `Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2812)

One could simply ditch the narration from Ikrima (ra) above. And use the following. Although the following allows for more interpretative scope than does the narration given via Ikrima (ra).

Abu Sa`id Khudri reported:

One who is better than I informed me, that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said to `Ammar as he was digging the ditch (on the occasion of the Battle of the Ditch), wiping over his head: “O son of Summayya, you will be involved in trouble and a group of the rebels would kill you.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2915a)

So why are a group of companions castigated when it becomes even apparent to them that Muaviya and his part were the unjust group? They warned Ali, this was a ruse, and they remembered well what the Blessed Messenger (saw) said: and a group of the rebels would kill you

By the way, Ammar (ra) was killed BEFORE arbitration.

Narrated `Ikrima:

“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

Source:  (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6922)

Some Muslims really do imagine that they can have their cake and eat it too when it comes to Ikrima (ra).

On the one hand, they want to use Ikrima (ra) as a narrator when it comes to clearly showing that the kharijites truly were, none other than Muawiyah and his band.

In the following post you can see how Ibn Taymiyyah tripped over himself with regard to one of the narrations of Ikrima regarding Ammar ibn Yasir (ra).

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal says that Ikrima was of the view of the Ibadi.

Yet, then they want to cast aspersions upon the narrator, Ikirma (ra), because he has none other than Ibn Abbas (ra), who narrates that he himself differed with the ijtihad of Ali, concerning the burning of apostates.

Failing to pin blame on Ikrima (ra) some have now satisfied themselves with casting aspersions on Ibn Abbas (ra). See here:

With Ikrima (ra) you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

You will need to be consistent in your methodology.

May Allah (swt) open the eyes and the hearts.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Pro Alid YouTube channel throws Ibn Abbas under the bus!

“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)

﷽ 

So, an ex-12er, Shi’i shared the following video with us and what an eye-opener!

The YouTube channel, known to be Pro-Alid, featured a “Sunni” ?? Scholar Dr. Suhail Zakkar (possibly Shi’i or diet-Shi’i) who pulled out all the stops to throw Ibn Abbas (ra) under the bus!

Ibn ‘Abbas reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) came to the privy and I placed water for him for ablution. When he came out he said:

Who placed it here? And in one version of Zuhair they (the Companions) said, and in the version of Abu Bakr (the words are): I said: It is Ibn ‘Abbas (who has done that), whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: May Allah grant him a deep understanding of religion.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2477)

The speaker in the video is Dr. Suhail Zakkar.

Dr. Suhail Zakkar – Curriculum Vitae

Dr. Suhail Zakkar (1936–2020) was a highly respected and prolific Syrian historian and academic, widely considered a leading authority on medieval Arab history, particularly the Crusades and early Islamic history.

  • Early Life & Formative Years: Being born under the French Mandate and experiencing its economic hardships firsthand instilled in him a strong sense of Arab nationalism and a desire to understand the forces—historical and colonial—that shaped the modern Arab world. This personal context deeply influenced his academic pursuits.
  • Academic Credentials: After obtaining his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Damascus, he earned a doctorate from the prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. This gave him Western academic training which he combined with his deep knowledge of Arabic sources.
  • Magnum Opus: His life’s work, the “Comprehensive Encyclopedia in the History of the Crusades” (Al-Mawsuʻah al-shamilah fi tarikh al-hurub al-salibiyah), is a monumental 50-volume reference work. It is not a narrative history but a critical compilation and analysis of primary sources, making it an indispensable resource for scholars.
  • Legacy: He represented a school of serious, source-critical Arab historiography. He passed away in Damascus in March 2020.

Ibn Abbas (ra) and his empathy with the Khawarij?

  1. Complete Withdrawal and Neutrality: Ibn Abbas did not just withdraw from his post; he withdrew entirely from the conflict. He did not return to Ali’s camp in Kufa, nor did he offer further political or military support during the escalating war with the so-called Khawarij. This neutrality in a conflict he had previously argued was a matter of truth versus error that could be interpreted by Dr. Zakkar as a fundamental shift in allegiance.
  2. Interpretation of His Silence: From a historical analysis perspective, Dr. Zakkar could argue that Ibn Abbas’s silence and absence during the latter part of Ali’s caliphate and during the period of the so-called Khawarij’s peak activity is deafening. For a figure of his stature and previous unwavering support, this silence could be read as tacit approval or, at a minimum, a strong empathy for the Khawarij’s grievances against Ali.

