“Successful indeed are the believers, those who offer their prayers with all solemnity and full submissiveness khāshiʿūna.” (Qur’an 23:1-2)
“Nay, seek (Allah’s) help with patient perseverance and prayer: It is indeed hard, except to those who (l-khāshiʿīna)bring a lowly spirit.” (Qur’an 2:45)
“Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up with (qānitīna)devotion to Allah.” (Qur’an 2:238)
﷽
The status of the word ‘amin’.
Know dear readers and seekers of truth that Amin is by consensus (ijmā’) not part of the Qur’an, due to its absence from the Imām Codex (the official Uthmanic manuscript) between the two covers of which the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) unanimously agreed to record everything that was Qur’an and to exclude everything that was not.
Copies of this codex were distributed across major cities and shared throughout the Muslim nation without anyone raising an objection to any part of it. These copies have served as the authoritative basis for transmitting the Qur’an generation after generation down to our present day.
Jurists, exegetes, and other scholars have explicitly stated its non-Qur’anic status. Here is what the renowned exegete Abū Ḥayyān stated in his grand commentary, Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ:
“Likewise, they meaning the exegetes discussed Amin, its linguistic variants, the differences regarding its meaning, and its ruling in prayer; however, it is not part of the Qur’an, which is why we have disregarded discussing it altogether.”
Al-Ālūsī also stated in his commentary, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī:
“And it is not part of the Qur’an by consensus… [up to his statement:] to the extent that several scholars mentioned that whoever claims *Āmīn* is part of the Qur’an has committed disbelief.”
Since the word Amin is non-Qur’anic, it falls under human speech, and human speech has been established as prohibited during prayer after having been initially permissible. We will give our evidence with the permission of Allah.
Our first and strongest evidence.
The consensus (ijmā’) of our scholars across the centuries, and the fact that prayer is a practical, mass-transmitted act of worship. This is the mass transmitted sunnah with us.
As for us, the consensus (ijmā’) of our companions may Allah the Exalted have mercy on them across the centuries is sufficient for us. Prayer is a practical, outwardly manifest act of worship that has been transmitted from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) generation after generation, down to our present day. We know of no disagreement among our scholars, whether of the earlier or later generations, regarding the issues of prayer among them, the impermissibility of saying “Amin” after al-Fatiha.
Supporting evidence.
The occasion of the revelation of the Qur’an.
“Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up with devotion to Allah.” (Qur’an 2:238)
Mu’awiya b. al-Hakam said:
Zaid b. Arqam reported:
We used to talk while engaged in prayer and a person talked with a companion on his side in prayer till (this verse) was revealed: “And stand before Allah in devout obedience” (ii, 238) and we were commanded to observe silence (in prayer) and were forbidden to speak.
“We used to talk behind Allah’s Messenger (Saw) during the Salat, a man among us would talk to his companions next to him until (the following) was revealed: “And stand before Allah with obedience”. (2:238) So we were ordered to be silent and prohibited from talking.”
The word they understood as a command to stop speaking is:
قَانِتِينَ (qānitīn)
It appears at the end of the verse:
وَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ قَانِتِينَ
(“…and stand before Allah as qānitīn.”)
قَانِتِينَ is the plural of قَانِت (qānit), which carries meanings including:
Obedient / devoutly obedient
Silent / keeping quiet
Standing in humility and submission.
This means the companions used to talk during the prayer and even to each other. However, they understood from the occasion of this verse that they should no longer do so. Such practice was abrogated.
The explicit command of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Mu’awiyah b. al-Hakam al-Sulami said ; when I came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) I learnt many things about islam. One of the things that I was taught was that it was that it was pointed out me. When you sneeze, praise Allah (I,e, say “praise be to Allah”); and when someone sneezes and praises Allah, say “ May Allah have mercy on you. Meanwhile I was standing along with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) during prayer, all of a sudden a man sneezed, and he praised Allah. So I said, “may Allah have mercy on you”, in a loud voice. The people gave me disapproving looks so much so that I took ill of it. So I said :
what do you mean by looking at me with furtive glances. Then they glorified Allah. When the prophet (ﷺ) finished his prayer, he asked; who was the speaker? The Prophet told him; this Bedouin. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) called me and said to me: Prayer is meant for the recitation of the Quran, and making mention of Allah. When you are in it (prayer), this should be your work therein. I never saw an instructor more lenient than the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)
“He said: I prayed behind the Messenger of Allah, May Allah bless him and grant him peace, one day and a man from the people sneezed, so I said: May Allah have mercy on you, so the people looked at me with their eyes, so I said: May my mother be bereaved of me, what is the matter with you that you are looking at me? He said: So they struck their thighs with their hands. When I saw them silencing me, I kept quite until the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) finished praying. Then he called me. He said: By my father and mother, I have never seen a teacher before or after him who taught better than him. He neither struck me, nor rebuked me, nor insulted me. He said: “This prayer is not a place for such human speech. Rather, It is for glorification, magnification, and reading the Qur’an.”
How do we undertand this? We understand that the Blessed Prophet (saw) is telling us:
“Indeed, in this prayer of ours, nothing of people’s speech is valid; it is only tasbih (glorification), takbir (saying Allahu Akbar), tahmid (praising Allah), and the recitation of the Qur’an.”
There is no doubt that the word “Amin” is not among these. For it is neither part of the Qur’an nor any of the things mentioned. Nothing of people’s speech is valid in prayer. Only tasbih, takbir, tahmid, and the Qur’an recitation and “Amin” falls outside these categories.
Abdullah (b. Masu’d) reported:
We used to greet the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) while he was engaged in prayer and he would respond to our greeting. But when we returned from the Negus we greeted him and he did not respond to us; so we said: Messenger of Allah. we used to greet you when you were engaged in prayer and you would respond to us. He replied: Prayer demands whole attention.
We used to salute during prayer and talk about our needs. I came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and found him praying. I saluted him, but he did not respond to me. I recalled what happened to me in the past and in the present.
When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) finished his prayer, he said to me: Allah, the Almighty, creates new command as He wishes, and Allah, the Exalted, has sent a fresh command that you must not talk during prayer. He then returned my salutation.
Therefore, if it were [permitted], meaning reciting ‘amin’ it would fall under the abrogated matters that are prohibited; and it is not permissible to act upon the abrogated.
That is to say that the hadith on the matter that have reached us are ‘sahih’ or sound. However with us the living sunnah takes priority over documented sunnah that may or may not still be acted upon.
Let us give you an example. Think carefully about the evidence that you have read above.
Examples of abrogation of practice during the prayer.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
That the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came out to Ubayy bin Ka’b, and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “O Ubayy!” And he was performing Salat, so Ubayy turned around but he did not respond to him, so Ubayy finished his Salat quickly. Then he turned to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: ‘As-Salamu ‘Alaikum, O Messenger of Allah!’ The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Wa ‘Alaikum As-Salam – what prevented you from responding to me when I called you Ubayy?’ He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I was performing Salat.‘ So he said: ‘Do you not find among what Allah revealed to me: Respond to Allah and to the Messenger when they call you to what gives you life?’ He said: ‘Of course, I shall not repeat that, if Allah wills.’ He said: ‘Would you like for me to teach you a Surah the likes of which has neither been revealed in the Tawrah, nor the Injil, nor the Zabur, nor in the entire Qur’an?’ He said: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah!’ The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘What do you recite in your Salat?’ He said: ‘I recite Umm Al-Qur’an.’ So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! The like of it has neither been revealed in the Tawrah, nor the Injil nor the Zabur, nor in the Furqan. It is the seven oft-repeated, and the Magnificent Qur’an which I was given.'”
So is more than one way to understand the implications of the above hadith.
Notice that the reason Ubayy bin K’ab (ra) gave for not responding to the Messenger of Allah (saw):
He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I was performing Salat.‘
This means that Ubayy bin K’ab (ra) could have been aware of the ruling that prohibits talking during the prayer.
However, the Messenger of Allah (swt) introduces an exception by quoting the verse of the Qur’an:
“O believers! Respond to Allah and His Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.” (Qur’an 8:24)
Or this hadith can be understood by another way.
That is that this verse: “O believers! Respond to Allah and His Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.” (Qur’an 8:24) was later restricted. In otherwords it was not abrogated but it was restricted to answer the Blessed Messenger (saw) after the prayer.
This is why Hadith < Fiqh. You can have a hadith but the understanding is what is important.
Likewise: Docummented Sunnah < Living Sunnah.
There is grounds to believe that ‘Amin’ is not actually Arabic in its origin. However, this article is not the time or place to wade into the weeds-so to speak.
The Qur’an indicates the phrase “Our Lord, accept this from us” (رَبَّنَا تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا) after prayer. This phrase appears in (Qur’an 2:127), where Prophet Ibrahim and Prophet Ismail (peace be upon them) supplicate while raising the foundations of the Kaaba:
رَبَّنَا تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا ۖ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ “Our Lord, accept [this] from us. Indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing.”
This verse demonstrates that the Qur’an itself provides a specific supplication for acceptance after an act of worship, distinct from the Hebrew-origin “Amen.”
What about the Tashahhud?
Don’t worry dear readers we are one step ahead insh’Allah.
One cannot object against us by citing the continued legitimacy of *Taḥmīd* (praising Allah) and *Tashahhud* in prayer; for *Taḥmīd* falls under the category of *Tasbīḥ* (glorification), while *Tashahhud*though not Qurʾān consists entirely of glorifying Allah Almighty and Majestic, and holds a special status. The Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) gave it meticulous care, as evidenced by Ibn Masʿūd’s statement:
Narrated Ibn Mas`ud:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) taught me the Tashah-hud as he taught me a Sura from the Qur’an, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashah-hud was) all the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allah. Peace and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allah, I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and I also testify that Muhammad is Allah’s slave and His Apostle. (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (ﷺ) , but when he had died, we used to say, “Peace be on the Prophet.”
This clearly indicates that it carries the ruling of Qurʾānic recitation during prayer. Moreover, the consensus of the Muslim community (*ijmāʿ*) regarding the non-abrogation of *Taḥmīd* and *Tashahhud* in prayer serves as sufficient proof that they are excluded from abrogated speech and that which is agreed upon is not comparable to that which is disputed.
Furthermore, know that the methodology of our scholars concerning prayer is that of legal precaution (*Iḥtiyāṭ*). That is adopting only those narrations surrounding which there is no shadow of doubt in disputed matters. This is because prayer is the second pillar of Islam, coming directly after creed (*ʿAqīdah*). Verifying scholars across various schools of thought do not accept solitary reports (*Aḥād* traditions) as binding proof in creedal matters because they do not yield absolute certainty (*qaṭʿ*); thus, prayer being adjacent to creed in rank is all the more worthy of such caution.
Furthermore, some scholars have stated that the prayer practiced by our companions is established by consensus, because the actions they omit are themselves subject to disagreement among others, and those who advocate those actions do not view their omission as invalidating the prayer. This alone suffices as proof for the validity of the prayer of one who does not pronounce *Āmīn*.
Do recall this was our first and strongest evidence.
If anyone should denounce us for omitting the *aʾmīn*, the response to him is that it would be more fitting for him to denounce those who omit the *Basmalah* which IS a verse from the Book of Allah, recorded in all codices by consensus than to denounce those who omit *aʾmīn*, which is consensus-proven to be non-Qurʾānic. And Allah knows best.
Insh’Allah this article in the near future will be found here:
Allah (swt) reminded us of the promise of Satan where he said: “And I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah.” (Qur’an 4:119)
“And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbids, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal.” (Qur’an 59:7)
﷽
Some among those who call themselves: “Ahl Sunnah” and in particular those who label themselves as ‘Salafiyah’ will make a huge fuss and an ordeal about Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness) when we stand firm upon clear statements of the Qur’an and Sunnah that state such and such an act will send a person to hellfire.
So they deal in emotions where as we deal with evidences. Their aim is to rise an emotional response. As if they are to say the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) are something trivial.
“Ah you see for such a small thing the Ibadis say these people will be in hell!”
However, when is disobedience of Allah and his Messenger ever a trivial matter?
Allah has cursed those women who practice tattooing and those who get themselves tattooed, and those who remove their face hairs, and those who create a space between their teeth artificially to look beautiful, and such women as change the features created by Allah. Why then should I not curse those whom the Prophet (saw has cursed? And that is in Allah’s Book. i.e. His Saying: ‘And what the Apostle gives you take it and what he forbids you abstain (from it).’ (Qur’an 59.7)
‘Abdullah reported that Allah had cursed those women who tattooed and who have themselves tattooed, those who pluck hair from their faces and those who make spaces between their teeth for beautification changing what Allah has created. This news reached a woman of the tribe of Asad who was called Umm Ya’qub and she used to recite the Holy Qur’an. She came to him and said:
What is this news that has reached me from you that you curse those women who tattooed and those women who have themselves tattooed, the women who pluck hair from their faces and who make spaces between their teeth for beautification changing what Allah has created? Thereupon ‘Abdullah said: Should I not curse one upon whom Allah’s Messenger (saw) has invoked curse and that is in the Book also. Thereupon that woman said: I read the Qur’an from cover to cover, but I did not find that in it. whereupon he said: If you had read (thoroughly) you would have definitely found this in that (as) Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, has said:” What Allah’s Messenger brings for you accept that and what he has forbidden you, refrain from that.” That woman said: I find this thing in your wife even now. Thereupon he said: Go and see her. She reported: I went to the wife of ‘Abdullah but found nothing of this sort in her. She came back to him and said: I have not seen anything. whereupon he said: Had there been anything like it in her, I would have never slept with her in the bed.
Where in the Qur’an are people cursed by Allah (swt) described as the people of paradise?
It cannot be said that those whom Allah and his Messenger (saw) cursed are the people of paradise. Thus, the Ahl Sunnah believe people will enter hellfire over plucking their eyebrows.
What we know is that the belief that people will enter into the hellfire for a short period of time is a belief of the Jews.
“The Jews claim, “The Fire will not touch us except for a number of days.” Say, “Have you taken a pledge from Allah—for Allah never breaks His word—or are you saying about Allah what you do not know?” (Qur’an 2:80)
We have already established that those who enter the hellfire, the unrepentant sinners they remain there in forever.
Allah (swt) is a being outside of space/time how we would understand the passing of time as 3D carbon based platforms is totally different than the one whom is outside the control of space/time.
“Through which˺ the angels and the ˹holy˺ spirit will ascend to Him on a Day fifty thousand years in length.” (Qur’an 70:4)
“They challenge you ˹O Prophet˺ to hasten the torment. And Allah will never fail in His promise. But a day with your Lord is indeed like a thousand years by your counting.” (Qur’an 22:37)
So the advise to those who count themselves as Ahl Sunnah is to deal with proofs and evidences rather than emotions and caprice.
Rather than attack other schools of Islam over the duration one would spend in hell fire for such and such a deed would that time not be better spent warning the believers? Advising the believers to obey Allah (swt) and his Blessed Messenger (saw) in all his injunctions and commands and fleeing from that which Allah (swt) and his Messenger have ordered us to flee from?
Time better spent on asking the believers to seek Allah’s mercy and to sincerely repent?
Surely that which you think you can bring against other schools can be brought against you.
But what is most important is establishing the haqq of any matter, and not stirring the emotions and the passions, less we ourselves become the Ahl-ul-Ahwa (The People of Whims and Fancies).
“That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira) for you (Oh Muhammed) what preceded of your (dhanbika) sins and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.” (Qur’an 48:2)
﷽
Title: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error?
Attribution: His Eminence Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al-Kharusi
The translation is from the following video.
Brother Badr asks: “Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error? Adam (as), as he says, made a mistake by eating from the tree. Moses (as) made a mistake by killing the Coptic man. Jonah (as) made a mistake by leaving his village without Allah’s permission. So how do we reconcile what we hear? Namely that the prophets are infallible with these mistakes?”
Shaykh Kahlan bin Nabhan al-Kharusi: What was the original question?
Questioner: Are the prophets and messengers infallible and protected from error?
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding clarification of certain matters: what one finds among scholars on the issue of prophetic infallibility is that their intent in this matter pertains to sins and transgressions, not to mistakes in general.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Sometimes some scholars use the word “mistake,” but they mean sins and transgressions. This must be clear. The discussion on prophetic infallibility relates to committing sins and transgressions.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is the first point.
The second point:
There is agreement among Muslim scholars, or the majority of Muslim scholars on the issue of prophetic infallibility from sins and transgressions. Regarding anything connected to revelation and conveying the message, they are infallible and protected from error or mistake in that.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: And anything that could involve shirk (associating partners with Allah), whether apparent or hidden, they are infallible from it. Likewise, they are unanimously protected from major sins.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: These matters are points of agreement among all scholars.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Among the vast majority of scholars, any opinions to the contrary are anomalous and not given weight.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: The remaining discussion concerns minor sins. Scholars have differing views.
Some hold that minor sins could occur from prophets.
Others say minor sins could occur before prophethood but not after;
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: 3. And some deny the occurrence of minor sins from them altogether.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: May Allah’s prayers and peace be upon them all. These are the various positions. According to our scholars, they are free from minor sins both before and after prophethood.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: However, the view that minor sins could possibly occur from them without persistence in them and without them being left unaddressed is also a well-known view. Some even report that this is the position of the majority of scholars.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding minor sins without persistence and without being left unaddressed.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So they do not persist in them, nor do they remain upon them, nor are they left unrebuked. And no sin or punishment results from them.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: As for those who hold that minor sins are impossible for prophets, both before and after prophethood, how do they interpret what is mentioned in the Book of Allah or authentically reported in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) that appears to involve a sin? They interpret it as doing what is contrary to what is better and more appropriate for the station of prophethood. This station is the highest and most perfect of stations. Therefore, something that is contrary to what is better is inconsistent with the station of prophethood but this could occur from them. This is a good interpretation, as it shows proper etiquette toward the prophets of Allah (may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon them all) and interprets their actions in a good and acceptable manner.
Now we come to some examples that scholars mention: what occurred from Adam (as), what happened with Moses in that incident when he struck the Coptic man and killed him.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and what happened with Dhul-Nun (Jonah) when he fled to the laden ship.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: and some other examples. I say that each of these has an interpretation.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Regarding Adam and his wife eating from the tree, the correct view is that that stage was not a stage of religious obligation (taklif). Yes.
Prima Qur’an comments: By this Shaykh al-Kharusi means taklīf, تَكْلِيف or religious duty, obligation, or moral responsibility assigned to a them by Allah. This was not assigned during the time of Adam (as).
The honourable Shaykh continues:
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This has been reported by several exegetes, and it was greatly relied upon by Imam al-Tahir ibn Ashur in Al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir. He reported it, as did others before him, and they mentioned that it is the view of the majority: that stage in Adam’s preparation, training, and upbringing was not a stage of religious obligation but rather a stage of discipline.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Therefore, what occurred from him that appears to be error and disobedience was actually a violation of the discipline of training. Violating what was required for his preparation and development. Ibn Ashur gave an example: like the head of a household training his children. When they disobey his command even if the act itself is not inherently sinful or described as a sin.
Questioner: Yet it is disobedience to the head of the household’s command, a deviation from his path.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: For example, he tells them, “Do not enter this room,” and they enter.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So this falls under violation of discipline because it was not a stage of religious obligation. That was not a stage of legal responsibility.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is a good interpretation that brings together various points made about the story of Adam and his eating from the tree. Moreover, the noble Qur’an explicitly describes Adam as having forgotten “And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred” (Qur’an 20:121) & “but he forgot, and no firm resolve was found in him.” (Qur’an 20:115) So it occurred as an oversight and forgetfulness on his part, not as a deliberate intention to disobey Allah’s command.
Questioner: Yes.
Prima Qur’an comments:
“And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot (fanasiya); and We found not in him determination.” (Qur’an 20:115)
In Arabic Nisyan (نِسْيَان) is of two types. Unintentional human lapses of memory and abandonment/neglect.
Human Memory Lapse
Examples:
Moses (as) says:
“He replied, “Do you remember when we rested by the rock? (nasiytu al-ḥūta)I forgot the fish. None made me forget (ansānīhu) to mention this except Satan. And the fish made its way into the sea miraculously.” (Qur’an 18:63)
When Joseph asked a fellow inmate who was being released to mention him to the king, the inmate experienced a lapse of memory.
“And he said to the one whom he knew would be saved along with him, ‘Mention me before your master.’ But Satan made him forget (fa-ansāhu al-shayṭānu) mentioning it to his master, so Joseph remained in prison for several years.” (Qur’an 12:42)
Conscious Disregard / Abandonment
“On the Day of Judgment, those who ignored the afterlife will face spiritual isolation. “And it will be said, ‘Today We will forget you as you forgot (nasītum) the meeting of this Day of yours, and your refuge is the Fire, and for you there are no helpers.'” (Qur’an 45:34)
“Do you order righteousness of the people and forget yourselves (wa-tansawna anfusakum) while you recite the Scripture? Then will you not reason?” (Qur’an 2:44)
The above verse admonishes people who preach goodness to others but entirely neglect their own moral obligations.
The honourable Shaykh continues:
Shaykh al-Kharusi: As for what occurred with Moses (as) for you asked about it.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: That was not a sin on Moses’ part but rather an error.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: He intended to defend the Israelite from the Coptic man because the Coptic man was transgressing. He was an aggressor.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: So Moses intended to push him away, and he struck him. But Allah decreed that he died from that blow.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is accidental killing. Therefore, it is not described as a sin. However, due to the station of prophethood, Moses sought forgiveness from his Lord and said,
“My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself” (Qur’an 28:16). He sought forgiveness from his Lord because he did not intend that, nor did he want it to happen. It occurred from him while his intention was to forbid evil. But Allah decreed what happened.
Questioner: Yes
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is what is mentioned in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah(saw) regarding this matter is interpreted in this way.
In summary, it is important to pay attention to the following: matters related to conveying revelation, shirk (whether apparent or hidden), as well as major sins the prophets are infallible in these.
Questioner: Infallible.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Infallible, peace be upon them.
As for minor sins, there is a difference of opinion, and the various views have been mentioned. As for errors, those things that are not sins and not within the scope of religious obligations, their situation in this regard is like that of all human beings: they may make a mistake in some matter that is not a sin, for which no legal obligation had been established. And Allah knows best.
Questioner: Or for which no obligation had previously existed.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: Yes. This, as I said, is interpreted as doing what is contrary to what is better.
for example. [ When Allah says to the Prophet-peace be upon him] “May Allah pardon you. Why did you give them permission?” (Qur’an 9:43)
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh al-Kharusi: This is a matter of proper etiquette. It has been said that it was left to their own judgment, and they exercised ijtihad. So the matter is clear. As for those who hold that an error occurred, they describe it as doing what is contrary to what is better. And Allah knows best.
Prima Qur’an comments.
On the last point that Shaykh al-Kharusi mentioned:
for example. [ When Allah says to the Prophet-peace be upon him] “May Allah pardon you. Why did you give them permission?” (Qur’an 9:43)
This would be known as: Khilaf al-awla (خلاف الأولى)which in Islamic legal term meaning “contrary to what is best” or “opposing the preferred action”
Thus, on prophetic infallibility there are four points.
The discussion on prophetic infallibility relates to committing sins and transgressions.
Regarding anything connected to revelation and conveying the message, they are infallible and protected from error or mistake in that.
And anything that could involve shirk (associating partners with Allah), whether apparent or hidden, they are infallible from it.
As for errors, those things that are not sins and not within the scope of religious obligations, their situation in this regard is like that of all human beings: they may make a mistake in some matter that is not a sin, for which no legal obligation had been established. And Allah knows best
Likewise, they are unanimously protected from major sins.
Summary:
They are protected from making any mistakes or errors in conveying the revelation.
They do not do anything that involves shirk.
They are not protected from making errors or mistakes in personal ijtihad like all human beings.
They do not commit major sins.
An example of point 3.
Musa b. Talha reported:
I and Allah’s Messenger (saw) happened to pass by people near the date-palm trees. He (the Holy Prophet) said: What are these people doing? They said: They are grafting, i. e. they combine the male with the female (tree) and thus they yield more fruit. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said: I do not find it to be of any use. The people were informed about it and they abandoned this practice. Allah’s Messenger (saw) (was later) on informed (that the yield had dwindled), whereupon he said: If there is any use of it, then they should do it, for it was just a personal opinion of mine, and do not go after my personal opinion; but when I say to you anything on behalf of Allah, then do accept it, for I do not attribute lie to Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.
The discussion concerns minor sins. There are three views.
Some hold that minor sins could occur from prophets.
Others say minor sins could occur before prophethood but not after.
Some deny the occurence of minor sins from them altogether.
Shaykh al-Kharusi pauses and corrects himself.
He says: “According to our scholars, they are free from minor sins both before and after prophethood.”
Then he corrects himself: “However, the view that minor sins could possibly occur from them without persistence in them and without them being left unaddressed is also a well-known view. Some even report that this is the position of the majority of scholars.”
Some examples from the Qur’an.
Adam-alayhi salam
“And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he (fanasiya) forgot; and We found not in him determination.” (Qur’an 20:115)
فَنَسِيَ (fa-nasiya) = “but he forgot” (or “then he forgot”)
This word for forget or negligence is the wording used to describe the Christians who received the wrath of Allah (swt). However, notice the verse above says: ‘We found not in him determination.’ Meaning persistence in his sin.
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they (fanasu)forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
The injustice of “Dhu’n-Nun” (the Man of the Whale) and “Sahib al-Hut” (the Companion of the Fish) or Jonah.
“And [mention] the man of the fish, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not decree [anything] upon him. And he called out within the darknesses, “There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the (l-ẓālimīna) wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 21:87)
“Then the fish swallowed him, while he was (mulīmun)blameworthy.” (Qur’an 37:142)
That same word is used in the Qur’an to describe the state of Pharaoh when he was cast into the sea.
“So We took him and his soldiers and cast them into the sea, and he was (mulīmun) blameworthy.” (Qur’an 51:40)
It should be noted that Pharoah is in the barā’ah ḥaqīqah. One truly cut off from Allah (swt).
So how do we understand this?
There are three types of Ẓulm.
Ẓulm Against Allah (Shirk / Polytheism).
“And [remember] when Luqman said to his son while he was advising him, ‘O my son, do not associate [anything] with Allah. Indeed, association [with Him] is great injustice (ẓulmun ‘aẓīm).‘” (Qur’an 31:13)
We do not even find this among the noble companions much less the Prophets!
Ẓulm Against Others (Oppression of People or Creatures)
This involves violating the rights, property, physical safety, or dignity of fellow human beings and other living things. Allah does not forgive this type of injustice unless the victim first forgives the oppressor or the oppressor does his/her level best to make things right with the one oppressed.
“The blame is only against those who wrong the people (yaẓlimūna-nās) and tyrannize upon the earth without right. For those there will be a painful punishment.” (Qur’an42:42)
Ẓulm Against Oneself (Committing Sins)
“And those who, when they commit an immorality or wrong themselves (ẓalamū anfusahum), remember Allah and seek forgiveness for their sins and who can forgive sins except Allah?” (Qur’an 3:135)
“Then We caused to inherit the Book those We have chosen of Our servants; and among them is he who wrongs (ẓālimun)himself, and among them is he who is moderate, and among them is he who is foremost in good deeds by permission of Allah. That is what is the great bounty.” (Qur’an 35:32)
So coming back to “Dhu’n-Nun” (the Man of the Whale) and “Sahib al-Hut” (the Companion of the Fish) how would we understand him as being among those who commit Ẓulm?
And indeed, Jonah was among the messengers. When he ran to the laden ship, he cast lots and was among those who lost. Then the fish swallowed him while he was blameworthy. And had he not been of those who exalt Allah, he would have remained inside its belly until the Day they are resurrected. (Qur’an 37:139–144)
&
And [mention] the man of the fish, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not decree [anything] upon him. And he called out within the darknesses, “There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the wrongdoers.” So We responded to him and saved him from the distress. And thus do We save the believers. (Qur’an 21:88)
The Qur’an does not state that Allah explicitly forbade Jonah (Prophet Yunus) from leaving in these specific verses. Instead, the text focuses on the manner of his departure and the fact that he left without receiving Divine permission.
So this is an example of Khilaf al-awla (خلاف الأولى)
The example of Moses.
“And he entered the city at a time of unawareness of its people, and he found there two men fighting. One of the men being from his party and one of his enemy. And the one of his party appealed to him against his enemy, so Moses struck him and killed him. He said, “This is from the work of Satan. Indeed, he is a manifest, misleading enemy.” He said, “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, so forgive me,” and He forgave him. Indeed, He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. He said, “My Lord, for the favor You bestowed upon me, I will never be an assistant to the criminals.” And he became inside the city fearful and anticipating, when suddenly the one who sought his help the previous day cried out to him once again. Moses said to him, “Indeed, you are an evident, misled one.” And when he wanted to strike the one who was an enemy to both of them, he said, “O Moses, do you intend to kill me as you killed someone yesterday? You want only to be a tyrant in the land and do not want to be of the amenders.” And a man came from the farthest end of the city, running. He said, “O Moses, indeed the eminent ones are conferring over you to kill you, so leave. Indeed, I am to you of the sincere advisors.” So he left it, fearful and anticipating. He said, “My Lord, save me from the wrongdoing people.”
“And you did that deed of yours which you did, and you are one of the (l-kāfirīna)ungrateful. He said, “I did it then, when I was of those who are ( l-ḍālīna) astray.” (Qur’an 26:19-20)
We as Muslims ask Allah to guide us and keep us away from the l-dalina.
“The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are (l-ḍālīna) astray.” (Qur’an 1:7)
It is used of the Prophet (saw) before divine guidance.
“And He found you lost (ḍāllan), and He gave you guidance.” (Qur’an 93:7)
Thus, the the “accident” label is an interpretive conclusion drawn by scholars, not a direct statement of the Quranic text itself. However, what is clear is that there are no verses in the Qur’an that address Moses (as) as a prophet before the incident where he killed the man.
In fact, his divine comission starts here: Qur’an 20:11–24 and Qur’an 28:29–35.
What is also clear is that Musa (as) prayed: “My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, so forgive me,”
Which is followed by: “and He forgave him.” So in that sense you can say that Moses (as) was sinless as he did not begin his comission as a Prophet. The one whose sin is forgiven is like the one who never sinned.
Then there is this verse where Allah (swt) addresses the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira)for you what preceded of your (dhanbika) sins and what will follow and complete His favor upon you and guide you to a straight path.” (Qur’an 48:2)
When addressing Pharaoh a word from the same Arabic root is used.
“[Theirs is] like the custom of the people of Pharaoh and those before them. They denied Our signs, so Allah seized them for their (bidhunūbihim)sins. And Allah is severe in penalty.” (Qur’an 3:11)
In classical Arabic, Dhanb literally means:
A fault or shortcoming like human oversight or “leaving the better option” Khilaf al-awla (خلاف الأولى)
A sin, crime, or offense
Also note that the verse above says: That Allah may forgive (liyaghfira)Forgiveness is only for that which needs forgiveness. Which doesn’t necessarily entail a moral sin.
Some Muslim translators were embarassed by this because the text is a direct assault upon their contrived beliefs.
This is why as Muslims we follow the evidence. We do not follow our desires.
*Mohammed Tahir-ul-Qadri*has translated the above as:
“So that Allah forgives, for your sake, all the earlier and later sins (of all those people) of your Umma ([Community]* who struggled, fought and sacrificed by your command), and (this way) may complete His blessing on you (outwardly and inwardly) in the form of Islam’s victory and forgiveness for your Umma (Community), and may keep (your Umma) firm-footed on the straight path (through your mediation).”
* Note*We understand the claimants of Sufism to be lovers of Al-Haqq (The Truth) and not people who manipulate the religion.
It is rather obvious why people would interpret the text like this. Because when you have a Pir-Murid (master-disciple) culture where people are expected to pledge fealty to the Pir, then it becomes impossible for the Pir to commit even the smallest infraction or mistake.
All acts of kufr (ingratitude) are sins. However, not all sins are acts of kufr (ingratitude).
All acts of shirk are acts of kufr but not all acts of kufr are acts of shirk.
There is no verse in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) forgives an act of kufr without repentance.
Major sins committed with persistence and unrepentance that are acts of kufr, yet it is evident to you the reader that it is impossible for any Prophets (peace and blessings upon them) to persist in commiting a sin. Furthermore, we do not pass judgement of disbelief or disavowal regarding those who possess true *walayah* (spiritual sanctitiy/freindship with Allah), yet we do not condone sin on anyone’s part.
A case in point is the story of the brothers of Joseph (peace be upon him) ” we attest to their *walaya* and their place in Paradise, while simultaenously disavowing before Allah the sins they committed against their brother Joseph and their father Jacob (peace be upon them both).
The following lecure by Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi (h) is also very eye opening:
The methodology of the Prophets in dealing with sins. Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi.
“O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat there from abundance from wherever you will. But do not approach this tree, lest you be among the (l-ẓālimīna)wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 2:35)
“But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” (Qur’an 2:36)
“So he brought about their fall through deception. And when they tasted of the tree, their nakedness was exposed to them, prompting them to cover themselves with leaves from Paradise. Then their Lord called out to them, “Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you that Satan is your sworn enemy?” (Qur’an 7:22)
“And Adam and his wife ate of it, and their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of Paradise. And Adam disobeyed (waʿaṣā ) his Lord and erred.” (Qur’an 20:121)
“They replied, “Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we will certainly be losers.” (Qur’an 7:23)
“Allah said, “Descend as enemies to each other. You will find in the earth a residence and provision for your appointed stay.”(Qur’an 7:24)
﷽
A bone chilling reminder. Dear brothers and sisters and truth seekers. This is the month of mercy and forgiveness. Seek it!
Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani reminds us:
“Allah The Exalted, removed our Father Adam alayi salam, from heaven. For what reason did Allah (swt) remove him? For the reason of committing a single sin only! For the people of now (in these times) belittle committing a single sin and consider it severe only when they gather many (sins).”
“As if a problem only arises and is connected only to when the sins become many. No!”
“A sin in the sight of Allah is considered severe. Even if it were just one!”
“And if it were not like that, then why did Allah The Exalted remove our Father Adam alayhi salam, from a huge blessing in the form of heaven for the sake of committing one sin only, only! “
“Do not disobey your lord, even if it is just by one sin (one time) only! For it is not the number of sins committed that is considered; rather, it is He who you have sinned against that is considered. And that is ALLAH the MAGNIFICIENT!”
“So if you commit a sin under the pretext that it is just one (one time) and one only and that you won’t commit more. And as a result of continuing such, you eventually lose huge favour (from Allah) such as: health, offspring, spouse, work, shelter or any other favour!”
“Then do not blame anyone other than yourself! For you are not greater than our Father Adam alayi salam.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
“And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot (fanasiya); and We found not in him determination.” (Qur’an 20:115)
Allah (swt) removed Adam (as) from paradise for what we may consider a simple act of fanasiya (negligence). Look at this Arabic word (fanasiya) and look how it used here:
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot (fanasū) a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
The Christians were cursed and given the curse of animosity and hatred among each other until the day of resurrection. This means Allah (swt) must have found in them determination. Where as witih Adam (as) he did not.
What about the Muslim who goes beyond what we may consider simple matters of negligence? One who sins and persist in the sinning. One who does not even seek forgiveness from Allah (swt)? What is that person’s condition?
Is there any Muslim today who considers themselves better or the equal of Adam (as)?
Allah (swt) inspired Adam (as) with words of forgiveness and the Allah (swt) forgave Adam. Yet, the effects of the sin took place. That is the explusion from the paradise.
According to the proofs and evidence advanced by the Sunnī schools of theology (Ashʿarī, Atharī, Māturīdī) if a Muslim dies without repenting from their major sins, they will spend an undisclosed period in hellfire. (Billions of years perhaps).
According to the proofs and evidence advanced by the Shiʿi and Ibāḍī schools of theology, if a Muslim dies without repenting from their major sins they will be in hellfire without reprieve.
No matter our theological position on what happens to the unrepentant sinners in the hereafter (billions of years in hellfire or indefinitely), the Shaykh has made a forceful point.
Even in the various Ṣūfī tariqa. How often during the day is it permissible to be in a state of ghaflah (heedlessnes)? In taṣawwuf, when is it permissible to not be in a state of dhirk (remembrance) of Allah? When is it permissible to forget Allah?
When we sin are we in a state of dhirk or ghaflah?
We need to get right with Allah. We need to purfiy ourselves and our intentions.
“And keep in mind that Allah’s Messenger is in your midst. If he were to yield to you in many matters, you would surely suffer. But Allah has endeared faith to you, making it appealing in your hearts. And He has made disbelief, rebelliousness, and disobedience detestable to you. Those are the ones rightly guided.” (Qur’an 49:7)
“Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you ˹O Prophet˺ under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down serenity upon them and rewarded them with a victory at hand..” (Qur’an 48:18)
﷽
“The noble verse was not phrased as: “Allah was pleased with those who pledged allegience to you under the tree”-which might imply that the pledge itself necessitated *walayah al-haqiqah* (affilation and guardianship based on inner spritual reality)-but rather qualified that pleasure with faith: “Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you.” Thus, Allah’s pleasure applies to those believers whom He knew would remain steadfast in piety. The verse does not specify any particular individual. Neither Ali, nor Abu Bakr (ra), nor anyone else; it is general in nature, and its application to specific individuals is a matter of probability rather than certainty.” -Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi
“Consequently, while is is certain that there were believers among those who pledeged allegiance, the question remains: Who exactly were they? For this reason, the rulings applicable to them are those of *walayah al-zahir* (affiliation and guardianship based on outward status) rather than *walayah al-haqiqa*. And Allah knows best.”-Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi
One of our teachers had informed us the following in regard to the above verse.
“There are accounts that indicate that Imam Ali-May Allah honour his face, in light of this verse (Qur’an 48:18) repented to Allah of his sins. For this reason, some of our scholars do not subscribe to the view of disavowing Imam Ali -May Allah honour his face.” -Shaykh Rashid Al Miskiri
What is also interesting is the exact same verse is used to show the outrage at the killing of the companions at Nahrawan.
And a large majority of those killed from Ahl Nahrawan were companions and thousands of Muslims and the majority of those killed from Ahl Nahrawan that day were from the best of people on the earth that day and the most ascetic. Amongst them were those who fought the battle of Badr; those who gave allegiance under that tree and reciters and the best of the tabi’un.
“Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you ˹O Prophet˺ under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down serenity upon them and rewarded them with a victory at hand..” (Qur’an 48:18)
And it is a known position that whomever Allah purifies becomes among the people of walayah (divine allegiance/guardianship). So how is it that, in the end, they label the Ibadiyya as Kharijites, as if they are challenging Allah by passing a judgment upon them that is contrary to Allah’s judgment?!
Prima Qur’an comments: For us Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi’s point is very strong. For even if we knew for certain that Abu Bakr (ra), Ali, or the companions of Ahl Nahrawan were present by name the verse is clear that Allah (swt) is pleased with the believers. He does not indicate who present at the pledge were believers.
Evidence used by the Ibadi school to show that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had repented for his sins.
That is repentance for the sin of arbitration and for the slaughter of the people of Nahrawan. That he felt remorse in his heart and realized that killing the people of Nahrawan was a greave mistake. Thus, by extension is reasoned that he would not feel that way if he did not see them as being in the right. ipso facto-the arbitration was a colossal mistake.
In other words there came a point in which he felt the walls closing in around him and saw the great loss the chain of events that befell him. These Ibadis are those who hold Ali Ibn Abu Talib in walayah. They do not hold him in bara’ah. Nor do they practice wuquoof. They will often say Karram Allahu Wajhahū (Allah honoured his face). Though it is unlikely they will say Radeyallāhu ′Anhu (May Allah pleased with him). As this is exclusively reserved for those companions who were not known to do any open sins against Allah (swt). However, the act of repentance is certainly the most pleasing forms of worship.
Narrated from Ikrimah, The client of Ibn Abbas, from Abdullah ibn Abbas, who narrated to him from Qunbur – the client of Ali – that when Ali had killed the people of Al-Nahr, he and I turned our faces toward the river to wash off. While we were doing so, Ali began to cry, and he cried for a long time. Then I asked him: “Why these tears, O Amir al-Mu’minin?” He said: “Woe to you, O Qunbur! Do you know whom we have just fought and killed here? We fought and killed the best of this Ummah and its reciters!” I then said: “Indeed! By Allah, it is as you say, O Amir al-Mu’minin.” I too then began to cry. Ali then said again: “Woe to you, O Qunbur,” scrunching his nose and frowning. He then cried for a long time again, and his regret for his action of killing them. The people of Al-Nahr became apparent, and we could see this from the state he had entered.
And it was told to me that after killing the people of Al-Nahr, Ali’s companions walked around surveying the dead so they could bury them. Then one of them passed by his brother’s corpse and said: “This is my brother so-and-so.” He then threw dust over his head and fled the army in anger. And those who fled the army on that very day alone numbered 12,000. They would search among the dead, see their own relatives, bury them, then flee from Ali’s army and desert him.
Source: (Al-Jawahir Al-Muntaqah – The Selected Gems – by Abul-Qasem Ibn Ibrahim Al-Barradi, may Allah have mercy on him, pp. 155–156)
Because of this, some Ibadi scholars do not advocate disavowing (bara’ah) Ali. This shows that the Ibadi position on Ali is not uniform. There is room for walayah (loyalty) and recognition of his repentance.
“Imām ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (may Allah honor his face) said in describing the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Whoever saw him suddenly stood in awe of him, and whoever mixed with him came to know him and loved him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“Yes. Whoever saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at first glance, without any prior acquaintance, was filled with awe. An awe of reverence, honor, respect, and veneration. But when one mixed with him, he would come to know him. Whether in the mosque, or in the market, or on the battlefield, or on the road. He would mix with him in war and in peace; he would see his interaction with events; he would see how he mixed with people; he would see how he spoke; he would see how he scattered his pearls of wisdom—how, how, and how. He could not help but love him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“And ‘Alī (may Allah be pleased with him) spoke the truth. That presence which those noble Companions attained, those who were around the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). No human being can match their station; no one can reach that exalted honor, that lofty glory, that sublime rank. No one.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“But that presence was not confined to the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Whoever comes to know the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through the verses of the Book of Allah—for Allah described him with those magnificent, splendid, and sublime attributes and whoever looks at what has been transmitted to us by those noble men who recorded the biography (sīrah) of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and they reached the highest level in transmitting and documenting it. He knows and realizes that that presence remains. Whether the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was alive upon the earth or beneath the soil. May my father and mother be sacrificed for him, peace and blessings be upon him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“O beloved ones! In consecutive and successive sessions of a program that was previously held in the Great Mosque of Banī ‘Ubaydah in the south of Wilāyat al-Sīb.. This program is called “Malādh” and will be hosted next Thursday, starting from Thursday afternoon until the sunrise of Friday, if Allah wills. And in this edition, if Allah wills, which will be after a break. All of this by the grace of Allah. Our discussion will be about the Chosen Prophet, the Venerated, the Honored (peace and blessings be upon him). We will speak about his character, his conduct, his contemplation, some scenes from his life, and his daily routine. May the best of prayers and peace be upon him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“So whoever would like to join us, by the permission of Allah, I will attach some details to this clip for those who wish to participate. And may Allah grant us success, facilitate for us, make things easy for us, and enable us to broadcast the episodes in a live stream, if Allah wills, on the mosque’s platforms or any platform that will be announced at that time, if Allah wills. About the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So that we may achieve or reach that station—the station of one who tasted and knew, and one who knew and drew, and one who drew and attained honor.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
Summary and Conclusion.
Qur’an 48:18 is indeterminate (open to interpretation) and can be used to support different positions.
The verse speaks generally about “the believers” who pledged allegiance. It does not name any individual. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that it applies to any particular person. Whether Ali, Abu Bakr (ra), or the people of Nahrawan. However, it has been used to sanctify Ali, Abu Bakr (ra) and the people of Nahrawan.
This highlights the interpretive indeterminacy: the verse can be cited both to defend Ali and to condemn his actions against the Nahrawanites.
We hope this information is helpful for those seeking the truth.
As the two recording-angel sitting to the right, and the left—note, not a word does a person utter without having a observer ready.” (Qur’an 50:17-18)
“While you are certainly observed by vigilant, honourable angels, recording. They know whatever you do. (Qur’an 82:10-12)
﷽
Three categories on the day of judgement.
And you shall be three kinds (three groups) on that day. the people of the right, how will they be; the people of the left, how will they be; and the foremost will be the foremost ˹in Paradise˺.They are the ones nearest, in the Gardens of Bliss. A multitude from earlier generations. and a few from later generations. (Qur’an 56:8-14)
The people of the right
The people of the left.
The foremost.
The foremost are understood to be the Prophets of Allah (swt) and the martyrs.
A multitude from earlier generations. and a few from later generations.
The multitude from previous generations and later generations is a reference to those who came before the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) and those who came after him.
The Righteous: Given their record in the right hand.
As for those given their records in their right hand, they will cry happily, ‘Here, everyone! Read my record!'””I truly believed I would face my reckoning.””So they will be in a life of bliss,””In a lofty Paradise,””With clusters of fruit hanging low and near at hand.” “It will be said to them, ‘Eat and drink joyfully for what you did in the days past.'” (Qur’an 69:19-24)
The Wicked: Given their record in the left hand.
“But as for him who is given his record in his left hand, he will say, ‘Oh, I wish I had not been given my record!'” “And that I had never known how my account turned out!” “Oh, I wish my death had been the final one!””My wealth has not availed me at all.” “Gone from me is my power and authority.” (Qur’an 69:25-29)
The Punishment
“Seize him and shackle him!” “Then cast him into the blazing Fire.” “Then fasten him with a chain seventy cubits long.” (Qur’an 69:30-32)
The Reasons for Punishment
“For he never had (yu’minu) faith in Allah, the Greatest,” (Qur’an 69:33)
“And then being among those who believed and advised one another to patience and advised one another to compassion.” “Those are the Companions of the Right.” “But those who (kafarū) disbelieve in Our signs, they are the Companions of the Left.” (Qur’an 90:17-19)
The Two Fates
Those Given their Record in the Right Hand
“As for those who are given their record in their right hand, they will have an easy reckoning, and will return to their people joyfully.” (Qur’an 84:7-9)
Those Given their Record Behind their Backs
“And as for those who are given their record from behind their backs, they will cry for destruction, and will burn in the blazing Fire. For they used to be prideful among their people, thinking they would never return.” (Qur’an 84:10-14)
You can see trusted Sunni tafsir telling us that ‘behind their back’ also is meant by receiving with their left hands.
It was narrated that Safwan bin Muhriz Al-Mazini said:
“We were with ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar when he was circumambulating the House; a man came up to him and said: ‘O Ibn ‘Umar, what did you hear the Messenger of Allah say about the Najwa?’ He said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘On the Day of Resurrection, the believer will be brought close to his Lord until He will cover him with His screen, then He will make him confess his sins. He will ask him: “Do you confess?” He will say: “O Lord, I confess.” This will continue as long as Allah wills, then He will say: “I concealed them for you in the world, and I forgive you for them today.” Then he will be given the scroll of his good deeds, or his record, in his right hand. But as for the (alkafir ‘aw almunafiq) disbeliever or the hypocrite, (his sins) will be announced before the witnesses.’ ” (One of the narrators) Khalid said: “At: ‘before the witnesses’ there is something missing.” “These are the ones who lied against their Lord!’ No doubt! The curse of Allah is on the wrongdoers.”
The question is asked: How will the sinful Muslim take his book of deeds on the day of Resurrection?
“As for the sinners among those who believed in Tawheed, who will enter Hell and then be brought forth from it, there is a difference of scholarly opinion concerning them. Some scholars say that they will take their books in their right hands and some say that they will take their books in their left hands.”
“Al-Safaareeni (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The kaafir will be given his book in his left hand from behind his back, and the sinful believer will be given his book in his left hand from in front of him, and the obedient believer will be given his book in his right hand from in front of him. Al-Maawirdi was certain that what is well known is that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repented from his evildoing will take his book in his right hand, then he narrated an opinion which suggests that we should not discuss this matter and said: No one says that he will take it in his left hand.”
“Yoosuf ibn ‘Umar narrated that the Maalikis differed concerning sinners among those who believe in Tawheed. It was said that they will take their books in their right hands, and it was said that they will take them in their left hands.”
“With regard to the view that they will take their books in their right hands, it was said that they will take them before they enter the Fire, and that will be a sign that they will not abide therein forever. And it was said that they will take them after they are brought out of the Fire. And Allah knows best.”(Lawaami’ al-Anwaar al-Bahiyyah, 2/183 )”
“Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: With regard to a believer who sins, will he take his book in his right hand or in his left hand? He replied: He will take it in his right hand.”(Al-As’ilah al-Mulhaqah bi Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah, p. 500).”
“It seems – and Allah knows best – that no one will take his book in his left hand except the kaafir, as is apparent from the verses quoted above.”
“What the Muslim should do is to strive hard to do acts of obedience and worship, and to do good deeds, so that he will be among those who are given their books in their right hands. May Allah make us among them.”
“And Allah knows best.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
We are not keen on what Al-Saffārīnī or ‘Uthaymeen of the Hanbali school say. We are not keen on what al-Mawardi, and the Shafi’i or the Maliki schools say. All of what has been stated by them is a far cry from the truth. It goes against the clear text of the Qur’an.
So let us look at what is claimed by Muhammed bin Ahmad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali.
“The kaafir will be given his book in his left hand from behind his back, and the sinful believer will be given his book in his left hand from in front of him, and the obedient believer will be given his book in his right hand from in front of him.”
However, the article itself says:
“These verses indicate that the believer who is destined for Paradise will take his book in his right hand, and that the kaafir who is doomed to Hell will take his book in his left hand, from behind his back.
The evidence that those who take their books in their left hands are the kaafirs is the verses in which Allah says:
“Verily, he used not to believe in Allah, the Most Great” [Al-Haaqqah 69:33]
“Verily, he thought that he would never come back (to Us)!” [Al-Inshiqaaq 84:14]
i.e., he thought that he would never return to Allah.
This is also indicated by the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But those who disbelieved in Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), they are those on the Left Hand (the dwellers of Hell)” [Al-Balad 90:19]
So the sinful believer cannot be the one who takes his book in his left hand from in front of him.
Let us look what is claimed by Alī ibn Muḥammed ibn Ḥabīb of the Shafi’i.
“Al-Maawirdi was certain that what is well known is that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repented from his evildoing will take his book in his right hand, then he narrated an opinion which suggests that we should not discuss this matter and said: No one says that he will take it in his left hand.”
You say what we highlighted in red? Why should no one discuss this matter? Because it is a red flag that is why. Not is not known that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repenting takes his book in his right hand. That is not what the Qur’an says at all!
Of course no one will say left hand because it is established that those who take the book in the left hand are the kufar (ungrateful).
Muḥammed bin Ṣāliḥ al-‘Uthaymīn of the Hanbali school states:
“Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: With regard to a believer who sins, will he take his book in his right hand or in his left hand? He replied: He will take it in his right hand.“(Al-As’ilah al-Mulhaqah bi Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah, p. 500).”
Let us see how Allah (swt) describes the people of the right hand?
As for those given their records in their right hand, they will cry happily, ‘Here, everyone! Read my record!'””I truly believed I would face my reckoning.””So they will be in a life of bliss,””In a lofty Paradise,””With clusters of fruit hanging low and near at hand.” “It will be said to them, ‘Eat and drink joyfully for what you did in the days past.'” (Qur’an 69:19-24)
Does the above verse describe someone who knows they will burn in hellfire for an undisclosed period of time?
“As for those who are given their record in their right hand, they will have an easy reckoning, and will return to their people joyfully.” (Qur’an 84:7-9)
Can it truly be said of the one who is burned in hellfire for an undisclosed period of time that they will ‘have an easy reckoning’ ?
“(Then as for him who will be given his Record in his right hand, he surely, will receive an easy reckoning,) (84:7-8) meaning, easy without any difficulty. This means that he will not be investigated for all the minute details of his deeds. For verily, whoever is reckoned like that, he will certainly be destroyed.” –Ibn Kathir
“Then as for him who is given his book in his right hand,! he will receive an easy reckoning,That is, He forgives his sins and does not take him to account for them. Similarly it is related in a tradition that Allah, Exalted is He, if He wishes to conceal [the sins] of a servant on the Day of Resurrection, will show him only those sins which are known to Him and His servant, and then forgive him for them.”-Al Tustari.
Once again the position of the Ibadi school is clear.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that believers (mumin) enter the hellfire.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that the ungrateful (kafir) enter heaven.
The most sensible statement from the article above is the following:
“What the Muslim should do is to strive hard to do acts of obedience and worship, and to do good deeds, so that he will be among those who are given their books in their right hands. May Allah make us among them.”
Today we can only say: “Amin!” For this is what the Allah (swt) commanded of us.
The mainstream Sunni doctrine of temporary Hell for sinful Muslims relies on aḥādīth (e.g., intercession, removal of sinners from Hell) and interpretations that do their level best to harmonize aḥādīth with the Qur’an. But as we’ve demonstrated, the Qur’anic text itself makes no such provision.
Our conclusion is sound: the only safe course is to strive for the right hand, seek Allah’s forgiveness. Schools of thought can have thier disagreements However, the Qur’an’s clarity on the two fates is unmistakable.
“O believers, if an evildoer brings you any news, verify so you do not harm people unknowingly, becoming regretful for what you have done.” (Qur’an 49:6)
﷽
In Islamic jurisprudence, khabar al-āhād (solitary report) is a narration that does not reach the level of mutawatir (mass transmission). In terms of its epistemic value, it is generally considered dhannī (probabilistic/speculative) rather than qat’i (absolutely certain).
What has happened is that we as Muslims have not done a great job in explaining why do we accept the lone narrator reports in jurisprudence?
It is very clear on why we do not accept the lone narrator reports in matters of theology.
Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed al Miqbali (h) he made this very clear in his lecture here:
This has lead many Muslims to have an inconsistent epistemology. Where one will take the word of people as given for practically all facets of life. However, the same one will be skeptical or outright reject the words of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The khabar al-āhād (solitary report) yields epistemic probability, and they do not yeild absolute certainty (qat’i).
This khabar al-āhād (solitary report)is further broken down into three categories:
Gharib (strange/scarce): Narrated by only a single reporter at every point in the chain.
Aziz (rare/strong): Narrated by exactly two people at every point in the chain.
Mashur (well-known): Narrated by at least three to nine people at every point in the chain.
Now coming back to the worddhannī. This means that there is a probability of it being true and a probability of it not being true.
This is why honesty and integrity are very important in Islam. It is why lying is a major sin in Islam.
In fact, every society at every level values honesty and integrity within individuals.
The Qur’an gives us qat’i (decisive text) that informs the Muslims that we are to rely upon dhannīin testimonies and as witness.
“The month of Ramadan is the month in which the Quran was revealed; a guide for the people, the most authoritative of all guidance and a criteria to discern right from wrong. Anyone from among you knows that the month of Ramadan has begun, he must start to fast. Those who are sick or on a journey have to fast the same number of days at another time. Allah does not impose any hardship upon you. He wants you to have comfort so that you may complete the fast, glorify Allah for His having given you guidance, and that, perhaps, you would give Him thanks.” (Qur’an 2:185)
The basis for begining out fasting in the month of Ramadan is on the report of a single witness.
“O believers! When you contract a loan for a fixed period of time, commit it to writing. Let the scribe maintain justice between the parties. The scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught them to write. They will write what the debtor dictates, bearing Allah in mind and not defrauding the debt. If the debtor is incompetent, weak, or unable to dictate, let their guardian dictate for them with justice. Call upon two of your men to witness. If two men cannot be found, then one man and two women of your choice will witness—so if one of the women forgets the other may remind her. The witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. You must not be against writing for a fixed period—whether the sum is small or great. This is more just in the sight of Allah, and more convenient to establish evidence and remove doubts. However, if you conduct an immediate transaction among yourselves, then there is no need for you to record it, but call upon witnesses when a deal is finalized. Let no harm come to the scribe or witnesses. If you do, then you have gravely exceeded the bounds. Be mindful of Allah, for Allah teaches you. And Allah has knowledge of all things.” (Qur’an 2:282)
“O believers! When death approaches any of you, call upon two just Muslim men to witness as you make a bequest; otherwise, two non-Muslims if you are afflicted with death while on a journey. If you doubt, keep them after prayer and let them testify under oath, “By Allah! We would never sell our testimony for any price, even in favour of a close relative, nor withhold the testimony of Allah. Otherwise, we would surely be sinful.” (Qur’an 5:106)
“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 24:4)
“And those who accuse their wives [of adultery] and have no witnesses except themselves – then the witness of one of them [shall be] four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful. And the fifth [oath will be] that the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars. But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the liars. And the fifth [oath will be] that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he was of the truthful.” (Qur’an 24:6-9)
“Then when they have reached the end of their waiting period, either retain them honourably or separate from them honourably. And call two of your reliable men to witness and bear true testimony for Allah. This is enjoined on whoever has faith in Allah and the Last Day. And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make a way out for them.” (Qur’an 65:2)
“O believers! Do not kill game while on pilgrimage. Whoever kills game intentionally must compensate by offering its equivalenceas judged by two just men among you to be offered at the Sacred House, or by feeding the needy, or by fasting so that they may taste the consequences of their violations. Allah has forgiven what has been done. But those who persist will be punished by Allah. And Allah is Almighty, capable of punishment.” (Qur’an 5:95)
“And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted with all things.” (Qur’an 4:35)
We will translate one section that is relevant for our discussion here. We will also translate the full discussion on the other matters as well.
“One of the rationalists comes and says: “Here you are, differing regarding such hadiths. The meaning of these hadiths is not correct; they indicate probability(dhann), as some have said, and probabilty is not acted upon.” Fine, probability is not acted upon. Meaning that it could be correct in one possibility, or it could be incorrect. So this also means he would not act upon the Qur’an in many matters, regarding the commands and prohibitions of the Qur’an. Allah, blessed and exalted, has commanded us in explicit text to accept the testimony of two just witnesses in judgment: “And bring to witness two just men from among you”. This is a definitive Qur’anic text. He says: Yes, this is definitive in the Qur’an. Fine, but if we come to application: suppose someone claims let’s say, the phone is broken, or in my estimation, this pen is yours. Okay, if this person stands up and takes this pen in his hand and says, “Ustadh Khalid said this is my pen,” then fine — bring two witnesses. He brings two witnesses, and the judge rules based on these two witnesses because they are just, according to what he sees either through his personal knowledge of them or through their being vouched for. Is this ruling definitive? Is it definitive or not? As for the fact that he rules by the testimony of two just witnesses, that is definitive from the Qur’an. That he is commanded to judge by the testimony of two just witnesses. But is the justice of these two men definitively established? It can never be definitively established. A judge can never be certain about any person. I said to him: We do not have definitive certainty regarding anyone’s testimony of course, except for the prophets and messengers. And he says what does he say? That no one’s testimony can be definitively affirmed. Allah, blessed and exalted, has poured the meaning into its molds, and it is not my fault if the cows do not understand. So we told him: In application, we cannot be certain that so-and-so is such-and-such. We do not say that the ummah has no just people. The ummah has just people. But when you want to rule based on the testimony of two just witnesses, fine. In terms of application, this is probablity(dhann). So if you rule by probabilty, fine. What about prayers? If a person does not know the direction of the qiblah, and one, two, or three people come and tell him the qiblah is this way, for example — is he certain of their statement?” -Shaykh Saeed bin Mabrouk Al-Qanubi (h).
“Fine, they say it is established. For example, two people even regarding the differences of opinion among scholars if two just witnesses testify to the sighting of the crescent for the beginning or end of Ramadan, it is established. Fine, two just witnesses testify to seeing the crescent on the day of doubt. Fasting is prohibited on that day, and on the day of Eid, fasting is prohibited. Does he accept their testimony and fast or break his fast? Yes. Fine, the fast of Ramadan is established by definitive evidence. Yes, “The month of Ramadan in which the Qur’an was revealed.” Fine, is he certain of the truthfulness of the two just witnesses? He is not certain of their truthfulness. Likewise, in matters of rights, and in many matters of purification. If, for example, someone knows that his garment was affected by impurity, and a just person tells him, “I have washed it,” is he certain that it has been washed? He is not certain, but he is not required to be certain in such matters. Testimonies cut off hands, and even cut off heads. Fine. And one follows according to the known rulings you have. Fine, by the testimony of two just witnesses, a person does not have certainty. A man marries a woman, saying “I married you,” and so-and-so and so-and-so testify that she is his wife. Fine, he then permits himself to look at her, touch her, have marital relations, and the children are his children, and he inherits from her and she from him, and all the other known rulings. And if he divorces, likewise the known rulings, and rulings on dhihar, manumission, and other matters the testimony of just witnesses all of these are probabilistic (dhanniyyah). The underlying principles are definitive, but in terms of establishment and application, they are probable. So how can they apply such matters if they wanted to?”-Shaykh Saeed bin Mabrouk Al-Qanubi (h).
Based on the information provided in the text, the Shaykh is making the following implications for Islamic jurisprudence regarding the use of khabar al-āhād (solitary/lone-narrator reports) and dhannī (speculative) evidence:
The Qur’anic Foundation: Certainty of Source vs. Certainty of Application
The Shaykh establishes a crucial distinction:
Definitive textual sources (e.g., the Qur’anic command to accept the testimony of two just witnesses – “And bring to witness two just men from among you”), which are qaṭ’ī (definitive and certain) in their textual authenticity.
The practical application of that text, which is dhannī (speculative/probabilistic) because it depends on human factors. Such as verifying the actual justice (‘adālah) of the two witnesses in a given case.
The key insights: Even when the source is certain (the Qur’an), the application in any particular case is always probable(dhannī). A judge can never be 100% certain that the two witnesses before him are truly just. He acts on outward indications.
Therefore, certainty in the source does not translate into certainty in the ruling derived from that particular application.
His point: Even when the source is certain, the implementation is always probable. A judge can never be 100% certain that the two witnesses before him are truly just; he only acts on outward indications (personal knowledge or external vouching). Therefore, certainty in the source does not translate into certainty in the ruling derived from that particular application.
The Practical Necessity Argument
Many everyday legal rulings cannot be established through mass-transmitted reports alone:
Details of prayer
Transaction rules
Family law
Purification rules
Without accepting khabar al-āhād, the legal system would lack guidance on most practical matters.
Despite being dhannī (speculative and fallible), the shaykh argues that such evidence is fully actionable in Islamic law. He gives multiple examples where even definitive rulings (like the obligation of Ramadan fasting, the prohibition of fasting on Eid, marriage, divorce, inheritance, purification of clothes, and even capital punishments) are implemented based on the testimony of two witnesses. Yet no one claims absolute certainty about the witnesses’ truthfulness.
Speculative Evidence is Sufficient for Action in Practice
The implication: Islamic jurisprudence does not require qaṭ’ (absolute certainty) for every ruling in practice. Probabilty(dhann), when based on valid legal mechanisms (like witness testimony), is legally sufficient and binding, even though it carries the possibility of error.
The Argument from Consistency (Reductio ad Absurdum)
Rejecting Speculative Hadith Would Lead to the Collapse of the Legal System
The shaykh uses this analogy to answer the rationalist who dismisses āhād hadiths because they are dhannī and “probability is not acted upon.” The shaykh turns this argument on its head:
“If you refuse to act on dhann in the case of hadith, then you must also refuse to act on dhann in all these other areas of Islamic law (testimony, prayer direction, purification, marriage, etc.).”
Since that is impossible and would render the entire legal system unworkable, the implication is clear:
Speculative evidence (dhann) is not only acceptable in Islamic jurisprudence, it is unavoidable and integral to the functioning of the law.
The Distinction Between Theology and Jurisprudence
Why take the dhanni in jurisprudence but not take the dhanni in theology?
Theology (ʿAqidah)
Jurisprudence (Fiqh)
Requires absolute certainty (yaqīn)
Probability (ẓann) is sufficient
Concerns eternal salvation
Concerns worldly actions
Doctrines about Allah, prophethood, afterlife
Practical legal rulings
Cannot risk error
Error is possible and accommodated
Qur’an + Mutawātir only
Qur’an + Ahad + Consensus + Analogy +Various legal parameters defined by respective schools.
Rationale: Matters of belief require certainty because they concern eternal salvation; legal rulings concern worldly actions where probability is acceptable for practical and pragmatic purposes.
The Real Issue is Not Epistemological Certainty but Legal Reliability
The shaykh implies that the proper criterion for accepting khabar al-āhād is not whether it yields qaṭ’ (certainty), but whether it meets the juridical standards of reliability (ṭhrāq al-dhann – giving a strong/overwhelming presumption of correctness).
Just as a judge accepts testimony based on outward justice without penetrating the inner conscience of the witnesses, scholars accept āhād reports based on established criteria of narrators’ reliability, without requiring absolute knowledge of their inner truthfulness.
Summary of the Implication:
The shaykh is arguing that the dhannī (speculative) nature of khabar al-āhād does not disqualify it from being a valid source of evidence in Islamic jurisprudence. On the contrary, most legal rulings in practice operate on dhann. Including those derived from the Qur’an when applied through human testimony.
To reject āhād reports on the grounds that they are merely probable would be inconsistent, because it would require rejecting the vast majority of Islamic legal rulings that are themselves implemented on the basis of probability, not certainty. Thus, speculative evidence is legally authoritative (ḥujjah) in action, even if it falls short of absolute epistemological certainty.
The Role of Human Fallibility
The Shaykh emphasizes that narrators are fallible:
They may forget.
They may err in retention.
They may have misunderstood.
They may have narrated before abrogation.
Their opinions may contradict their narrations.
Examples given:
‘Umar ibn al-Khattab(ra) forgot the tayammum incident.
Ibn ‘Abbas (ra and others differed on narrations.
Scholars may reject a narration due to hidden defects (‘ilal).
The Methodology of Evaluating Ahad Reports
The Shaykh outlines how ahad reports are evaluated for jurisprudence:
Examine the chain – Is it continuous? Are narrators trustworthy?
Examine the text – Does it contradict established principles?
Consider abrogation – Was it early or late in revelation?
Consider interpretation – Is the apparent meaning intended?
Check for consensus – Has the ummah agreed on the contrary?
Look for hidden defects (‘ilal) – Subtle issues undermining authenticity.
Summary: The Ibadi Position
Aspect
Theology
Jurisprudence
Standard
Certainty (yaqīn)
Probability (ẓann)
Source
Qur’an + Mutawātir
Qur’an + Ahad + Consensus + Analogy +Various legal parameters defined by respective schools
Result
Definitive doctrines
Practical rulings (may be revised)
Error
Not permitted
Permitted; law accommodates human fallibility
The Ibadi position is epistemologically consistent:
Certainty is required for theology because it concerns eternal truths.
Probability is sufficient for law because law operates in the realm of human affairs.
The Qur’an itself demonstrates this principle through its acceptance of witness testimony.
Rejecting probability would collapse the legal system entirely.
The Ibadi school thus maintains a dual-track epistemology:
High epistemic standard for matters of faith.
Practical epistemic standard for matters of action.
This allows us to preserve certainty in theology while having a functional, comprehensive legal system based on the full range of prophetic traditions.
The following is the respected Shaykh speaking on other matters not related to the above topic. However, we have decided to translate and share what he has said for the benefit of the general readers. The Shaykh is given legal verdicts and answering questions given by students and those who seek knowledge. May Allah (swt) continue to bless the Shaykh and bless others by him.
Shaykh Saeed bin Mabrouk Al-Qanubi (h) fatwa session.
“But I say: the one who does not examine many of these issues may reject some hadiths because he sees them as contradicting what has been settled upon, and he may rule that hadiths are contradictory, and he may blunder about blindly, and take from such [superficial views]. There come those wicked people and say: ‘No problem they all used to perform ablution together. No problem a woman can come with a non-mahram man and do this, uncover her head, do this and that. You are extreme and obstinate! This is the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw), and you claim to follow it, yet you reject those who oppose it, etc., etc.’
It is necessary to know the time in which the Messenger (saw)spoke or did something. Was it before the ruling that is now settled, or not? If we say the first excuse [abrogation], the scholar would not reject that hadith. The second issue is abrogation itself. Yes. He was speaking about the narration of Rabī’ah regarding the issue of [the prohibition of] predatory animals. So how does one respond to this narration? Yes . By reconciling it [with other texts], as we said. If it cannot be reconciled with the Qur’an, then [it may be rejected], but here it can be reconciled. No problem. He says: ‘I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden…’ yes, at that time there was nothing forbidden except these things, as we know. Even prayer had not yet been prescribed in the form we see today, and fasting had not yet been prescribed in the form it is now, and zakāh had not yet been fully detailed . It was general at the beginning, and jihād was not originally obligatory at all, but rather recommended. Likewise, some things like wine was lawful. Can someone come, for example, and find that Hamzah (may Allah be pleased with him) drank wine, as mentioned in some narrations, and then say that wine is lawful because Hamzah drank it, and that he (Hamzah) could not have done such a thing, and even if we assume he did, why did the Prophet (saw)not rebuke him?
The answer: He drank it at a time when wine had not yet been forbidden. So it is true that it can be said at that time: ‘I do not find it [forbidden]’. Then the prohibition of wine came later. Likewise, in many matters, no one can [ignore this principle]. And this is an issue where some may err regarding certain hadiths. They do not distinguish between what came early and what came later. For example, one finds a report that men and women used to perform ablution together. Someone may come and say: ‘This hadith is not authentic, because it is not possible for a woman to perform ablution with a non-mahram man. She would have to wash her hands, wipe her head, etc.’ But this hadith is not necessarily invalid, because it could be that firstly the report says ‘men and women’ in an absolute or general wording, and this absolute wording is intended to be restricted, or this general wording is intended to be specified. Who were the ones performing ablution together? They were mahrams with their mahrams there is no problem with a wife and her husband, nor with a woman and her brother, son, father, grandfather, grandson, nephew, etc. That is how some scholars interpret it. And some scholars said: Yes, but this was before the hijab was prescribed. But I am not in need of preponderance here.
What I am saying is: the one who does not examine many of these issues may reject some hadiths because he sees them as contradicting what has been settled upon, and he may judge that hadiths contradict each other, and he may blunder about blindly, and take such approaches. Those wicked people come and say: ‘No problem, they all used to perform ablution together. No problem, a woman can come with a non-mahram man and do this, uncover her head, do this and that. You are extreme and obstinate! This is the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw), and you claim to follow it, yet you reject those who oppose it, etc., etc.’ It is necessary to know the time in which the Messenger (saw) spoke or did something. Was it before the ruling that is now settled, or not?
For example, someone comes to the issue of visiting graves: it was permissible, then prohibited, then permitted again. Can someone take a hadith containing the prohibition and go to a man visiting graves and forbid him from doing so, claiming that the Prophet (saw) forbade it? When the Prophet (saw) later permitted it? Likewise, regarding predatory animals with fangs: they were permissible in the past, then later prohibited. Though some scholars say there is no problem with the hadith because the Arabs were not accustomed to eating such animals, so the prohibition came, and Allah said: ‘I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to eat except these things…’ And the Arabs originally did not eat these. I am not in need of preponderance between these two views, but I say: the hadith is authentic and established. No problem. And do we say this is from the category of abrogating and abrogated, or not? There is no problem in this, and it requires discussion: what is meant by permissibility here? Is it legal permissibility, or is it permissibility based on the original principle? This then branches into whether it is abrogating/abrogated or not.
Someone may also come to the issue of ‘water is from water’ . This was at a time when a man who came to his wife and did not ejaculate was not required to perform ghusl; ghusl was only required upon ejaculation. Later, ghusl was prescribed generally . Whether the man ejaculated or not. Can someone use the first hadith as evidence and say: ‘Ghusl is required because water is from water,’ and then say: ‘These two hadiths contradict. One says water is from water, and the other says when he sits between her four limbs… look at these contradictory hadiths!’? There is no problem with these hadiths. That was at one time, and this at another. Contradiction only occurs between two matters if they are at the same time. If one informant tells you I was in Muscat yesterday, and another tells you I am in Sinaw today is there contradiction? No, that was at one time, and this at another. But if both informants told you that at the exact same hour, not even the same day, because it could be morning or afternoon; they said I was in Muscat at that exact hour, then we would say this is a contradiction; one of them is mistaken. Either lying or erring. He may have seen my car there (and I have another car) and assumed I was there. This happens.
I remember once someone called wanting to speak to Shaykh Ahmad, and the call was transferred — there were voice recordings of Shaykh Ahmad. When they transferred him, someone in the other location said: ‘Peace be upon you, I wanted Shaykh Ahmad to listen to a lesson with him.’ When he heard that, he assumed Shaykh Ahmad was giving a lesson at that moment. But Shaykh Ahmad may have been traveling to another region of Oman, or even outside Oman. So one person says: ‘I heard Shaykh Ahmad just now in Sinaw giving a lecture,’ and another says: ‘No, Shaykh Ahmad is currently in such-and-such country.’ We say: No, that is wrong. He merely assumed. When he heard that recording, he thought Shaykh Ahmad was currently giving a lesson, but in reality it could have been from 10 or 20 years ago. It was recorded. Or someone saw Shaykh Ahmad’s car driven by someone else coming to the ministry, so he assumed Shaykh Ahmad was there. Such contradictions occur due to error. But if the matter occurred at two different times, there is no contradiction. And this is what abrogation is about: if a ruling was established before, then changed; if it was not previously established, then the first was based on the original principle of permissibility, and the second is a new ruling.
The same applies to domestic donkeys. Initially they were not forbidden, then later forbidden. And the same applies to temporary marriage (mut’ah). It was lawful, then forbidden, and scholars differed on whether it was permitted again then forbidden again. The outcome is that it is now forbidden. Some scholars say it was lawful, then forbidden, then lawful, then forbidden; others say it was lawful, then forbidden. As for the other reconciliation regarding the hadith of Khaybar that mentions that wording there is scrutiny over its authenticity. We do not need to establish that it was lawful at one time and then forbidden. Likewise, predatory animals were lawful at one time according to one view. Though we mentioned there is a view that they were never lawful, but rather were not part of Arab diet, so they were not even mentioned.
The excuse of that scholar or those scholars is that some of them had not come across the hadith at all; some criticized it; some came across it in a wording open to interpretation. Even if one says that prohibition in principle indicates forbiddance. As Shaykh al-Imām al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and its ruling is forbiddance and permanence. But here there is a contextual indicator that shifts it. However, if someone comes, what should he do? Should he say: ‘I follow such-and-such’? How can you say ‘I follow al-Sālimī’ when you were criticizing this hadith, and you were capable of criticism, or you were not? If he was not capable, why would he criticize it? In reality, he is not capable, or you have something in its text that needs discussion. But if you say: ‘I just follow,’ then we find people like this. They do not distinguish between these matters. Among them are ignorant people, and among them are those with ulterior motives. Authentic, established hadiths from the Prophet (saw)are brought to them, but if they desire a particular matter, they pay no attention except to those hadiths that suit them, claiming: ‘We are followers, and we follow so-and-so scholar, and we are safe — and no scholar has said you are safe by following in such matters.’
Yes, a person may be considered ‘safe’. Consider if a person prays facing the wrong direction, then the matter becomes clear to him. People whose testimony he cannot reject come and say: ‘O so-and-so, you are facing east, and the qiblah is west.’ Is he told ‘you are safe’? Fine . So-and-so, my companion, prayed and finished. How can you say ‘safe’? We say ‘safe’ because the proof had not been established against him. I think this is clear. The proof had not been established that the qiblah was in that direction; he knew the qiblah differently and thought it was that way. So he prayed, no problem. Or if a person performed tayammum and prayed outside. Fine. He prayed and finished, and they said: ‘So-and-so, you prayed. No problem; you don’t have to repeat it.’ This is the well-known correct view. He prayed, but he did tayammum. He must perform wudū’ or ghusl if he was in a state of major impurity, or if a woman was in menstruation or postnatal bleeding, then she must perform ghusl. But that does not mean he is commanded to repeat that prayer. However, tayammum does not suffice when water becomes available it does not suffice. He says: ‘How can you say he is safe? I also did tayammum like he did, he performed the prayer, and may have even died. But you did not perform the prayer because the proof had been established against you. For example, you were informed of the presence of water that you could reach before the prayer time ended, or even if water was available but at an excessive price. Scholars have detailed this issue regarding excessive price or otherwise. The point is: if a person does not intend to oppose [the truth], then here there is a difference.
So if he has come across the hadith but in what form? In a wording that allows interpretation, while it is authentically established in a wording that leaves no room for interpretation. A scholar may come across the hadith but forget it, and this is common, clear, and well-known. For example, ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him) was with ‘Ammār and the Prophet(saw), and they performed tayammum, the Prophet(saw) instructed tayammum for ‘Ammār due to major impurity. But later, when the issue arose again, ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) forbade tayammum. ‘Ammār said: ‘O Commander of the Faithful, do you not remember when we were in such-and-such situation?’ and he reminded him of that incident, and the period between the death of the Prophet (saw) and the death of ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was only about a year. Even if we say it happened at the end of that period, there is no doubt it happened before. Yet he forgot.
Here, some people may come with ulterior motives and say: ‘Look at ‘Umar! How can he be a Commander of the Faithful and not even understand this matter?’ This is for the wisdom of Allah . A scholar may attain much knowledge, yet subḥān Allāh, some matters are hidden from him. Matters are hidden from those greater than him. One scholar is reported to have delved deeply into the chapter of sales and become very knowledgeable. Then one day a layman came and asked him a question, and he could not answer it. However, someone much less knowledgeable than him in that field answered it. He realized and said: ‘There is a share for the self here’. He had thought he had attained everything, but this is for those who hold themselves accountable in such matters. So no problem. ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) may have forgotten. But how many did he forget? If he forgot one, two, or three hadiths what can be said? He forgot (may Allah be pleased with him), even though ‘Ammār reminded him he reminded him, but ‘Umar did not recall. So what if there is a chain of narration: ‘So-and-so narrated to me from so-and-so from so-and-so…’?
I saw some people criticizing Musnad al-Rabī’ on the grounds that al-Rabī’ did not narrate from Abū ‘Ubaydah, citing that it is narrated from Abū ‘Ubaydah that he denied the prohibition of predatory animals. So how could he deny that while narrating the hadith? This does not impugn Abū ‘Ubaydah — neither his knowledge, nor his narration of the Sunnah, nor the fact that this hadith is narrated through him. It is possible he said that before he came across the hadith; or he came across it and forgot; or other known possibilities. Similar things occurred to other imams of the schools of jurisprudence. It is possible he narrated this hadith after holding that view and then retracted to what he narrated from the hadith. Moreover, that narration from Abū ‘Ubaydah may not be established. Even if found in some fiqh books — because the chain to Abū ‘Ubaydah is not continuous; the one who attributed that statement to Abū ‘Ubaydah may have erred.
As for their claim that they criticized the narrator saying ‘if the narration is authentic’ does that mean they criticized Abū ‘Ubaydah, or Jābir, or Ibn ‘Abbās? No, it does not necessarily mean they criticized any of them. But if the narration is established, it may be said they criticized the narration of that narrator because he erred — even if he was trustworthy. When someone rejects the narration of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) when he said ‘the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed ‘umrah in Rajab,’ and ‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) rejected it does that mean she impugned Ibn ‘Umar? No, it impugns his narration, though one might loosely say it impugns the narrator. By this we mean his retention of that particular narration. This is something one should be aware of: when it is said they impugned his memory, it does not mean they impugned his memory absolutely; it means they impugned his retention of that specific narration. This is well-known.
Sometimes, in books of jarḥ wa ta’dīl especially abridgments like al-Mīzān, al-Mughnī, al-Ḍu’afā’, al-Tahdhīb and its branches they abbreviate and do not mention the incident or the reason for the criticism. They simply say ‘they impugned his memory’ meaning his memory for that narration, not absolutely. They may even use expressions that seem to disparage the narrator, though that is not their intent. Similarly, scholars impugned the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Prophet (saw) married Maymūnah while in iḥrām. They said Ibn ‘Abbās erred. The news reached him about the timing of the marriage, and he assumed the Prophet (saw) married her at that time, while in fact he had married her earlier. When the news reached him, he assumed otherwise and reported accordingly.
From here comes the statement: ‘A solitary hadith does not establish creedal matters.’ They think that when we say this, we are impugning something we are certain came from the Prophet (saw). As some people say: ‘You are rejecting the Messenger of Allah (saw)!’ They say: ‘Whoever rejects the Prophet (saw) is lost and ruined.’ But he (the scholar) is saying: ‘The Prophet (saw)did not say this’ or at least ‘I doubt whether he said it or not.’ He is not saying: ‘The Prophet said it, and I reject his words.’ No Muslim would ever say: ‘O Messenger of Allah, you say such-and-such, but your words carry no weight.’ They should have paid attention to this. But calamity! Whoever is not granted success is in calamity; and its opposite is success. The successful one is guided to good, but the forsaken one is struck with calamity.
So one person, when confronted with the hadith ‘Where is Allah?’ said: ‘You are rejecting the Messenger of Allah (saw)!’ Fine. If we wanted to treat him likewise, we would say: ‘You too, when you narrated this hadith, then Allah willed [otherwise], you said this is a Jewish creed.’ On your own logic, someone can come and say: ‘You are rejecting the Messenger of Allah (saw) and describing his words as a Jewish creed. Meaning he held Jewish beliefs’. Even though the hadith is in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. What is your answer to this?
There is no doubt we do not accuse him of saying ‘the Prophet did not say this’ and this is an error whether from al-Bukhārī, or his shaykh, or his shaykh’s shaykh, or one of the narrators. The Prophet cannot have said it. And we say to you: if so, we also say: ‘Where is Allah?’ This wording was not said by the Prophet (saw) It may be from Muslim, or from Muslim’s shaykh, or from his shaykh’s shaykh. There is no doubt that al-Bukhārī is higher in rank than Muslim, and Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is higher than Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. If it is permissible for you to impugn a narration in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, why is it not permissible for us to impugn a narration in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim? What is his answer? Even if he died many years ago, what is the answer of his followers? They make things seem huge, so that some poor student or layperson thinks: ‘This school of thought rejects the Messenger of Allah (saw) and does not accept his words!’ This is flimsy, incoherent talk. No one has ever said this. We do not accuse any Muslim of rejecting a hadith of the Prophet (saw). Rather, we say: a scholar may reject a hadith because it is weak in his view.
They differ on some hadiths. They differ on their indications or even their authenticity. Abrogation in the Qur’an for example. Some scholars differed on whether certain matters are abrogated or not; this indicates prohibition, that indicates recommendation or permissibility, this indicates obligation, that indicates something else. In specifying generalities of the Qur’an, they differed; in restricting, in interpretation, in the meanings of many Qur’anic verses. Anyone who looks at books of tafsīr of rulings knows this. These things may raise some doubts. Not long ago, some people came to me with this doubt They did not know how to respond: ‘How can hadiths be probable and we act on probability?’ Fine. These rulings are agreed upon by the ummah, and the evidence indicates the authority of the Sunnah. This is a matter definitively established among the ummah. Leave aside those who have no value. But application of some hadiths remains we do not exaggerate the matter. Application in some hadiths this also exists in the case of the Qur’an. Yes, the establishment of the Qur’anic text is definitive, but hadiths differ.
What time is it now? 38 minutes [past]. Usually, how long do they stop? 11:30. So we have about an hour less. The point is: many matters arise. The issue of forgetfulness exists. A scholar may remember a hadith and forget it later. As I mentioned before, even some hadiths in Musnad al-Rabī’ , When Shaykh al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him), Shaykh Abū Nabhān, and Ibn Madād too, regarding some hadiths these are later books. They say: Musnad of Abū Ya’qūb is not sufficient, and scholars for example, if we bring an example from Ibn Barakah, or Abū Sa’īd, or some early scholars they would reject them because they had not seen Musnad al-Rabī’, as it was not available. Fine. SShaykh al-Sālimī saw Musnad al-Rabī’, and Abū Nabhān saw it. When Shaykh al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him) came to the hadith of combining prayers, initially he seemed to want to discuss it, but then he realized the hadith is in the Musnad. You can look at Shaykh al-Imām’s words in al-Ma’ārik this is present. So besides al-Rabī’, a scholar may forget.
Shaykh al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him), despite the closeness of time and his great memory but subḥān Allāh, for a wisdom Allah wills, something like this may occur to a scholar. In al-Ma’ārij, when he came to the issue of facing the qiblah he said it is not a condition for the supererogatory prayer if one is on a mount. And I say: ‘on a mount’ does not necessarily imply restriction, because if he is not on a mount but walking, offering supererogatory prayer facing other than the qiblah there is discussion about this. I do not intend restriction. The question is: when he intends to say the takbīr of iḥrām, should he face the qiblah? If we assume a man is on a camel or a mount and wants to offer supererogatory prayer, is he required to stop the mount or turn it toward the qiblah as it moves, to say the takbīr of iḥrām, and then proceed as he wishes? Or, for example, stop his car facing the qiblah? But in reality, it is not easy for a driver to offer supererogatory prayer. He should occupy himself with listening to the Qur’an, reciting, dhikr, supplication, reflection, and similar acts of worship; and there are many, praise be to Allah.
As for performing prayer with prostration and bowing, this could cause an accident and bring great harm to himself and others . It is not appropriate for a driver. But if we assume two men are traveling, and the one riding beside the driver wants to offer supererogatory prayer is he required to say: ‘Brother, stop the car so I can face the qiblah,’ then say the takbīr of iḥrām and continue on the path he wants? Or is this not required? Four authentic hadiths report that the Prophet (saw) used to offer supererogatory prayer facing other than the qiblah, indicating his bowing and prostration. A narration from Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him) states that the Prophet (saw) used to face the qiblah when intending the takbīr of iḥrām. Some scholars considered this narration sound, others weakened it and the view that it is weak is probably closer to correctness. But this is not the point of evidence. The point is that Shaykh al-Imām al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in al-Ma’ārij the narration indicating this, but in Sharḥ al-Jāmi’ which is later than al-Ma’ārik and close in time he mentioned that there is no narration indicating that. So subḥān Allāh despite the Shaykh’s great memory, for a wisdom Allah wills, something like this may occur.
And also, a scholar may reject a narration because others among the narrators forgot it. A narrator narrates a hadith, ‘So-and-so told us from so-and-so from the Prophet (saw) and then the narrator relates the hadith from that , and later says: ‘I do not remember narrating that hadith to you.’ This is present, like the hadith of the takbīr narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. But this does not harm [the hadith], though some scholars say it does, and they criticize the hadith on that basis. A scholar may also criticize a hadith because it contradicts why? the madhhab of its narrator, or because the narrator contradicted that narration. Here, some scholars say: the criterion is the narrator’s narration, not his opinion that contradicts it. Others say: the criterion is the narrator’s opinion regarding his narration, because a just narrator cannot contradict a hadith he narrated unless that hadith is interpreted or carried upon other than its apparent meaning. In reality, we say: the matter requires some examination and scrutiny when judging each narration.
First, we need to examine the chain of the opinion attributed to that narrator, and also examine the chain of the narration he narrated. In many narrations, we find a narrator narrating a hadith, yet an opinion contrary to it is attributed to him; but that opinion attributed to him is not established from him. So here, there is no contradiction between his narration and his opinion; because that opinion is not authentically established from that Companion or that narrator (if non-Companion) for us to say: ‘We take the narrator’s opinion or his narration,’ because in reality it is only a narration, and the madhhab attributed to him is not authentic from him.
The opposite may also occur: the narration is not established, and the opinion attributed to him is what is authentically established from him. An example is the issue narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him) that divorce during the time of the Prophet (saw) three divorces counted as one. The narration is not authentic; rather it is weak. And the authentic view of Ibn ‘Abbās is that it counts as three. Someone might say: ‘How can Ibn ‘Abbās contradict his own narration?’ If both the opinion and the narration were authentic, we could examine and say: perhaps Ibn ‘Abbās knew this was initially the case, then abrogated. But we say: there is no abrogation here. The narration is not authentic, and the opinion is the correct one. So we must look: if the opinion is correct and the narration is correct, then we need to study the matter because it is possible the narrator abandoned it out of forgetfulness and absent-mindedness, narrated it long ago, then forgot and said otherwise. It is also possible he held that opinion first, then later narrated the hadith as we mentioned regarding Abū ‘Ubaydah (may Allah have mercy on him). It is also possible he understood it first, and then we look at his interpretation is it correct or not? Or he may have said it was abrogated, or specified, or restricted and then we examine. It may be said: his excuse is the context of this narration, which led him to his view. Or it may be said: he is a mujtahid like other mujtahids we look at his narration; if his opinion aligns with the correct meaning of the narration, we take it; otherwise, no.
This of course requires examples, but for now, you have the issue of wiping over leather socks (khuffayn) Abū Hurayrah is reported to have narrated that the Prophet (saw) wiped over them, but scholars said this narration is not established because it is authentically reported from Abū Hurayrah that he denied wiping over them, and that narration is not authentic from him. So we do not take his opinion nor his narration because his narration is not authentic. Similarly, Ibn ‘Umar narrated wiping over khuffayn from the Prophet (saw), but it is authentically established from him that he said otherwise. The narration he narrated is not authentic. This may actually yield a useful point: these Companions did not narrate wiping over khuffayn from the Prophet (saw). As for Ibn ‘Umar, it is possible likewise; and Abū Hurayrah embraced Islam late, so this may indicate as some of our scholars said that wiping over khuffayn was early, before Sūrat al-Mā’idah. There remains the issue of Jarīr, did he embrace Islam after Sūrat al-Mā’idah? This needs examination; it is possible Jarīr heard part of al-Mā’idah and the whole sūrah does not necessarily have to have been revealed at one time; al-Baqarah, for example, was not revealed at one time. He may have assumed it was revealed later among other possibilities. In any case, a narrator is fallible. He may be correct or err. I am not here to settle this issue, though you may say wiping over khuffayn is not established at this time because the verse explicitly commands washing the feet.
So in such cases, we must ascertain whether the narrator’s narration is established and whether the narrator’s opinion is established and then judge each case individually. A narrator may reject a narration because he thinks it contradicts consensus. How can a narration be rejected for contradicting consensus? Can the Prophet’s (saw) saying be rejected by consensus of people? Here we say, as we said regarding the issue of rejecting a hadith that contradicts the Qur’an: we understand from this that the hadith is not authentic because if it were authentic, it would not contradict the Qur’an and the Prophet (saw) cannot say something contrary to the Qur’an; that can never happen. Here too, a hadith may appear authentic in its chain, but when the ummah has agreed upon the contrary, that indicates to us that this hadith is either abrogated, interpreted, restricted, specified, or weak, even if its chain appears sound; because trustworthiness of men and their precision are conditions for authenticity, and continuity of chain is also a condition. The presence of these conditions does not mean all conditions have been met; we must examine the remaining conditions to judge the hadith authentic.
It may be said: the default is that if the chain is continuous, the conditions of trustworthiness and precision are met, and there are no hidden defects (‘ilal) that undermine its establishment then yes, it is established in principle. But when the ummah has agreed on the contrary, this indicates a hidden defect that must be sought; if we can identify it, fine; if not, we are certain of it without pinpointing the exact defect. This is well-known in the statements of scholars no one denies it.
However, there remains an obstacle: we must be sure of the authenticity of this consensus. How many narrations have been claimed to contradict consensus, yet that consensus turned out to be an illusion. The consensus was not established? This is an important point that a student of knowledge should pay attention to: not everything attributed to scholars is authentically from them. How many narrations in creed, worship, transactions, and other areas have been attributed to some scholars yet they never heard of them in their lives? For example, you find attributed to Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq that he said such-and-such regarding the vision [of Allah]; it is attributed indeed, it is said all the Companions agreed on it, and even the prophets and messengers agreed but in reality these narrations are not authentic. So if someone comes with such an attribution that many people claim, we must be cautious.
Therefore, when we encounter a purported consensus, we must reflect: how many claimed consensuses are not authentic? And how many opinions attributed to a scholar or to scholars are not authentic from them at all? Here, especially when we find some narrations contradict some claimed consensuses or rather, those consensuses contradict these narrations we must examine and scrutinize. Some of these narrations, as I said, may not be authentic from them. At the same time, we find some consensuses to be authentic, but we find some people attributing to certain scholars the contrary opinion to those consensuses. Consequently, some people follow those who differed, saying: ‘This issue is not agreed upon, and I take the view of so-and-so’ as we said earlier, those who take the view of al-Sālimī. And we said this statement is not absolutely correct they make the disagreement the arbiter over the legal evidence, whereas Allah commanded us when differing to refer the disagreement to the legal evidence meainng: to the Book and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). He commanded us to refer it to Allah and His Messenger. Referring to Allah is referring to His Book, and referring to His Messenger is referring to his Sunnah(saw). We do not make disagreement the arbiter even when the disagreement is valid; so what if the disagreement is not valid, and the ummah is actually agreed?
When we find, for example, the issue of musical instruments of which more than 30 scholars have reported consensus on its prohibition. Yet some people come and say: ‘I follow so-and-so and so-and-so.’ This is not established from them at all. We must also note that some of those to whom such opinions are attributed are not qualified mujtahids. Even if authentically attributed to them. Some of them may have been hasty in their early days, or they may have thought there was no consensus when the matter is actually agreed upon. So we must be cautious in such matters. Not every consensus is authentic, and not every disagreement is valid. One must pay attention to these issues.
There are scholars known for reporting consensuses; many matters are subject to disagreement for many reasons. I have pointed to some, and there are reasons I cannot point to now. But students must be aware of these. I am not saying this now, but when you study, whether in university studies or later, even if only to a limited degree, a person should know why scholars differed and how to stand when there is disagreement among scholars, how to stand regarding the mujtahids, and regarding the followers (muqallids) who follow those scholars.
Followers themselves are of different types. Some are laymen who cannot read or write . When you try to ask about the simplest matter, they do not understand. If such a person says: ‘I follow so-and-so,’ and you say to him: ‘This hadith is narrated by al-Rabī’ and by Abū ‘Ubaydah,’ and he says: ‘I don’t know what al-Rabī’ narrated or what Abū ‘Ubaydah narrated’ fine. If such a person follows a scholar in a matter, one should try to explain to him, but sometimes it does not become clear.
I recall a story: someone heard a sermon or lesson in which the speaker said: ‘When a person wants to slaughter, he must say bismillāh it is obligatory and Allāhu akbar is recommended.’ So when that person went to slaughter, he said: ‘Bismillāh obligatory, Allāhu akbar recommended.’ The speaker had intended to explain that basmalah is obligatory meaning one cannot slaughter without saying bismillāh, and the meat is forbidden to eat if the basmalah was omitted, whether intentionally or forgetfully while takbīr is not obligatory but recommended; if omitted, there is no harm. But this person did not understand; he thought he had to say the words ‘bismillāh obligatory and Allāhu akbar recommended.’ So what can you do with such laymen? If a layman hears something from Shaykh so-and-so, and when told otherwise, he may say: ‘Shaykh so-and-so said this; he would not abandon a hadith, he is the one who can [evaluate].’ But sometimes, when he understands, he may. A student of knowledge is different from such a layman. As for laymen, one must see why he differed and if the understanding can be corrected, one tries. And inshallah, laymen are more accommodating than some people with ulterior motives.
The point is: there are matters that may relate to the chain of transmission or to the text that may lead one to reject a hadith and they are many. But I will suffice with this for now.”
If you enjoyed this article you may enjoy the following:
“Joseph responded, “It was she who tried to seduce me.” And a witness from her own family testified: “If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth and he is a liar.” (Qur’an 12:26)
﷽
As Allah (swt) says, “washahida shāhidun min ahlihā” and a witness has witnessed from among themselves/folk/family.
One of the more insolent of the claimants of Salafiyya were visibly upset at the love and camaraderie that is often shown between the people of Oman and the people of Saudi Arabia. This individual is from among those who like the division and fighting among the people. So this individual had posted once more attacking the noble Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili as well as the good people of the Ibadi school.
So our reply was to remind this one that Ibn Baz himself was asked by Shaykh Khalili to have a public debate on the matter. This was in response to the interrogation and methods of Ibn Baz. It was pointed out to this man that he had his chance to prove the error of our creed and Ibn Baz backed down!
This is the link that was put in the reply to this individual:
Sometimes when you see these laughing emoji you pray within yourself that you are not dealing with a teenager. This is not something from serious individuals. Yet, the part he seemed most tickled about the following:
“Does Al-Khalili not know that polytheist and disbelievers cannot enter Mecca? So how does he expect non-Islamic news agencies to enter Mecca and broadcast the scenes?”
This shows you that this individual did not even bother to read the initial link for if he had he would have already found something quite shocking.
To our dismay the following showed up.
This ‘warrior’ of the supposed correct doctrine tucked tail and ran away. However, there is a day of reckoning in which we all be held accountable. For everything that our hands sent forth.
So let us address the part that tickled this individual.
“Does Al-Khalili not know that polytheist and disbelievers cannot enter Mecca? So how does he expect non-Islamic news agencies to enter Mecca and broadcast the scenes?”
Hmm. So the Mufti of a Muslim nation is not aware that polytheist and disbelievers cannot enter Mecca. How likely is this? This man must be unaware of the fact that Muslims themselves can be employed have been employed by Non Muslim media such as CNN and BBC.
Like how this non Muslim network documented the hajj?
The presence of world media does not equal to the presence of the world itself. Likewise the presence of non Muslim media does not equate to the presence of Non Muslims themselves.
But the deathblow to this rabble-rouser came not from Prima Qur’an, nor from any of the other Ibadi students or laypeople. The deathblow to this rabble rouser came from one of the students of Ibn Baz himself.
الشيخ عبد العزيز بن باز رحمه الله هذا الامام العجيب ارسل احد كبار المفتين في دوله عربيه وهو على مذهب الخوارج على مذهب الخوارج وهو مفتي تلك البلاد وهم ينكرون رؤيه الله جل وعلا كما تعلمون في الاخره ينكرون رؤيه الله كالمعتزلة [موسيقى] ولا نعلم في زمنه اعلم منه فقال لا لا ما ناقش قيل له لماذا يا شيخ قال طيب لما اناقشه قد يكون الحم بحجته مني فاكون سببا لضلال بعض الناس قد يكون الحم مني بالحجه والنقاش فيكون سبب يكون سبب لاظ بعض الناس فرفض الشيخ ناقش فان صاحب الحق لا يكون هيابا ولا جبانه بل صاحب الحق يجر على اظهار الحق الذي يعتقد
Which is translated:
“Shaykh Abdul Aziz ibn Baz, may Allah have mercy on him. This remarkable imam. Once received a message from one of the senior muftis in an Arab country, who follows the doctrine of the Khawarij. Yes, he follows the doctrine of the Khawarij, and he is the mufti of that country. They deny the seeing of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, in the Hereafter. They deny the seeing of Allah, just like the Mu’tazila. And we do not know of anyone in his time more knowledgeable than him. So he said, “No, no,” and did not engage in debate. He was asked, “Why, O Shaykh?”He said, “Well, if I debate him, it might be that he overcomes me with his argument,and I would then be a cause for the misguidance of some people. Or it might be that I overcome him with argument and de bate, and that would be a cause for the misguidance of some people.” So the Shaykh refused. Debate, for the one who is upon the truth, should not be timid or cowardly; rather, the one upon the truth should be eager to manifest the truth that he believes in.”
Nothing in there at all about Non Muslim media networks! Just a simple admission that Shaykh Ibn Baz felt that Shaykh Khalili could have strong arguments!
As Allah (swt) says, “washahida shāhidun min ahlihā” and a witness has witnessed from among themselves/folk/family.
If you would like to read more about the issue of the Qur’an being created and other aqidah matters we encourage you to read the following:
“And speak to people good [words] and establish prayer and give zakah.” Then you turned away, except a few of you, and you were refusing.” (Qur’an 2:83)
So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammed], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude and harsh in heart, they would have fled from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely upon Him. (Qur’an 3:159)
﷽
Putting a person in dissociation or disavowal does not mean that we have ill manners towards such a person.
Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) mentions the followinig:
“Many people imagine that piety, God-consciousness, and asceticism are expressed in frowning, scowling, and being harsh with others. This has nothing to do with the truth. These good manners, no doubt, must be present in dealings with all people. even with polytheists, even with non-Muslims. These very manners are what attract people to the religion. God, glorified and exalted be He, said: “And speak to people good [words]” . This is a matter of character and He did not say “Speak to the believers good” or “Speak to the Muslims good” or “Speak to the pious good”; rather, He said: “And speak to people good.” Likewise, when someone asked the Prophet, peace be upon him, for counsel and sought his advice, he said to him: “Say: My Lord is God, then remain steadfast, and treat all people with excellent character.” He did not say “treat the believers with excellent character,” but rather said “treat all people—across their various classes with excellent character.” On this basis, it is a great error that some imagine that the more harsh and rigid one is, the more committed to religion they are. Especially in dealings with the non-pious or in dealings with non-Muslims. This is a major mistake. Many people imagine that piety, God-consciousness, and asceticism are expressed in frowning, in turning away one’s face, and in harshness toward people. This is not true in the least. God, glorified and exalted be He, makes it clear to the Prophet, peace be upon him, that it was because of the compassion, gentleness, and good companionship he possessed that he won the hearts of his companions and drew them to him. Had he been otherwise, they would have fled from him. So if the companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him, would have fled from him had he been other than what he was with his lofty, virtuous character and fine sentiments. Then how about others? How could it have been possible for polytheists to abandon their religions and leave behind their cherished customs of venerating the deities they used to worship, and the legacies of their fathers and forefathers? How could they have been able to emerge from that?” – Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h).
Another point to note is that the manifest declaration of disavowal regarding specific individuals and entities is reserved solely for scholars and jurists who are well-versed in the detailed rulings pertaining to it.
As for us laypeople, the innocence of the general statement suffices. Without singling out specific individuals. Except for those whom the Qur’an has identified as disbelievers or destined for the Fire.
May Allah (swt) cause us to be among those who obey Him and follow his commands and avoid his prohibitions and to follow the blessed precedent of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).
“We sent them with clear proofs and the Zabur. And we revealed to you the message that you may make clear to mankind what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” (Qur’an 16:44)
﷽
This section will be on engaging the Pseudo-Islamic.
In particular this section of the blog will have all articles related to two Pseudo-Islamic movements.
The first being the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion.
THE HAFS QUR’AN ONLY RELIGION
It is important to understand that we believe that the adherents of the Hafs Qur’an only movement are a distinct religion in much as we respect the way the Baha’i movement is a distinct religion from Islam.
Insh’Allah this section will deal with common arguments among the federation of sects that are known collectively as the ‘Qur’anist’.
This section will be refuting their many bold assertions; as well as showing why this particular attempt to re-interpret Islam and make it altogether different religion is deeply flawed.
Now why are they called the Hafs Qur’an only view? These people will either out of ignorance about the transmission and textual history of the Qur’an refer to their platform as ‘Qur’an Only’ or Quraniyoon. However, the Hafs Qur’an did not fall out of the sky. Thus, is important for them to reflect on why so much foundational trust is put into the men that transmittedthe Hafs Qur’an to the exclusion of all other transmissions of the Qur’an.
At the core of this religion of theirs is a massive epistemological problem.
In regard to approving comments from followers of the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion we have taken seriously the verse of the Qur’an: “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” (Qur’an 5:2)
Thus, they would do well to read the article listed below: Is the Qur’an a detailed explanation of all things? to understand the policy on this website that keeps them as well as us from sinning and keeps them consistent with in their worldview. Insh’Allah.
THE QADIANI MOVEMENT Also known as AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT is a divided movement, split into two competing jama’at or congregations. That is the LAHORI whom we refer to as The Ahmadiyya A and the QADIANI whom we refer to as the Ahmadiyya B.
As the Qadiani or Ahmadiyyah B believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a Prophet after The Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have been marked as being outside the millat of Islam. Likewise, they (the Ahmadiyyah B) or Qadiani have made anyone outside of their jama’at to be kafirs. Though, their is some tongue in cheek wordplay see their website. Source: (https://www.alislam.org/articles/are-non-ahmadis-muslim-or-non-muslim-ahmadiyya-muslim-perspective/)
To the dismay of the Muslim Ummah, The Qadiani have a Khalifa, named MIrza Masroor Ahmed, he lives in Tilford, United Kingdom, where he pays taxes to the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali were not known to have paid taxes to a Non Muslim government.
For future reference all articles addressed to either of the above movements will be found under: AHL AL-QIBLA / AHL AL-KHILAF under: Engaging with the Pseudo-Islamic:
Refutation that oral traditions came 300 years after the Prophet.
Even though they used to say that the hadith -oral traditions came some 300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw). Praise be to Allah the more educated among them have backed away from that claim. However, this article is here because many in that movement may be unaware.
See Harold Motzki (a Non-Muslim orientalist and academic) who made short work of that Quranist claim
Does the Qur’an itself tell us to reject all hadith?
This article is a nail in the coffin for the entire movement. Some from their movement have commented but ended up leaving in frustration. It looks at their arguments and misquotations of the Qur’an. Also given in this article is an irrefutable example of Allah confirming a hadith to the Blessed Messenger [saw].
Did the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) write the Qur’an?
Our colleague had written a refutation like this many years ago on the ‘Qur’an only‘ web site known as http://www.ourbeacon.com/ or it used to be known as ‘GalaxyDastak‘. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed founder of the forum had me banned. This was also the last our colleague heard from their former teacher Hamza AbdulMalik. Hamza AbdulMalik used to be the director of IPCI international until he dropped off the radar and re-emerged as a Quranist.
Well, our colleague may have been removed from the forum but here is the refutation of their arguments for all to see here:
A pre-eminent argument used by ‘Quranist’ ripped to shreds By Dr. Jeffery Lang.
The most oft-quoted verse used by Quranist is analyzed and ripped apart by a Muslim convert, academic, and professor of math, Dr. Jeffery Lang.
This is a centerpiece argument used by Edip Yuksel, Sam Gerrans, “Joseph Islam”, Rashad Khilafa, Shabir Ahmed and the lot of them. The reason why this argument is especially devastating coming from someone like Dr. Jeffry Lang is that Dr. Lang is critical of the hadith corpus as we have it today.
The following is a look how Quranist have both misunderstood the word hikma as a reference to the Qur’an and how they do not understand that it is something that Allah gives his messengers to deal with situations and context not immediately addressed by the revelations they were given.
Hating a hadith just for the sake of hating a hadith.
This article a hypothetical question is posed. What if a particular ahad hadith turned out to be correct? Especially one that is of a scientific nature? What would the Quranist do in such a scenario?
Salaat in the Qur’an is not ritual prayer? Examining the claim of some Quranist.
This article looks at one Quranist claim that salat is not ritual prayer. This is what happens when you abandon the understanding of the Blessed Messenger and follow the ‘every man for himself’ approach of the Quranist.
Prima Quran 