Tag Archives: muslims

November 6, 2025 · 2:12 am

Is the Qur’an clear?

“It is He who caused the Book to descend to you. In it are verses, that are (muḥkamāt) definitive. They are the essence of the Book and others, ones that are (mutashābihāt) unspecific. Then, those whose hearts are swerving, they follow what was unspecific in it, seeking discord (l-fit’nati) and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7).” 

﷽ 

“Biologists as well as philosophers have suggested that the universe, and the living forms it contains, are based on chance, but not accident. To put it another way, forces of chance and of antichance coexist in a complementary relationship. The random element is called entropy, the agent of chaos, which tends to mix up the unmixed, to destroy meaning. The nonrandom element is information which exploits the uncertainty inherent in the entropy principle to generate new structures, to inform the world in novel ways.

Source: (Grammatical Man—Information, Entropy, Language, and Life by Jeremy Campbell. Page 15)

The intent of this entry is so that those who are among the Muslims who come into contact with adherents of the Hafs Qur’an Only religion can have some introspection with regard to their own position.

It is hoped that people may be able to look beyond the oversimplification of issues.

Our colleague was once listening to a lecture by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf where he mentioned that as Muslims we believe that the Creator is One,  we believe the revelation is one; however, the revelation is being refracted through the prism of the human mind.

It reminded them of the famous cover of the Pink Floyd album “The Dark of the Moon.”

They found it an interesting point.

Spect-Prism-sm

Clear has been defined as: 1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.

“clear and precise directions”

The quality of being clear, in particular.

The quality of coherence and intelligiblity.

Here are some examples of things that are clear but are they intelligible?

You will understand the meaning of the universe once the ball sings to Jill about the biz. Mace Windu understood the peanut butter sandwich using his clear signals so that the computer would jazz out to Dan Excalibur swimming passing the switchboard flying kites. Very funny though the syntax as he whizzed past the train, who was busy cramming algebraic thoughts into his fish tank.

The answer to five minus five is purple because pancakes don’t have bones.

Anyone familiar enough with the English language should be able to understand every word that we have typed above.

However, would anyone care to tell us what we were talking about above?

If the Qur’an is recited to people who do not understand the Arabic language is it clear to them?

The claim of the Qur’an is that it has has verses that are muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt

“It is He who caused the Book to descend to you. In it are verses, that are (muḥkamāt) definitive. They are the essence of the Book and others, ones that are (mutashābihāt) unspecific. Then, those whose hearts are swerving, they follow what was unspecific in it, seeking discord (l-fit’nati) and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7).” 

To us, the Qur’an makes it clear that it is both clear and unclear. If it was not the case, it would not be possible to ‘fitna’ or discord with something that is clear.  We have already stated that in other places one of the sure signs of a cult or sect among Muslims is that they will try and appeal to a ‘controversial’ verse, or a verse that is subject to many interpretations to base their case.   This has happened many times, especially in matters of theology.

For example, the Qur’an has many verses that make it clear that those who enter the hellfire do not escape from it.  However, there are one or two verses that could be interpreted contrary to this.  Thus, instead of taking the multitude of verses that make it clear that the one who enters hellfire does not escape from it, the people of the opposition take those one or two verses that are not entirely clear, and they build their theology upon this.

Proof from the Qur’an: The punishment of hellfire is ever lasting.

Also notice that the above text says: “And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge.“

If a text or a revelation was clear in and of itself, it would not only be grasped by men of understanding but by anyone.

Often the Qur’an begins a chapter with something ambiguous and then affirms that it is clear.

Examples abound:

“Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the Book and a clear Qur’an.” (Qur’an 15:1)

“Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the Clear Book. Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.”  (Qur’an 12:1-2)

“Ta, Seen, Meem. These are the verses of the Clear Book.”  (Qur’an 26:1-2)

“Ta, Seen. These are the verses of the Qur’an and a clear Book“ (Qur’an 27:1)

“Ta, Seen, Meem. These are the verses of the Clear Book.” (Qur’an 28:1-2)

“Ha Meem, By the clear Book, (Qur’an 43:1-2)

“Ha Meem, By the clear Book, (Qur’an 44:1-2)

There is also something interesting here.  

Allah (swt) informs us throughout the Qur’an that it is possible that his revelation may not be clear to people.

Examples:

“They ask you about intoxicants and gambling: say, “In them, there is a gross sin and some benefits for the people. But their sinfulness far outweighs their benefit.” They also ask you what to give to charity: say, “The excess.” Allah clarifies the revelations for you, that you may reflect,” (Qur’an 2:219)

“Do not marry idolatresses unless they believe; a believing woman is better than an idolatress, even if you like her. Nor shall you give your daughters in marriage to idolatrous men, unless they believe. A believing man is better than an idolater, even if you like him. These invite to Hell, while Allah invites to Paradise and forgiveness, as He wills. He clarifies His revelations for the people, that they may take heed.” (Qur’an 2:221)

“Allah thus explains His revelations for you, that you may understand.” (Qur’an 2:242)


“Do any of you wish to own a garden of palm trees and grapes, with flowing streams and generous crops, then, just as he grows old, and while his children are still dependent on him, a holocaust strikes and burns up his garden? Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you, that you may reflect.” (Qur’an 2:266)

“You shall hold fast to the rope of Allah, all of you, and do not be divided. Recall Allah’s blessings upon you – you used to be enemies, and He reconciled your hearts. By His grace, you became brethren. You were at the brink of a pit of fire, and He saved you there from. Allah thus explains His revelations to you, that you may be guided.” (Qur’an 3:301)

“O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they may even wish to see you suffer. Hatred flows out of their mouths and what they hide in their chests is far worse. We thus clarify the revelations for you, if you understand.” (Qur’an 3:108)

“They consult you; say, “Allah advises you concerning the single person. If one dies and leaves no children, and he had a sister, she gets half the inheritance. If she dies first, he inherits from her, if she leaves no children. If there were two sisters, they get two-thirds of the inheritance. If the siblings are men and women, the male gets twice the share of the female.” Allah thus clarifies for you, lest you go astray. Allah is fully aware of all things.” (Qur’an 4:176)

“Allah does not hold you responsible for the mere utterance of oaths; He holds you responsible for your actual intentions. If you violate an oath, you shall atone by feeding ten poor people with the same food you offer to your own family or clothing them, or by freeing a slave. If you cannot afford this, then you should fast for three days. This is the atonement for violating the oaths that you swore to keep. You shall fulfill your oaths. Allah thus explains His revelations to you, that you may be appreciative.”  (Qur’an 5:89)

“Allah thus explains the revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Wise.” (Qur’an 24:18)

“O you who believe, permission must be requested by your servants and the children who have not attained puberty (before entering your rooms). This is to be done in three instances – before the Dawn Prayer, at noon when you change your clothes to rest, and after the Night Prayer. These are three private times for you. At other times, it is not wrong for you or them to mingle with one another. Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.” (Qur’an 24:58)

“Once the children reach puberty, they must ask permission (before entering) like those who became adults before they have asked permission (before entering). Allah thus clarifies His revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.” (Qur’an 24:59)

“The blind is not to be blamed, the crippled is not to be blamed, nor is handicapped to be blamed, just as you are not to be blamed for eating at your homes, or the homes of your fathers, or the homes of your mothers, or the homes of your brothers, or the homes of your sisters, or the homes of your fathers’ brothers, or the homes of your fathers’ sisters, or the homes of your mothers’ brothers, or the homes of your mothers’ sisters, or the homes that belong to you, and you possess their keys or the homes of your friends. You commit nothing wrong by eating together or as individuals. When you enter any home, you shall greet each other a greeting from Allah that is blessed and good. Allah thus explains the revelations for you, that you may understand.” (Qur’an 24:61)


“Know that Allah revives the land after it has died. We thus explain the revelations for you, that you may understand.” (Qur’an 57:17)

Prima Qur’an Comments:

All of these verses, if you removed the phrase ‘Allah thus explains/clarifies the revelations for you’, you could still get an understanding of the verses in question.  However, Allah (swt) knows why He (swt) has decided to further elucidate on selected passages of the Qur’an.

Even when Allah (swt) says ‘We thus explain the revelations for you’ in the above passage about Allah (swt) giving life to the land after it has died, it doesn’t explain or clarify the ‘how’ of it.   It simply says, ‘Know’.

Theological issues concerning the clarity of the Qur’an.

The Shafite Mutzalite ‘Abd al-Jabbar epitomized the Basra Mutazalite position on the principle of clarity. He declared that any form of delayed clarification was impossible not simply because Allah’s justice requires that he make his requirements known, but more importantly because his speech is his created act, and therefore must be good, from which it follows that his every utterance must fulfill its purpose of indicating his will.

This is a very important point that Shaykh Abd al-Jabbar has made.  This is why we know many of the followerse of the Qur’an Only religion are in a very difficult situation theologically speaking.

According to the theory of meaning introduced by Shaykh Abu Ali al-Jubbai’ who was a Mutazalite rival of Shaykh Abd al-Jabbar, the meaning of an utterance is not simply a function of its verbal form, but also of the speaker’s will or intent.

Bottom line. If Allah cannot leave the meaning of his speech unclear, then he cannot leave humans without the evidence needed for reconciling seemingly conflicting texts. The fact that we lack evidence about which text came first must itself be evidence that the text should both be implemented, which is best accomplished by particularization. This is a strong logical proof for the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

In light of all of the above, would it not be fair to assert that this argument is oversimplified and the issue is a little more nuanced than that?

In fact, the clarity of the Qur’an is not internal to the Qur’an itself!  It is dependent upon thoughtful reflection!

“Thus do We explain the verses for a people who give thought.” (Qur’an 10:24)

The static you hear in an untuned or poorly tuned radio is the random background noise, but the coherent radio transmission signal within that noise requires a radio receiver to decode it.

The receiver performs several critical functions to achieve this:

  • Tuning: It selects a specific frequency from the myriad of radio waves the antenna picks up, filtering out others.
  • Amplification: It strengthens the weak incoming signal to a usable level.
  • Demodulation: This is the actual decoding step. The receiver separates the original information (such as sound or data) from the carrier wave that transported it.
  • Output: It converts the decoded electronic signal into an audible sound or viewable data.


The following verse that we are going to quote caused our colleague to drift off in thought. They mentioned that it was challenging to type this as their eyes welled up with tears, and their heart was overflowing in love for the Beloved Vessel (saw) that Allah (swt) gave such a monumental task to carry!

“If We had sent down this Qur’an upon a mountain, you would have seen it humbled and coming apart from fear of Allah. And these examples We present to the people that perhaps they will give thought. (Qur’an 59:21)

Subhan’Allah!

Our point is that the Blessed Messenger (saw) did not have the medium of his mind like we do when approaching the Qur’an with our limited human reasoning and capacity.  The total and complete understanding of the Qur’an was poured into his heart.  His heart and conscience were light.  There is no prism, no spectrum when it comes to the Blessed Messenger. (saw)

Let us be honest for a second and ask ourselves. How many of us can say we have reached the state of total and complete submission in the way that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed (May Allah’s choicest blessings and peace be upon them all) did?

The Proof Is In the Pudding.

The very fact that there is now a proliferation of Qur’an only groups, each vying with each other, each with disparate understandings of a revelation that they in their approach to revelation says ‘is clear as day’.

So we end up with some groups saying the Qur’an requires us to pray 2 times a day, or 3 times a day, and some saying that there is no ritual prayer at all!

However, some of the Quraniyoon will just keep throwing their selective verses of choice at you again and again.