In our school we know why this is. For those who are reading up on history, and they know that Ibn Abbas (ra) saw the soundness of the argument of the sahaba of Al Nahrawan.

What the good Dr. left out was the fact that Ali sent Ibn Abbas (ra) to the sahaba of Al Nahrawan to try and when them back after leaving Ali’s camp over the arbitration.

Ali knew that they had been correct from the beginning!

The companion Ibn Abbas (ra) debates the companions at Nahrawan.

Argument #1


“O you who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you does so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka’ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, AS ADJUDGED BY TWO JUST MEN AMONG YOU; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition, Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution.” (Qur’an 5:95)

As adjudged by two just men among you’. Keep this in mind as well. This is a key part of the text.

The companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) replied:

“Are you comparing the law relating to the killing of game animal on the sacred land or the law that is intended to resolve the misunderstandings that occur between a man and his wife, with the law that is intended to govern the matters of greater magnitude such as the act of shedding of Muslims’ blood?”


Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 13.)

So, through qiyas (analogy), it is logical to reason that, in the above verse, during the pilgrimage, when someone kills a game animal, they are ordered to compensate for the following judgement by two just men than it stands to reason the shedding of Muslim blood has a better claim to be dealt with diplomatically.

In response to what Ibn Abbas (ra) had presented, the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) argued that there is a significant difference between the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) refereed to and the verse which is used to justify Ali’s war against Mu’awiya.

In the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) referred to, Allah did not mention any ruling, nor did he make any decision between contending parties. Instead, He assigned the task of arbitrating to men

On this point, there is no issue with Ibn Abbas (ra) and his thought process here.

However, in the verse which gave Ali the right to fight the war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) Himself has mentioned step by step the measures that should be taken and decided on. What should be done at each step?

Thus, Allah (swt) lays down the ruling in this case. The verse states:
“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)

Also, another point concerning the text that Ibn Abbas brought forth.

As adjudged by two just men among you


Naturally, people would ask, “Are you saying Amru bin Al-As is a man of justice when it was he who spilled our blood yesterday?” If you believe that he is just, then we (including you — Ibn Abbas and Ali) are not just because we all fought the war against Mu’awiya and Amru bin Al-As who are just!”


So, the unfilled questions put to Ibn Abbas (ra) were.

  • A) Were there two arbitrators or one?
  • B) Were they just or unjust?

To the Shi’i reading this (Zaydi and Imami), we implore you to tell us. Who are the just ones in the camp of Mu’awiya? Can one who takes up arms against Ali be considered just? If you say yes, then let that stand on the record.

To the Sunnis reading this, we implore you to tell us.  The one who rebels against the recognized Imam who has not been proven to go against the Qur’an and Sunnah. Are they just or unjust? 

Ibn Abbas (ra) was quoted by Ahmad Ibn A’tham as saying:
“O, men! Amru bin Al’As was not an arbiter, why then oppose us because of him? He was but an arbiter representing Mu’awiya.”
Source: (Ibn A’tham, Al Futuh Vol. 4, p. 94.)

Is it imaginable that Ibn Abbas (ra) wanted to substantiate his position with a verse which strongly opposed him?


Naturally, our brothers from among the ‘Ahl Sunnah’ or the ‘Shi’i’ are either not informed about this side of the story or simply the learned among them withhold information. Allah (swt) sees and knows all.

It has been narrated on the authority of Aba Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1853)


Argument #2
Let us look at the other verse that is said that Ibn Abbas (ra) brought as proof.


“If you fear a breach between couples, send an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If the couple desire to put things right, Allah will bring about a reconciliation between them.  “Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware” (Qur’an 4:35)

This verse orders us to reconcile between a man and his wife in case of misunderstanding or breach. But the steps that ought to be taken when resolving such domestic disputes have not been mentioned. The arbiters are generally required to do their best, in being fair and just, to reach a peaceful, acceptable resolution for the concerned parties.

When you compare the two mentioned verses you will notice that they are intended for different purposes.


