“Who respond to their Lord, establish prayer, conduct their affairs by mutual consultation, and donate from what We have provided for them.” (Qur’an 42:38)
﷽
Professor Joseph Lumbard made a very interesting assertion during a teaching/lecture in New Mexico on Islam.
For those not familiar, Professor Lumbard He received a Ph.D and M.Phil in Islamic Studies from Yale University, an M.A. in Religious Studies and a B.A. from the George Washington University.
He is an American Muslim scholar of Islamic studies and associate professor of Qur’anic studies at the College of Islamic Studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar. He is the author, editor, and translator of several scholarly books and many articles on Islamic philosophy, Sufism, and Quranic studies
So let us get the disappointment out of the way. Disappointing because the respected Professor knows better than to label one according to the epitaph of their opponents.
@1:36 he says: “That was against the Kharijites, from which the Ibadis came out.”
Well, so with that disappointing statement out of the way we can get to the interesting point.
@1:55 “What the Ibadis have done which is different very different from the Sunnis and the Shiites is that they claimed that somebody outside of Quraysh could be the leader. They, their basic claim was that they most…shall we say…what is the word I’m looking for? Um, the most qualified person was the person who should be the leader. And that actually the community can force that person to be the leader if that person doesn’t want to be the leader.” -Professor Lumbard.
“And so remember how we went through and this is where it becomes very important, remember we looked through that the that For the Umayyads and for the Abbasids, the Caliph came through the lineage of the Quraysh. Of course for the uh for the Shiites the caliph is going to be from the lineage of the Quraysh; because its a descendant of the Prophet. Right?” -Professor Lumbard.
“So, Here they were the first ones to come out and say, “No!” Actually that doesn’t matter that is not where it needs to be located. It needs to be the most qualified person and they said theologically in a reading of the Qur’an, this is the best theological understanding of what God intended in the Qur’an. “On that particular point I agree with them, actually. ” -Professor Lumbard.
Al hamdulillah.
What makes this a particularly powerful admission is that Professor Lumbard has not shown himself invested in sectarianism. He is certainly familiar with Sunni claims, as well as that of the Shiites that the ahl bayt are the crème de la crème.
When the respected Professor stated:
“They said theologically in a reading of the Qur’an, this is the best theological understanding of what God intended in the Qur’an.”
Personally I am not quite sure what the respected Professor intended by this. Or what his reading of the Qur’an that makes this clear for him. It is just that these ideas of leadership being from the Quraysh or from the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw) were not seen as established from their point of view.
Though, we do have our justifications from the Qur’an for the position that we hold. I would have been keen to see the respected Professor flesh that out.
In fact, for us it was Al-Ash’ath bin Qais who had as one of his motivating factors to get Ali to move against the people of Nahrawan because of the election of Imam Ar Rasibi (ra). -aka a Non Qurayshi.
Al-Ash’ath bin Qais motive was clear.
Divert Ali’s attention away from the Syrians. Giving them more time to strengthen and solidify their positions.
Pit Ali against the former die hard loyalist knowing full well that the killing of these companions and tabi’un would leave a bitter taste in the mouth of many -as we will see with Ibn Abbas (ra).
Ensure the nexus of power remains among the Quraysh and that any non-Quraysh would not even have a whiff of authority over the Quraysh.
Any qualified righteous believer, be they Arab, Jewish, Ethiopian, or any ethnic group or tribe you can think of, can be the Amir Al Mumineen. That is to say: The Commander of the Faithful for the entirety of the Muslim Ummah.
Here are some reasons on why we do not believe the leadership of the Muslims needs to be exclusively from the Quraysh(though it can be).
Perhaps the follower articles will be of interest to you.
“And don’t mix the truth with the falsehood, or conceal the truth while you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
There was a recent interview with Dr. John Andrew Morrow on the Bridging Minds Channel on YouTube. I would encourage those who visit Prima Qur’an to subscribe to the following channel: https://www.youtube.com/@bridgingminds7512 -the channel is in its infancy and insh’Allah good things will follow.
“And don’t mix the truth with the falsehood, or conceal the truth while you know.” (Qur’an 2:42)
I lead with this particular verse because as a Muslim I am dutybound not to conceal the truth when I know what it is.
Also, unfortunately our school, the Ibadi school has a great deal of misunderstandings surrounding it and we take opportunities when and where we can to clarify these misunderstandings.
I believe that this article will also prove that being in academia does not necessarily entail that a person is well informed on a particular matter.
Case in point. Let us look at Brother Dr. John Andrew Morrow’s impressive CV- curriculum vitae.
“Dr. John Andrew Morrow is a professor, research scholar, and author. He has three degrees from the University of Toronto: an Honors BA with double majors in Spanish and French Language and Literature, as well as an MA and a PhD in Spanish American Literature.”
“After completing his PhD, he pursued post-doctoral studies in the Arabic language at the Arabic Language Institute in Fez, the University of Utah’s Middle East Center, and the Qalam wa Lawh Center in Rabat.”
“Dr. Morrow has been an undergraduate and graduate faculty member at numerous universities, holding the ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, Program Head, and Department Head. He has taught at the University of Toronto, Park University, Northern State University, and Eastern New Mexico University, receiving student impact, performance, and leadership awards for outstanding teaching and service. “
“Dr. Morrow has also been a Visiting Researcher at Harvard University, Purdue University, and the University of Chicago. In the Fall of 2011, he served as professor of Spanish, English, and Religious Studies for the University of Virginia’s Semester at Sea Program. A specialist in Hispanic, Native, and Arabic-Islamic Studies, he has lectured worldwide in his areas of expertise.”
“His research interests include the Amerindian influence on Spanish American poetry, the Arabic and Islamic influence on Spanish and French literature, Aljamiado literature, Arabic sociolinguistics, Islamic Studies, and herbal medicine. A prolific, internationally recognized researcher and writer, Dr. Morrow has hundreds of scholarly, literary and artistic publications to his credit, including: “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christians of the World,” “Islamic Images and Ideas: Essays on Sacred Symbolism,” “The Encyclopedia of Islamic Herbal Medicine,” “Amerindian Elements in the Poetry of Ernesto Cardenal,” “Islamic Insights: Writings and Reviews,” “Amerindian Elements in the Poetry of Rubén Darío,” “Arabic, Islam, and the Allah Lexicon,” ” The Book of Divine Unity,” “El islam shiita: ¿ortodoxia o heterodoxia?,” “Shiite Islam: Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy?,” and “Humanos casi humanos.”
Brother Kamal Southall and Brother Dr. John Andrew Morrow were having a really great back and forth conversation, sharing information. It is when the conversation became more free that there were some comments made about the Ibadi school that caught my attention.
The conversation begins at around @1:13:19
Brother Kamal was leading in with ISIS having what he believes to be a khariji tendency.
Dr. John Morrow: “and I believe it’s true it’s true and I’ve condemned the Khawarij a lot in the past as well but I’ve reconsidered my assessment of them. I mean there again it’s their enemies who wrote these narratives and demonized them. There are some good things about the Ibadis that you know I came to discover. Um so yeah!”
Brother Kamal: “That’s a good point!”