I think the point is missed.  We as Muslims do not disagree with any verse of the Qur’an as being a revelation.  We agree with the Qur’an does it say it ‘explains itself’  and that it is ‘clear’.

Part of that explanation and elucidation comes through the example of the Blessed Messenger (saw) himself.

“It is He Who raised up among the unlettered a Messenger from among them who recounts His signs to them and makes them pure and teaches them the Book and wisdom even though they had been before, certainly, clearly going astray.”  (Quran 25:32)

Teaches them– wayuʿallimuhumu — when you teach or instruct someone you are doing more than simply relaying information. A teacher does not simply pass a student a book and say, ‘here you go‘.

Those who follow the Qur’an Onlyl religion will often claim that the Blessed Messenger is only a letter carrier. There is a deception in saying that his only duty is to convey the message.

Yet this is contradicted by the following:

Say, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then he is only responsible for his duty, and you are responsible for yours. And if you obey him, you will be ˹rightly˺ guided. The Messenger’s duty is only to deliver ˹the message˺ clearly.”  (Qur’an 24:54)


“But if they turn away [Messenger], remember that your only responsibility is to deliver this revelation clearly.” (Qur’an 16:82)

The second part of instruction is would relate to things that need demonstration.

“When you are with them and you lead them in prayer, let one group of them pray with you—while armed. When they prostrate themselves, let the other group stand guard behind them. Then the group that has not yet prayed will then join you in prayer—and let them be vigilant and armed.” (Qur’an 4:102)

“Say, [O Muhammed], “If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)

The above verse is conditional. The love of Allah (swt) is conditional upon love for the Blessed Prophet (saw).

Spect-Prism-sm

“Certainly did Allah confer a favour upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them (wayuzakkihim) and teaching them (wayuʿallimuhumu) the Book and wisdom, although they had been before in manifest error.”  (Qur’an 3:164)

It stands to reason that the Blessed Messenger (saw) could not ‘purify’ the believers if he himself was not purified!

teaching them (wayuʿallimuhumu) -it cannot be said that I am teaching anyone if I was simlpy just a mail carrier.

The Qur’an itself refutes this.

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

The Blessed Messenger (saw) explained the message. That is the purpose of bayan.   This is reflected in the words, deeds, and actions — what we know as the sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

To believe that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was not an expositor as someone who lived and imbibed the teachings of the Qur’an is difficult to fathom.

“O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger, making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” (Qur’an 5:15)

“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon their hearts?”  (Qur’an 47:24)

There are many people who read the Qur’an and it does not do anything to their hearts. That is because the Islam consist of accepting that Muhammed (saw) is the last of Allah’s Messengers. The Blessed Prophet (saw) is that light. So the people who read the Qur’an without that light they read the Qur’an in darkness.

There was no prism, no veil, and no lock upon the heart of the Blessed Messenger (saw)!

So is the Qur’an clear?

Allah (swt) has made it clear that the Qur’an has verses that are muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt.

“In it are verses, that are (muḥkamāt) definitive. They are the essence of the Book.” (Qur’an 3:7)

Then there are verses that are a trial.

“and others, ones that are (mutashābihāt) unspecific. Then, those whose hearts are swerving, they follow what was unspecific in it, seeking discord (l-fit’nati) and seeking its interpretation.” (Qur’an 3:7)

Even then this verse seems directed at the people who are hasty with the Qur’an as Allah (swt) admonishes the Blessed Prophet (saw).

High above all is Allah, the King, the Truth! Be not in haste with the Qur’an before its revelation to you is completed, but say, “O my Lord! advance me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)

The Qur’an also makes it clear that it requires clarity. We see Allah (swt) himself has to come and introduce phrases such as, ‘Allah thus explains/clarifies the revelations for you’  as if otherwise it wouldn’t be clear.

The Qur’an makes it clear that the Blessed Prophet (saw) would explain the Qur’an and teach it to us.

“Indeed, Allah does not feel shy in citing any parable, be it that of a gnat or of something above it (in meanness). Now, as for those who believe, they know it is the truth from their Lord; while those who disbelieve say, “What could Allah have meant by this parable?” By this He lets many go astray, and by this He makes many find guidance. But He does not let anyone go astray thereby except those who are sinful.” (Qur’an 2:26)

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

November 5, 2025 · 5:32 am

Who can understand the mutashabih verses? Analysis of Quran 3:7

“He it is Who has sent down the Book upon thee; therein are signs determined; they are the Mother of the Book, and others symbolic. As for those whose hearts are given to swerving, they follow that of it which is symbolic, seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7) -The Study Qur’an.

“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:7) -(Sahih International)

﷽ 

By the grace of Allah (swt) we have finally got around to writing this article. This is something we have been meaning to write about for some time now.

We asked some brothers to write their experiences of why they chose the Ibadi school or what drew them to the school. We were quite surprised at the re-telling of one story when we read the following:

“I read Ibadis take Qur’an seriously and don’t make tafsir of it to validate their personal prejudices. They believe only Allah knows the Qur’ans true meaning.”

We were really quite shocked and surprised by this. When we tried to correct the brother on this misunderstanding, he was rather recalcitrant. So we simply asked him where he got this information from.

To his credit, he cited the Qur’an 3:7.  That is fine and good, but he did not cite any Ibadi sources, saying that only Allah knows the Qur’an’s true meaning. The reason he did not cite them is that none exist!  There are no Ibadi sources stating this.

Second, simply using logic, we asked him what was the point of sending a revelation that no one will understand? That is an exercise in futility at best.

Finally, we pointed out to him that his contention (which is certainly not from the Ibadi) was in relation to the mutashabih.

For example, as we read to him the following:

“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are(muḥ’kamātun) decisive, they are the basis of the Book), and others are allegorical…” (Shakir’s translation)

muḥ’kamātun -which actually can be translated as clear. Or that which does not require further elaboration.

So, even then, we informed him that the muḥ’kamātun verses are certainly not verses in which anyone says that only Allah (swt) knows them. The dispute is rather about the mutashābihātun.

Mutashābihātun is often translated as unspecific, symbolic, allegorical, subject to more than one interpretation or understanding. So the center of dispute is around such verses.

The importance of punctuation.

So here we have two sentences:

I take great pleasure in eating my dog and my plants.

I take great pleasure in eating, my dog, and my plants.

The first sentence would leave the reader with the impression that a person takes great pleasure in eating their dog and their plants.

The second sentence would leave the reader with the impression that the person takes great pleasure in eating, as well as finding pleasure in having a dog and having plants.

The importance of punctuation.

So to try and bring as many of you along as we can, we would encourage you to use the following resource: https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/7/default.htm

This will give you an exhaustive list of different translations. The keen eye will note the following:

Translations that state that Allah and people grounded in knowledge know the meaning of the mutashabiha, such as:

“He it is Who has sent down the Book upon thee; therein are signs determined; they are the Mother of the Book, and others symbolic. As for those whose hearts are given to swerving, they follow that of it which is symbolic, seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7) The Study Qur’an.

Translations that state that only Allah knows the meaning of the mutashabiha such as:

“It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammed], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:7) (Sahih International)

Translations that seem to be ambiguous on the matter due to their punctuation.

“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.” (Shakir)

“It is He who revealed to you the Scripture. Some of its verses are definitive—they are the foundation of the Book—while others are allegorical. Those with deviant hearts pursue the allegorical, seeking discord and seeking its interpretation. However, none knows its interpretation except God and those firmly grounded in knowledge say, “We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.” Only those endowed with understanding take heed.” (Talal Itani & AI 2024)

“It is God who has revealed the Book to you in which some verses are clear statements (which accept no interpretation) and these are the fundamental ideas of the Book, while other verses may have several possibilities. Those whose hearts are perverse, follow the unclear statements in pursuit of their own mischievous goals by interpreting them in a way that will suit their own purpose. No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All its verses are from our Lord.” No one can grasp this fact except the people of reason.” (Muhammed Sarwar)

So what is going on here?

Note that the verse states about the people who are firmly grounded/rooted in knowledge will say that: “We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.”

Note that the verse talks about some people who are hyper-fixated upon the mutashabiha.

“Then, as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation.”

Note that these people are not described as people of knowledge.

The first principle of interpreting the Qur’an is: Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)

The second principle is interpreting the mutashabi (unspecific, allegorical, subject to several interpretations) is to establish its meaning by that which is muḥ’kam (foundational, not requiring further clarity).

For example, the Blessed Prophet (saw) can bring elaboration and elucidation.

“With clear proofs and divine Books. And We have sent down to you the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them, and perhaps they will reflect.” (Qur’an 16:44)

So, when it comes to our faith, we do not base it upon that which is mutashabi. In fact, the beautiful point of this whole verse is not to muddy the waters but to give the believers a clear sign concerning the people of schism and aberrant doctrines. You will more often than not find misguided sects that will base their framework upon a verse(s) that is/are mutashabi. They base theological doctrines upon such.

The people of sound doctrine interpret the mutashabi in light of the muh’kam. Thus, those firmly grounded and rooted in knowledge of the muh’kam are the best capable of extrapolating the meaning of the mutashabi. Chief among them is the Noble Messenger (saw).

Which brings us to our first point.

If we are to understand Qur’an 3:7 as regarding the mutashbi verses that ‘no one can understand except Allah’ then it means those who hold such a position believe that Muhammed (saw), to whom the Qur’an was revealed did not even know the meaning of such verses.

This notion is refuted by the verse already mentioned:

“With clear proofs and divine Books. And We have sent down to you the Reminder, so that you may explain to people what has been revealed for them, and perhaps they will reflect.” (Qur’an 16:44)

The Blessed Prophet (saw) would explain what has been revealed to them. What has been revealed to them is the Qur’an. If the Blessed Prophet (saw) did not understand it, no one ever would. Thus, we would be given a Qur’an in which much of it is concealed from us.

Also, this verse shows that the Blessed Prophet (saw) comprehended what was revealed to him:

“Exalted is Allah, The True King! Do not rush to recite the Quran before it is (yuq’da) conveyed as revelation (waḥyuhu) , and pray, “My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.”

Is it possible that the Qur’an can be concealed from us?

The answer to that is yes. The Qur’an itself mentions that, due to the sinful and/or arrogant nature of some human hearts, they will never be able to penetrate the Qur’an.

“And We place a covering on their hearts so that they do not comprehend it, and We cause a heaviness in their ears; and when you mention your Lord, the Only True Lord, in the Qur’an, they turn their backs in aversion” (Qur’an 17:46)

“And who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the verses of his Lord but turns away from them and forgets what his hands have put forth? Indeed, We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if you invite them to guidance – they will never be guided, then – ever.” (Qur’an 18:57)

“Will they then not (yatadabbarūna)meditate on the Qur’an, or are there locks on the hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)

“This is a Book which We have sent down to you, full of blessings that they may (liyaddabbarū) ponder over its Verses, and that (ulu l-albabi)men of understanding may remember.” (Qur’an 38:29)

It is also our contention that the muh’kam verses could have a mutashabi aspect to them which is brought about through tabbadur (reflection, pondering) and using the methods of sound tafsir that are available to us.

An example:

“None touch (yamassuhu) it except the (l-muṭaharūna) purified.” (Qur’an 56:79)

This verse is generally understood by the fuqaha (people of jurisprudence) as a reference to being clean when touching and handling the mushaf of the Qur’an. This makes sense, as reverence towards the sacred text is the obvious meaning. 