In the verse which gave Ali the right to wage war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) delegated no one to rule and decide on the issue. But He rather ordered the believers to abide by what He had ruled.

On the other hand, what Ibn Abbas (ra) armed himself with, was the verse that Allah (swt) granted deciding on a role to two fair and just arbiters. That is a clear and a huge difference between the two verses. So, we can say with confidence that Ibn Abbas’s analogy of linking this verse with the conflict of war between Ali and Mu’awiya is debatable.


It does not seem suitable for a person of his stature and understanding.  Now, as mentioned above, Ibn Abbas (ra), after hearing all of this, knew very well that the arguments produced by the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that were in Nahrawan were airtight!

When Ibn Abbas (ra) was convinced by their arguments, he (Ibn Abbas) sheathed his sword. Meaning he did not assist Ali in his unprovoked attack upon the Muslims at Nahrawan. Remember, as the Dr. said, this same Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Ali at the battle of the Camel & Siffin.

So we are talking about the same Ibn Abbas (ra) who was with Ali opposite a field with Aisha (ra), Talha and Zubayr, and Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Ali opposite a field with Muaviya and Amr ibn al-As.

This same Ibn Abbas (ra) who said after his debate with the sahaba of Al Nahrawan the following:

(The People of Nahrawan) have been on the Right Path

Source: (Al-Shammakhi, Al-Siyar Vol. 1 p, 72,)

Another account says concerning Ibn Abbas (ra) and his debate with the sahaba of Al Nahrwan, that he (Ibn Abbas) “could not crush their proofs.”

Source: (Abu Qahtaan, Al-Siyar p. 107)

Another narration says he (Ibn Abbas) went back from this exchange with them: “Without being able to do anything.”

Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p 18, Al-Barrad Al-Jawaahir p. 122)

He could not prove anything to them!

Source: (Ibn Abi Shaibah, Al-Musannaf Vol. 15, p. 312)

The Nahrawanees established their proofs to him(Ibn Abbas).”

Source: (Al-Ya’qubi, Al-Taarikh Vol. 2 p. 191)

First they (Diet-Shi’i) tried to throw Ikrima (ra) under the bus. So, when they did not turn over any leaves, some of them started to go after Ibn Abbas (ra).

Ibn Abbas (ra) begins to distance himself from Ali

Can’t keep the truth hidden from the Muslims for too long!    

Look at what Ibn Abbas (ra) says here

I swear by Allah, it is better for me that I meet Allah with all that are beneath the Earth, starting with its gold and silver, and all that its surface is full with than meeting Him with my hands having split the blood of this umma (Islamic Nation) so that I may attain a kingship or leadership.” -Ibn Abbas

Ouch!

Source: (Al-Baladhuri, Al Ansab Vol 2, p 398. Ibn Abd Rabbi, Al-‘Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 326. Al Futuh by Ibn A’atham Vol. 4, p.75)

If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer.” -Ibn Abbas.

Ouch Again!

Source: (Al-Qalhati, Al-Kashf Vol 2, p 251. IbnAbdiRabih, Al-Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 331.)

It is very clear from the aforementioned that Ibn Abbas (ra) had developed a disapproving attitude towards the war fought against the sahaba of Al Nahrawan. A complete change of heart from the previous conflicts.

It is clear that, in this war with the Nahrawanees, Ibn Abbas (ra) found fault with Ali and condemned him for his unjustifiably wrong act of fighting those fellow sahaba.

After he was sent to debate with them, Ibn Abbas (ra) realized they were upon the truth. He accepted that he (Ibn Abbas) was wrong and the sahaba of Al Nahrawan were right. Certainly there is a lesson to be learnt from this experience that the accurate criteria with which to draw a distinction between right and wrong is not a coin-flip, but rather the Qur’an and authentic Prophetic traditions. After all, Ali made his hasty decision in the heat of the moment (giving in to pro-arbitration forces) and possibly did not consider the full ramifications of his decision.

When those sahaba who left Ali’s camp answered Ibn Abbas (ra) and his objections clearly and decisively, there was nowhere to go but the truth.

Having been fully convinced by the position of the Nahrwanees and the evidence that they had for their succession from Ali’s leadership, Ibn Abbas also detached himself from Ali and set out for Mecca.

Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p. 20)

Even though one of the reasons why Ibn Abbas (ra) left Ali and set out to Mecca was from their differences in the bait al-mal (House of Treasury/House of Properties), from which Ibn Abbas (ra) took what he regarded to be his lawful portion of the money, their differences were compounded by the fact that they were on opposing sides of the issue of the Nahrwanees.

Recall the statement:

If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer,” — Ibn Abbas.

In this statement, Ibn Abbas (ra) is basically saying: If I disagree with you on the issue of bait al-mal, then I am strongly opposing you on the issue of the Companions at Nahrawan. This was about the point in time where Ibn Abbas (ra) detached himself from Ali’s leadership.

May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the truth seekers!

Dear readers, you have been provided the information. All you need to do is to plug in the pieces. You were told that Ibn Abbas (ra) went and debated the companions at Nahrawan and that he (Ibn Abbas) had won hands down. Notice how you are never told their reply or their responses?

Brought to you by the same people who have no problem with mocking their own Imams!

You may also wish to read:

https://primaquran.com/2023/02/19/abd-allah-b-al-abbas-and-the-muhakkima-wilferd-madelung

May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Who killed the companion Ammar ibn Yasir?

“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)

﷽ 

Praise be to Allah (swt) for the noble and truthful companion Ikrima (ra). He is the one who informed us that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had errors in his ijtihad. That a senior member of the Ahl Bayt Ibn Abbas (ra) corrected Ali Ibn Abu Talib.

Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ali had errors in his ijtihad that would go against the Qur’an & Sunnah. That he would get corrected by a senior member of the Ahl Bayt.

Narrated `Ikrima:

“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6922)

This noble and truthful companion, Ikrima (ra), also informed us that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.

Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.

Narrated `Ikrima:

“That Ibn Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2812)


Such a problem is the above sahih hadith that the Hanbali Ibn Taymiyyah al Harrani tried to come up with all kinds of crafty ways of dealing with the impact of the statement from the Blessed Messenger (saw).

Some have said that it is not authentic, and others have interpreted it. People have had different statements about the tradition of ‘Ammaar; of them are those who have criticized it.” He goes on: “But the people who have knowledge of this tradition have had three different statements. One group of them regards it to be inauthentic because to them, it has been narrated through a weak chain of transmitters!”

Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 204, 208-209 & 212)

So Ibn Tamiyyah has two claims.

  1. The tradition itself despite being in Bukhari is actually daif.
  2. It has a suitable interpretation.

The Imam of the Muslims, the People of The Truth and Steadfastness, Al-Imamu Al-Qannubi says: “We do not know whom Ibn Taymiyyah means by his claim “Some (have said that it is not authentic)….” There will come explanation that many have classified this tradition as authentic….”

Source: (Al-Qannubi Al-Tufan Al-Jarif Vol. 3, section two, p. 625)

But this interpretation has been objected to by even Ibn Taymiyyah himself!

Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 210-211)

But – all of a sudden – we, finally, find Ibn Taymiyyah himself turning around to clearly state that the said tradition is authentic. “The tradition is proved, and it is authentic, being from the Prophet (saw).”

Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 211)

Yet, surprisingly, he has misinterpreted it by saying: “His killers were those who held weapons and killed him.” Which he means to say not Mu’awiya!!! He says again: “The word “killer”, if loosely or absolutely used, means the one that has killed: not the one that has issued the order (of killing).”

This bizarre philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah indicates that if he were to live in the present age, he would – of course – agree with the claim that presidents are not responsible for the crime of the illegal, haphazard bloodshed committed by their armies in different Muslim and non-Muslim countries, but rather their troops are the ones responsible for that! Indeed, while Ibn Taymiyyah defends Mu’awiya in that way, we find that Mu’awiya himself proves him wrong, as he says: “Ali had two right hands (two strong assistants and supporters), one of which I cut on the day of Siffin, meaning ‘Ammaar bin Yasir; and the other I cut today, meaning Al-ashtar”

Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 3, p. 133. Ibn Al-Athir Al-Kamil Vol. 2, p. 705.)

Check mate!

Not only this but here is a tradition that contradicts Ibn Taymiyyah’s bizarre idea. The tradition says:

Not only this, but here is a tradition that contradicts Ibn Taymiyyah’s bizarre idea. The tradition says:

“He who assists with a half-uttered word in the killing of a Muslim, will come on the day of judgment between his two eyes there has been written “He has despaired of the Mercy of Allah.”