Dr. John Morrow: “Now, now for example, okay? So again the Khawarij, the Khawarij okay, their, their demonized by the Sunnis and by the Shi’a; and of course I did the same thing. I said you know what I’m going to study Ibadi literature. I’m going to connect with Ibadis and get to the bottom of this.” “They’re very moderate people by and large. They’re quite tolerant. They’re not very strict about hijab or things like that. Any how, so they they repudiate they repudiate the extreme Khawarij of the past. But in any event okay so these people revolted. Nobody questions why they revolted. Okay so, okay why did they revolt? Alright, so you have Ali on one side and then you have Muawiya on the other side, and Aisha, and all of these people. Okay? So, on the side Muawiya they believe that the Caliphate belongs only to the tribe of Quraysh. This is like even in Sunni-you know doctrine and everything. It belongs to Quraysh that’s that. Okay, that’s a type of dynasty.”
Brother Kamal: “Right.”
Dr. John Morrow: “I’m sorry it’s very racist too. It’s supremacist, it’s a type of dynasty and monarchy and so on. On the other side you have Ali and he says nuh-uh my family only my family. But the funny thing about the Shi’a they can never agree as to who was part of this family or which member should be the successor. And each time an Imam died they would break up into even more factions; everyone fighting for this and that. Even within the same family. Okay they say oh Imam Jafir As-Sadiq was the successor. Well, his brother thought he was the successor too. And you had brothers fighting each other. It was just like any kingdom, they were fighting for power. So, okay and what was the point of the view of the Khawarij? Any just knowledgeable Muslim can aspire to leadership? Hello? Egalitarian. Based on Shura, every democratic. It was not a dynasty, it wasn’t a monarchy.So, wait a second are these guys really so, so know I’ve compared Isis to the khawarij. But I was wrong. That’s not what they were fighting for. You know the other thing that revolted them? The marriage of 9-year-old girls. They thought that was the sickest thing they had ever heard of.”
Brother Kamal: “The Ibadis?”
Dr. John Morrow: “The Khawarij, the Ibadis.”
Dr. John Morrow: “This is one of the reasons they revolted. They said what the F? No way in hell! Now wait a second these are Tabi’un. Some of these people are sahabas. They had a radically different understanding of the message of this religion, and it’s practices. They didn’t buy this child marriage thing.”
Brother Kamal: “I don’t either.” Dr. John Morrow: “I don’t either.”
Prima-Qur’an comments:
There is a lot to unpack here.
First and foremost, the good. I want to thank my brother, Dr. John Andrew Morrow (Imam Ilyas ‘Abd al-‘Alim Islam) for being humble enough to walk back associations of Isis with the Khawarij. (Though he is not entirely mistaken-will come to this).
I think that all of us, as lovers of truth and people who pursue truth, need to amend positions when mistaken. I was dismayed that the terms Ibadi and Khawrij were swapped out and interchangeable. However, we are getting there. What I mean by ‘getting there’ is that there is a willingness to go beyond the Sunni paintbrush of their opponents. This I am grateful for. May Allah (swt) bless him for this.
To admit to making mistakes is a sign of true moral character and real moral strength. Not many people can do that. We must always be right.
Points of concern andoutright shock.
“They’re not very strict about hijab or things like that.”
I am not quite sure what brother, Dr. John Morrow based this on?
If it was a book of jurisprudence, could he cite it?
Did he have interactions with people who identified as ‘Ibadi’ and were flippant in regard to their dress code?
I have to ask these questions because the ‘Ibadi’ school takes the Khimar, what Dr. John calls ‘the hijab’ very seriously. Modest dress for Muslim men and women is a very important matter for us. It is a matter of obeying Allah and his Messenger.
In fact, the Mufti of Oman says it is preferable for women to wear a niqab if possible. Though he does not say it is proved by the Qur’an and Sunnah.
One of our teachers that we have theology classes with, Shaykh Juma Al Mazruii, cleared up wide-eyed rumors and speculation circulating around Reddit.
Negligence with regard to a modest dress code is considered a sin by us. I personally have not known any of our scholars or teachers to be lax in regard to the ‘khimar’ or hijab.
So I am not sure what that statement is based upon.
Why did many of the companions and successors leave the army of Imam Ali?
“But in any event, okay, so these people revolted. Nobody questions why they revolted. Okay so, okay, why did they revolt?”
It is clear that brother, Dr. John Morrow is of the understanding that it was primarily done to who should lead the Muslims. I am here as an Ibadi to tell you that this is not the case at all. The primary reason for leaving the camp of Ali was his decision to arbitrate on matters in which Allah (swt) made his judgement clear.
Now, we do say that one of the motivations for Ali attacking the Muslims at Nahrawan was from Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, an individual who did not want to see the Imamate leave the Quraysh. For Imam Abdul-Allah bin Wahab Ar-Rasbi Al-Azdi (r) appointed Imam was not from the Quraysh. But this was not ‘THE’ reason to leave the camp of Ali.
Let us think about this logically as well. If that was ‘THE’ reason, then why be in the camp of Ali to begin with?
Ibadi’s predecessors revolted against Ali because he was a supporter of 9-year-old child marriages?!!
“You know the other thing that revolted them? The marriage of a 9-year-old girl. They thought that was the sickest thing they had ever heard of.”
“This is one of the reasons they revolted. They said “What the F? No way in hell!” Now wait a second. These are Tabi’un. Some of these people are sahabas. They had a radically different understanding of the message of this religion and its practices. They didn’t buy this child marriage thing.”
Now I have seen some academics make mistakes -we all do. However, I have to be quite honest in saying these are some of the wildest assertions yet!
This is the wildest assertion attributed to our school that I have ever seen! I am going to attribute these statements to the free flow of the discussion and perhaps there were many thoughts swirling around and somewhere things got lost in the conversation.
There are many thoughts here.
First and foremost is, what is the source of this?!
This actually goes against all those people who are arguing against child marriage! All those liberals, Hafs-only Quranists, modernists are now shaking their heads and wondering what on Earth? Because now what our brother, Dr. John Morrow has effectively done is to assert that this (child marriage) was indeed held by early Muslims, many of them companions and successors, and that Muslims had a major war over this!
Considering that the Ibadi predecessors were the muhakima that split from Ali’s camp and they (the Ibadi predecessors are portrayed as saying: “What the F No way in hell” this must mean that Ali and his supporters were gung ho for child marriages? How can one not draw this conclusion based upon the data given?
Considering that it is suggested that Ali and his supporters were gung ho for child marriages, should we then understand that Imami and Zaydi Shi’i are pro-child marriage?
Considering the person in question -Aisha (ra) was not anywhere near Siffin, how would she not play a role in any of that?
I have shared my concerns with Brother Kamal -who is a very good friend, close brother and sincere Muslim. May Allah bless him and bless his channel.
I have to write things like this because our school is terribly misunderstood and maligned. Brother Dr. John Morrow has shown his willingness to backtrack statements. Which is the sign of a sincere believer. May Allah love him.
I hope that maybe in the future he can clarify some of these statements.
For those who are keen and interested in learning more about the Ibadi school from Ibadi sources, I would kindly direct your attention to our resource page here:
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
As mentioned before we do a tight textual analsysis of the Qur’an in order to reach the correct understanding. This is done by comparing a word with all other instances of that word in the Qur’an. This is done by also comparing the context of verses with their surrounding verses. This is known as Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)
In a discussion on Blogging Theology titled: “Jesus was not crucified: the evidence with Dr. Ali Ataie.” Dr. Ali Ataie made some very interesting assertions. Assertions which move him closer to our position.
@40:28 Dr. Ataie states: “But I do believe that myth and legend has probably soo permeated the gospel accounts of Jesus passion narratives that it is not at all beyond reason to dismiss them completely as historical fiction!”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Allahu Akbar! there you go Dr. Ataie now that is the ticket! Than the idea that someone was “crucified” is likely based upon what? Myth and legend.
Dr. Ataie gets into his understanding of: Qur’an 4:157 “It was made to appear to them so.“
@53:38 “They did not have information. It did not come from a reliable source.” @54:11 “Jews and Christians ended up following hearsay reports about some crucifixion event from non eye-witnesses….”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Dr. Ataie state: ” “Jews and Christians ended up following hearsay reports about some crucifixionevent from non eye-witnesses….”
I would replace some words in the above sentence: “Jews and Christians ended up following hearsay reports about some imaplement event from non eye-witnesses….
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), (Galatians 3:13)
Paul is quoting from a text that mentions a post mortem suspension punishment. The individual is killed first and while dead then supsended. Christians understand the Crucifixion as an ante mortem suspension punishment where the person is killed via asphyxiation while alive and being suspended.
This is exactly what shubbiha lahum means. It is not shubi ha alayhim!
In fact because we love you the readers insh’Allah I will give you a sneak peak at one of the slides that Shaykh Hilal and I are working on.
No pay wall and no gate keeping information!
This is the critical linguistic and contextual refinement. This is a far more precise reading of the phrase شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ (shubbiha lahum) and the verses that follow.
From the Ibadi perspective and reading of the verse the point fundamentally shifts the understanding of the verse from a narrativeabout a visual illusionin real-time toa critique of a historical claim based on unreliable transmission. Let’s integrate this correction.
The Correct Understanding of Point 4:167
The phrase وَ لٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ (“but it was made to appear so to them”) does not describe a miraculous event witnessed by onlookers in real time. Instead, it critiques the oral tradition and historical narrative that the Jewish community subsequent to the event had come to believe and propagate.
The Qur’an’s own subsequent words completely invalidate the possibility of this being an eye-witness account:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ – “Indeed, those who differ over it are surely in doubt about it.” (4:157)
Doubt (شَكٍّ – shakk) is impossible for someone who witnessed an execution firsthand.
مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ – “They have no knowledge of it.” (4:157)
Knowledge (عِلْمٍ – ‘ilm) is exactly what an eye-witness would claim to have.
Assumption (الظَّنَّ – al-ẓann) is the antithesis of eye-witness testimony.
A Hadith that is classified as الظَّنَّ (al-ẓann), meaning “conjectural” or “of presumptive status,” and comes from a lone narrator (or a single strand of transmission) is known as a Khabar al-Āḥād (خبر الآحاد).
Here’s a detailed breakdown:
Definition: A Khabar al-Āḥād is a report (Hadith) that does not reach the highest level of mass transmission (Mutawātir). It is narrated by one or a few individuals at any stage of its chain of narration (isnad), such that the number of narrators does not generate absolute, certain knowledge (ilm al-yaqīn) in the listener. Instead,it generates presumptive knowledge (ilm al-ẓannī), which is sufficient for action but is theoretically open to doubt.
Therefore, the Qur’an is not describing a supernatural trickery of the senses that happened in the past. It is describing the state of the received narrative in the present tense of its revelation.
The chain of meaning, according to this corrected interpretation, is:
The Claim: A specific Jewish community (contemporary to the Prophet Muhammed or just prior) boasts, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” This is their historical claim.
The Denial: The Qur’an flatly denies this: “And they did not kill him, nor did they impale him (وَ مَا صَلَبُوهُ).”
The Explanation for the False Claim: How did this false claim arise? The event was “made to appear to them (شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)” in their oral traditions and historical accounts. The truth was obscured within their own narrative.
The Proof of the Falsehood: The proof that this claim is a baseless tradition and not established fact is that those who argue over it are in doubt, devoid of certain knowledge, and following only assumptions about what truly happened. True eye-witnesses to a capital punishment would not be in a state of doubt and conjecture; they would be certain.
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
This is a recent e-mail sent to Todd Lawson an Emeritus Professor of Islamic thought at the University of Toronto.
I sent this inquiry as I am genuinely curious as to why he or anyone for that matter think that the Qur’an 4:157 seem to be interacting with anything that the Romans have done, or that the text is talking about a historical event known as the “Crucifixion” or that the Qur’an is denying/or affirming anything about a Cross at all.
Greetings Professor Lawson
I hope this email finds you in the best of health.
I had read your book “The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the HIstory of Muslim Thought.”
It was certainly an interesting read.
You have noted how extraneous material has influenced the Sunni Tafsir tradition and popular interpretation of Qur’an 4:157.
So to this point I am curious as to why you think the Qur’an engaged with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all?
The reason I ask this is because when one looks at the immediate text of the Qur’an 4:157 there does not seem to be any mention of Romans or Roman involvement at all.
I am deeply interested why your good self or anyone would feel that the Qur’an 4:157 engages with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all. I believe that a reading of the text without extraneous material tells us that the text is interacting with certain Jews who were making certain claims about Jesus.
When we read Qur’an 4:155 for example:
“They have incurred Allah’s wrath for their breaking the covenant, and their rejection of the signs of Allah and for slaying Prophets without right, and for saying: ‘Our hearts are wrapped up in covers-even though in fact Allah has sealed their hearts because of their unbelief, so that they scarcely believe.”
I believe we both concur that it would seem out of place for that text to address the Romans of the time of Jesus.
Furthermore the Qur’an 4:157 has a double denial in the text. They did not kill him nor did they (salabu). The initial denial is general and it can easily accommodate any understanding of a possible demise of Jesus.
It is immensely curious to follow up a general denial that can accommodate any particular understanding of any possible demise of Jesus with a particular denial immediately after.
Is it not more sensible in keeping with the immediate text and surrounding text to see this as the Qur’an interacting with particular claims made by Jews about Jesus? Rather these claims are based upon any historical event, document or even oral transmissions in certain circles that the Qur’an would be familiar with?
Given that this seems to be the very obvious case, how do you propose somehow Romans, and a “Crucifixion” is posited upon the text of Qur’an 4:157?
It is peculiar because Jews do not crucify people in their law. It is not a part of the Torah nor of the Talmud of which I am sure you are aware.
They do have laws about killing people and then impailing them. They do have assertions about those impaled being cursed by God.
Equally curious is the idea that (salabu) would translate to a Latin Cross, or the Tau Cross.
Given that the Qur’an in (7:124); 20:71; & 26:49) all describe cutting off the hands and the feet and given what we know about supporting the body weight on an ecclesiastical “Cross” it is it not presumptuous of us to assume Latin Cross, Tau etc?
The two noun forms in Qur’an 86:7 & Qur’an 4:23 which relate to the loins and the lumbus region seem to forcefully argue with a type of punishment that would involve impalement rather than anything to do with being tied to a patibulum and affixed to a crux or stake and than having nails driven in ones hands and feet.
When we look at the text of Qur’an 5:33 on page 31 of your book you state:
“the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.”
This does not seem to correlate to what Christians have in mind when they invoke the “Crucifixion” of Jesus. They seem to think this is a death on a cross and not a death prior to a cross.
I also felt that pike was more appropriate than cross given what we know about the Islamic legal schools. None of the legal schools, Ibadi, Zaydi, Zahiri, Shafi’i, Imami, Maliki, Hanafi or Hanbali make it a requirement to put someone on a patibulum and affix that patibulum to a crux or stake and than proceed to drive nails in the hands and feet.
Much more can be said. Again I believe my initial inquiry is that if we do a plain reading of Qur’an 4:157 or even invoke the immediate context where are we drawing upon the idea that this is interacting with something the Romans are said to have done to Jesus?
Thank you for your time.
Have a blessed weekend ahead.
If you would like to read more on this subject I invite you to read the following:
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20: 114)
﷽
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
The above verse is a direct plea to our Creator. That we ask Allah (swt) to advance us in knowledge.
“Then ask those who have knowledge.” (Qur’an 21:17)
The above verse has its context; however it is apt. If you do not know ask those who do know. It is quite sensible.
It is in this spirit that the Ibadi have been on the forefront of opening thier libraries to the curious researchers from Western Academia.
Western academia has a penchat for pursing degrees and doctorate thesis on novel subjects or that which seems to be obscure.
This creates wonderful opportunities to learn.
Some brief comments about the author.
Valerie J. Hoffman, research professor emerita in the Department of Religion, has served at the University of Illinois for more than 39 years.
Valerie Hoffman was one of the first women in the field of Islamic Studies at a time when few universities even offered such a program.
It is said that she recently retired from her position at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
She has otherwise presented excellent lectures and introductions on the Ibadi school.
She plans a forthcoming book: “Islamic Sectarianism Reconsidered: Ibadi Islam in the Modern Age.”
That book may well have been prompted by this site: primaquran.com
It is hoped that she will take on board the feedback and introduce the very important and crucial nuances that she missed.
It is also hoped that she introduces the eye opening statment from Shaykh Shamsu-Deen Abū Ya‘qūb Yūsuf ibn Ibrāhīm al-Warijilānī (r) that is quoted in Kitab al Wada’ Al Mukhtasar Fi Usul Al -Fiqh by Shaykh Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Abī al-Khayr al-Jannāwunī.
These were Shaykhs in the 12th century. To have the positions that they had at the time would be considered quite ‘progressive’. We don’t take into account the blame of the blamers. We take into account the Qur’an and the Sunnah. That forms the basis of our judgements.
Some breif comments about the book.
The Essentials of Ibadi Islam:-Valerie J. Hoffman. An Orientalist translation of Arabic Ibadi creedal text into English. This basically is a translation work of: Al-Aqidah ‘l-Wahbiyya -the most relied upon by the Ibadi in the West. As well as a treatise from Shaykh ‘Abd al-Aziz al-Thamini al-Mus’abi on God’s Power and Human Acts, from Kitab Ma’alim al-Din
The author overall does a faithful job of sticking to the original sources. She often engages the text by asking questions left unresolved*(which could have been resolved had she consulted the scholars in her midst). She often correctly detects errors in the Arabic and other times superimposes what she thinks it should mean. Notwithstanding these minor irritations, it is overall a faithful translation.
*To give you just one example of this in Ms. Hoffman’s work.
Source: (pg. 172)
So, this can leave in the mind of the reader that we some how are going against a clear edict in the Qur’an. Unfortunately, this shows Ms. Hoffman’s lack of engagement with our scholars in regards to some questions she raises in the book.
Another point. She recklessly misrepresents as the default view of the Ibadi school that:
“Although one must treat non-Ibadi Muslims with the courtesy that all monotheist deserve, according to classic Ibadi doctrine, neither they nor sinning Ibadis will be allowed into paradise they are doomed to hellfire.” Source: (pg. 30)
This is extremely reckless and can be the cause of real life physical attack upon those in our community. For example: It has NEVER been the position of the Ibadi school that sinning Ibadi or sinning non-Ibadi Muslims are doomed to hellfire. The position has ALWAYS been that Ibadi’s who repent are subject to the mercy of Allah. Second as regard non-Ibadi at the very least a person needs to be: mukallāf-someone pubescent and sane. Next the clear evidence has to be presented to the individual and we take as evidence the following:
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
That judgement can only be passed on non-Ibadi on the basis of masail al din and not masail al-ra’y. If she bothered to look into the position of the school in regard to the theological position as regard those who Islam may not have reached (isolated islands etc.) she would have appreciated as much.
Again, personally I find it a bit of a disrespect. Here you are being welcomed in a country by its people, they open up their libraries and manuscripts to you. The claim is that you are exposing the Western world to Ibadhism. Yet, you leave comments like the above which could have been clarified. It is certainly not helpful. In regard to one passing comment it is actually dangerous in today’s hyper-sectarian world not to clarify the position of the school or at the very least pass over the matter.
Though, as stated: minor irritations, it is overall a faithful translation. Surely she will receive her reward with her Lord in this life. My hope is that she will embrace the haqq before she meets her Lord.
In fairness to her one man did an interview with her. Our understanding from him is that prior to the interview she wanted to make sure it was not a ‘hit piece’ on the Ibadi school. Now rather or not that was to ensure she would be invited back to Oman (self-interest) or out of genuine concern that it would stir up sectarian passions (selfless-interest) and (altruism) Allah knows best.
Also, keep in mind that we encourage people to study text with our teachers and with our scholars. We had an individual some years back who made the boisterous claim that he was teaching Ibadi Aqidah using Ms. Hoffman’s work! Notwithstanding the fact that this person scarcely knowns Arabic, nor receieved knowledge from teachers, but the book leaves out many fundamentals that would be taught in a structured class on the subject. It is a translation of particular text.
The book itself it is put in the format of Student/Teacher. Surely this would have opened some eyes.
May Allah (swt) forgive our obstinance and soften our hard hearts.
Books are helpful. I said before and I said again. If you want to learn about the Ibadi school, the Hanafi school, the Maliki school, the Zaydi school, or any school you absolutely must connect with practices teachers and masters of those schools. Otherwise all you will ever half are baked surface level knowledge -which often could be mistaken.
“No indeed! The truth is that their hearts have become rusted on account of their evil deeds.” (Qur’an 83:14)
﷽
The following is taken from a lecture from Abdul Hakim Murad.
“As we are initiated into the distractions of the world, however, it [heart] is covered over with the ‘rust’ (ran) of which the Qur’an speaks. This rust is made up of two things: sin and distraction. When, through the process of self-discipline, these are banished, so that the worshipper is preserved from sin and is focusing entirely on the immediate presence and reality of Allah, the rust is dissolved, and the ruh once again is free. The heart is sound; and salvation, and closeness to Allah, are achieved.”
What Sins Do To The Heart – Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani.
“The Day when neither wealth nor children will be of any benefit. Only those who come before Allah with a pure heart..” (Qur’an 26:88-89)
Special thanks to the ‘Ibadi Theologian’ for this timely reminder.
Remember, we do not need to wait until Ramadan to get close to Allah and to repent and to reform. Every breath that enters our lunges, every passes moment is a chance to turn it all around dear brothers and sisters!
“Every soul will taste death. And you will only receive your full reward on the Day of Judgment. Whoever is spared from the Fire and is admitted into Paradise will triumph, whereas the life of this world is no more than the delusion of enjoyment.” (Qur’an 3:185)
﷽
Ramadan Day 26:Purifyyour intentions and work hard.
*26th of Ramadan* ——————————– *Heart Illness: Loving the Dunya* From the things that destroy the heart is the love of this life and its desires. Loving this life is the start of every sin, the permitted things in this life are reckoning, it’s prohibitions are punishments, its start is crying, its middle is pain and its ending is mortality.
Allah says:
“The enjoyment of desires—women, children, treasures of gold and silver, fine horses, cattle, and fertile land—has been made appealing to people. These are the pleasures of this worldly life, but with Allah is the finest destination.” (Qur’an 3:14)
and
“And give them a parable of this worldly life. like the plants of the earth, thriving when sustained by the rain We send down from the sky. Then they turn into chaff scattered by the wind. And Allah is fully capable of all things.” (Qur’an 18:45)
The companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were filled with a love for the Blessed Prophet (saw) that was deeper than the love for their own families. They wished for every comfort and ease for him, and it pained them to see him in any state of hardship.
On one occasion, they entered upon the Messenger of Allah (saw) and saw that he had been sleeping on a simple, coarse mat made of palm fibers. The harsh weave of the mat had left its clear imprint on his blessed side, marking his skin with its pattern.
Their hearts swelled with compassion and concern. One of them exclaimed, “O Messenger of Allah! Why didn’t you call us so that we could have spread a softer, more comfortable bedding for you?”
They longed to provide him with every comfort, to spare him from the slightest discomfort. But the Blessed Prophet (saw), whose mission was to teach humanity the meaning of life, turned to them with a gaze filled with profound wisdom. He was not concerned with the fleeting comforts of a world he understood to be a mere passage.
He (saw) said:
“What have I to do with this world? My example and the example of this worldly life is but that of a rider who journeyed on a scorching summer’s day. He stopped to rest in the shade of a tree for a short while. Then, he rose and continued on his journey, leaving it behind.”
—
Explanation and Meaning:
With this magnificent parable, the Blessed Prophet (saw) distilled the entire Islamic outlook on life:
The Rider: This is the believer, the soul on its journey through existence. Our ultimate destination is not this world, but the Hereafter (al-Ākhirah)—the meeting with our Lord.
The Scorching Summer Day: This represents the toil, trials, heat, and hardships of worldly life. It is a temporary state of difficulty through which one must pass.
The Shade of the Tree: This is the metaphor for the worldly life (ad-Dunyā) itself. It is a temporary respite, a momentary relief from the journey’s heat. It is a blessing from Allah, to be used gratefully but not to be mistaken for a permanent home.
The Short Nap: This signifies the brevity of human life. No matter how long one lives—60, 70, or 100 years—in the grand scale of eternity, it is nothing more than a brief pause, a short nap.
Leaving it Behind: This is the crucial point. The rider does not pack up the tree and take it with him. He does not become attached to the shade. He enjoys its respite, thanks Allah for it, and then moves on toward his real goal without a backward glance. Similarly, a believer uses the comforts and blessings of this world as a means to aid their worship and journey to Allah, never becoming enslaved by them or heartbroken at their loss.
*Walayah and Bara’ah of Dhahir* Last time we mentioned Walayah and Bara’ah of Haqiqah and Jumlah, today we will take a look at the third type which is walayah and bara’ah of Dahir, the word dhahir refers to the appearance, so you judge the people based on their appearance.
Walayat ad-dhahir is based on what is apparent from a person, and his straightness in his sayings and actions, like so, Bara’ah is based on the apparent of the people if they fall in a violation of truth by saying or doing while insisting on it.
There are three ways for walayah: 1. Preview: it is when the person sees the other in what shows his straightness without deviation from the truth by saying or doing, while hastening towards repenting after making a mistake.
2. Reputation: when a person is known for his righteousness and the toungs repeat this around.
3. Testimony: it’s to get this from two witnesses, and there is an opinion regarding if one person can be sufficient.
These ways are the same for bara’ah but it has one more way which is self-endorsement of committing a major sin either by saying, doing or believing.
and if there is some whom is unknown to you, or you can’t fit him in the previous conditions then he should be in Wuquf (to stop) until he can be put in walayah or bara’ah.
If you want to read more on this most important concept in Islam.
*The relationship between the prayer of the Imam and the Followers* The most prominent opinion in this issue is that the the prayer of the followers are linked to the prayer of the Imam, so if the prayer of the Imam is corrupted then the prayer of the followers is corrupted, based on the following pieces of evidence:
The imam carries some actions in the prayer, which the follower should have done if he prayed alone
The follower cannot precede the imam in anything in the prayer or else his prayer will break
If the follower was a traveler he should pray 4 Rak’as behind a resident imam, even though it’s obligatory for him to pray 2
The saying of the Blessed Prophet (saw):
“The imam was made to be followed, so if he prays standing pray standing, and if he prays sitting pray sitting.”
“This is the Book! There is no doubt about it—a guide for those mindful ˹of Allah˺, who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We have provided for them.” (Qur’an 2:2-3)
﷽
A video of Shaykh Hisham Kabbani of the Naqshbandi Haqqani Sufi Tariqa resurfaced that I was not aware of at the time it became known.
The Prophet (s) said, “I will tell you that I sent him because in this universe Allah created Creations, and the nearest one to Earth, the dangerous one. If they invade the Earth…if they invade the Earth, The Earth will be finished. They will kill everyone! I send Sayyidina `Ali to fight them alone!!! To these aliens that are they the most nearest to Earth; and with his sword and his power, He is Asadullah al-Ghaalib! Destroyed two-third of them! That’s why they don’t have power anymore to come on Earth. That is why I sent him, he’s absent from the house.” -Shaykh Hisham Kabbani
The above part that is in bold black text is the beginning of the paragraph but it was cut off. You can read the whole transcript and context from their official website:
Now when one reads the context, it does seem like an abrupt change of course to start speaking about the time when it was alleged that the Blessed Messenger (saw) sent Ali Ibn Abu Talib to take down a large contingent of aliens. Apparently 67% of them were wiped out! I do not know if that means their military forces, their people as a whole (men, women, children-offspring) as those details were not provided.
No one knows if these are the same beings that former Minister of Defense Paul Hellyer was speaking about either. I will link to the article where he (Paul Hellyer) speaks of these beings.
As Muslims, we believe in the unseen. Yet, we also believe in what is rational, sensible and logical. I guess the issue that I have with the idea of sending Ali Ibn Abu Talib into cosmic forays to fight these Aliens is you have to wonder about a few things.
Why only take out 2/3 of them? Is leaving the 1/3 left a mercy to them? As in, “Look, I wiped out 2/3, or you so like chill or else!”
But then you really have to wonder about horrific situations like Palestine.
But I know the retort will be swift: “Palestine or the whole planet brother?”
Over all, personally, my encounters with Naqshanbai Haqqani have been positive. Though I know that they, like all Sufi Tariqah, are in a spiritual Jihad with one another to vie for dominance to be ‘The Tariqah above all others’.
May Allah (swt) guide us to the truth of such matters. May Allah (swt) cause us to think logically and reflect upon such matters.
You may also be interested in the following entries:
Ha-Mim By the Book that makes things clear,-We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that you may be able to understand and learn wisdom. And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high in dignity, full of wisdom. Shall We then take away the Message from you and repel (you), for that you are a people transgressing beyond bounds? (Qur’an 43:15)
“Nay! it is a Glorious Qur’an, In a guarded tablet” (Qur’an 85:21-22)
﷽
This is an entry that discusses the problematic theological position held by those who call themselves ‘Salafi’ or ‘Athari. That is the belief that the Qur’an is the eternal uncreated word of Allah.
Now this is a belief of those who ascribe to Ahl Sunnah in general. However, there is an aberrant and bizarre perspective held by those who call themselves as ‘Salafi’ or ‘Athari’.
That is what this article will focus on.
I want to say from the outset that the Ibadi school does not make takfir of any Muslim who believes the Qur’an is created. This issue was not addressed by the Blessed Prophet (saw) nor by his companions. Takfir of other Muslims is not something that our school is known for.
This is a matter of dispute between the scholars. Each side will bring thier proofs and justifications for the position that they hold.
It is truly unfortunate that some of the Muslim intelligentsia and academics would feel so threatened by any discussion on this subject that it would incur a death penalty.
For example in one of the great works that are praised by the Sufi Muslims, Qadi Iyad we find
He said about someone who said that the Qur’an is created, “He is an unbeliever, so kill him.” He said in the version of Ibn Nafi’, “He should be flogged and painfully beaten and imprisoned until he repents.” In the version of Bishr ibn Bakr at-Tinnisi we find, “He is killed and his repentance is not accepted.”
Source: (Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, Muhammed Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], p. 419)
In fact, Muhammed ibn Isma’il Al-Bukhari (of Sahih Bukhari oral collection fame) was persecuted by a group of those from the Hanbali school of jurisprudence for a remark he made.
“Al-Dhuhli was fierce (shadîd) in his adhesion to the Sunna. He confronted Muhammed ibn Isma‘il [al-Bukhari] because the latter had alluded, in his Khalq Af‘al al-‘Ibad, to the fact that the reader’s utterance of the Qur’an was created. Bukhari made it understood without explicitly saying it, but he certainly made it clear. On the other hand, Ahmad ibn Hanbal flatly refused to explore the question, as well as Abu Zur‘a and al-Dhuhli, or indulge in the terminology of dialectic theologians (al-mutakallimûn), and they did well – may Allah reward them excellently. Ibn Isma‘il had to travel from Naysabur undercover, and he was pained by what Muhammed ibn Yahya [al-Dhuhli] had done to him.”
Source: (Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (10:207)
Also:
Al-Hakim [narrated with his chains]: Muhammed ibn Yahya [al-Dhuhli] said: “This Bukhari has openly subscribed to the doctrine of ‘pronunciationists’ (al-lafziyya), and for me those are worse than the Jahmiyya.” . . . Ahmad ibn Salama visited Bukhari and told him: “O Abu ‘Abd Allah, this is a respected man [i.e. al-Dhuhli] in Khurasan, especially in this town [Naysabur], and he has thundered with this speech until none of us can say anything to him about it, so what do you think we should do?” Bukhari grasped his beard then he said: (I confide my cause unto Allah. Lo! Allah is Seer of His slaves.) (40:44) He continued: “O Allah! You know that I did not want for one moment to settle in Naysabur out of arrogance, nor in quest of leadership, but only because my soul would not let me return to my own country [Bukhara] because of my opponents; and now this man intends harm for me out of jealousy, only because of what Allah gave me and for no other reason.” Then he said to me: “O Ahmad, tomorrow I shall leave and you will be rid of his talk which I caused.” . . . Muhammed ibn Ya‘qub the hadith master said: “When al-Bukhari settled in Naysabur Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj took to visiting him frequently. When the affair of the pronunciation of Qur’an took place between al-Bukhari and [al-Dhuhli] and the latter roused people against him and forbade them to visit him, most people stopped visiting him, but not Muslim. Then al-Dhuhli said: ‘Anyone that subscribes to the pronunciation [being created], it is not permitted for them to attend our gathering.’ Whereupon Muslim placed a cloak on top of his turban, stood up in front of everyone, and sent back to al-Dhuhli what he had written from him carried by a camel-driver, for Muslim openly subscribed to the pronunciation and made no attempt to conceal it.” . . . Ahmad ibn Mansur al-Shirazi also narrated it from Muhammed ibn Ya‘qub, adding: “And Ahmad ibn Salama stood up and followed him.” (See Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (10:314-315). Cf. Bayhaqi’s al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (al-Hashidi ed. 2:20-21 #591).
As Hamza Yusuf correctly remarked. if you follow this line of reasoning you eventually end up with
@ 1:32 Listen carefully people. Shaykh Hamza Yusus if a public orator and a supremely articulate man. Listen very carefully to the doctrine you are being asked to subscribe to.
@ 3:00 “It definitely doesn’t mean though the mushaf you have in your house. Because that would then…I mean some of the Christians argue that well the Qur’an is imbibliation. Like we believe in incarnation of the logos the Muslims believe in imbibliation of the logos. That God became book and so we don’t we don’t see that as valid. That view of it so.” -Hamza Yusuf.
Salafi Da’wah hooks you with the transcendence of Allah (swt). Most people who are introduced to Islam through the street preachers who hold Salafi doctrine are intrigued by concepts such as: Allah being one. What seems to look like a simplistic creed. That Allah has no parents or no children or no partners. Allah is neither black nor white. Allah is not male or female.
However, once you have taken your Shahadah or delcaration of faith how much longer until you are taught ‘Kitab Al Tawhid’ and here come the bizarre concepts. Allah has two right hands, and one of those right hands is a left hand, Allah occupies space, has a shin, a foot, chuckles at people’s despair, comes down the third part of the night, appears to the disbelievers in forms and shapes that they knew and then appears to the disbelievers in forms and shapes they do not know.
SaidNO ONE EVER!
Yasir Qadhi, Salafis and Atheist.
Unfortunately Yasir Qadhi has come under fire from people who seemingly do not understand what he has been saying as of late.
Atheist and Agnostics have a different epistemology and world view when evaluating history then do believers. This also should not come as a shock or a surprise to anyone.
Agnostic/Skeptic: “We have not found any evidence of X.”
Believer: “They have yetto find any evidence of X.” The believer takes note that the Agnostic/Skeptic did not claim “We will neverfind.”
However, in one of his books he has given a very powerful argument to the atheist and agnostics to dismantle Salafi theology.
In reality I should not fault Yasir Qadhi for this as if it was some novel idea that he came up with. Rather, he is parroting the learned polemic that he would have picked up from his teachers.
Yasir Qadhi says:
“These Attributes are understood literally (in the case of the Attributes of kalam, that Allah, Speaks, whenever He wishes, with a sound, in different languages, and this Speech is composed of words and letters and is not created), but the actuality and ‘how-ness’ of these Attributes are not delved into, and any negative similarity be-tween these Attributes and the attributes of the creation are negated (in the case of this Attribute, that the speech of the creation is created, but the Speech of Allah is not.) Understanding these Attributes ‘literally’ does not mean understanding them in the manner that they are found in the creation, or comparing them with the attributes of the creation; rather, it means affirming the linguistic meaning of that Attribute in a manner that befits the Creator, and will never completely be understood by mankind.”
Source: (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 52)
We are told that the ‘how-ness‘ is not delved into and yet this whole paragraph does exactly that! When you negate comparison you are comparing and contrasting ‘how‘ something is unlike something else.
When speaking of prophet Ibrahim (a.s) and the story of the idols Shaykh Yasir Qadhi says:
“In these verses, Ibrahim showed his people that their idols were not worthy of worship, primarily because they could not speak. After they themselves acknowledged this, Ibrahim rebuked them, and asked them, “Have you no sense?!” meaning, “How can an object that cannot even speak be worthy of worship?” Notice that Ibrahim was referring to a speech that could be heard, for Ibrahim’s people did not answer Ibrahim with the belief of the Ash’arees, “Our god speaks, but a speech that is not heard-an internal speech of the mind!” for they understood what Ibrahim meant!! This is why they turned to themselves, and realized the foolishness of their actions, and could only reply with the feeble response that everyone knew that their idols could not speak!”
Source: (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 46)
Yasir Qadhi thinks that he has the goods on the Ash’ari Sunnis latter making a quote that in effect turns the Ash’ari Sunnis into idol worshipers.
Yet, look at the quotation above where he says:
“‘literally’ does not mean understanding them in the manner that they are found in the creation.”
Rather than help Islam, Yasir Qadhi and his Salafist-Athari creed and those who think like him have handed over to skeptics of their position a devastating argument.
So like Ibrahim (as) demands above the atheist has the right to demand from him speech from his Creator.
They have the right to demand “a speech that could be heard”
A typical discussion between an Atheist-Agnostic/Skeptic and one who follows Salafist theology could go something like this:
Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic: “Does your god, Allah speak? Let’s hear it then!”
Salafi: “Of course and here is the proof!” (pulls out Qur’an).
Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic: “Ibrahim didn’t ask the idols for a book; he asked if they can speak!”
Salafi:
Yet Yasir Qadhi is not done with the Ash’ari.
Yasir Qadhi thinks he has the goods on the Ash’ari when he says,
“1) If the kalam of Allah is without sound, then what did Musa hear when Allah spoke to Him? If they respond that Allah created a sound, and caused Musa to hear that created sound, then this means that this created object stated, “O Musa, verily, I am your Lord…Verily, I am Allah, there is no God save Me, so worship Me… [ Qur’an 20:12-14]
Therefore, if they state this, it implies that this created object claimed to be Allah, and asked Musa to worship it! However, if they stated that it was the actual kalam of Allah, then it must be asked, “How then did Musa hear it if you claim that Allah’s kalam is without sound? ” The scholars of the Ash’arees have not been able to provide a satisfactory response for this.”
Source: (An introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 44)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
So Yasir Qadhi thinks that it was the object cried out ‘I am Allah, there is no God save Me, so worship Me’. Yet, obviously, we know that Moses (as) did not perform any act of worship towards the direction of the voice. Or at least no act of worship is recorded.
Yasir Qadhi and those who agree with his position have to wonder the following:
What did Rasul Allah (saw) think when Angel Gabriel (as) said. ” Indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.” (Qur’an 21:92)
Did the Blessed Messenger (saw) fall down and worship Gabriel? Obviously not!
Gabriel(as) was used as a medium in the same way the burning bush was.
As regards if Musa (as) heard audible sounds from the burning bush you ask yourself, did the companions hear audible sounds as the Qur’an was being revealed to the Blessed Messenger (saw)?
“And [We sent] messengers about whom We have related [their stories] to you before and messengers about whom We have not related to you. And Allah spoke to Moses with [direct] speech.” (Qur’an 4:164)
“When he saw a fire and said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire; perhaps I can bring you a torch or find at the fire some guidance.” And when he came to it, he was called, “O Moses, Indeed, I am your Lord, so remove your sandals. Indeed, you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa. And I have chosen you, so listen to what is revealed [to you] Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance.” (Quran 20:10-14)
“And when Moses had completed the term and was traveling with his family, he perceived from the direction of the mount a fire. He said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I will bring you from there [some] information or burning wood from the fire that you may warm yourselves.” But when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley in a blessed spot – from the tree, “O Moses, indeed I am Allah, Lord of the worlds.” (Qur’an 28:29-30)
“Has there reached you the story of Moses? When his Lord called to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa” (Qur’an 79:15-16)
Likewise, since the Qur’an acts as a guardian of the previous scriptures let us see what is claimed to be the Torah has to say as well.
“There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight–why the bush does not burn up.”When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.””Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” (Exodus 3:2-5)
Allah (swt) created a sound and caused Moses (as) to hear that created sound. In fact, if you go on further the whole context shows how Allah (swt) is the creator of perception. Moses (as) was made to perceive a burning fire, it did not indicate if anyone saw it or not. He (as) was made to perceive his hand becoming white. He (as) was made to perceive a voice from a tree. He (as) was made to perceive his staff move like a snake.
“And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.” (Qur’an 42:51)
Unless our respected Yasir Qadhi wants to say that the Qur’an contains a flat contradiction he will need to understand ‘Allah spoke to Moses with direct speech‘ in light of the above verses.
Coming back to Ibrahim:
First of all notice that there are different approaches that the Prophets of Allah take when dealing with different groups.
“Say: “Do you see what it is you invoke besides Allah? Show me what it is they have created on earth, or have they a share in the heavens bring me a book (bikitabin) before this, or any remnant (atharatin) of knowledge (you may have), if you are telling the truth!” (Qur’an 46:4)
Why do people worship at all?
What is the motivation for worship?
A) Either derive from benefit. These deities bring fortune, or blessings.
B) Either to avoid some harm. These deities will bring misfotune, or wrath.
Now comes the question: What is the authority for this worship!
Notice that in the Qur’an 46:4 The Blessed Prophet (saw) is asking if these people have some authority for doing what they do. Do they have a revelation or an athar (report, hadith from a previous athority).
Ibrahim (as) and his approach is very logical and methodical.
There is no prophet or oracle from these people he needs to consult or contend with.
There is no claim of sacred revelation that he needs to consult or contend with.
It is obvious that Ibrahim (as) is trying to trigger these people. He is getting them to reflect on the basis for dong what they do.
They said, “Have you done this to our gods, O Ibrahim?” He said, “Rather, this – the largest of them – did it, so ask them, if they should speak.” (Qur’an 21:62-63)
“Ibrahim asked, “Can they hear you when you call upon them? Or can they benefit or harm you?” (Qur’an 26:72-73)
There is nothing in these text that even remotely suggest that it is the personal belief of Ibrahim (as) that in order for Allah to exist and be real, then He must communicate via audible sounds that can be perceived by the ear.
It would be great if we had the response of these idol worshippers.
Wait..we do!
In reply to Qur’an 26:72-73 we have:
“They replied, “No! But we found our forefathers doing the same.” Ibrahim responded, “Have you considered what you have been worshipping, you and your ancestors?” (Qur’an 26:74-76)
Now we get to the justification. They are simply following what the people who came before them did. At least here they are forthcoming.
In reply to (Qur’an 26:72-73) we have:
“So they came back to their senses, saying, “You yourselves are truly the wrongdoers. Then they regressed to their mind -set. “You already know that they cannot speak.” He said “Do you then worship besides Allah, what can neither benefit nor harm you? (Qur’an 21:64-66)
What can neither benefit nor harm you. This is proven by the previous episode of the idols being smashed to pieces. If they cannot benefit or protect themselves then what guarantee do you have that they can benefit or protect you.
People should really think carefully before they set up a whole generation of young people to be demolished in an age of Atheist, Agnostics and Skeptics.
“Behold, you received it on your tongues, and said out of your mouths things of which you had no knowledge; and you thought it to be a light matter, while it was most serious in the sight of Allah.” (Qur’an 24:15)
For those interested the book: “An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an” by Yasir Qadhi is still the best book in the English language on the topic. Nothing else comes close.
“My Lord, increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
Background
Ar-Rabee’ ibn Habib ibn Rashid ibn Amr Al-Farahidi Al-Azdi Al-Omani, nicknamed Abu Amr Al-Bisri, was the third Ibadhi imam of knowledge. Al-Shammakhi says about him in Al-Siyar: “The lofty mountain of Maddhab (sect), and the great sea of knowledge.”
Birth and upbringing
Ar-Rabee’ Al-Farahidi was born in Al-Batinah region in Oman; either in the State of Sohar or in the State of Liwa or in the State of Widam, in the second half of the first century, around the year 75 A.H. (694 A.D.). He grew up and spent his childhood in Oman and then he traveled to seek knowledge from Basrah, which was the center of knowledge and packed with scholars at that time. He studied under great Successors and was keen on meeting scholars and taking from them and hearing their Hadith narrations. He also took Tafsir (Quran exegesis) and jurisprudence. He became one of the counted scholars in Basrah and, therefore, he deserved to succeed his teacher Abu ‘Ubaidah at the head of the Ibadhi mission in Basrah.
Teachers
Imam Ar-Rabee’ was considered as one of the prominent students of Imam Abu ‘Ubaidah Muslim and was one of the oldest students (in age); as some historians have stated that he overtook Imam Jabir ibn Zaid when he was a young man and took knowledge from him. He also received knowledge from Dhummam ibn Al-Sa’eb and Abu Noah Salih ibn Al-Duhhan. It was reported that he was saying: “I memorized jurisprudence from three (persons): Abu ‘Ubaidah, Dhummam, and Abu Noah.” He meant that these scholars are his principal teachers.
Whoever reads his book “Musnad Ar-Rabee'” and its additions will find that Imam Ar-Rabee’ has taken knowledge from a large number of the nation’s scholars and has sat in circles of a number of narrators, but has narrated more from his three principle teachers than others.
He overtook the Ibadhi School in Basrah at the peak of its bounty. He devoted himself to taking knowledge in Abu ‘Ubaidah’s Centers (Majalis) and acquired the merits of the people of mission. He also elevated among his associates in the grades of the ability of leadership and pioneering.
Students
A large number of students took knowledge from Imam Ar-Rabee’, among them Abu Sufyan Mahbub ibn Al-Rahil Al-Qurashi, Musa ibn Abi Jaber Al-Uzkawi, Bashir ibn Al-Munthir Al-Nazwani, Abu Sufrah Abdul Malik ibn Sufrah, Munir ibn Al-Nayir Al-Ju’lani, Mohammed ibn Al-Mu’ala Al-Kindi, Abu Ayyub Wa’il ibn Ayyub Al-Hadhrami, Hisham ibn Ghailan Al-Sijani, and many other scholars.
Tawtheeq (Reliability)
Praise increased upon Imam Ar-Rabee’ from Ibadhis and others. His teacher, Abu ‘Ubaidah, said about him: “He (i.e Ar-Rabee’) is our Jurist, our imam, and our confidence.” Mahbub ibn Al-Rahil, Ar-Rabee”s student, said about him: “The jurist and scholar of Muslims after Abu ‘Ubaidah.”
Imam Ar-Rabee’ was described asthiqah (reliable) by a number of Traditionalists. Yahya ibn Ma’een and Ibn Shaheen said about him: “Thiqah“. Al-Daraqutni said: “Ar-Rabee’ ibn Habib Al-Basri (Hadith’s) is not left.” Ibn Hibban mentioned him in “Ath-thiqat” and Al-Bukhari in “At-Tareekh Al-Kabeer” but they did not mention any Jarh (criticizing) or Ta’deel (praising) regarding him. In addition, Ahmad ibn Hanbal in “Al-Ilal” said: “I see no problem with him.” From here, it is obvious that Imam Ar-Rabee’ is among the great Traditionalists and his narration is not rejected by Hadith scholars and others.
Death
Imam Ar-Rabee’ lived the last of his life in Oman. He died in Ghadhafan, a village in Oman, around the year 175 A.H. (791 A.D.), thus he lived more than ninety years that he spent in education, dissemination of knowledge and leadership of the mission, which was established by Imam Jabir and Imam Abu ‘Ubaidah, Allah’s mercy upon them all.
Writings
Imam Ar-Rabee’ had many writings besides the monumental Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih. He was one of the first scholars who wrote in Sharia science in the second AH century. Unfortunately, not all of his works have survived to this day. His most prominent works include the following:
· Musnad Al-Imam Ar-Rabee’ (Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih)
This is a compilation of hadith narrated by Ar-Rabee’ from his teachers. It is the oldest book of Prophetic traditions and most of it is tripartite in ascription. Ar-Rabee’ organized his book according to the names of narrators. Insh’Allah
· The Book of Creed
This book contains some prophetic traditions and some traditions that were narrated by some companions. These narrations were added by Imam Abu Ya’qub Al-Wrajalani to Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih. They occupy part three of the current editions and contain the narrations from Ar-Rabee’ on theological questions.
· Ar-Rabee”s Traditions Book
This book contains traditions narrated by Ar-Rabee’ from his teacher Dhummam ibn Al-Sa’eb from Jaber ibn Zaid. They were Maqtu’ (Severed) Hadiths, and they were compiled by Abu Sufrah Abdul Malik ibn Sufrah.
· His opinions and juristic answers
They are scattered in the books of his students and who came after them; e.g. Abu Ghanim Bishr ibn Ghanim Al-Kharasani.
· Ar-Rabee”s Futya (Legal Opinions)
It is a manuscript which contains legal opinions of Ar-Rabee’; almost on rulings, worships and transactions.
· The Argumental Letter (for Ar-Rabee’ and Others)
This is a letter that was attributed to Ar-Rabee’ ibn Habib, Mukhallad ibn Al-Amrud and Wa’il ibn Ayyub, on the matter of separation that was in the East and the West; about the ruling of Juma Prayer, a suspicion of adultery on a woman, and the opinion on interpreters.
· Ar-Rabee”s (and others) Letter to the People of Maghrib in the Matter of Ibn Fundeen.
References:
The Doctrines of the Ibadhi Creed Till the End of the Second AH Century; by Musallam Salim Al-Wahibi
Prima Quran 