However, we also know that there are people who are not clean who pick up and touch the Qur’an.  Muslims who are not in a state of ablution and people like the demented Christian polemists that ate pages of the Qur’an or the U.S. military that would put the Qur’an into the toilet. (Surely they incurred the curse of Allah, and it remains upon them until they repent). 

muṭaharūna-is also understood to mean angels.

Another way to understand the text of Qur’an 56:79 is to understand that yamassuhu is not like ‘yalmasuhu’.

So, for example, in the Qur’an we have:

“If something good ‘tamasakum’ (comes your way), it grieves them.” (Qur’an 3:120) This does not necessarily mean only to physically touch.

Also, in the preceding verse we have:

“In a well-preserved Record.” (Qur’an 56:78)

  1. In this context, the purified (mataharuna) are indeed the angels and this refers to the Tablet in paradise.
  2. That when it comes to the believers, there is an adaab (mannerism) in how we handle the sacred text.
  3. That only those who are sincere and have purity of intention will be moved by this Qur’an and able, by Allah’s grace, find such meanings via reflection.

Point 3 describes such a state or condition of truth seekers among Christians. 

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

    So when it comes to the reading of the Qur’an 3:7 there are two opinions on the matter.

    One opinion says that the reader of the Qur’an should stop at: “But none knows its interpretation except Allah.” Then (after a brief pause) continue reading: “and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say.”

    The second opinion is that one does not pause, but one should continue reading: “But none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say,”

    So how did this difference come about?

    1. Punctuation marks or (Rumuz al-Awqaf) were added by the scholars after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
    2. Diacritical marks (Tashkeel) to distinguish words or grammatical structures were added by scholars after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

    Rumuz al-Awqaf (Punctuation Marks)

    The following is from http://www.as-sidq.org/durusulQuran/articles/mariful.html#Rumuz

    May Allah (swt) bless them for their work.

    From the above source we find:

    ﻡ  “This letter mim is an abbreviation of al-waqf al-lazim. It means if a stop is not made here, an outrageous distortion in the meaning of the verse is possible. So, it is better to stop here. Some phoneticians of the Qur’an have also called this al-waqf al-wajib or the obligatory stop. But this is not ‘wajib’ of fiqh, which brings sin if abandoned. In fact, the purpose is to stress that making a stop here is the most preferable of all stops (al-Nashr, 1/231).”

    We find this al-waqf al-lazim in Qur’an 3:7 after “except Allah.” This was done with the intention of making the recitation of the Qur’an easier. These additional punctuations, though welcomed for ease of recitation, were neither given by Allah (swt) nor his Blessed Messenger (saw).

    This is also something that follow the ‘Qur’an Only religion’ fail to grasp. That is the very textual history and transmission of the Qur’an.

    “A. L. R. (This is) a Book, with verses that give judgement (uḥ’kimat) and these are expounded upon (fuṣṣilat) – from One Who is Wise and Well-acquainted (with all things).” (Qur’an 11:1)

    An objection based upon improper understanding of the Arabic grammar and syntax.

    Beyond the importance of punctuation.

    The importance of understanding Arabic grammar and syntax and language!

    One objection that is raised is usually by those who do not have a sound grasp of Arabic grammar, or syntax. That objection is as follows:

    “But none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”

    So the objection is based upon their misunderstanding that Allah (swt) would not say: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”

    But this is not the proper understanding at all. The verse: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.” Is a reference to : “Those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.” and not to Allah (swt).

    This was a conversation with a brother from the Zaydi school, and we pointed out to him a similar example to this in (Qur’an 18:80) but he has never replied to that point.

    What point is that?

    Let us give context to the verse:

    “As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people, working at sea. So I intended to damage it, for there was a king ahead of them who seizes every ship by force. “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place. And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure for them, and their father had been righteous. So your Lord intended that they reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord. And I did it not of my own accord. That is the interpretation of that about which you could not have patience.”(Qur’an 18:79-82)

    There are three points here:

    1. Causing damage to the boat fa-aradttu (I intended)
    2. The killing of the child and the subsequent replacement of fakhashina (we disliked) fa-aradna (we intended). A. Killing the child (he returns to himself)B. Allah replaces the child with another one. Killing is from Khidr and the Replacing is from Allah.
    3. Causing the boys to reach maturity. Fa-arada rabbuka (Your Lord intended)

    fa-aradttu 1st person singular

    fakhashina 1st person plural perfect verb

    fa-aradna 1st person plural

    fa-arada 3rd person masculine singular

    Not really having the depth of Arabic grammar or syntax, one can make these types of mistakes or rely upon this type of misunderstanding. May Allah help us. 

    A faulty argument used by our side against the other.

    There has been a faulty argument that has been used by those of us who believe Qur’an 3:7 should be understood as: Allah and people grounded in knowledge know the meaning of the mutashabiha.

    It is used to assail those who believe Qur’an 3:7 should be understood as: only Allah knows the meaning of the mutashabiha.

    That argument goes like this.

    To say that we believe in it, but we do not know what it means would be like saying
    we do not know what we believe.

    This is not a fair argument against the other side. The reason being is that first, and foremost, there is no group among the Muslims that feel that they are unncertain about what they believe. We may dispute this. However, every group of Muslims are confident and certain about what the core tenets of their belief are.

    Secondly, Allah (swt) could have such verses to leave us gobsmacked. Also, to humble us.

    “But above those ranking in knowledge is the One All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 12:76)

    Prima Qur’an concluding remarks.

    1. It is not the position of the Ibadis school that only Allah knows the meaning of the Qur’an. You are not going to find this in any of the books by the Ibadi.
    2. The difference in understanding of Qur’an 3:7 has to do with the Rumuz al-Awqaf (punctuation marks).
    3. The dispute is not over the muh’kam but rather over who understands the mutashabi.
    4. As the Blessed Prophet (saw) understood the whole of the Qur’an, it is not possible to render the reading as only Allah knows.
    5. The people firmly rooted in knowledge are those who base their understanding upon the muh’kam.
    6. The people whose hearts are given to perversity and deviation go straight to mutashabi.
    7. The irony is that the understanding of this verse must fall under the category of muh’kam or else it would be mutashabi and thus all who give an understanding of it would be among the perverse. The self-refuting nature of this is evident.
    8. With reflection and understanding that which is mutashabi can become muh’kam.

    May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to him.

    May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

    May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , ,

    September 26, 2025 · 2:30 pm

    Genesis chapter 3 separates Islam and Christianity.

    “Then learned Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 2:35-37)

    “Say, “Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 6:164)

     ﷽ 

    “Then learned Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 2:35-37)

    The above touching heartfelt verse teaches us original forgiveness.. We know that he was forgiven because it was Allah that taught Adam the very words by which to seek reconciliation with The Divine!

    Allah! Ar Rahman Ar Raheem! Allah!!!! Most Merciful!!!! The Ever Compassionate!!!!

    After he learned to turn towards Allah (swt), he was forgiven. That is it. Full stop!

    There is no sin through which death entered the world, causing amoebas and single-celled organisms and everything else to die because of this person’s actions!

    Now, dear respected reader, what you read is two different accounts of what happened with Adam and Eve.

    You are not reading a Muslim response to Genesis chapter 3. We want to make that very clear.

    What you are reading is what God has revealed in the Qur’an.

    The choice you need to make is to discern which of these two accounts is true. The account as given by God in the Qur’an or the account as given in Genesis chapter 3.

    It is important for you as a Christian, dear reader, to understand that the concepts of Original Sin, Inherited Sin, Total Depravity, Limbo, God Incarnate, the idea of God sending a ‘Son’, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, Vicarious Atonement, Justification by Faith, Paul’s letters and the entirety of the New Testament all have their basis in Genesis chapter 3.

    There is no need for Muslims to engage in any of these other beliefs, because if what God revealed in the Qur’an about Adam and Eve is correct, then all of these Christian beliefs that have their basis in Genesis chapter 3 are in and of themselves irrelevant.

    Genesis chapter three is all that stands between Islam and Christianity.

    One chapter in the entire Bible is all that separates Islam and Christianity.

    If it was not for that chapter in the Bible there would be no Christianity.

    That particular chapter gives us the following:

    Original Sin

    Inherited Sin

    Total Depravity

    Limbo

    The concept of God Incarnate

    The need for God to send His Son

    The Crucifixion

    The Resurrection

    Vicarious Atonement

    Justification By Faith

    Paul’s Letters

    The New Testament as a whole.

    Adam and the events that unfolded in the Garden of Eden is such a central theme in Christology and if we were to juxtapose the events as related by Genesis chapter 3 with what is revealed in the Qur’an, we will be able to get a deeper appreciation of what is central that divides the two faith traditions.

    We will also find out that which brings much needed clarity.

    Let us begin with the question:

    Who truly committed The First Sin? How does sin enter into the universe?

    What does sin mean?

    Christians define sin as transgression, lawlessness, and missing the mark.

    The first issue to clear up is that Christians are absolutely forced to agree with Muslims on this.

    The first sin, missing the mark or transgression against Allah, was done by a non-human entity!

    In Christian theology, it is an X-Angel named Lucifer.

    In Islamic theology, it is a Jinn named Iblis.

    Either way, it was not Adam or Eve (May Allah’s peace be upon them both) that erred first.

    “So behold, We said to the angels: “Bow down to Adam: “And they bowed down: not so Iblis: he refused and was arrogant: he was of those who reject Faith. We said: “O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Garden, and eat of the bountiful things in that respect as you will, but approach not this tree, or you will run into harm and transgression.”(Qur’an 2:30-37)

    Sin enters into the universe via beings created with sovereign choice.

    The sovereign choice to obey or to submit to the will of God.

    So the position of Islamic theology is clear. Howeve, have you ever read any text anywhere in the Bible that makes the claim that Satan was an X-Angel named Lucifer and that he rebelled against Allah?

    There is no such text anywhere in the Bible at all! It is a fable that came into Christian circles from apocryphal sources. The best attempt at trying to glean such a view comes from the following:

    “How have you fallen from heaven, the morning star? You have been cut down to earth, You who cast lots on nations.” (Isaiah Chapter 14:12)

    Source: (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15945)

    What did Protestant reformer John Calvin have to say about this text?

    “How art thou fallen from heaven! Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; 220 and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.”

    Source: (https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom13/calcom13.xxi.i.html)

    As Calvin rightly states, it is a metaphor. Otherwise, we have the very awkward situation of calling Jesus ‘Lucifer’ as Lucifer simply means “Morning Star” or a reference to Venus — a star that outshines the others.

    Jesus is called “Lucifer” or Morning Star in the following verse in the Bible.

    “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.” (Revelations 22:16)

    There are two other texts that Christians often appeal to as well:

    “And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” (Luke 10:18)

    This text says nothing about Satan being an X-Angel or that his name was Lucifer etc.

    “So war broke out in heaven and Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon and his angels, and the Dragon and his angels prevailed not.” (Revelation 12:7)

    This is possibly the closest text as it does mention angels waring with each other in heaven. Yet this text does not mention angels becoming X-Angels, but rather angels at war with each other.

    At the very least, the Christian book of Revelation and the Qur’an both point to the fact that a non-human(s) was(were) the first to transgress or sin against Allah; however, there are major points of difference in the two theologies.

    In Christian theology, an X-Angel rebelled against Allah. However, in Islamic theology it was a Jinn. In Islamic theology, angels do not go against the divine plan. There is a race of beings known as the Jinn that can go against the divine plan.

    So the first question here would be: Why is there not a doctrine of salvation for fallen angels? In Islam, we know that the Qur’an was sent to save humanity and the Jinn.

    “So when we (Jinn) heard the guidance, we believed in it. And whoever believes in his Lord will not fear deprivation or burden.” (Qur’an 72:13)

    “And We have sent you not but as a mercy for the ‘Alamin.” (Qur’an 21:107)

    ‘Alamin (mankind, jinn, and all that exists beyond)

    “You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.” (James 2:9)

    So, in Islam, any being that sins against Allah (swt) can repent and reconcile with Allah (swt).

    “By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the ways of peace and brings them out of darknesses into the light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path.” (Qur’an 5:16)

    The second question would be: Who wants to go to a heaven where wars break out? I mean people constantly deride the Qur’an for its metaphorical usages of women and wine in paradise; yet the Christian heaven is one of intrigue, assassination attempts, and wars!!!

    In Islamic theology, the fall of Iblis (not the fall of humanity) fits logically into the greater picture of Allah’s wisdom.

    However, we want to know in Christian theology what is to prevent the next disgruntled angel from trying to create wars and strife in heaven?

    Finally, the Qur’an gives us a teaching of original forgiveness!! Allahu Kareem (Allah is Most Generous)

    Though Adam did transgress, he was not the first transgressor.

    The story of Adam, Eve and the Garden as compared/contrasted by Genesis chapter 3 and the Qur’an.

    The whole Genesis account gives us a picture of a capricious divine being that lacks attributes of mercy, wisdom, justice or foreknowledge.

    Again, dear truth seeker, contrast again the accounts in Genesis and the Qur’an.

    “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:5-7)

    Now, this does not sound like a divine plan at all. This sounds like a plan going terribly wrong.

    How can a person find hope in the Christian tradition when Allah himself is in despair?

    To attribute despair and regret to Allah is an affront to divine sovereignty and to the understanding that Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.

    Contrast dear reader the absolute lack of sovereignty, will, and divine foreknowledge as given in the above passage with what Allah has revealed to us in the Qur’an.

    “Behold, your Lord said to the angels: “I will create a vicegerent on earth.” They said: “Will you place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- while we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify your sanctity?” He said: “I know what you know not.” (Qur’an 2:30)

    “So set your purpose for the way of life aligned with humanity’s upright nature – the nature (framed) by Allah, in which He has created humanity. There is no altering of the work wrought by Allah. That is the correct way of life, but most men do not know.” (Qur’an 30:30)

    The angels look at the crude form of humanity and immediately see the capacity for violence. Also, notice that the angels are basically saying that they praise and worship Allah (swt) as is so what possible purpose does humanity serve?

    The response of Allah (swt) is “I know what you know not.” That was a sufficient response to the angels. In other words, there is a plan for humanity.

    You should know, dear reader, that in the order of Creation in Islam there are four types of creation with regard to will (choice).

    Two in the unseen world.

    1. Angels which oscillate at frequencies of pure light. They do not go against their nature. Thus, there is no concept of fallen angels in Islam.
    2. Jinn are beings which are made from a fire that does not emit smoke. These beings can go against their nature and go against the divine plan.

    Two in the natural seen world.

    1. Animals, plants and other living creations that do not go against their nature.
    2. Humanity can go against nature and go against the divine plan.

    The first point of agreement between Christianity and Islam concerning Adam and Eve is that they were both blameless and sinless. They also had to have in some sense had the faculties of reasoning and understanding in order to understand commands and prohibitions.

    The whole of Christianity is based upon Genesis chapter 3.

    That one chapter presents to humanity a bizarre picture of The Divine Being and human destiny. It is the very foundation upon which Christian theology is built.

    Whereas the Islamic Theological position is simply surrendering to the will of Allah. Adam and Eve slipped, they were reprimanded and ultimately forgiven.

    Whereas in Christology, Adam and Eve were placed in the company of their mortal enemy with absolutely no heads up and no warning!

    Can you imagine what kind of loving father puts their children in a garden with a shape-shifting entity intent on hurting the children and when the shape-shifting entity ends up duping the children, not only are the children punished but the whole of humanity is culpable for their slip?

    Contrast this with what Allah revealed in the Qur’an.

    “Did I not forbid you from the tree and tell you that Satan is to you a clear enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22-23)


    “So We cautioned, “O Adam! This is surely an enemy to you and to your wife. So do not let him drive you both out of Paradise, for you would then suffer hardship.” (Qur’an 20:177)

    “We cautioned, “O Adam! Live with your wife in Paradise and eat as freely as you please, but do not approach this tree, or else you will be wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:35)

    Adam and Eve were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why?

    1. Adam and Eve had sovereign free will.
    2. Adam and Eve were not alone. They had an agent provocateur.

    We can see that Allah clearly gave warning to Adam and Eve about their enemy and disobeying Allah. In fact, due to this warning about an adversary in Islam, Adam and Eve are more culpable than they are in the Christian tradition! 

    Whereas in Genesis 3 there is no indication of any agent provocateur at all! It’s as if Adam and Eve were walking into an ambush!

    “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.” (Genesis 1:31)

    “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.”(Genesis 3:1)

    All that God creates is very good. God created snakes (serpentes) that were very good and very crafty at the same time?

    Not only this, but to show you this vengeful portrayal of the Divine has whole entire species (serpentes) or snakes condemned simply because a shape-shifting entity imitated one of their kind!

    “So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:14)

    So even more bizarre is the fact that Satan doesn’t get punished at all in Genesis chapter 3. It is the entire species of snakes (serpentes) that get punished instead!

    “Allah said, “Descend, both of you, from here together ˹with Satan˺ as enemies to each other. Then, when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance will neither go astray ˹in this life˺ nor suffer ˹in the next˺. (Qur’an 20:123)

    What was the snake’s method of locomotion before it was to “crawl on it’s belly?”

    Why wouldn’t Allah know that Satan was either a shapeshifter who appeared as a snake (serpentes) or that Satan made it appear that a snake (serpentes) was speaking to them?

    It doesn’t justify a punishment upon a whole suborder of animals, namely snakes (serpentes).

    So none of this is good! None of this is an accurate portrayal of A Wise and Judicious Creator working in this world. None of this is an accurate portrayal of the attributes of mercy, wisdom, justice, foreknowledge, or will at all!

    The whole Genesis account gives us a picture of a capricious divine being that lacks attributes of mercy, wisdom, justice or foreknowledge.

    Again, dear truth seeker, contrast again the accounts in Genesis and the Qur’an.

    “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:5-7)

    Now, this does not sound like a divine plan at all. This sounds like a plan going terribly wrong.

    How can a person find hope in the Christian tradition when Allah himself is in despair?

    In the Christian tradition, the agent provocateur is not immediately punished. Rather, wrathful punishment is given to an entire suborder of animals, namely snakes (serpentes). 

    To a Muslim reading and reflecting on this, it all seems very bizarre and even a case of misplaced judgement. 

    As Allah says in the Qur’an:

    “My mercy has encompassed everything.” (Qur’an 7: 156).

    Allah (swt) never states that his wrath encompasses everything but his mercy does.

    You cannot imagine anything not benefiting from His mercy; otherwise, nothing could have come to existence, and even if so, nothing could have survived.

    Even the fact that Satan is able to continue his life is due to Allah’s mercy. When Satan insisted on his wrong behaviour and was cursed, he requested Allah to be given time until the day of Resurrection:

    “My Lord. Respite me until the day they will be resurrected.” (Qur’an 15:36)

    Allah replied:

    “You are indeed among the reprieved until the day of the known time.” (Qur’an 15:37-38)

    The very role of Satan/Iblis as laid out in the Qur’an.

    He said: “Since you have let me wander off, I’ll waylay them along Your Straight Road; then I´ll come at them from in front of them and from behind them, on their right and on their left. You will not find that most of them are grateful.” (Qur’an 7:16-17)

    The whole point of Iblis, the arch enemy of mankind is to show that most of us (humanity) will be kaffir (ungrateful) to Allah (swt).

    “And incite whoever you can of them with your voice, mobilize against them all your cavalry and infantry, manipulate them in their wealth and children, and make them promises.” But Satan promises them nothing but delusion.” “You will truly have no authority over My servants.” And sufficient is your Lord as a Guardian.” (Qur’an 17:64-65)

    “Allah said, “This is the Way, binding on Me: you will certainly have no authority over My servants, except the deviant who follow you,” (Qur’an 15:41-42)

    What is it that Allah makes obligatory on himself? To give certain of his creations choice.

    “Allah responded, “Be gone! Whoever of them follows you, Hell will surely be the reward for all of you—an ample reward.” (Qur’an 17:63)

    Genesis chapter 3. The Origin of Wrath or the Origin of Forgiveness? Is the woman to blame or are Adam and Eve both culpable?

    Apparently, according to the Book of Genesis, after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of good and evil and had a conversation with Allah, they were quite cavalier about the whole ordeal.

    Whereas Allah tells us in the Qur’an that the progenitors of the human race were more sensible, whereas they said:

    “They said, “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves, and if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we will surely be among the losers.” (Qur’an 7:23)

    “Then Adam learned from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 2:35-37)

    This is the teaching of original forgiveness, and we know that he was forgiven because it was Allah that taught Adam the words by which to seek reconciliation with the divine.

    Also, of note that in Islamic theology both Adam and his wife were deceived and both asked for forgiveness, and they were both forgiven. Whereas in Christian theology the woman is the one who was deceived.

    “And he succeeded in deceiving them. As soon as the two had tasted [the fruit] of the tree, their nakedness became obvious to them, and they started covering themselves with leaves from the Garden. Their Lord called to them, “Did I not forbid that tree to you and tell you, ‘Satan is your clear enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22)

    “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:14)

    When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. (Genesis 3:6-7)

    Now pay attention to the above text. The woman was apparently duped by the Snake (Serpentes). However, when she took the fruit and ate it didn’t she realize immediately that she was naked so that she could warn her husband?

    Apparently not. The text allows for interpretative story telling. Such that Eve got the fruit (she hadn’t eaten it yet) and then brought some to Adam. They began to eat together and had the joint discovery together. Yet, this is where the text is extremely hurtful to women in a way that the Qur’an never is.

    The question now arises.

    Did Eve just give Adam the fruit without telling him what it was? Or did Eve tell Adam where that fruit was from, and he ate it anyway?

    The text simply does not say.

    Imagine a man who steals a fruit from a garden, and he gives it to another man to eat that fruit. In Christian theology, both the man who stole the fruit and the one who ate it are guilty. However, in Islamic theology, as long as the man who eats the stolen fruit is unaware that the fruit is stolen, he is not guilty of eating stolen fruit.

    So, in Christian theology, Adam is punished for a sin he very well could have been unaware of! Islamic theology does not allow this type of ambiguity. Especially, in regard to the severity of the consequences of such an action in Christian theology.

    The nature of death and dying in Christianity and Islam. Are human beings culpable for the sin and errors of others?

    “And no burdened soul can bear another’s burden. And if one weighed down by a burden calls another to carry his load, naught of it will be carried, even though he be near of kin. You warn only those who fear their Lord in secret and keep up prayer. And whoever purifies himself purifies himself only for his own good. And to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Qur’an 35:18)

    Contrast this with:

    “For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being: For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life.” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

    “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people because all sinned. To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.” (Romans 5:12-14).

    Death and the nature of death.