Source: (Al-Rabi’u bin Habib Al-Jami’u Al-Sahih p. 368, tradition no. 960. Ibn Majah Al-Sunan p. 444, tradition no. 2620. )

How does it come, then, that Ibn Taymiyya excludes the one from whose order the killing is carried out from being responsible for it?!

Typically, many Sunnis have used these tactics to get around this hadith. Even some of the early proto-Umayyad-proto-Sunnis say that the ones who slew Ammar ibn Yasir were the ones who brought him to the battlefield, meaning Ali ibn Abu Talib himself!

However, pro-Alid groups have tried to cast aspersions on this narrator, Ikrima, as well! 

You can’t have your cake and eat it too! You can’t use ‘Ikrima as evidence against Muaviya and then say his evidence is not good when it comes to Ibn Abbas (ra) disagreeing with Ali burning people alive. 

For those of you interested in reading more, you are invited to read:

May Allah (swt) open the eyes and the hearts of this ummah! May Allah (swt) unite us upon the truth!

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A collection of articles on the Prayer of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

“The Messenger of Allah is certainly a good example for those of you who have hope in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and who remember Allah very often.” (Qur’an 33:21)

And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow.” (Qur’an 2:43)

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

﷽ 

This is a collection of articles that have been written about prayer. The way the Blessed Prophet (saw) did his prayer.

The way some who claim to be those who uphold the truth have lied to the masses and outright distorted the way that the Prophet (saw) did his prayers.

It is hoped that these articles will be an eye-opener for many.  That one will be tranquil in their prayers.  Dear brother and sisters, in our prayers we do not have a position where we turn to the left or the right. This happens at the termination of the prayer with the taslim: ‘As salamu ‘alikum’.

Our prayers are about facing forward and looking forward and keeping our heads forward. When our focus is on Allah (swt) we do not concern ourselves with what others are doing. When our focus is on what people do in the prayer rather than our prayer (whether it was accepted or not/ whether it was sincere or not), then we become among the distracted.

It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that:

The Messenger of Allah (saw) entered the Masjid, then a man entered and prayed, then he came and greeted the Messenger of Allah(saw) with Salam. The Messenger of Allah (saw)returned his greeting and said: Go back and pray, for you have not prayed.” So he went back and prayed as he has prayed before, then he came to the Prophet (saw) and greeted him with Salam, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to him: “Wa alaika as-salam (and upon you be peace). Go back and pray for you have not prayed.” He did that three times, then the man said: “By the One Who sent you with the truth, I cannot do any better than that; teach me.” He said: “When you stand to pray, say the Takbir, then recite whatever is easy for you of Quran. Then bow until you have tranquility in your bowing, then stand up until you are standing straight. Then prostrate until you have tranquility in your prostration, then sit up until you have tranquility in your sitting. Then do that throughout your entire prayer.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/nasai:884)

Be tranquil in your prayers!

The value of the prayer in Islam.

Step by step video guide that shows the prayer of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

A very useful guide: Prayer in sketches and color prints by Dr. Ali Bin Hilal Al’Abri.

There is not a single uncontested hadith that says the Blessed Prophet (saw) would pray with his right hand over his left hand.

What are the Sunnah prayers in the Ibadi school? (Mu’akkad, Ghair mu’akkadah, Qabliyah, B’adiyyah, Witr)

The Ibadis do not raise their hands at all during the prayers.

The complete salah (prayer) based only on sahih hadiths impossible? The importance of the living transmitted sunnah vs documented sunnah.

Ibadis follow the blessed Sunnah of opening the hands in prayer.

Who is truly reviving the authentic Sunnah of the Prayer of the Blessed Prophet (saw) ?

manipulation of hadith to advocate prayer positions.

Salafis, Wahabbis and their lies – they lie even on their own Imams!

Salafi preachers Bilal Philips and Assim Al Hakeem lie about Imam Malik, For Assim Al Hakeem Imam Malik is like any: “Tom, Dick, Harry.” -his words!

Salafi preacher Assim Al-Hakeem: “You can pray with arms to the side.”

Muhammed Mufti Muneer: Ignores the Athar focuses on Problematic hadith.