    “He is the One Who created you from clay, then appointed a term ˹for your death˺ and another known only to Him ˹for your resurrection˺—yet you continue to doubt!”
    (Qur’an 6:2)

    “We settle whatever We will in the womb for an appointed term, then bring you forth as infants, so that you may reach your prime. Some of you die earlier, while others are left to reach the most feeble stage of life so that they may know nothing after having known much.” (Qur’an 22:5)

    “He brings you out as an infant, then causes you to grow into full maturity, and then causes you to grow further so that you may reach old age, while some of you He recalls earlier. All this is in order that you may reach an appointed term and that you may understand.” (Qur’an 40:67)

    “His is the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He gives life and causes death, and He is over all things competent.”(Qur’an 57:2)

    Allah is the giver of death, the taker of life. One of the names of Allah is the Taker of Life.

    Because Allah is also the giver of life.

    “Say, “Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever name you call -To Him belongs the best names.”(Qur’an 17:110)

    “For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)

    Prima Qur’an Comment: “The wages of sin is death.” So because of what Adam and Eve did not only does this sin get transferred to every newborn child, but amoebas, single-celled organisms, insects, fish, and every type of living thing dies because of this.

    This peculiar doctrine leads one to reflect on some of the following points:

    • What kind of world would there be if nothing died?
    • Surely if Allah created predatory animals there would be animals that would be the prey?
    • If Allah ordered Adam and Eve to eat all the fruit, surely the fruit would ‘die’ once it was removed from said tree or plant?
    • What would be the population of the planet if nothing died?

    Al hamdulilah! We as Muslims do not have such a bizarre and unnatural doctrine. Death is a natural part of life. In fact, we as Muslims believe that Allah (swt) is Al Hayyu (The Ever Living).

    What would be the point of calling Allah ‘The-Ever-Living’ if all living things were to be ‘Ever-living’ as well?

    The very fact that Allah, God, is ‘The Ever Living’ in and of itself shows you that the nature of everything else is opposite to that. This includes Adam.

    Death is a contrast to life so that we understand the sacredness of life, the sanctity of life, and to appreciate the limited time we have been given to live on such a beautiful planet that offers many delights.

    There is an entire Goth subculture in the West. They see death as something beautiful.

    There is beauty in things not lasting and a peace in knowing that everything is in transition. It causes one to embrace the moment and to cherish the now. Perhaps more than the busy denizens of the city, the goth appreciates the currency of time, and they understand that, perhaps more than most, one must spend it wisely. 

    One of the contributors to Primaquran, ‘Abd al-Mumit’ chose this name because of this very fact.

    There is no eternal permanence except Allah. 

    If Christians claim that Adam’s death was a ‘spiritual death‘, you have to reflect on the following:

    • Why is there absolute silence on Adam’s reconciliation to Allah in the Book of Genesis?
    • In light of Adam’s knowledge of the tree of ‘good and evil‘, why does the Bible portray Adam and Eve as so cavalier regarding their spiritual estrangement from Allah?

    Adam is such a central figure, especially in Christology, and we hear nothing more than that he had some children and then died.

    The deity of divine forgiveness and restoration for all or the deity of divine wrath, making pain and suffering the path of redemption for the few.

    The God that desires that we are sincere, that we repent with a contrite heart and gives opportunity after opportunity for man to reform.

    Do see our article here:

    The Mercy, Love and Forgiveness of Allah

    “It is not their flesh, nor their blood, reaches Allah, but it is your piety that reaches him. Thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah for guiding you. And give good news to those who do good.” (Qur’an 22:37)

    This statement from the Qur’an is very important.  Accordingly, the first idea of blood sacrifice goes back to the story of Cain and Abel.

    The Biblical Version:

    “Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time, Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favour on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering, he did not look with favour. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” (Genesis 4:1-7)

    The Version in the Qur’an:

    “Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! They each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other.  He said: I will most certainly slay you.”Surely,” said the former, “Allah does accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.” (Qur’an 5:27)

    Prima Qur’an comments:

    Notice that in both accounts we are not told of the treachery that one of the brothers did. In fact, up until the point of murder, whatever he did that estranged him from his Lord was kept as a personal matter between him and God.

    The Christians get the idea [with absolutely no proof] that Allah favoured Abel’s sacrifice because he brought Allah some fat — a sacrifice from one of his flock. Whereas, according to the Christians, Allah didn’t like the vegetables that Abel brought.

    Now think about this for a moment. Doesn’t this make God sound capricious? Of course, it does!  

    However, you can read in both accounts in the Qur’an and in the Bible that the reason that one sacrifice was accepted was due to the fact that one was righteous. It was the state of his heart and not what was presented!

    So who will it be?

    Contrasting a divine being that delights in the blood atonement and suffering from an animal, the outward material things of this world, with that of a divine being that looks at the contents of the human heart.

    “The Day when neither wealth nor children shall profit, only the one will be saved who comes before God with a sound heart.” (Qur’an 26:88-89).

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

    May Allah Guide them to the truth so that they do not burn in hellfire.

    10 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    September 22, 2025 · 7:30 pm

    The Ibadi, Muutazila, Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia: Qur’an and attributes.

    “He only orders you to evil and immorality and to say about Allah what you do not know. And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?” (Qur’an 2:169-170)

    ﷽ 

    When it comes to the issue of the Qur’an being created and the topic of the attributes of Allah (swt), we could put this into four views. This brief entry will show where these four denominations have overlapping agreement and/or disagreement.

    A. There are four denominations in this subject.

    1. Ibadi.
    2. Muutazila.
    3. Ahl Sunnah.
    4. Jahmia.

    Here are the points.

    • Ibadi & Mutazila say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are nothing other than Allah (swt)
    • Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: The attributes of Allah (swt) are other things with/than Allah (swt).
    • Ahl Sunnah & Jahmia say: Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt).
    • Ibadi & Mutzalia say: Qur’an is not an attribute of Allah (swt).
    • Jahmia say: Attributes of Allah are created by Allah (swt).
    • Ahl Sunnah say: All attributes of Allah aren’t created by Allah (swt).

    We (The Ibadi) say there is evidence to prove that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt).

    For the Jahmia, the proof that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt) is that the Qur’an is one of the attributes of Allah (swt). For them, all the attributes of Allah (swt) are created by Allah (swt).

    Ibadi, Mutazalia & Ahl Sunnah all say anyone who believes that the attributes of Allah is created are kaafir. (disbelievers of shirk)

    We, the Ibadi, say: The Qur’an is a word of Allah and created by Allah, but we don’t say the Qur’an is an attribute of Allah (swt).

    “Our belief is upon Haqq and the belief of the Jahmia is upon kufr and batil.” -Shaykh Hamed Hafidh

    We want to thank our teacher Shaykh Hamed Hafidh As Sawafi (hafidullah) for this explanation.

    For further reading on this subject:

    The Truth about the Qur’an: Created or Uncreated?
    The Qur’an: Created or Uncreated: Shaykh Ahmed bin Hamad al-Khalili to debate Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz
    Saudi Dr. Saad Al-Humid Professor of Hadith Sciences in Medina flees from debate with Shaykh Saeed Al-Qanoubi on Creation of Qur’an

    https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/lets-attack-hamza-yusuf-in-ramadan-the-quran-is-created/

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    4 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    September 22, 2025 · 6:30 pm

    Every word in the Qur’an is proof that it is created by Allah.

    “It is He to whom belongs the dominion over the heavens and the earth, and who has not taken a son and has no associate in His dominion, for He has created all things according to precise measures.” (Qur’an 25:2)

    ﷽ 

    Those people who claim the Qur’an is eternal. They say this precisely because they do not know what the Qur’an is.

    We know the number of surahs/chapters is 114. We know each chapter of the Qur’an as well as the number of verses. In each word we know the number of letters. And for each letter we know the harakat.

    We know these letters do not operate independently. They combine with other letters that make words and these words combine with other words to make sentences. These sentences combine to make the various chapters of the Qur’an. All of this is clear evidence that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt).

    All scholars, all Muslims believe that all languages are created by Allah (swt).

    By this we know that the Arabic language is created by Allah (swt). The Qur’an is informed in the Arabic language. The Arabic language is created by Allah (swt) and by that the Qur’an is created by Allah (swt).

    “And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your languages and your colours. Indeed, in that are signs for those of knowledge.” (Qur’an 30:22)

    “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” (Qur’an 14:4)

    “Look how We explain signs to them, then see how far they are turned away.” (Qur’an 5:75)

    You may be interested in reading the debate among Muslim scholars regarding the foreign words that the Arabic language adopted here:

    https://muslimmatters.org/2008/05/21/the-arabic-quran-and-foreign-words/

    “Some proponents of this camp quoted the ‘father’ of Arabic grammar,Sībawayh (d. 180/796) himself, who wrote in his al-Kitāb that non-Arabic words could become Arabic if one substituted Arabic letters for the foreign ones, and then appended it to a known morphological form (wazn).”

    Source: (Sībawayh, al-Kitāb, v. 4, p. 304.)

    Sibawayh’s teacher was the famous Ibadi scholar, Al-Khalili ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi (The one who is credited for teaching your children (no matter what expression of Islam they follow) the harakat of the Qur’an.

    A brief entry concerning the famous Ibadi scholar, Al Khalili Ibn Ahmad Al-Farahidi al-Ibadi here:

    https://primaquran.com/2023/03/24/harakat-of-the-quran-al-khalili-ibn-ahmad-al-farahidi-al-ibadi/

    If you want to learn more on the subject of the Qur’an being created, you may wish to read the following articles:

    The Truth about the Qur’an: Created or Uncreated?
    The Qur’an: Created or Uncreated: Shaykh Ahmed bin Hamad al-Khalili to debate Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz
    Speech of Allah? Is the Qur’an Created? Ashari and Salafi perspectives.

    https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/lets-attack-hamza-yusuf-in-ramadan-the-quran-is-created/

    Saudi Dr. Saad Al-Humid Professor of Hadith Sciences in Medina flees from debate with Shaykh Saeed Al-Qanoubi on Creation of Qur’an

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    September 16, 2025 · 6:30 am

    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).

    Who killed the companion Ammar ibn Yasir?

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

    Ahmad Ibn Hanbal says Ikrima was upon the view of the Ibadi
    Abu Hanifa Ikrima and the Truth

    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.

    Ali Ibn Abi Talib his ijtihad and burning people alive

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

    Pro Alid YouTube channel throws Ibn Abbas under the bus!

    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

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

    September 16, 2025 · 4:27 am

    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!

    Sunni historical books mock Abu Hanifa & Imam Ahmad (while pretending to mock other beliefs).

    You may also wish to read:

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

    Ahmad Ibn Hanbal says Ikrima was upon the view of the Ibadi
    The narrator Ikrima: You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
    Abu Hanifa Ikrima and the Truth
    Who killed the companion Ammar ibn Yasir?
    Ali Ibn Abi Talib his ijtihad and burning people alive

    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

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    September 13, 2025 · 5:00 am

    Manipulation of Hadith To Advocate Prayer Positions.

    “Take what the Messenger gives you, and do without what he forbids you from.” (Qur’an 59:7)

    ﷽ 

    This entry will show the manipulation and changing of the ‘matn’ text in the chains of transmission to advocate various positions for the prayer.

    Hopefully, in writing this in the process we will be able to defend the prayer of the Blessed Messenger (saw) as was the practice of the people of Madinah in his time, namely the practice of laying hands at the side. This practice is continued among those who follow the Jafari and Zaydi School of jurisprudence as well as the oldest living school of jurisprudence which the people of Oman are upon, the Ibadi school.

    This blog entry will also show that Imam Malik only prayed that way (sadl) because it is what he saw as the practice of the people of Madinah, and it’s not because he was beaten, which is a lie that has been circulated by a certain group whom have invented their own methodology of doing the prayer.

    MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 1 Imam Malik only prayed like that (arms to the side) because he was beaten so badly that he couldn’t pray with one hand over the other.

    “He was severely beaten in the year 764 CE by the order of the Ameer of Madeenah, because he made a legal ruling that forced divorce was invalid. This ruling opposed the ‘Abbaasid rulers’ practice of adding in the oath of allegiance given to them by the masses the clause that whoever broke the oath was automatically divorced. Malik was tied and beaten until his arms became severely damaged to such a degree that he became unable to clasp them on his chest in Salaah and thus he began the practice of praying with his hands at his sides according to some reports.”

    Source: (pg 78. The Evolution of Fiqh Islamic Law & The Madh-habs) By Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips International Islamic Publishing House.)

     

    “Some reports” such as? Doesn’t Abu Ammenah Bilal Philips have to give his evidence or are we just supposed to accept what he said?

    Can such a claim be verified by and in any of the traditionally relied upon books of Islamic history? One will be hard-pressed to find any evidence substantiating this argument.

    Remember what Allah said:

    “Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidence, and the guidance, which We have sent down after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse.” (Qur’an: 2:159)

    So where is the proof?

    Secondly, how could Imam Malik not have enough strength to clasp his hands on his chest but still be able to do the tabkir—, go into ruku, and go into sajdah and to push his hands up from sujuud, since Imam Malik’s view is that the knees go up than the hands after sajdah? What about all the other Tabieen who prayed the way Imam Malik did? Did each one of them have their arms broken as well?

    MISUNDERSTANDING NO. 2 The Malikis get their prayer from the Shi’a in Iran!

    Now let us ask you, dear reader, something why would Sunni Muslims go and ask the Shi’a about how to pray? That’s just absurd! The second point is this: Why don’t the Malikis follow the Shi’a in everything in prayer, like raising the hands in ruku and when going into sujud? Or making sujud on a stone? Or placing the knees before the hands? Or saying the whole prayer out loud? Or include the basmallah before Al Fatiha like the Shi’a do. Also, a very good question would be where did the Shi’a get their prayer from? Do the Shi’a follow some guy who got his arms broken too?!?

    The Shi’a don’t follow Imam Malik because they don’t accept him as one of their Imams in jurisprudence. This whole point, again, is another flat lie. If such a claim were true, then you should give the evidence. You have to have tangible evidence of it.

    “And of mankind is he who purchases idle talk (lahwal hadeeth) to mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge (ilm), and takes it by way of mockery. For such there will be a humiliating torment.” (Qur’an 31:6)

    We see this ayat as applying directly to those people who will take the Hadith (reports) over the Sunnah (practice). Those who have no ilm (no fiqh). In this instance, those who will take the Hadith over the mass transmitted Sunnah of the blessed Messenger (saw). We have to understand and this cannot be stressed enough. The Sunnah is a ‘living tradition’ that is organically passed down from one generation to the next. The hadith WERE fragments and snippets of the sunnah, which at times became a mechanism to convince people of controversial issues.

    “Pray as you see me pray”.

    Qur’an and Sunnah not Qur’an and Hadith.

    We would like to remind our readers that the Prophet (saw) is reported to have said,” I leave you two things. “The Qur’an and my Sunnah.” He (saw) did not say “I leave you the Qur’an and Hadith.” And with all due respect, We ask anyone reading this to find a single statement where The Blessed Messenger (saw) said I leave you “Qur’an and Hadith”.

    People who say that the prophet (saw) said “Qur’an and Hadith” are trying to use Hanbali and Shaf’i usuli methods and impose these methodological principles on the rest of the Muslim ummah.

    The so-called ‘Salafiyyah’ today cherry-pick their usuli methods.

    The Blessed Messenger (saw) never handed to his followers a Mushaf of the Qur’an or a Sahih Bukhari volumes 1–4 etc. What he gave was a living, breathing revelation from Allah preserved foremost as an oral tradition, and then his living, breathing organic practice, deeds, and ways of living that collectively we call the Sunnah; again, which was orally transmitted.

    The living breathing practice is witnessed and transmitted as a living breathing, organic practice. The hadith is transmitted on the basis of one from one and can be corrupted, added to, mistakenly transmitted, leave out important details, have hidden defects, and so on.

    The problem today is that people who graduate from Madinah University are using Shaf’i and Hanbali Usuli principles to judge the rest of the Muslim ummah on the Qur’an and Sunnah, and it doesn’t work like that.

    The point being Imam Malik saw the living sunnah around him every day. For the Malikis, the ‘Amal’ or practice of the people of Madinah is a mass-established sunnah. They did not need to split hairs trying to find documented sunnah evidence in the form of hadith for everything they do.

    In fact, a principle of the Maliki madhab is that even if there is a Sahih hadith, if it clashes with the Sunnah of Madinah, Imam Malik drops it.

    Why?

    Because, again, you need to understand that Muhammed (saw) said, “I leave you the Qur’an and Sunnah.” If we are talking in terms of what has more weight, Rabia, one of Imam Malik’s teachers said to him, “I would rather take 1000 from 1000 because that 1 from 1 can strip the sunnah right out from your hands!”

    The vast majority of Hadith are, which means narrations one from one. Imam Malik is basically saying, “Look people, I live in the city where the 10,000 sahabah are buried and where the Blessed Himself (saw) is buried. If there ever was a sunnah established or practiced, we know about it because we live it every day.

    The following examples show corruption in the Hadith traditions that try and promote grasping of the hands in prayer.

    Now we will give what we believe to be the original accounts of Sadl, and the transformation of it into Qabd, and for whatever reason, someone found it important to try and undermine the way we understand the Blessed Prophet’s prayer, which Al hamdulillah is being followed by the people of Oman today.

    Remember Islam began as a stranger, and it will return to the world as a stranger. Reflect upon that!

    An original orally transmitted report.

    In the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah, the following can be found:

    Yahyaa Ibn Sa’eed declared to us: On the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn Al- ‘Eezaar. He said: “I used to accompany Sa’eed ibn Jubair: So, he saw a man praying while placing one of his hands on the other. This one on this one, and this one on this one. So, he went, separated them, and then returned (to me).” The Musannaf is one of the earliest hadith canons in Islamic history.

    Ibn ‘Abd Al-Barr in his book al-Tamheed narrates that (20:76):

    ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Izar said, ‘I used to make tawaf around the Kaba with Said ibn

    al-Jubayr. Once, he saw a man placing one hand over the other, so he went to him, separated his hands, and then returned to me.

    The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.

    The Hadith of Ibn Masud

    Actually reported in Abu Dawud and Sunan of Nasai

    “The Prophet saw me placing my left hand on my right hand in Salat. So he took my right hand, and then placed it over my left hand.”

    Abu Dawud’s chain is: Muhammed ibn Bakkar from Hushaym ibn Bashir from

    Al-Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab from Abu Abi-Uthman from Ibn Mas’ud.

    Nasa’is chain is: Hushaym ibn Bashir from Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab from Abu Abi

    ‘Uthman from Ibn Mas’ud.

    In the chain is Hushaym ibn Bashir

    Dhahabi states in Al Mizan [5/431], and Ibn Hajar states in

    Taqrib al-Tahdhib [2/269] that he: “Often used trickery in his reports to convince others to accept unacceptable chains of narration in addition to being guilty of conveying subtly distinguishable incomplete chains of narration.” (kathir at-tadlis wa al-irsal al-khafi).

    The Hadith of Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah Reported by Ahmad and Daraqutni

    “The Messenger of Allah passed by a man who was praying while placing

    his left hand on the right hand. So he snatched it and placed the right on the left.”

    But this is reported by way of Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab -from Abu Sufyan-from Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah.

    Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab has been declared to be weak by ‘Ali ibn Al-Madini, Nasa’i, Ahmad, and Daraqutni as stated by Dhahabi in Al Mizan [1/462].

    Our comments after using reasoning logic and deduction:

    Now in the original report, we see that someone was praying with hands folded (qabd) to which offense was taken and so their hands were separated during the prayer. Now what happens is that, in order to support the practice of folding one hand over the other (qabd), the highest authority in the land, the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself is invoked in the story. To make the argument more insiduous,  the issue is not even the releasing of the hands but ‘how the hands were folded‘. So the person who hears the narration would assume that folding hands leaving at the sides is not an issue at all, but would learn that the person in the narration simply folded it the wrong way! Then Ibn Hajar gives sweeping condemnation of Hushaym ibn Bashir in his commentary. It’s interesting to see that Hushaym Ibn Bashir, in all three reports, gets his information from Al Hajjaj ibn Abu Zaynab, who does not fare any better when he is critically examined.

    What was added: The prophet was seen doing it to make it more authoritative.

    What was changed: The issue was with how to fold the hands properly (sadl: laying of the hands at the side) was taken out completely!

    An original orally transmitted report.

    Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer

    Yahya related to me from Malik that ‘Abd al-karim ibn Abi-LMukhariq Al Basri said, “Among the things, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said and did are: ‘As long as you do not feel ashamed, do whatever you wish’, the placing of one hand on the other in prayer (one places the right hand on the left), being quick to break the fast, and delaying the meal before dawn.”

    The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.

    The Hadith of ‘Aisha bint Abu Bakr Reported by Daraqutni and Bayhaqi

    Aisha said: “Three things are from prophecy: making haste for breakfast, delaying the predawn meal, and placing the right over the left during Salat.”

    Point 1) Ibn Hazm related it in Al-Muhalla [4/113] as a statement of ‘Aisha but without a chain.

    Point 2) There is a break in the chain. So it can even be ascribed to ‘Aisha.

    Hafiz ibn Hajar said in Talkhis al-Habir [1/223]: “Daraqutni and Bayaqi related it as a statement of ‘Aisha.” And it has a break in its chain.

    Prima Qur’an Comments:

    Now we do not even apparently have the complete chain of this. Now we do not expect devilry at work at every corner. But if you compare the statement in the Muwatta to that of Imam Malik, then look at the following: It is word for word with two very huge changes.

    The change is now some unknown comes along and either intentionally or maliciously invokes Aisha (ra) to make it authoritative. After all, she’s the prophet’s wife and spent so much time with him, so she would be an authority, right?

    Or the reporter, relying upon memory, makes a mistake. We believe the former that the change is intentional due to what was actually changed.

    So this is a very obvious question.

    What is from the prophecy (or from the prophet)?

    Did He (saw) say to place the right hand over the left? Or did He (saw) say that doing such indicates that a person really has no shame?

    Two original orally transmitted reports

    In the following, we will give you two original reports of the hadith in the Muwatta of Imam Malik and then the attempt to combine the two hadiths into one due to oral corruption in the transmission.

    Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer

    Yahya related to me from Malik that ‘Abd al-karim ibn Abi-LMukhariq Al Basri said, “Among the things, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said and did are: ‘As long as you do not feel ashamed, do whatever you wish’, the placing of one hand on the other in prayer (one places the right hand on the left), being quick to break the fast, and delaying the meal before dawn.”

    Muwatta of Imam Malik 9.15 Placing One Hand on the Other in the Prayer

    Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn Sa’d said, “People used to be ordered to place their right hands on their left forearms in the prayer.” Abu Hazim added, “I know for sure that Sahl traces that back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.”

    The corrupted oral transmission of the story and the attempt to change it.

    Hadith of Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, reported by Daraqutni.

    “Verily we — the assembly of Prophets—have been ordered to hold our right hands over our left hands.“

    Weakness #1 One of the transmitters, Talha ibn ‘Amr, has been classified as being an unreliable narrator. The author of Awjaz al-Masalik says, “And in its chain is Talha ibn ‘Amr, who has been relinquished (matruk).

    Likewise, it is mentioned in Al-‘Ayni (Sharh of) Al-Bukhari.

    Dhahabi said in Al-Mizan (3/54): “Ahmad and Nasai’i said (about Talha)” “(He is) relinquished in hadith. And Bukhari and Ibn Al-Madini said: “He is insignificant” (Laysa bi shayin).”

    Prima Qur’an comments:

    It can be seen that the original hadith statement in the Muwatta of Imam Malik slowly evolved into a statement that supposedly the Prophets were ‘ordered’ to place one hand over the other.

    Finally, the two hadiths were joined together to get the following ‘Sahih’ narration.

    (Ibn Hibban relates it in his sahih, (13-14/3 #1767)

    “The prophets were ordered to delay the suhoor and expedite the breaking of the fast and hold with our right hands our left hands in our prayer.”

    Prima Qur’an comments:

    So here you have the finished product. What were two distinct hadiths in the Muwatta of Imam Malik that were transformed into one hadith that combined elements of both?

    In this new hadith, we find that it wasn’t the people who were ordered, it was the Prophets who were ordered and, of course, the only one to give orders to the prophets is Allah (swt) himself!

    So if we can’t ascribe it to Aisha (ra), let’s ascribe it to the Prophet (saw), and if that doesn’t work, let’s ascribe it as an order to all the Prophets — which only comes from Allah!

    So what this Hadith effectively does is eliminate any doubt about where such an order would come from. Also, as in the “Aisha Hadith” quoted above, the original hadith in the Muwatta of Imam Malik was changed so that instead of folding the hands in the fard prayer being an act of shame, it becomes meritorious, and not only that, but something directed by the divine himself!

    And this is also supported by the fact that ibn Turkamaanee, the Shaykh of al-Haafidh az-Zayla’i mentioned in his ‘al-Jawhar’ two weak hadith to support his madhab where he said, ‘Ibn Hazm said, “it is reported to us from Abu Hurayra who said, ‘place the hand upon the hand below the navel.’ And from Anas who said, ‘three are from the manners of the Prophethood: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in the prayer.’”’

    The hadith that ibn Hazm mentions in ‘al-Muhalla’ in ta’leeq form from Anas with the wording, ‘three are from the manners of the Prophet-hood: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in the prayer.’

    Ash-Shaikh Haashim as-Sindee said in his letter, ‘Diraahim as-Surra’, ‘and from them is what az-Zaahidee mentioned in his ‘Sharh al-Qudooree’, and ibn Ameer al-Haaj and ibn Najeem mentioned in ‘al-Bahr ar-Raa’iq’, that it is reported from the Prophet (saw), “three are from the habit of the Messengers: hastening the iftaar, delaying the suhoor, and placing the right hand upon the left below the navel in prayer.”

    He said: “I have not come across the sanad to this hadeeth except that az-Zaahidee added that it is reported by Ali bin Abu Taalib {3} from the Prophet (saw). But ibn Ameer al-Haaj and ibn Najeem said, “that the reporters of hadeeth do not know the wording, ‘below the navel’ from a marfoo or mawqoof narration.”’

    Anas reports that there are three aspects from the character of Nubuwwa [Prophethood]: to open fast early, to delay the suhur [pre-dawn meal], and to position the right hand over the left one beneath the navel while in salat. [al-Jawharal-naqiyy 2:31]

    Since the graduates of Madinah University cherry-pick Shafi’i and Hanbali usuli principles to establish daleel (namely that a person has to have documented sunnah in the form of hadith), then let us entertain them.

    The hadith of Sahl ibn Sa’ad — PEOPLE WERE ORDERED TO PLACE THE RIGHT OVER THE LEFT IN PRAYER

    “Abdullah ibn Maslama related to us from Malik from Abu hazim from Sahl ibn Sa’d. He said:

    “The people were ordered that a person is to place the right hand over his left forearm during Salat.” Abu Hazim said: “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet.” Isma’il said: “(I know only that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika). And he didn’t say: “He attributes” (yanmi).

    Source: (Bukhari, 224/2)

    The weakness of this hadith

    In spite of being in both the Muwatta of Imam Malik and the Sahih of Bukhari, it is not definitive proof that the Prophet’s sunnah was to pray while holding his left hand with his right hand. What weakens such an assumption made from this hadith are the following:

    • This is not an explicit statement, report, or action of the Prophet.
    • Sahl does not say that the prophet gave the order, so it’s possible someone else gave the order.
    • The saying, “I know only that he attributes that (yanmi dhalika) to the Prophet” is not the statement of Sahl. Rather it is the statement of the Tab’i, Abu Hazim. So there is no certainty that Sahl actually attributed this to the Prophet, since Abu Hazim is merely conjecturing about what he remembers.
    • The statement of Ismail that, “(I know only that) That is attributed (yunma dhalika).” And he didn’t say: “He attributes” (yanmi)” further emphasizes the belief that Abu Hazim didn’t actually hear Sahl attribute that order to the Prophet.
    • The above-mentioned Hadith further corroborates with what is in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaiba.

    In fact do you want to see how the Salafis and Wahabbis deceive the masses?

    Go look at how the render the English over here: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:740

    Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:

    The people were ordered to place the right hand on the left forearm in the prayer. Abu Hazim said, “I knew that the order was from the Prophet (saw) .”

    What a juciy dishonest lie! In plain sight!

    The whole of the Arabic text actually says:

    Abdullah ibn Maslamah narrated to us, from Malik, from Abu Hazim, from Sahl ibn Sa’d, who said: “People were commanded that a man should place his right hand on his left forearm during prayer.” Abu Hazim said: “I know of it only as being attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him).” Isma’il (a narrator in the chain) said: “It is attributed” — and he did not say “he attributes it.”

    “Ibn ‘Ulayyah declared to us: On the authority of Ibn ‘Aun about Ibn Seereen that he was asked about the man who holds his right hand with his left. He said: “That was merely done because of the Romans’ (influence).”

    Also, people who claim that Imam Malik only prayed sadl because his arms were broken need to look at the above hadith if the people were indeed ‘ordered‘ to pray one hand over the other means that they didn’t always do that!

    The proof is out there for anyone to see we know who fabricated the hadith chains. We know claims are inconsistent and who wish to attack the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and bring in place of it lahwal hadeeth (Qur’an 31:6)

    For further reading you maybe interested in:

    The Ibadi follow the blessed Sunnah of opening the hands in the prayer.

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    4 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    September 13, 2025 · 4:00 am

    What are the Sunnah prayers in the Ibadi school?

    “Indeed, humankind was created impatient: distressed when touched with evil, and withholding when touched with good—except those who pray, consistently performing their prayers.” (Qur’an 70:19-23)

    ﷽ 

    “The prayer was prescribed as consisting of two rak’as both when one was resident and when travelling. Then the travelling prayer was kept as it was, and an increase was made in the prayer (observed) at the place of residence.”

    Source: (Al-Jami’i Al-Sahih Musnad Al- Imam Al-Rabii hadith #186)

    In other words, contrary to what is commonly believed that the prayers for dhur and asr and isha were 4 rak’as they were initially 2 rak’a and an increase was made when in your resting place (your home).

    Now before we start, let us say that the title of this entry may be misunderstood.  That is because the Sunnah, in a legal sense, is understood as the words, deeds, actions and treaties of the Blessed Prophet (saw). 

    So even the five daily prayers that we say are fardh (obligatory) are, in a sense, Sunnah, as the Blessed Prophet (saw) did them.

    Then there are aspects of the Sunnah where the Blessed Prophet (saw) may have had a personal preference that he did not impose upon others.

    Then there are those aspects of the Sunnah that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did and did not stop doing which are wajib for us to do. 

    Lastly, there are different reports that are transmitted that do not give us the impression that these were parts of the acts that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did and did not stop doing. So, in those one may have a choice, to observe or not observe it. 

    I was prompted to write this entry after a sincere brother (May Allah continue to bless him) asked if the following were the Sunnah prayers according to the Ibadi school:

    What is worse is that the information provided by this AI did provide any source for the information. The above is most definitely incorrect, especially the point about 2 rak’as before Maghrib, because it is considered one of those times in which praying is makruh (disliked).

    What this article attempts to do is to discuss those prayers that are connected to the fardh (obligatory) prayers. This is commonly called: Sunan Al-Rawatib 

    When it comes to prayers, they differ in terms of their level of obligation. Obviously, the five daily prayers are those which are fardh (absolutely obligatory).

    They consist of:

    2 rak’as for fajr. The fajr prayer itself.

    4 rak’as for dhuhr. The dhuhr prayer itself.

    4 rak’as for ‘asr. The asr prayer itself.

    3 rak’as for maghrib. The maghrib prayer itself.

    4 rak’as for isha. The isha prayer itself.

    When we say the ‘Sunnah’ prayers, we are talking about those rak’as which the Blessed Prophet (saw) used to pray or perform in addition to those obligatory (fardh) prayers.  

    Mu’akkad are the confirmed Sunnah. The Blessed Prophet (saw) ALWAYS did them. He did not leave it. For us, the Mu’akkad are Sunnah, which are Wajib. Wajib means we must perform them. If a person does not do it, that person is considered to be vile.

    What is the point in quoting the text of the Qur’an that confirms the Sunnah and then abandoning the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) which we know he did not leave?

    Ghair mu’akkadah is the non-confirmed sunnah. Meaning the Blessed Prophet (saw) did it sometimes, or sometimes he did not do it. Or, the fact that the lone narrator reports are in conflict on the matter.

    What is the difference between: Qabliyah & Ba’diyyah sunnah?

    Qabliyah are those sunnah prayers (rather they are mu’akkad or ghair mu’akkadah) that are done BEFORE the obligatory prayers (fardh).

    B’adiyyah are those sunnah prayers (rather they are mu’akkad or ghair mu’akkadah) that are done AFTER the obligatory prayers (fardh).

    So let us focus on the Mu’akkad, the confirmed Sunnah prayers that are Sunan Al-Rawatib: connected to the 5 daily fardh (obligatory) prayers.

    You can see the above information is taken from Shaykh Abu Hassan Ali Muhammed Al Basyawi. May Allah (swt) have mercy on him and grant him the highest paradise. Volume 2 Mokhtasar Al Basyawi (Subuughu Niami) pg. 44-46

    So, again, our focus is primarily:  Mu’akkad, the confirmed Sunnah prayers that are Sunan Al-Rawatib–connected to the 5 daily fardh. Those sunnah prayers in which the Blessed Messenger (saw) he never abandoned them.

    That would be as follows:

    2 Sunnah mu’akkad +2 rak’as for fajr.

    4 rak’as for dhuhr.

    4 rak’as for ‘asr.

    3 rak’as for maghrib. +2 Sunnah mu’akkad

    4 rak’as for isha.

    So now let us focus on the Ghair mu’akkadah, the non-confirmed Sunnah prayers that are Sunan Al-Rawatib: connected to the 5 daily fardh (obligatory) prayers.

    2 Sunnah mu’akkad +2 rak’as for fajr.

    4 rak’as sunnah or 2 rak’as sunnah + 4 rak’as for dhuhr. + 4 rak’as sunnah. Or 2 rak’as sunnah.

    4 rak’as for ‘asr.

    3 rak’as for maghrib. +2 Sunnah mu’akkad

    4 rak’as sunnah or 2 rak’as sunnah + 4 rak’as for isha. + 4 rak’as sunnah or 2 rak’as sunnah

    Prima Qur’an comments:

    Now that which you see highlighted in green, are those Ghair mu’akkadah. They are non confirmed Sunnah prayers. This means that it is possible that the Blessed Prophet (saw) did them at times and other times he did not do them.

    So why is there disagreement or dispute over the ghair mu’akkadah? Insh’Allah, we will do our level best to try and explain using an example. It is also hoped that you, the seeker of truth, will understand why one must take care of the lone narrator reports. One narrator reports put a few strokes on the canvas but they do not paint the whole picture.you.

    Let us take the following hadith for example:

    “Narrated `Abdullah bin Mughaffal:

    The prophet said, “There is a prayer between the two Adhans (Adhan and Iqama), there is a prayer between the two Adhans.” And then while saying it the third time he added, “For the one who wants to (pray).”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:627)

    The above hadith is specific about there being a prayer before every prayer (inclusive of Isha). However, it is not specific as regards the number of rak’as. Are we talking about 2 rak’as or 4 rak’as.

    Thus, even though this is a musnad hadith of Imam Bukhari, some may not see it as sufficient evidence to suggest that this was a continued practice.

    Interestingly enough, some may leave it so as not to practice bid’ah (innovation). Others, avoid the difficulty by labeling it as nawafil (optional prayers).

    So this beloved sunnah is not to be confused with the confirmed sunnah (Sunnah mu’akkad). The beloved sunnah or nafila (if you do it you earn good and if you do not do it you do not accrue sins).

    So to recap we have:

    2 rak’as (qabliyah) before Fajr, which is Sunnah mu’akkad

    2 rak’as (ba’diyyah) after Maghrib, which is Sunnah mu’akkad

    You have other Sunnah prayers that are mu’akkadah, like: the two eid prayers, the eclipse prayer, the 2 rak’as Tahiyyatul Masjid (greeting the Masjid) and salat janazah. These are all a MUST.

    In the case of salat janazah, this is a fard al kifayyah. In Islam, we have:

    Fard al ‘ayn (personal responsibility that others cannot do on your behalf, like the five daily prayers).

    Fard al kifayya (collective responsibility) such that if some do, they lift the obligation upon the collective. What this means is that it is not necessary for everyone in a city or village to come to the funeral prayers. What is necessary is that some people come to perform the funeral prayers.

    The place of the witr prayer according to the Ibadi school.

    The witr prayer is a prayer that falls outside Sunan Al-Rawatib.

    That being said, the witr prayer is a Sunnah mu’akkad. This means it is wajib for us to pray it.

    “Narrated AbuAyyub al-Ansari:

    The Prophet (saw) said: “The witr is a duty for every Muslim, so if anyone wishes to observe it with five rak’ahs, he may do so; if anyone wishes to observe it with three, he may do so, and if anyone wishes to observe it with one, he may do so.”

    Source: (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:1422)

    The question is: Did the Blessed Prophet (saw) abandon the witr or was it part of his Blessed Sunnah that he never abandoned? For us, it is part of the Sunnah that he never abandoned. That is to say it is Sunnah mu’akkad.

    How many rak’as for witr?

    Witr itself means odd. As one can see from the hadith above: (1 rak’as, 3 rak’as, 5 rak’as).

    In reality, it can be up to 13 rak’as.

    There is no need to dispute and set in stone a certain number of rak’as for witr other than the odd numbers. That is because the Blessed Prophet (saw) would perform these rak’as with odd numbers. The reports would come down to us about the odd numbers and people would hold on to these solitary reports as if they were set in stone. What is confirmed by sunnah is that it was done. What is not confirmed sunnah is the number of rak’as.

    “Technically speaking, al-witr could be performed with one unit (rak‘ah). Also, it could be done with three, five, seven, nine, eleven or thirteen units; thirteen is the maximum.2
    Allāh’s Messenger (saw) is reported to have said: ‘Whoever wants to pray al-witr with seven rak‘ahs, let him do so, and whoever wants to pray al-witr with five rak‘ahs, let him do so, and
    whoever wants to pray al-witr with three rak‘ahs, let him do so, and whoever wants to pray al-witr with one rak‘ah, let him do so, and whoever wants to do so gesturing, let him do so’.3
    It is allowable to perform al-witr in the al-fașl way or the alwașl way, yet the former is preferred to the latter.”

    Source: (Al-Muatamad The Reliable Jurisprudence on Prayer pg. 401.)

    al-Fașl way: Is to do taslim after sitting in the second unit. Then, you pronounce the consecrating takbir (takbirat al-Iḥram) after being upright for the third unit.

    al-wașl way: It is to perform the three units continuously, without this first taslim after sitting for the second unit; rather, you stand up after sitting, with a transitional takbir for the third unit.

    What is the situation of the Sunnah prayers connected to Sunan Al-Rawatib when traveling?

    When traveling, the Sunnan prayers fall. Meaning the obligation to perform them falls.

    The units of rak’as revert to their origin (recall the hadith at the beginning of this article).
    Thus, it would be :

    2 rak’as for fajr.

    2 rak’as for dhuhr. + 2 rak’as for ‘asr.

    3 rak’as for maghrib. + 2 rak’as for isha.

    Witr 1 rak’a only.

    In general, a person can pray nafila whenever they like. That is apart from the prohibited prayer timings.

    The forbidden and disliked times to pray.

    The three forbidden times to pray are (sunrise), noon — when the sun reaches its zenith and sunset. The disliked timings are from Asr to Maghrib. 

    We pray during the eclipse (rather it is solar or lunar)

    We do not pray at these specific times so as not to imitate the solar cults and those who worship the Sun. 

    “And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD’S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshiped the sun toward the east.” (Ezekiel 8:16)

    Or, for example, like the majority of Christians who give deference to the Sun. The majority of Christians will worship the birth of their God on December 25th without any biblical textual evidence.

    In the ancient Roman calendar, December 25 was the date of the winter solstice. The emperor Aurelian made this the date of the festival Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the birthday of Sol Invictus or the ‘Invincible Sun’

    Although there are Christians that disagree with the date (December 25th), such as the EO and Oriental Orthodox and Jehovah’s Witness.

    The Christians worship on Sunday, the day of the Sun. 

    The Christian symbol: The Cross, is an adaptation of the Ankh. The symbol was of Re/Ra, who would take his boat to the underworld (the realm of death) associated with the Nile River.

    Thus, Muslims do not pray at certain times if we are not to be associated with those solar cults and those who worship the sun and or take their mythos from other earlier-based solar-cults like Christianity.

    The status of those who abandoned the Sunnah mu’akkad

    “Generally speaking, all Sunnah prayers, be it stressed or non-stressed, are not to be neglected by a faithful believer, as they are authentically proven to have been practiced, or verbally recommended by the one whom Allah set as a good example for us. Once, a Muslim scholar was asked regarding the status of one who habitually leaves as-Sunan ar-Ratibah. He replied, ‘He is religiously inferior’. Thereupon, Imām as-Sālimī (May his soul rest in peace) commented ‘And Paradise is not inhabited by inferiors’. If this is the case with as-Sunan ar-Rātibah, the situation with the emphasized/stressed Sunnah should be even more strict. Likewise, another scholar was questioned about one who does not care to perform the optional prayers that were authentically reported by the Prophet (saw). Upon being asked about this situation, he answered, ‘He is a man of evil’, and furthermore he mentioned that ‘his witness is rejected ’.”

    Source: (Al-Muatamad The Reliable Jurisprudence on Prayer pg. 399.)

    The following video with the title: He who abandons the confirmed Sunnah is of low status. By His Eminence Shaykh Ahmed bin Hamad Al-Khalili (h).

    ما حكم من ترك السنن المؤكدة، وهل يأثم في ذلك؟

    من ترك السنن المؤكدة فهو خسيس المنزلة وأمره إلى الله. والله أعلم.

    Translated: What is the judgment on someone who abandons the confirmed Sunnahs, and is he sinful for that?

    Whoever abandons the confirmed Sunnahs is of lowly status and his matter is up to Allah. And Allah knows best.

    The people of the past were fighting to follow the practice of the Blessed Prophet (saw) ; what we call the Sunnah. Now they leave it because it’s a Sunnah!

    May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

    May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

    5 Comments

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

    September 10, 2025 · 10:30 am

    Conditions of Takfeer/Excommunicating in the Ibadi School

    “That is Allah—your True Lord. So what is beyond the truth except falsehood? How can you then be turned away?” (Qur’an 10:32)

    ﷽ 

    The Conditions of Takfeer/Excommunication in the Ibadi School by Shaykh, Dr Scholar Abdullah bin Saeed bin Abdullah Al Ma’mari May Allah protect him and continue to benefit us from him.

    One of the principles established by Ahl al-Istiqama.

    The evidence with clear-cut authenticity and clear meaning in theology is taken as definitive, absolute, certain and must be believed.

    Whoever opposes this meaning in theology and rejects it is a Mushrik. We seek refuge in Allah from such people. 


    That is for those who reject it outright without interpretation.

    The one who rejects it by means of interpretation is a fasiq.

    In both cases, such people are misguided. Because this evidence can only have one meaning. Rejecting it is unacceptable. This rejection only comes from desire.

    Allah (swt) says: “So what is beyond the truth except falsehood?” (Qur’an 10:32)

    Whoever opposes clear-cut evidence in terms of authenticity and meaning should not receive sweet words from us.

    Again, this is only if it has a clear-cut meaning, is authentic, and it comes from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

    Our beloved teacher and respected Shaykh Al-Qanoobi (h) has said:
    “Evidence does not become clear-cut unless it goes through certain conditions.”

    There are four conditions in our school which must be fulfilled.

    1) The first is that it must be authentically transmitted from the Qur’an or Sunnah.

    2) The second is that it has a clear-cut authenticity.

    3) The third is that the meaning has to be clear.

    4) It has to be agreed as being tawatur.

    Point 4 has a caveat.

    By Tawatur/Mutawattir. That is to say, mass transmitted in practice without additions, accretions or innovations. Alternatively, mass transmitted by disassociated chains of transmission such that it is not possible for them to have conspired upon a falsehood.

    For the person who says it is mutawatir. They should take it as part of their creed.

    The one who takes a matter disputed as mutawatir by right cannot call another who disagrees as a fasiq. That is because the one who does so takes those hadith as ahad only.

    For instance, the belief in Al-Siraat and some say the punishment of the grave.

    Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) says:

    The evidence regarding the punishment of the grave is mutawatir.

    That was his position and he did not call other scholars from the school as fasiqs.

    Example: Our luminous scholar Shaykh Imam Nasir bin Abi Nabhan (r) didn’t believe in the punishment of the grave. That is because he didn’t believe the narrations were mutawatir (clear-cut and mass transmitted).

    Rather, Shaykh Nabhan (r) saw them as ahad.

    Going back to the general principle of the school. No evidence should be accepted in theology unless it is clear-cut with a clear meaning.

    However, Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) and other scholars said it is clear-cut with a clear meaning and so they and their followers have to believe it. It is a point of creed.

    This is done without calling Fasiq either side due to this difference of opinion.

    This is an important principle mentioned by Shaykh Al Qanubi (h) in some of his books.

    May Allah Guide the Ummah.

    May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under Uncategorized

    Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,