Ecumenical Ibadi Islam: We can pray behind any of the Ahl Qibla.

Ibadi Muslims can pray behind the Imams of any of the Ahl Qibla.

Non Ibadi Muslims: Can they pray behind us?

Prayind behind an Ibadi Imam: Sunni views run the gamut.

Salafi Preacher: If he is willing to throw Imam Malik on the bus imagine what he may say about the Ibadi?

Practical pragmatic Ibadi Islam: Blending in to save your life.

Recently adopted the Ibadi school? Afraid that the Muslims at your local masjid may physically assault you? We have you covered.

Very useful tools to assist you in learning the prayer of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

Salaat Simplied Z Card.

Premier Ibadi Fiqh book in the English language on the performance of the Prayer by Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali 

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Praying Behind an Ibadi Imam: Sunni Views Run the Gamut

“And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression.” (Qur’an 5:2)

﷽ 

From time to time we will come across a discussion or a question about this. First and foremost Al hamdulillah. Praise be to Allah (swt) who has made the people of truth and integrity to be able to pray behind any of the ahl qiblah.

Simply put: for our school the prayer is for Allah (swt) not any Imam or school. Praying behind a particular Imam does not show support for whatever is in the heart of that person. Praying behind any Imam of ahl qiblah shows obedience to the call to prayer and obedience to Allah (swt).

However, when it comes to Sunni Muslims, they seem to have views that run the gamut. This is to be understood especially in light of the fact that this so-called tent known as ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah’ is very, very divided itself.

The reality hits home when you realize that Sunni Muslims that are Māturīdī in theology, Hanafi in jurisprudence, that are Deobandi, make takfir against Sunni Muslims that are Māturīdī in theology, Hanafi in jurisprudence and Barelvi. Or that Sunni Muslims that are Ash’ari in theology and Hanafi’ in jurisprudence will often not pray behind an Imam, who is Ash’ari in theology and Shafi’i in jurisprudence, because of differences of opinion about how the prayer is to be performed. Do we practice ‘Raf al-yadayn’, saying Amin after Al Fatiha? Do we place the hands below the navel or above the chest? All these are issues that Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah fights with each other about internally. Let alone those that are outside their paradigm.

The Tabligh Jamaat , arguably one of the best daw’ah groups (in our humble opinion), split into two groups. It created divisions (markazi and shooraee) so strong that both groups started building new Masjids for themselves. They will not pray behind each other’s Imams. 

Sunni organizations Zaytuna, ISNA & ICNA had boycotted The Naqshabandi Haqqani Sufi Tariqa, Shaykh Nazim and the U.S. Supreme Islamic Council.  All of whom are Sunni Muslims. 

The Salafiyyah movement and the Muslim brotherhoodhave no love between them. The Salafiyyah movement itself is divided into the Sahwa movement, Halabi. Suroorees, Madhkali.

We think you get the point. So we in our school should not be surprised when we see that some of them say that they cannot pray behind us. That is because many of them, great swathes of them would not pray behind each other!

Those who call themselves Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah are divided on the matter:

You have the more ignorant among them, like Shaykh Assim Al Hakeem, who says one cannot pray behind the Ibadi.

So what would be the opinion of Shaykh Rabi Ibn hadi al-Madhkali?

According to Shaykh Rabi Ibn hadi al-Madhkali praying behind the Ibadi would be valid.

So here is the view of Shaykh Rabi ibn hadi al-Madhkali, a Sunni Muslim who is Wahabbi in jurisprudence, and an Athari in theology, saying it would be no issue.

According to Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad praying behind an Ibadi would be valid.

So here is the view of Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad, a Sunni Muslim who is Shafi’i in jurisprudence, an Ash’ari in theology and a follower of the Nashqabandi Sufi Tariqa, saying praying behind an Ibadi is valid.

Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband, India say that praying behind an Ibadi is invalid.

https://darulifta-deoband.com/home/en/false-sects/51497

So here is the view of Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband, Sunni Muslims who are primarily Hanafi in jurisprudence, and Māturīdī in theology who are saying praying behind an Ibadi is invalid.

Allah willing, We will update this page as we come across various fatwa from the federation of sects that refer to themselves as “Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah” on this particular matter.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized