“The faculties of seeing (tudriku) cannot grasp Him, and He grasp all–seeing (yudriku), He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103)
May Allah (swt) bless our teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed Rashid Al-Mazrui.
These are notes I have taken from our Aqidah class on the subject: On the visibility of Allah (swt).
In the class we look at the proofs that other schools give to prove the visibility of Allah (swt). We go through each ayat of the Qur’an that is used. We go through the ahadith that are used. We than go through our proofs and evidences to show that Allah (swt) will not be seen in the life to come.
The hadith in question:
Narrated Jarir:
We were sitting with the Prophet (saw) and he looked at the moon on the night of the full-moon and said, “You people will see your Lord as you see this full moon, and you will have no trouble in seeing Him, so if you can avoid missing (through sleep or business, etc.) a prayer before sunrise (Fajr) and a prayer before sunset (`Asr) you must do so.” (See Hadith No. 529, Vol. 1)
Shaykh Juma was going to show the weakness in the chain of the transmitters in the sanad as well as problems with the matn. However, in this class there was a change of pace.
Of course we reject the hadith “That we shall see our Lord in the like manner as we see the full moon.”
So Shaykh Juma mentioned that next time (which has already passed and that lesson was recent) that there are many contradictions in the matn and the hadith is not logical and it is not acceptable.
HOWEVER…
For the sake of argument let us agree with those who say it is authentic. What is our interpretation of this hadith?
In the science and fundamentals -we have a principle -reconciliation between the text are apparently in conflict or contradictory to one another.
A verse that apparently contradicts another verse for example.
What is really intended by this verse. An example:
“Wherever you may be, death will overcome you—even if you were in fortified towers.” When something good befalls them, they say, “This is from Allah,” but when something evil befalls them, they say, “This is from you.” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Both have been destined by Allah.” So what is the matter with these people? They can hardly comprehend anything!” (Qur’an 4:78)
Then immediately verse 79:
“Whatever good befalls you is from Allah and whatever evil befalls you is from yourself. We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ as a messenger to ˹all˺ people. And Allah is sufficient as a Witness.” (Qu’ran 4:79)
“Good is from Allah and what ever misfortunes is from yourself.” or the “Good and the misfortunate are both from Allah”
So, apparently this looks like a conflict.
So what is the interpretaton here? Here we apply the principle of reconcilation.
When Allah says everything is from Allah, he determines everything from his limitless, eternal knowledge. The second verse that says only good is from Allah and the bad from ourselves, that we are the real cause of those bad things.
The best thing to use to understand the Qur’an is the Qur’an itself.
“And if not that a disaster should strike them for what their hands put forth [of sins] and they would say, “Our Lord, why did You not send us a messenger so we could have followed Your verses and been among the believers?” (Qur’an 28:47)
“If We give people a taste of mercy, they become prideful ˹because˺ of it. But if they are afflicted with an evil for what their hands have done, they instantly fall into despair.” (Qur’an 30:36)
Something inflicts them because of their own actions and their own sins
Now when we read the same chapter:
“Corruption has spread on land and sea as a result of what people’s hands have done, so that Allah may cause them to taste ˹the consequences of˺ some of their deeds and perhaps they might return ˹to the Right Path˺.” (Qur’an 30:41)
So we have seen how this principle works.
Now to the subject: Is Allah visible? Will Allah be seen in the hereafter or not?
We reject it based upon the matn, but we say for the sake of the argument for those who say it is authentic, what is interpretation. Rueya is the word used.
You see or you will see, rueya , it also means to know or knowledge.
In other words you will have certainty of Allah (swt). That we will know Allah (swt).
Where do we get this interpretation of seeing to mean knowing?
“Have you not seen ˹O Prophet˺ how your Lord dealt with the Army of the Elephant?” (Qur’an 105:1)
So it is logical to ask someone this question if he did not see those people. That is if you interpret and understand optical seeing. This means that Allah (swt) would ask the Prophet (saw) about something that is not logical.
“Have not those who are ungrateful disbelievers seen how Heaven and Earth were once one solid mass which We ripped apart? ” (Qur’an 21:30)
Have not they seen?
“Have you not seen what your Lord did deal with ‘Aad?” (Qur’an 89:6)
So we use this method to understand and reconcile text.
“Did they not see how many generations we destroyed before them.” (Qur’an 36:31)
Did they not see: This means to know. They are aware about something to some degree or another.
“The heart did not lie about what it saw.” (Qur’an 53:11)
(The Prophet’s) heart did not deny what he (Muhammed) saw. His heart did not lie about what he saw. His (the prophet’s) heart/mind did not deny what he saw. His heart didn’t deny what he saw.
The poet says, “I have seen Allah is greater than anything in power and he has most soldiers.”
The Poet saw Allah (swt) ?
Another poet says: “I have seen Allah destroyed the people of aad, thamud and Noah as well.”
So we need to use methodological principles that are also acceptable to the other schools so that they can see the point.
So the hadith about seeing Allah like the moon.
We have to interpret it since the Qur’an is clear.
“The faculties of seeing (tudriku) cannot grasp Him, and He grasp all–seeing (yudriku), He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103)
That no eyes will see Allah (swt), no optical vision.
Next week we will look at the sanads (chains of transmission)
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
For further articles on this subject kindly read the following:
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
Above credit is to Kennst du schon die Umkreisel photo taken from: pexels.com
﷽
This entry is to educate and enlighten those Muslims who hold the view that Allah (swt) is everywhere.
They may rely upon the following proof text:
“It is He who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He knows what penetrates into the earth and what emerges from it and what descends from the heaven and what ascends therein, and He is with you wherever you are. And Allah, of what you do, is Seeing.” (Qur’an 57:4)
“Have you not considered that Allah knows what is in the heavens and what is on the earth? There is in no private conversation three but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them – and no less than that and no more except that He is with them wherever they are. Then He will inform them of what they did, on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 58:7)
“And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 2:115)
In the Ibadi school, we understand that Allah (swt) has full power and knowledge of all things. We do not believe that Allah (swt) is omnipresent.
A text that seemingly conflicts with the belief that Allah (swt) is everywhere is the following:
“Nay, when the earth has been pounded with a great pounding and your Lord and the angels come row upon row.” (Qur’an 89:21-22)
If Allah (swt) is everywhere it would make little sense to believe that our Allah (swt) would ‘come‘ to a place he already ‘is‘.
“It is He who created for you all that the earth contains: then He turned to the heavens and made them seven skies-and He is the Knower of All Things.” (Qur’an 2:29)
If Allah (swt) is everywhere it would make little sense to believe that Allah (swt) would ‘turn‘ anywhere, for he is already ‘there‘.
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
The verses above demolishes any concept of Allah (swt) resembling the creations. This shows that Allah (swt) exists without a place because whatever exists in a place is by nature composed of particles, body, occupying space. Allah (swt) is clear of occupying space.
This means Allah (swt) does not occupy one place (the throne) or (every place). After all space is a creation and one would need to ask who created spatiality? If it has always co-existed with Allah (swt) it cannot said to be created by our Lord.
The very idea of ‘where‘ is Allah (swt) is inappropriate. Just as the very idea of ‘when‘ is Allah (swt) is inappropriate.
All the above verses that quote Allah (swt) being ‘with you wherever you are’, or Allah (swt) ‘turning’ or Allah (swt) ‘coming’ are all interpreted using the sound principles embedded in the Arabic language in a way that conforms to Qur’an 42:11.
We also have two very important pieces of information. One from Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib and the other from the Blessed Messenger (saw).
The saying “Allah existed eternally without a place, and He is now as He ever was” is related – without chain – from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
Sources: (Ibn ‘Ata’ Allah al-Sakandari (d. 709) cites it as one of his Hikam (#34). As cited by ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429) in his al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq page. 256)
We also have from the Blessed Messenger (saw) who is reported to have said:
“Allah was when there was nothing else than Him, and His Throne was upon the water, and He wrote in the Reminder (al-dhikr) all things, and he created the heavens and the earth.”
Source: (Narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn by al-Bukhari, in the Book of the Beginning of Creation: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/59/2 )
Some people especially perennialist may like to argue that Allah (swt) is everywhere because it will end up supporting concepts like pantheism or pan-deism. Everywhere is basically pantheism or pan-deism. Allah (swt) exist as he was before all Creation (time/space).
Some questions for those who believe in the omnipresence of Allah (swt) is to ask them:
Is Allah (swt) fully present or partially present? What proof text would be offered to show ‘fully‘ or ‘partially‘?
Why not fully present? If fully present than why is it wrong to worship idols, Jesus, Iblis, Demons, or anything for that matter? Authubillah min dhalik!
If Allah (swt) is only partially present where is the other part that isn’t there?
The belief of Muslims is that Allah (swt) is not present in all of his Creation nor that Allah (swt) is his creation or that Allah (swt) became the universe.
“All will perish except His face.” (Qur’an 28:88)
If This verse is taken by its apparent meaning, it would indicate that that the Creator would increase or decrease. If the universe or reality ‘expands‘ or ‘retreats‘ it entails that the Creator ‘expands‘ or ‘retreats‘.
The only challenge to Allah as a “being” that I am aware of is Process Theology (or Process Theism) in Christianity where they state: “God is becoming” not being.
The irony is that the one opening for process theology in Islam is the following hadith Qudsi:
“Abu Huraira(ra) reported:
The Messenger of Allah, (saw), said, “Allah Almighty said: The son of Adam abuses me. He curses time and I am time. In my hand are the night and day.”
Sources: (Al Bukhari 4549, and Muslim 2246)
The irony here is that this one opening also defeats process theology of becoming a reality among Muslims. It defeats the whole idea of ‘becoming‘ if you are omnipresent or time itself. Glory be to Allah!!
“And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Yourself), so that I may look upon You. He said: You will not see Me but look at the mountain if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Musa fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to You, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers.” (Qur’an 7:143)
Know that the creation cannot contain the Creator nor is the Creator present in the Creation.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
For those who are interested you may wish to read the following:
“And he is with you wherever you are.” (Qur’an 57:4)
﷽
*There is no place for him* Just as there is *No when for him*
Be careful of the tricky questions the slicksters use. These people are the real Ahl Kalam, though they deny it for themselves. When the text clear text no longer support them they run to their kalam arguments.
The choice between two false proposition. They may ask you:
“Is Allah inside the creation or outside the creation?”
In reality the one who is asking this question believes that Allah (swt) is inside his creation. Because he believes that Allah (swt) occupies place.
This is a graphical representation of the thought process behind this trap.
And we know that there is nothing like unto Allah (swt).
They want you to say “Outside of the Creation” so that you posit for Allah (swt) a place.
Inside/Outside/Up/Down/Left/Right all relate to spatial location.
The response to that question is: Allah exist without a place.
Realizing you didn’t take the bait they will try and follow up with a second tricky question they will ask you is as follows:
When Allah (swt) created the creation did he create the creation inside himself or outside of himself?
Answer them by saying: “Mash’Allah! What an excellent question! When Allah (swt) created space and location where/when was Allah (swt)?”
That will give them their answer.
At this point your objective is to bring the Salafi/Athari away from their kalam and back to the revelation.
“Allah is Creator of all things, and He is Guardian over all things.” (Qur’an 39:62)
Like if you ask me can I comprehend the idea of my Creator w/o spatiality?
I can
Do I have a visual or a model?
I do not.
What I DO KNOW is that to say Allah co exist with something that he did not create is problematic.
Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Reflect deeply upon the creation, but do not reflect upon the essence of the Creator. Verily, His essence cannot be known other than to believe in it.”
Source: (Musnad al-Rabī’ 742 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَلْقِ وَلا تَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَالِقِ فَإِنَّهُ لا يُدْرَكُ إِلا بِتَصْدِيقِهِ 742 مسند الربيع بن حبيب 2976 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن في صحيح الجامع)
* *وجود الله لا افتتاح له* *كما أن بقاءه لا انتهاء له* *كما أن وجوده لا مكان له* *فكما أنه سبحانه كان ولا إبتداء له وهو باقٍ ولا إنتهاء له كذلك هو موجود ولا مكان له* *فمن جادلك وحاجك في المكان، وقال لك : كيف لي أن أتصور موجودا لا مكان له، وكيف لي أصدق بموجود لا مكان له* *قل له : كما صدقت بموجود لا ابتداء له* *كيف تعقلت وتصورت وصدقت بموجود لا افتتاح لوجوده، بأي عقل صدقت، موجود ليس لوجوده نقطة بداية* *صدقت بذلك لأنه المقام اللائق بهذا الرب الذي ليس كمثله شيء* *فقط، هذا الذي دعاك للتسليم بأنه موجود بلا إبتداء ، لا عادتك التي اعتدتها ، أنت لم تعتد لوجود لا إفتتاح له* *لكن لما كان الكلام متعلقا برب ليس كمثله شيء، صدقت وأذعنت وسلمت وأمنت أن هذا الرب لا افتتاح لوجوده، ولا نهاية لبقائه* *فكذلك قل في مكانه لا مكان له؛ لأنه الرب الذي تعالى عن ظروف الازمنة وكذلك يتعالى عن ظروف الامكنة* *المتعالي عن ظروف الازمنة متعالي عن ظروف الأمكنة*
Some may also believe that Allah (swt) is omni present. Meaning that Allah (swt) is located every where (omni) all present. This is also an error.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) protect this Ummah from those who believe that Allah (swt) is inside of his creation and than provide the caveat: “In a way that befits him.”
“That was a nation which has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 2:133-134)
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Quran 59:10)
﷽
So some of those who claim they are upon the way of the Salafiyyah go rampaging through the books and works of our scholars. They will find among them those who disavow Uthman or those who disavow Muaviya or those who disavow Ali. We will bring evidence from the books of the scholars from our brothers from among the Ahl Sunnah to show you the double standards of their claims.
Truth be told, all schools have in their books people they disavow. However, one thing that can be said about us Ibadis is that we do not have the cursing of anyone in our books. The Shi’i and Sunni books are full of so-and-so cursing of companions.
In the Sunni books, these things are not so readily obvious because, under the Abbasid empire, a Shi’ification of Sunnism took place. The form of Sunni Islam that most people are familiar with today is a very sanitized Abbasid Sunnism.
As most are ignorant of history they do not know that for about a century, from 945 to 1055, the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad were effectively puppets of the Buyid dynasty.
A Shi’a “Protectorate”: The Buyids were a powerful Shi’i dynasty from Iran. They kept the Abbasid Caliph as a figurehead to appease the majority Sunni population. While they held the real political and military power.
For the astute reader, they are able to catch this.
So, for example, when Urwah ibn al-Zubayr narrated that Zaynab bint Muhammed (ra) was mentioned by the Blessed Prophet (saw) to be his most virtuous and beloved daughter, he (Zubayr) was accosted by Zayn al-Abidin who approached Urwah ibn Al-Zubayr in a very hostile manner demanding why he would put anyone anywhere near the rank of Fatima (ra).
A kind of terrorism and suppression by the Abbasids and Alids towards anyone who would put someone else other than Fatima and Ali first. Here we narrate to you how Ali ibn al-Husayn went after Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (ra) like a raving madman.
Ahmad Abu Bakr ibn Muhammed ibn Hamdan al-Sayrafi in Marw told me, Abu Ismail Muhammed ibn Ismail told us, Saeed ibn Abi Maryam told us, Yahya ibn Ayyub informed us, Ibn al-Had told me, Amr ibn Abdullah ibn Urwah ibn al-Zubayr told me, on the authority of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, on the authority of Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, (saw) When the Messenger of Allah, (saw), arrived in Medina, his daughter Zaynab left Mecca with Kinanah—or the son of Kinanah—and they went after her. Habbar ibn al-Aswad caught up with her and kept stabbing her camel with his spear until it felled her, and she miscarried and bled. The Banu Hashim and the Banu Umayyah then quarreled over her. She said… The Banu Umayya said: We are more entitled to her, and she was married to their cousin Abu al-As, and she was with Hind bint Utbah ibn Rabi’ah, and Hind used to say to her: This is because of your father. So the Messenger of Allah, (saw), said to Zayd ibn Harithah: “Won’t you go and bring me Zaynab?” He said: Yes, O Messenger of Allah. He said: “Then take my ring.” So he gave it to him. Then Zayd set off and made his camel kneel. He kept being polite until he met a shepherd and said: Whose sheep do you tend? He said: For Abu al-Aas. He said: And whose sheep are these? He said: To Zainab bint Muhammed, so he walked with him for a while, then he said to him: Would you like me to give you something to give to her, and not mention it to anyone? He said: Yes, so he gave him the ring, so the shepherd went and brought his sheep in, and gave them the ring, and they recognized it, so she said: Who gave you this? He said: A man, she said: Where did you leave it? He said: In such and such a place. He said: So she remained silent until night came, then she went out to him. When she came to him, he said to her: Ride in front of me on his camel. She said: No, but you ride in front of me. So he rode and she rode behind him until she came. The Messenger of Allah, (saw), used to say: “She is the best of my daughters, and she was afflicted because of me.”This reached Ali ibn al-Husayn, so he went to Urwah and said: What is this hadith that I heard you narrate in which you diminish Fatimah’s right? He said, “By Allah, I would not wish to possess everything between the East and the West if it meant depriving Fatima of a right that belongs to her. And after that, you have the right to never speak of it again.” Urwah said, “This was before the revelation of the verse: {Call them by their fathers’ names; that is more just in the sight of God} [Al-Ahzab: 5]. This is an authentic hadith according to the criteria of the two Sheikhs (Al-Bukhari and Muslim), but they did not include it in their collections.”
We will say this. For Ibadi and Sunni Muslims, for both of us, we can move forward without going back and deliberating over these conflicts among the companions. Although some among the Salafi want to bring ambiguous from our books looking for firtnah. However, for the Shi’i, it is absolutely paramount for all their sects to belittle companions in order to advance their claims concerning Ali.
They (the shi’i) also have eulogies concerning Karbala. This often whips them up into a frenzy. One of our colleagues recalls how a former Shi’i friend mentioned to him while being in a Mosque commemorating Karbala he wanted to beat up the first Sunni that he saw!
Imagine if Ibadi Muslims held eulogies and mass gatherings concerning Nahrawan every year. Remembering in anguish Ali’s slaughter of the companions at Nahrwan. Our Imams and shuyookh reading poems and recounting in gruesome detail the events that unfolded that day. How would it be possible not to have some deep hatred towards the Shi’i?
Our scholars have pulled us back from this. This is why you see Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) support the Taliban or Erdoğan, and he has come out in support of Iran. He supports the causes of Muslims against non-Muslims. When Muslims fight, Muslims like the Shi’i of Azerbaijan fight the Sh’i of Iran. Or when the Sunni of Pakistan and the Sunni of Afghanistan fight each other, Shaykh Khalii (h) remains silent.
“That was a nation which has passed on. It will have what it earned, and you will have what you have earned. And you will not be asked about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 2:133-134)
Ibadi stance on the sahaba: According to the Qur’an.
“Look you see these Ibadites! They disavow certain ones from among the companions! They were all loved by each other and we love them all too! We would never say such things about the companions!”
About that…
It is from the Sunnah to disavow any Muslim (including a companion) when they commit a sin.
First and foremost to disavow any Muslim when they commit a sin is from the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw). This includes the companions.
Narrated Salim’s father:
The Prophet (saw) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (saw) raised both his hands and said twice, O Allah, I disavow before You what Khalid has done.” اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَيْكَ مِمَّا صَنَعَ خَالِدٌ
Another point. If it was found in the books of the Ibadis that Ali or Uthman or Muaviya that they were kafir. First is that one has to remember that this is not cursing. Second, whereas in other schools, kafir is saying that someone is outside of Islam in our school, we differentiate between Kufr an-Ni’mah and Kufr Ash-Shirk. To be very clear, no one in our school says Ali or Uthman or Muaviya committed kufr-shirk! No one! Someone who follows the Ibadi school but commits a major sin is in a state of kufr an-ni’mah.
You may read about how the concept of kufr as defined by the Qur’an and Sunnah here:
This is describing a condition of the person. No one is insulting people’s mother’s like school yard bullies.
Remember you cannot unsee what you are about to see and you will be held accountable.
Narrated Jarir:
The Prophet (saw) said to me during Hajjat-al-Wida`: Let the people keep quiet and listen. Then he said (addressing the people), “Do not (become infidels) revert to disbelief after me by striking the necks (cutting the throats) of one another (killing each other).
Salih Al-Sheikh, in his explanation of the Tahawi creed, said that the fighting companions fell into minor disbelief, and they entered into the characteristics of disbelief!
Al-Albani says that the fighting companions after the Messenger of Allah have no refuge from calling them infidels!
In the statement of Al-Tahawi: (And their hatred is disbelief and hypocrisy and slander): Firstly: It includes the disbelief of the Companions:
A) If the hatred is due to religion or anger, as we have detailed, then the disbelief here is major disbelief.
B) If the hatred is for worldly reasons—as may occur due to fierce rivalry or hatred for worldly matters—then this is minor disbelief and does not reach the level of major disbelief. For this reason, the Prophet said:
“Do not revert to disbelief after me by hating one another?!”
(1) Narrated by Al-Bukhari (17), Muslim (74), Al-Nasa’i (5019), and others (30/134), from Anas bin Malik, may Allah be pleased with him. (2) Narrated by Al-Bukhari (1116), Muslim (66), Abu Dawood (4186), Al-Nasa’i (4216), and Ibn Majah.
Sheikh Saleh Al-Sheikh
The fighting among the Companions after the Prophet (peace be upon him) is minor disbelief, not major disbelief. And now, whoever declares the Companions to be disbelievers, even if it is minor disbelief.
Explanation of the Theological Punishment
The fact that some Companions fought one another involves characteristics of disbelievers, which is why he said: “Do not revert to disbelief after me.” There is no doubt that the motive behind this may be hatred.
In Al-Sharh al-Wafī ‘alā ‘Aqīdat al-Tahāwiyyah” (الشرح الوافي على عقيدة الطحاوية), a well-known commentary on “Al-‘Aqīdah al-Tahāwiyyah”—a foundational text on Sunni creed attributed to Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH)
It states that the Companions fight each other. It may be lesser kufr, or it may be greater kufr (i.e. polytheism) and that depends on the level of hatred!
Shaykh ‘Ubayd bin ‘Abdullah al-Jabri (عُبَيْد بن عبد الله الجابري), a contemporary Salafi scholar from Saudi Arabia, and his book “Imdād al-Qārī bi Sharḥ al-Bukhārī” (إمداد القاري بشرح البخاري), which is a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari states that the fighting companions fell into blasphemy!
Then it is said, “and we consider it good,” because it indicates that love for them (the Companions) is sound in religion and is a means of drawing closer to Allah through adherence to sincerity and truthfulness in faith. Naturally, “and we declare them free from blame,” and “we consider it good”—all these are not the same. The methodology in loving the Companions is refined, and their status is measured by their sound companionship, righteousness, and understanding of their elevated rank.
Similarly, it is stated, “and we declare them disbelievers”—an additional clarification: “and we affirm.” Hatred toward the Companions is firmly established—whether the hatred is due to religion or personal malice, in which case it constitutes major disbelief. If the hatred is for worldly reasons, as may arise from fierce rivalry or worldly motives, then it is minor disbelief and does not reach the level of major disbelief. Hence, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking one another’s necks!”
The fact that some Companions fought one another involves falling into the traits of disbelievers, which is why he said: “Do not revert to disbelief after me.” It is most accurate to say that the motive behind this was hatred and disbelief, because fighting is accompanied by elements of hatred. However, given the mutual relations among the Companions (where some may not have loved others until death, and hatred may exist without clear justification), this disbelief may be minor or may vary based on the nature of the hatred (with further elaboration).
Because the intent is to derive from this the preservation of the religion, the safeguarding of Islam among the people, and striving in the Sunnah with true jihad—as the Companions did under the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Yet, some later turned into opponents of the Companions and aligned with the disbelievers. Allah described them: “The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another…” (Surah At-Tawbah: 67).
The intent may be major ideological hatred, depending on the condition of the heart, or practical hatred, based on the type of love or its absence, or the type of hatred and its cause. “And we affirm,” and regarding their transgression—this is specific to the one who harbors it and the gravity of the matter. For Allah (Exalted and Majestic) commanded some of them (or the lesser among them) to “be patient,” meaning He commanded some to endure and restrain themselves from those who wronged them, even if they had the power to retaliate. This indicates that whoever swore allegiance (to the truth) had knowledge and insight in this matter.
Shaykh Ibn al-Qayyim Yusri al-Sayyid Muhammad and his work “Jāmi’ al-Fiqh” (جامع الفقه) by Lisr al-Sayyid: States that the fighting companions had fallen intodisbelief by their actions.
The Disbelief of Denial and Stubbornness
The disbelief of denial (كفر الجحود)-kufr al juhud occurs when someone knowingly rejects what the Messenger (peace be upon him) brought from Allah—whether it pertains to Allah’s Lordship, His attributes, His actions, or His rulings—out of sheer arrogance and obstinacy. This type of disbelief completely contradicts faith in every aspect.
As for practical disbeliefby actions (كفر العمل), kufr al amal it is divided into two categories:
That which contradicts faith entirely—such as prostrating to idols, disrespecting the Quran, or killing a prophet.
That which does not entirely negate faith—such as ruling by other than what Allah has revealed or abandoning prayer.
However, ruling by other than what Allah has revealed and abandoning prayer are undoubtedly forms of practical disbelief. It cannot be denied that these carry the label of “disbelief” (كفر) after Allah and His Messenger have explicitly applied it. Thus:
“Whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a disbeliever.”
“Whoever abandons prayer is a disbeliever,” as stated in the explicit texts of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
The Disbelief of Denial and Belief, and His Saying:
“Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking one another’s necks…” This refers to practical disbelief (كفر عمل). Similarly, his saying: “Whoever does so intentionally has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad.” And his saying: “If one of them has indeed earned it…”
This detailed classification is the position of the Companions regarding the relationship between Islam and disbelief. Do not think that they did not understand the implications—rather, they divided into two groups:
A group that considered such people to be eternally in Hellfire.
A group that regarded them as sinful believers (not complete disbelievers).
Allah has guided Ahl al-Sunnah to the moderate path, where:
There is disbelief (كفر) that does not reach polytheism (شرك).
There is sin (فسق) that does not amount to disbelief.
There is oppression (ظلم) that does not constitute apostasy.
(Page: 5)
“Whoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed is a disbeliever.” It is on this basis that many of the salaf had broke ranks with Ali’s decision for arbitration. As the text is explicit fight until. In that sense Ali would have committed (كفر العمل), kufr al amal.
Shaykh Muṣṭafā bin al-ʿAdawī (مصطفى العدوي ) mentioned that the fighting companions are falling into kufr al-Amal!
“Fatḥ al-Bārī bi Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī” (فتح الباري بشرح صحيح البخاري), the legendary commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī by Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852 AH) that the companions are considered to be upon blasphemy And that the misfortune of disobedience may lead to greater sins, and it is feared that he will not be sealed with the seal of Islam!
One will note that the warning of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was do not revert to disbelief.
Shaykh Ibn al-Uthaymeen says that the Companions fighting each other is considered kufr, but it does not expel one out of the religion!
Ibn Taymiyyah says that the companions who fought each other are called infidels, and it is a restricted designation!
It was stated in the book, The Masa’il of Imam Ahmad (مسائل الإمام أحمد) that the Sunni hadith scholar: Ali bin Al-Jaad says that Muawiyah died upon other than Islam!!!
The Salafiyah will end up declaring all the Companions to be unbelievers altogether, according to their claim that whoever rejects the Hadith of Ahad is an infidel! Shaykh Al-Ghazali says that none of the companions accept this!
Salafiyah have declared one of the companions who rebelled against Caliph Uthman to be an infidel!
Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab describes a group of the Companions as ignorant, evil and rebellious!
Ibn Taymiyya in his book Kitaab Al-‘Arsh (كتاب العرش), says that the Companions did takfir upon one another and this is well known!
Ibn Taymiyya, in his book Iqtidaa al-Sirat al-Mustaqeem Mukhaalafat Ashaab al-Jaheem (اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم مخالفة أصحاب الجحيم) criticizes the honorable companion Abdullah bin Umar (ra), who is one of the strongest people in following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah! That Abdullah bin Umar (ra) committed bid’ah!
Muhammed bin Abd al-Wahhab had strong criticism for a number of the companions!
“Sharh Al-‘Aqeedah Al-Wasitiyyah” (شرح العقيدة الواسطية), the explanation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s famous creedal work, authored by Shaykh Muhammed ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen.
Uthaymeen states:
“Undoubtedly, some of them committed theft, drank alcohol, engaged in slander, or even committed adultery (whether punishable by hadd or not). Yet, all these misdeeds are overshadowed by their overwhelming virtues and merits. Some of these sins were met with legal punishments (hudud), serving as expiation (kaffarah).”
The misdeeds committed by a few among them are exceedingly few and negligible, which is why the author states: “They are drowned out by the virtues and merits of these people.”
However, if they committed adultery, or theft then they committed acts of kufr ni’mah or what others say is: kufr al amal
If Uthaymeen says the companions committed acts of kufr no one bats an eye. A scholar from the Ibadi schools it and suddenly the emotions overcome the senses.
What about this? It was mentioned in the book Akhbār al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah (أخبار المدينة المنورة) that the blood of Uthman is divided into three. A third on the mother of the believers Aisha (ra), and a third on Talha, and a third on Ali bin Abi Talib! That darkness was over each of them!
Ibn Baz responds to Ibn Hajar and claims that the act of the companion Abdullah bin Umar in seeking blessing from the relics of the saints (tabarruk) leads to polytheism. And here Ibn Baz declared himself more knowledgeable than the great companion Abdullah bin Umar!
Shaykh Ibn Al-Uthaymeen once again says that the Companions are not all just, so whoever is known for an insult is not just! Some of them committed theft, drank wine, committed fornication while married and some outside of marriage!
An explicit accusation and takfir without hinting that Ali did not kill Uthman except that he considered him an infidel!
Narration 1:
Narrated by Al-Humaidi: Abdullah ibn Wahb reported from Sa’id ibn Abi Ayyub, from Abi Sakhr, from Abi Mu’awiyah al-Bahili, from Abi al-Sahba’ al-Mukabbar (1), who said: “We discussed the killing of Uthman, and some of us said: ‘I believe Ali killed him only because he considered Uthman a disbeliever.’ I said: ‘Should we ask Ali about this?’ So they asked him, and he replied: ‘By Allah, Uthman was not the worst among us. But he ruled, became arrogant, and we acted poorly in our impatience. Matters escalated until judgment was passed between us.'”
Narration 2:
Narrated by Ali ibn Muhammad, from Abi Mukhtalif, from Abdulmalik ibn Nawfal ibn Musahiq, from his father, who said: “Ali entered upon Uthman after the people of Egypt found a letter with his servant. Uthman denied writing it, so Ali asked: ‘Whom do you accuse?’ Uthman replied: ‘I accuse you and my scribe.’ Ali became angry, left, and said: ‘By Allah, if he did not write it—or if it was falsely attributed to him—then he bears no blame for the Ummah’s turmoil. But if he did write it, he has brought this upon himself. Yet, I will not abandon him despite his accusation.’ Many people then withdrew their support .”
Narration 3:
Narrated by Amr ibn Mansur, from ibn Sulayman al-Dab’i, from Awf, who said: “Among the Companions, Talhah ibn Ubaydullah was the most severe against Uthman, but he later regretted his stance due to delays in justice.”
Ibn Taymiyya in Majmū’ al-Fatāwā (مجموع الفتاوى) mentioned that the Companions fought and cursed each other and declared each other infidels, and their statements concerning this is well known!
“Moreover, the early predecessors (Salaf) erred in some of these matters—major figures among them—yet they were not excessively criticized for it.” For example:
Some Companions denied that the Blessed Prophet (saw) could hear the call of the dead (e.g., at Badr).
Others denied that a woman could have a ghayrah (rightful jealousy) over her husband.
Some disputed whether the Blessed Prophet (saw) saw his Lord (during the Mi’raj).
There were disagreements among them about the caliphate and the superiority of certain individuals—well-known debates.
Some engaged in fighting one another, while others cursed certain figures—explicit statements are documented.
Similarly, the judge once mentioned a recitation of the Quranic verse ‘Bal ‘Īdu’ (بل عيد) [instead of ‘Bal ‘Īdu’ (بل عيد)] and claimed, ‘Allah does not cause hardship.’ When this reached Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, he said: ‘He has innovated! ‘Abdullah [ibn Mas’ud] was more knowledgeable than him and recited it correctly.’ Here, a confirmed recitation was denied, and an attribute affirmed by the Quran and Sunnah was rejected—yet the Ummah still regards him as one of its imams.
Some criticized Ibn Taymiyya for affirming that certain Companions cursed others—explicitly referring to Mu’awiyah, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, and those like them who cursed Ali from the pulpits.
This is documented in Tarikh al-Tabari and Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abi ‘Asim.
Accusing The Mother of the Believers Aisha (ra) of killing Caliph Uthman; and that she was responsible for inciting people to kill him! Saying, “Kill Nathla, for he has disbelieved!” (Nathla was a Jew). Accused of likening Uthman to a Jew named Nathla.
In a commentary explaining the aqidah of Tahawi. Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan is blamed for approving the insult of Imam Ali, and by approving it he insulted Ali in Iraq and the Levant!
“The first king in Islam was Mu‘awiyah, and he was the best and most virtuous of their kings because he was righteous, the son of a righteous man, and because his lineage was noble. However, he is criticized because he allowed… due to his stance toward ‘Ali. As a result of his policy, the cursing of ‘Ali became widespread during his rule in Iraq and Syria, leading to this abominable practice, which gave rise to lies about the cursing of the Companions and exaggeration in the praise of ‘Ali.”
“Because of this, the Rafidah (a sect of extremists) harbor intense hatred toward Mu‘awiyah and all of Banu Umayyah, except for ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (may Allah be pleased with him). This is because the cursing of ‘Ali continued in Iraq and Syria—though not in all places, only in some mosques—throughout the reign of Banu Marwan, until ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz came to power and abolished this practice, putting an end to it.”
Do you know who encouraged ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz to stop the cursing of ‘Ali from the pulpits?
Muawiyah used to curse Ali and ordered him to be cursed on the pulpits and continued to curse him even after the death of Ali!
We have seen and reliably transmitted that Mu’awiyah’s cursing of Ali is recorded in authentic sources—specifically on page 45 of Volume 2 of Al-Fikr al-Sa’bi. Historians like Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and others have unanimously confirmed this.
They would not give anything except after disavowing Imam Ali and testifying against him with hypocrisy!
Al-Awza’i (a renowned scholar) said: “They did not grant us stipends until we testified that Ali was a hypocrite—and I am innocent of such a claim! They forced us into this by threatening to withhold salaries, divorce our wives, and take our children. When I realized the gravity of the matter, I consulted Mak’hul, Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah, and Abdullah ibn ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Umayr. They all said: ‘You are under duress; there is no sin upon you.’ Yet my conscience remained unsettled until I divorced my wives, freed my slaves, relinquished my wealth, and repented for what I had done under coercion.”
Al-Hakim recorded this narration through Ali al-Hafiz, who cited Mak’hul of Beirut, from Abu Farwah.
It is proven that Mu’awiyah was ordering Sa’d to insult Imam Ali and he explained that in detail and you will find among the Salafiyah those who defend Mu’awiyah and those trying to abuse the text!
Mu’awiyah’s Demand for Cursing ‘Ali
Context:
Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan pressured Sa’d to curse ‘Ali.
Sa’d had remained neutral during the Fitna (civil strife) but was known to defend ‘Ali.
The Dialogue:
Mu’awiyah: “What prevents you from cursing him?”
Sa’d: “What prevents me? [I refuse.]”
It was stated in the book Sunan Ibn Majah that Muawiyah used to insult and curse Imam Ali, and the reason was due to worldly matters between them!
It was stated in the book on the explanation of Sahih Muslim that Muawiyah ordered Saad to insult Imam Ali! And with all this, you find the Salafiyyah defending and fighting for Muawiya, and it was safer for them to desist from that period in its entirety. But no, not them! One standard for them and one standard for others. They use double standards in sedition and make the common people think that they are the lovers of the Companions!
Banu Umayyah used to insult and curse Imam Ali on their platforms! And the Salafiyyah defend the injustice of the Umayyads and cursing of Imam Ali!
According to Imam Al-Qurtubi’s testimony Muawiyah insults Imam Ali and commands people to insult him! And guess who is defending those who curse and insult the Companions?
The great Companions used to curse the other great Companions, and many are the Salafi who conceal this and pretend to love the Companions, while in reality Companions are innocent of them.
Read below:
“The people of Sham (Syria) departed to Mu’awiyah and pledged their allegiance to him, forsaking and exposing him (a reference to a disputed event). Ibn ‘Abbas and Sharhabeel ibn Hanī’ returned to Ali with the news. Thereafter, whenever Ali would pray the morning prayer (Fajr), he would invoke curses (Qunoot) and say: ‘O Allah, curse Mu’awiyah, ‘Amr (ibn al-‘As), Abū al-A’war, Habīb ibn Maslamah, ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Khālid ibn al-Walīd, al-Fasaḷ ibn Qays, and al-Walīd ibn ‘Uqbah.’
This reached Mu’awiyah, so he, in turn, began to curse Ali, al-Ashtar, Qays ibn Sa’d, al-Hasan, al-Husayn, Ibn ‘Abbas, and ‘Abdullāh ibn Ja’far, may Allah the Exalted be pleased with them all.
In the text Imam Ali is cursed, yet the one who curses him he is considered trustworthy and honest! Yet look how they assault the Ibadi school. Where is the balance? Where do we insult any of the companions and worse yet where do we call any of them dogs of hellfire?!
Raja’ bin Haywah , considered a man of trust with those who attack us. (Those who attack the Ibadi). He (Raja’ bin Haywah) denounced the just caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz for leaving cursing and cursing of Imam Ali on the pulpits!
Which by the way this was at the urging of the Ibadi delegation. (Thank you Muslim majority for conveniently leaving that tid bit out)
Harir bin ‘Uthman, he is one of the men of Bukhari. This man was cursing and cursing Imam Ali, and despite all this, he is proven trustworthy and has the trust of Ibn Mu’in and Ahmad bin Hanbal!
In Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, Volume 2, page 409-410, Entry No. 852
وَرَوَى الْعَقِيلِيُّ عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ مَعِينٍ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَسُبُّ عَلِيًّا رضي الله عنه كُلَّ يَوْمٍ مِائَةً وَأَرْبَعِينَ مَرَّةً.
“And al-‘Uqaylī narrated from Yaḥyā bin Ma‘īn that he [Ḥarīr] would curse Ali one hundred and forty times every day.”
Ahmad bin ‘Abdullah al-‘Ijli said: “Harir bin ‘Uthman was a Syrian, reliable (thiqah), and he used to bear hostility (yahmil) against ‘Ali.”
Yahya bin Ma’in said: “It was mentioned that Harir used to revile (yashnum) ‘Ali from the pulpit (al-minbar).”
It was narrated from Yazid bin Harun that he said: “I saw the Lord of Might (Rabb al-‘Izzah) in a dream, and He said to me: ‘O Yazid! Do not write from him’—meaning from Harir bin ‘Uthman. I said: ‘O Lord, I have not known anything from him except good.’ He said to me: ‘O Yazid! Do not write from him, for he reviles (‘sabb‘) ‘Ali.'”
‘Ali bin ‘Ayyash narrated, saying: “I heard Harir bin ‘Uthman say to a man: ‘Woe to you! Do you not fear God? You have reported from me that I revile (‘asubbu‘) ‘Ali. By Allah, I do not revile him, and I have never reviled him.'”
Shababah said: “I heard Harir bin ‘Uthman, and a man said to him: ‘O Abu ‘Amr, it has reached me that you do not show mercy upon ‘Ali?’ He said to him: ‘Be quiet! What business is this of yours?’ Then he turned to me and said: ‘May Allah have mercy on him (‘Ali)’ a hundred times.”
Ahmad bin Hanbal and Yahya bin Ma’in considered his narrations to be stopped (waqafuhu – a term in hadith criticism, possibly meaning they did not use his narrations as evidence due to this issue).
Al-Hajjaj beats people who do not curse Imam Ali and punishes them with flogging!
Ibn Abi Layla, and Ibn al-Zubayr, and Al-Mukhtar:
Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah narrated from Abu Mu’awiyah from Al-A’mash, who said: “I saw ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Layla. Al-Hajjaj had him beaten and made him stand at the door of the mosque. They began saying to him: ‘Who are the liars?'” He said: “So who are the liars of Allah?” Then he said: “‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and Al-Mukhtar bin Abi ‘Ubayd.” – [he said it] quietly. So I knew when he fell silent, then he started again and raised his voice, that he did not mean them.
Harir bin ‘Uthman, it was known about him that he insulted Imam Ali, and he was famous for that. However, when Ahmed bin Hanbal was asked about him, he said about him: trustworthy, trustworthy, trustworthy!
A question to the Salafiyyah, On what consistent basis do you attack the Ibadi when some of our past scholars put Ali inBarā’ah, and some practice Wuqoof, while others hold him in Walāyah and yet you keep defending the Umayyads whose Sunnah was to curse Imam Ali in the streets and on the pulpits?!
Now imagine dear readers that we take a time machine back to the Umayyad period. We have those among the companions, the early salaaf who disavow Ali for arbitration and killing the believers at Nahrawan. Meanwhile what will be going on in the Umayyad territories? Cursing Imam Ali on the pulpits as a necessary Sunnah.
Who is reviling who?
Who is disavowing who?
Ibn al-Qayyim criticizes the Companions for masturbating during their battles, and criticizes their women! Certainly these are the ethics of the downward road!
Marwan bin Al-Hakam used to insult and curse Ali as well as his two sons Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein on the pulpits! Marwan would claim that Hassan smelled of donkey urine!
…Narrated by Ishaq bin Rahawayh (1) and Abu ‘Ubayd (2).
[Narration 7566] And from ‘Umayr bin Ishaq who said: “Marwan was our governor for a year, and he would curse [‘Ali] – – for us from the pulpit.” He would address the people, then Marwan was deposed, and Sa’id bin al-‘As was appointed for a year, and he did not curse. Then Sa’id was deposed, and Marwan was reinstated, and he resumed cursing. So it was said to Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali: “Do you not hear what Marwan is saying?” But he would not respond at all. He would prepare on Friday, then enter the pulpit of the Prophet (saw)and it would be there. When the pulpit was brought forward, he would enter the mosque and not prepare, then return to his family. Marwan was not satisfied with that until he sent a message to him in his house, so that when he sat with him, he would address the people. So he sent for him, and he entered. He said: “Your proximity is part of the sultan’s might, and your proximity is a resolution.” He [Al-Hasan] said: “[Say] what you want.” He said: “Marwan has sent me to you with so-and-so and so-and-so, and I have not found anyone like you except the urine of a female mule.
Caliph Uthman begged Ali bin Abi Talib and Talha to defend him when his house was besieged. However, he was not as supported as it should have been. And Marwan was cursing the people and antagonizing them more! Why didn’t the companions support Uthman?!
The Salafiyyah spread lies among the people that Muawiyah loves Ali and takes care of him, to the extent that if the two groups fight, it is because of the excessive longing between the brothers, so if the night comes, they congregate until the morning, then they shed crocodile tears to deceive the common people! Here, their lies are exposed!
The Salaafiyah are deceiving the common people by saying that Muawiyah did not order Sa`d to insult Mu`awiyah, and that his purpose was not to insult, but rather he wanted to test Sa‘d, Yet the deception is clear!
Muawiya used to send his agents to interrogate people and disavow Ali and curse him, and if they did not respond to his request, they would be sentenced to death!
Muawiyah orders Hajr and his companions to disavow Ali and curse him, but they refuse to do so and are killed! This is Muawiyah the one we are supposed to say (May Allah be pleased with his deeds) after his name!
A torrent of insults and cursing of Imam Ali, and this insult remained the Sunna of the Umayyads, and Muawiyah swore that their young ones would grow old and their old ones would grow older (they would be granted prolonged life) because of cursing Imam Ali!
And the Salafiyyah want it to be remained concealing from the common people and defend the Umayyads of the Nawasib! The truth has appeared and revealed the hidden!
Here is is mentioned the killing of Hujr bin Adi al-Kindi and his companions by Muawiyah Al-Baghy and his army of miscreants!
Al-Hajjaj orders the muezzin of Ali to disavow Ali, but he refuses and thus is killed!
Abdullah Al-Jabreen admits that the Umayyads insulted and cursed Ali on the pulpits until the era of Umar bin Abdul Aziz. Then he said that people began to mention the virtues of Ali, but even than he was upset that they alienated the people from the Umayyads!!!
Hence the split that last until today between the Abbasid Sunnis (those who incorporated Ali as the fourth “rightly guided”) and their antagonist, the Umayyad Sunnis (those who have real hate towards Ali).
Shaykh `Abdullah ibn `Abdur-Rahman al-Jibreen was a prominent Saudi Islamic scholar who served on the Council of Senior Scholars and the Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas. Here is what he had to say.
“During the era of the Umayyads, and specifically after the caliphate of Mu’awiyah until the end of the [first] century—from the year sixty-one until the year ninety-nine—some of the Umayyad caliphs would curse Ali from the pulpits and in his absence, and they would accuse him of participating in the killing of Uthman. This continued until the time of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, who put an end to this heinous practice.”
“And there were in Kufa individuals who extreme in their devotion to Ali (yaghulūn fī ‘Alī), from among his ministers and students in Kufa. They were harmed and enraged by what they saw of the public cursing from the pulpits, and it became excessive. So they began to gather in private places for themselves and they would console each other. Then there joined them whoever wished to secede (from the community), so then people began to join them and they became numerous. They would exaggerate in his virtue, inventing many fabricated hadiths about his merits, and they claimed by doing this that they were endearing the people to him and turning the people away from the Umayyads.”
Muawiya’s first act after the death of Al-Hassan bin Ali was to perform Hajj and ascend to the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah in Medina to curse Imam Ali! Imagine the minbar of light and barakah being used to pour out vomit and hate!
The following is from: Al-‘Iqd al-Farid by Ahmad ibn Muhammed ibn Abd Rabbih. A book about adab! Imagine!
“And when Al-Hasan bin Ali died, Mu’awiyah performed Hajj and entered Medina. He wanted to curse Ali from the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (saw). It was said to him: “Among us is Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, and we do not think he will be pleased with this at all. So send for him and seek his opinion.” So he sent for him and mentioned that to him. Sa’d said: “If you do that, I will leave the mosque and never return to it!”
So Mu’awiyah refrained from cursing him until Sa’d died. After he (Sa’d) died, he (Mu’awiyah) cursed him (Ali) from the pulpit.
And he wrote to his governors to curse him on the pulpits, and they did so.
The Banu Umayyah, they had the vile practice that if they heard that someone had named his son Ali, they killed him!
Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Aqri said:
“The Banu Umayyah, whenever they heard of a newborn named ‘Ali, they would kill him. This reached Rabah, so he changed his son’s name.”
By the way dear reader many of you may not be aware but a revival of the Umayyad spirit is happening among the Sunni Muslims, in particular Salafist types. They wear the title nawasib as a badge of honour. As an indication of one’s loyalty to Sunnism they will name their kids as Yazid or Mu’awiyah. The fighting in Syria accelerated this movement. Insh’Allah have an article on this coming.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah al-Harrani states about Ali that many of the companions and followers hated him, insulted him and fought him!
Ahl al-Sunnah excused some of those who killed Ali. And them themselves openly insulted and cursed him!
Ibn Al-Qayyim recounts the story of Al-Hajjaj in cursing Imam Ali and ordering people to curse him in the markets in front of the shops!
Ibn Taymiyyah proves the infighting and killing among the companions, and each group despising the other!
“As for what he mentioned regarding mutual cursing, the cursing was done by both groups, just as the fighting took place. One group would curse the leaders of the other in their supplications, and the other would curse the leaders of the first in their supplications. It is said that each faction would invoke curses upon the other in their prayer (qunut).”
“Fighting with the hand is greater [in sin] than cursing with the tongue. All of this—whether it was a sin, an effort of independent legal judgment (ijtihad), an error, or a correct opinion—is encompassed by the forgiveness and mercy of God through repentance, the erasing of sins by good deeds, great calamities that expiate sin, and other means.”
Source: (“Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah” (منهاج السنة النبوية)
The Salafiyah tell us that the mother of the believers Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) swears by Allah that Abu Huraira lied! Is this the amount of respect for the Companions have for each other according to the Salafiyah?
In the books of Ahl Sunnah a sahabah is accused of adultery!
A Companion eats the head of another Companion!
Salafiyah claim that what Ahmed bin Hanbal did for Islam was not done by anyone other than him not even Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq! (May Allah be pleased with him!) Are these words said in truth about the best companion of the Blessed Messenger (saw)?!
The sahaba used to drink wine! (After becoming Muslims)
A Companion Drinks Alcohol!(After embracing Islam)
A companion leads the people in the morning prayer, four units while in a state of sloppy drunkenness, and says to the crowd of worshipers, “Shall I add more for you?”
Umar bin Al-Khattab appoints a companion who drinks alcohol in Bahrain and asks the companions to testify to his drunkenness’. This is how the Salafiyah convey to us about the companions challenging and calling each other out like this!
They say the companions were cheaters and that Abu Hurarira was the chief of them in cheating! Imagine! And there are among the Ahl Sunnah who have the audacity to call the People of Truth and Straightness as Non Muslims?!
What does it mean by calling a noble companion a thief?
See what is said about the companions here:
Who were those who persisted in their ignorance and evil, then Muawiyah banished them from the Levant? ! Muhammed bin Abdul Wahhab answers you!
Shaykh Ibn Baz accuses the companions of polytheism!
Shaykh Ibn Baz’s ruling on cursing some of the companions! Surprise Surprise!
Ahl Sunnah say that Abu Hurairah was known for taking bribes! Who attacks the companions?
Shaykh Ibn Al-Uthaymeen, states that not all the Companions are not all just! In them there is rank debauchery!
Ibn Al-Atheer describes the companion Abu Musa as a fool! Who respects the companions?
Yahya Ibn Mu’een insults the companion Ammar bin Yasir and follows up his insults with curses! Who respects the companions?
Umar ibn al-Khattab, May Allah be pleased with him, called the People of the Book al-Faruq. Is this true, ya Salafiyah?
Ahl Sunnah defaming Umar Ibn Al-Khattab! (May Allah be pleased with him), by saying that he was distracted by clapping in the markets!! Who respects the companions? Only the people who have no haya insult Umar (ra)
They imagine that the companions of the Messenger of Allah are flirting with a beautiful woman while they are praying! Is this the state of the companions of the Messenger of Allah with you?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah accuses Imam Ali that his war was not for Allah and His Messenger, and if it was for Allah and His Messenger, victory would have been for him! One of the positions of the Ibadi is that Ali came short for going against the hukm of Allah (swt) and later slaughtered the Muslims of Nahrawan. Allah knows best his ending. The other is that Ali had realized his wrong, was overwhelmed with grief and turned in repentance to Allah (swt) and met with a good ending. husnal khatimah
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that Ali deems the blood of Muslims lawful, and thus he is out and out a Kafir.
Al-Waleed bin Juma’ is from the narrators of Sahih Muslim and Ibn Hazm says his hadeeth is defective and Al-Waleed is a doomed man!
Here they are defaming the Prophet of Allah (saw), his honorable companions, and his pure wives!
Another wretched statement!
If Ibn Umar wanted to buy a slave girl, where would he place his hand?! Who honors the companions?
Defaming the great companion Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him).
They claim the Companion Abdullah bin Umar called Abu Hurairah a flat liar!
Among the terms of the reconciliation between Muawiyah and Al-Hassan, after he was betrayed and almost killed, is that Muawiya stop cursing Imam Ali in Al-Hassan’s presence!
Shi’a tend to think Al Hassan’s reconciliation with Muawiya was wrong but that Ali’s arbitration with Muawiya was fine and dandy!
One of Ahl Sunnah says that the faith of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (ra) and the faith of Iblees are one! No one says this except for someone who has left the fold of Islam. And the Sunnis excused those who killed Imam Ali and openly insulted and cursed him!
The claim that Fatima Al-Zahraa was a lying woman and lied to Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, and his narration was received, then she deserted him until she died!
None other than Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah criticizes the “Rightly Guided Caliphs”!
According to the testimony of Ibn Katheer!
More from Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that Ali fought and killed many Muslims who perform the prayers and pay the zakat, and the matter of blood is more severe! Why is if it an Ibadi scholar says it it is an offense but if Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says it is fine?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that in Ali’s caliphate there was no mercy, rather people were killed and they curse each other, and they did not have a sword against the infidels, but rather the infidels coveted them and took a country from them and their money.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that the time of Ali is a time of sedition, and there was no general imam!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that the Companions who fought Ali, vilified him and cursed him were more knowledgeable than those who supported Ali and cursed Uthman. Who is disavowing who here?
The predecessors of the Salafiyah are those who did not consider Imam Ali to be the caliph of the Muslims until the time of Ahmed bin Hanbal! Think about that! Do not get it twisted. The Imami Shi’i never accepted the first three Caliphs. The Ahl Sunnah the fourth until Imam Ahmed rehabilitated the image of Ali among them. Where as the Ibadi are the one’s who recognized all four from the beginning! Learn the truth!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah defines the Sunnis as the ones who established the succession of the three caliphs! Where is Ali?
The jurists of the Hejaz and Iraq from the two groups of theologians and the people of opinion, including Malik, Al-Shafi’i, Al-Awzai, and the majority of Muslims and theologians, agreed that Ali was right in his war in Siffin and in the Battle of the Camel, and that those who fought him were unjust oppressors ! (i.e. Muawiyah and his army, Our Mother Aisha (ra), Talha and Al-Zubayr)
Muawiyah tempts the child killer Ibn Arta’ah to kill Ali bin Abi Talib and promises him the best of this world and the Hereafter! But remember Ahl Sunnah will tell you they loved each other as brothers! Of course they did!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that Umar is less mistaken than Ali, and they found the weakness in Ali’s sayings more, and they found contradiction in Ali’s sayings more than the contradictory sayings of Umar!
Ibn Asakir The Syrian Sunni Islamic scholar says that Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam used to curse Imam Ali on the pulpit every Friday for six years, then he was dismissed and reinstated again, and he did not stop insulting him!
Muawiyah mobilizes the people of Basra to fight Imam Ali.
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says that many of the Companions were known to have slandered Ali!
Ibn Hajar Al Asqalni openly quotes the things Ibn Taymiyyah has said about the companions that Ibn Taymiyyah and his supporters want to hide from people.
Look what the Hanbali Imam Ibn Qudama said about Ibn Muljim killing Imam Ali!
Al-Dhahabi: The Messenger of Muawiyah offers Hajr and his companions the innocence of a man! And the man is Imam Ali However, why amputate and hide the texts?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is skeptical whether Imam Ali memorized the Qur’an or not?
Al-Tabari: The Messenger of Muawiyah asks Hujr and his companions to disavow Ali and curse him, and tells them that we have been commanded to do so!
Imam Ali stayed in the caliphate for five years or more, so people ate and drank the blood of the innocent, lived off the sweat of the weak, and the tears of the bereaved, as well as the suffering of the orphans and the miserable!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion laid bare regarding the leadership of Imam Ali and those who fought Imam Ali and those who did not fight with him!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, the three caliphs agreed upon by the Muslims, and the sword was unsheathed against the infidels and kept from the people of Islam. Ali, the Muslims did not agree to pledge allegiance to him, but rather sedition occurred during his reign, and the sword was kept from the infidels and unleashed on the people of Islam! In fact I (Prima-Qur’an) being non-partisan am inclined to agree with Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah here. It is a point against the Shi’i as the reign of Ali was not one of barakah, but of blood shed of believers and deep divisions that have lasted until this very day. If I say it as an Ibadi I will be called Kharijite where as Ibn Taymiyyah makes a good observation and gets a free pass.
Al-Abbas describes Ali as a treacherous sinner and a traitor; and ask Umar to judge between them? ! Hey Ahl Sunnah what is the ruling on the treacherous, the sinner, the traitor? Where is the love of the Companions?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: Hating Ali does not harm faith one bit!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: The preachers of Morocco mention Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and they mention Muawiyah, but they do not mention Ali. It is clear that they hated him and cursed him!
The whole of Banu Umayyah, are a clan of Ali haters, all except for Umar bin Abdul Aziz, the just!
Al-Awza’i: We did not accept the giving until we witnessed Ali’s hypocrisy and disavowed him! Is this the love of the Companions?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: Imam Ali did not show the religion of Islam during his caliphate, and their enemies among the infidels and Christians coveted them! If the religion of Islam did not appear during Ali’s caliphate, then what religion did appear during his caliphate?
The Salafi Shaykh Abdel Moneim Al-Shahat states: “The reason for Ali’s defeat was caused by his greed for the caliphate and his love for leadership!”
How does he know what is in Ali ibn Abu Talib’s heart? Rather the reason for Ali’s defeat was going against the Amr of Allah (swt) in the Qur’an and in all my encounters with the Shi’i they Shi’i flee from this point!
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah expresses what is in his heart towards Imam Ali here:
Ibn Hajar in Al-Durar Al-Kamina transmits from Ibn Taymiyyah his visciousness towards Imam Ali!
Here they are – slandering the Mothers of the Believers, the Messenger of Allah, and Umar ibn al-Khattab!!!
The book of Musnad Imam Ahmad: Caliph Uthman directs his words to his companions while he is besieged and says to them: “Why are you killing me?!” A question for the Sunnis, why do you spread rumors among the people that the one who killed Uthman were rabble and bandits who came from Egypt?!
And why are you basically exposing the sedition of the Companions?! These books expose your lies!
They have admitted to fabricating false hadiths about Uthman!
Marwan killed Talha, one of the so called ten promised paradise, and because of him, events unfolded to lead to what what happened to Uthman, and he was severely cursing and abusing Imam Ali. Despite all that the Ahl Sunnah praise him.
Amr Ibn Al-Aas once stabbed the caliph Uthman and once demanded the blood of Uthman. The books of Ahl Sunnah expose their lies!
In The Book of The Comprehensive Explanations on the Tahawi Creed: They Criticize Uthman and Deplore His Killers!
Imam Al-Shafi’i says Imam Ali that he did not take revenge on blood or money! That is, those who participated in the killing of the caliph Uthman, Imam Ali did not take revenge on them because they were not in the wrong! Is this correct?
Ibn Qutayba criticizes Caliph Uthman so is he a kharijite?
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah at it again! This time he slanders both Uthman and Ali!!
The companions in Kufa slander Uthman, some of whom witnessed Badr! Obviously they did not believe the Qur’an teaches that all companions go to paradise.
The companion Abd al-Rahman bin Udays was among those who pledged allegiance under the tree. He was the commander of those coming from Egypt to besiege Uthman! And many are those among the Sunni who enjoy sedition and lie to the people that those coming from Egypt are nothing but rabble and deviants!
Remember the Salafi preacher who went on air and cursed the companion Amr b. al-Hamiq al-Khuzāʿī for stabbing Uthman in the chest 9 times! Even after he found out the man really was a companion he did a 180 but still maintained all the companions are just. Then the conclusion can only be that Uthman was killed with justice. Or the companion killed Uthman without justice with is a major major sin. It is a difficulty no doubt about it.
The Ahl Sunnah scholar says about the companion Al-Walid bin Uqba, Uthman’s brother to his mother, that his beard drips with wine!
Al-Kamil fi at-Tarikh edited to hide the truth from people!!
A complete chapter titled: “Why people denounced Uthman!” Imagine if Ibadi’s wrote a book like that with a title like this!
In the Sunni books the mother of the believers, Aisha (r.a) is stated to have said: “Kill Nathla, for he has committed blasphemy,” Nathla meaning Uthman!
Uthman spoiled the innermost secret of the divorced (freed-slaves)!
With in the book of Ibn Qutayba we find more censures against Caliph Uthman by a number of companions!
Aisha (r.a) the mother of the believers orders the killing of the companion Uthman bin Hanif!
Accusations of the murder of Caliph Uthman distributed among three: Aisha, Talha and Imam Ali!
The honorable companion Abd al-Rahman bin Udays al-Balawi who was among those who witnessed the conquest and was among those who pledged allegiance under the tree, and we see clearly his role in relation to Caliph Uthman!
The Sahabah themselves participated in the revolt against Caliph Uthman, as well as the sons of the Companions! Enough of your one sided views of history and delving into sedition and saying that that the Muslims were so stupid, so unaware, so aloof that Caliph Uthman was taken by surprise by unknown revolutionaries and unknown people!! All the while laughing at the common people and praising Muawiya and the Umayyads and telling the events to fit your lies to serve your agenda!
Al-Dhahabi, himself one of the predecessors of Al-Wahalia, mentions how Muslims resented Uthman! Where is the respect for the Companions and the shedding of crocodile tears to serve your malicious agenda?
A companion of the people of the allegiance of Al-Radwan and the leader of the revolutionaries was against Uthman!
In the Kitab al-Futuh: Aisha calls for the death of Uthman!
Umm Habiba appeals to Ali bin Abi Talib to protect Uthman and respond to her, unless he is dishonorable and miserable, meaning Uthman! And what is the greatest and most grievous attack against the Companions, other than that?
It was asked of the mother of the believers Aisha, “Do you not like a man from among the divorced men who disputes with Muhammed’s companions regarding the caliphate?” So what did Aisha say? !
Musannaf bin Abi Shaybah: Their are kings from the evil of kings, and the first of these kings is Muawiyah!
“Jaafar died in the midst of the caliphate of Muawiyah, may Allah curse him!”
“Yazid bin Muawiyah, may Allah curse them both!” More cursing and curses! Why all this cursing? Wasn’t Mu’awiyah one of the Companions?!
These books expose your hypocrisy!
The books of Ahl Sunnah are filled with it. May Allah (swt) curse so and so.
The Sunnis praise Muawiya and that he is the best of kings, then they add to this by saying that he approves of insulting Imam Ali! Have you gone mad?! Imam Ali is cursed and the one who curses him is said to be the best of kings!? WoW!
Let Imam Al-Suyuti quotes the words of Aisha (r.a) telling us what she really thinks about Muawiyah!
Imam Al-Shafi’i: list four sahabah whose testimony is not accepted! Testimony is taken from the truthful so what is the state of those four sahabah? These books expose their lies.
Marwan bin Al-Hakam, the first man with the caliph Uthman, hits the companion Talha bin Obaidullah with an arrow, and he kills him!
Shocker! Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan and wine! Your books expose your hypocrisy.
Two companions insulted Muawiyah, and Imam Ali declared Muawiyah is upon misguidance!
The cause of the death of Imam al-Nisa’i, May Allah have mercy on him, at the hands of the fanatical Banu Umayyah!
How did Imam Al-Nisa’i die!? The word of truth may cost you your life, but Allah’s promise is true! The curse of hatred, hypocrisy and criminality!
The position of Sunni scholars towards Muawiya!!
The books of the Salafiyah declare Muawiya to be an infidel.
The Insulting and cursing of Muawiya and Uthman in Sunni books.,The Muhajireen and the Ansar did not support Uthman.
Ali bin Al-Jaad swears that Muawiyah died in a state other than Islam! Ali bin Al Ja’ad is a narrator in Bukhari and Imam Bukhari has taken some 13 narrations from him in his Sahih.
A fatal statement that afflicts Muawiya and which breaks those who glorify him!
The ignorant who fabricate hadiths in favour of Muawiya!!
The Companion Hajr bin Uday who witnessed such battles such as the pivotal conflict of Al-Qadisiyah, Al-Jamal, and Siffin, and he was a Shiite of Ali, who was killed by Muawiyah’s order in Damascus!
If Ali Ibn Abu Talib had his hands drenched with the blood of the Muslims there is no doubt that Muawiyah bathed in it!
Muhammed bin Abi Bakr Al-Siddiq was killed on the orders of Muawiya. He was inserted into the stomach of a donkey and then burned! Shall we say “May Allah be pleased with such a man” and expect people to enter into Islam?!
Muawiyah was kind to some of the servants of Al-Hassan, and thus, Al-Hassan died of poisoned! Your books expose your hypocrisy!
The killing of the companion Hajar bin Uday and his companions was mentioned with glee by Muawiya and his army!
Muawiya was the uncle of the believers!? With family like that who needs family!
Question for your Sunni friends: Lil game of trivia. Was Muawiya truthful in accusing Imam Ali?! If so Ali is a brigand that usurps rule without right. If not Muawiya is a bold face liar.
Al-Hassan Al-Basri states: Four qualities were in Muawiyah, if he had only one of them, he would have been disastrous!
Muawiyah drank what? “Then my father handed it to him and he said, “I have not drunk it since the Messenger of Allah (saw) prohibited it!” Drink what? Do not deceive people and say that he used to drink milk, because milk was not prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (saw), so what is the forbidden drink that Muawiyah indulged in according to your books?
Ibn Abbas (r.a) replies to Muawiya after an exchange that your cousin, i.e. Uthman bin Affan, was rebuked by the Muslims, so they killed him! Notice that Ibn Abbas (r.a) doesn’t say rebels or some unknowns killed Uthman but that he was killed by the Muslims!
Who killed Ammar bin Yassir? What did the Blessed Messenger (saw) say about those who would kill Ammar (r.a)?
Muawiyah and the novels of wine! In Sunni books.
Muawiyah was a scribe between the Prophet and the Arabs, not as Sunni’s claim that he was a scribe of the revelation!!
And it came in the book Musnad of Imam Ahmad that he was ordering them to consume money between them unjustly and to kill themselves, confirming the verses “do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly”
When Al-Hassan died, Muawiya said the Takbir and everyone in his council said Takbir! These are your books, so see how you are? Look what your books say!
Muawiya was busy waiting for Al-Hassan’s death, so when the news reached him, he said “Allahu Akbar” and “Allah is the Greatest” for the people of Sham!
Abd al-Razzaq, who has nearly 300 hadiths in al-Sahihayn, says that mentioning Muawiya in gatherings is filthy! Why all this great hatred?
When Al-Hassan bin Ali died, Muawiya went on pilgrimage and wanted to insult Imam Ali on the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and wrote to his workers to curse Ali on the pulpits! Imagine! On the Blessed minbar of the Blessed Messenger (saw) cursing the companions!
Ahmed bin Hanbal narrates that Shaykh Al-Bukhari swears that Muawiyah died in a state other than Islam, and he did not narrate from him, and he forbade his son Abdullah to mention him or write about him!
None other than the mountain of knowledge Ishaq bin Rahawayh states: “Nothing narrated from the Prophet (saw) regarding the merits of Muawiyah is authentic!”
Muawiyah removes Saeed bin Al-Aas from the mandate of Medina and appoints Marwan bin Al-Hakam in his place, so what is the reason?
According to the testimony of al-Dhahabi, Muawiyah curses Ali; and al-Hasan stipulated that he should not curse him while he was listening.
The hadith that states Muawiyah is one of the people of Hell, and al-Tabarani hides the name of Muawiyah and puts the word man! These books show your hypocrisy and deceit!
Muawiyah commands batil (falsehood and consumes it). Sunni books.
Muawiya and the novels of wine!
Abdullah bin Umar deeply regretted not fighting the oppressive faction Muawiya and his companions!
Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr’s neck was cut off by order of Mu’awiya, and he was the first head to be cut off in Islam!
The mother of the believers, Aisha (r.a) threatens Muawiya with death for killing her brother. The companions were one big happy family? So we are told.
Amr bin Al-Aas, a well-known companion, was one of the instigators against Uthman!
Insulting the great Companions and defaming an honorable person in the books of the Sunnis.
Defaming the great companion Umar Ibn Al-Khattab! with words that are never befitting of a man like Umar (r.a). Is there no fear of Allah’s wrath in your hearts?!
The noble and honourable Khadija(r.a) made her father drink wine to marry her to the Messenger of Allah (saw), and when her father got drunk, he accepted her marriage!
May Allah suffice you! May Allah guide this ummah!
May Allah guide us! What disaster!
Mujaddid Al-Salafiyah Muhammed bin Abd Al-Wahhab lied and claimed that the Companions unanimously agreed that the Companion Qudama bin Madhu’un had been declared an unbeliever!
Accusing the companion Anas bin Malik of drinking paint, i.e. alcohol! The impression they give of the companions is of people who huff paint and absue whippets!
A companion accused of adultery!
We can lead the horse to the troph but you cannot make it drink.
So what will it be dear Muslim Ummah?
Will your Imam be hiding in occultation waiting to come out…. one day?
Will your Imam be a playboy who goes boating with scantly clad women and tells us the obligation of prayer and fasting has been lifted?
Will you be a Crypto-Sunni (An Abbasid) that holds disdain for Yazid, a little bit for Muaviya when your feeling edgy and none for Uthman because it’s a step too far?
Or do we go with the majority simply because it is convenient and we embrace the Islam of the Imperium and say (May Allah be pleased with the tyrants)? To rebel against the ruler is to be a kharijite?
Or do you just go your own way do it yourself Islam?
In conclusion what we do know is that no matter what happened between they did their job. Islam is here. There has been nothing left out of this deen. Some people want to keep going back and revisiting the past and digging up the graves and create fitna for the Ummah. The rest of us are content with moving on.
Even, I myself do not find benefit in delving into these matters other than it is necessary to get the record straight. What we as Muslims should truly focus on is our relationship with Allah (swt). To do our level best to obey His commands and avoid His prohibitions. To follow, the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. Butif one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
“Moreover, it is not for a believing man and it is not for a believing woman when Allah has decided and His Messenger a matter that (there) should be for them (any) choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger certainly, he (has) strayed (into) error clear.” (Qur’an 33:36)
﷽
Our colleague narrates an encounter between a former student of Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri and the claims made by her teacher.
This post is in regard to some messages that a woman named Roxanna sent to me via our conversations/exchanges through WhatsApp. I believe it all started when she shared a post of mine from Prima-Quran. That post was the following:
My sincere feedback to Roxanna was that any time when we are in any chat group that has its own agenda or focus, it would not be prudent for us to go into that group with any attempt to derail it.
So for those from the Ibadi school reading this. If there are Facebook groups, WhatsApp, Telegram, or Discord servers created specifically for Sufism, or Shi’i or the Sunni, please do not go into those groups and try and derail the focus of those groups. Let them be.
Thus, as she tells us, this got this Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri quite worked up. Which is understandable. Reformist or not, he is still a Shi’i and Ali is central to their identity. Apparently she was threatened with going to hellfire for even entertaining the thought that Ali could be on the wrong side of history when it comes to the decisions at Siffin.
So, apparently, this Syed Ali Hur Kampoonpuri was going to do a YouTube series refuting the Ibadi (nothing better to do). Yet, all the while claiming he wanted an Ibadi to appear as a “guest”. So you have to wonder how sincere that is. In fact, she herself mentioned that she was to play some part in the refutation of the school.
Then, this Syed Ali Hur Kampoonpuri claimed that he “debated Ibadi scholars”. This naturally caused a raised eyebrow from myself So I asked her to ask him who are these “Ibadi scholars” he “debated with.”
The question was deflected, which seemed quite predictable. Wanting to invite a scholar onto your program with the pretense of having a dialogue when you actually want a debate is rather insincere. You don’t have the intention of inviting an “Ibadi guest” on a program while having the intention of doing a refutation series. That doesn’t come across as sincere as all.
So she replies:
“This was the response I got when I asked which Ibadi scholars he had discussions with” — Roxanna
“Walaykum Salaam. They were mostly from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Zanzibar when I used to live there. And some who visited India. But I don’t know if they would be pleased at my sharing their names, given how secretive and low-key they prefer to remain.” -Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri
“They were mostly from Dar es Salaam (would indicate 1 scholar), Tanzania and Zanzibar (would indicate at least 1 scholar) and “some who visited India” that some would indicate more than one.
So, that is a total of 4 Ibadi scholars, at the very least he has claimed to have debated.
In our eyes, this causes Mr. Syed Ali Hur Kampoonpuri’s credibility to be questioned. It is very challenging to take someone seriously when they make claims like this and when asked to substantiate such claims, they are not forthcoming. It is most unfortunate.
The sister, who was welcomed by the group, acknowledged how kind and welcoming everyone was. It was not long until she asked for others to be invited to the WhatsApp group. Now, keep in mind that the group is created for people convinced of the Ibadi school and asking questions with regard to guidance for their life.
So, she invited about 4 others to the group. It was not long until the questions turned to Siffin and that pretty much dominated the conversation as far as her own interest.
All I know is that I connected her with many people in the Ibadi community. She left the WhatsApp group one day, dropped contact. The last I heard was a person in the group messaged me one day saying: “Your sister dropped her scarf.” Such an odd message to receive with no context. That person then sent me a link of her in some YouTube program she does without the headscarf.
That is really not my business. She is on her own journey, as are we all. May Allah guide her and guide us.
Do note that Roxanna has changed the information from him (Syed Ali), claiming he had ‘debated’ with such people, him (Syed Ali) simply having ‘discussions’ with such people. This also raised an eyebrow.
Yet you can see by her emoji, it is one that conveys mild irritation. We had asked Shaykh Juma Al Mazruii if he had ever heard of this Shaykh, and he said no. Shaykh Hilal al Wardi and Shaykh Hafidh Hamed Al Sawafi had not heard of him either. No one had heard of this guy.
You see, the Ibadi community is quite small. It would not be very hard at all to ascertain the truth of his statements. For example, his statement, “When I used to live there,” We could get from him the years he says he lived there and from there simply ask in our very tight-knit and very small community, have you ever heard of this guy?
This is a huge stumbling block for our side to have anything to do with him. Also, to be transparent it also caused doubt in us towards those who would associate with such a duplicitous individual. I am certain he has not debated Ibadi scholars because the arguments that he brings up are so ignorant, and devoid of any basic knowledge of our fiqh in regard to matters of arbitration.
We let the reader make their own informed decisions.
So, if there is an attempt from his circle or him to engage one of our teachers in the future, he would need to first clear this up.
So who is Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri? To be fair, we had not heard of him until she brought up his name. A Google search revealed that his father was one Dr. Syed Mujtaba Hasan Kampoonpuri, who served as the Dean Faculty of 12er Shia Theology at Aligarh Muslim University.
He has some worthwhile content that those who are searching these matters may find useful.
We understand he is trying to reform 12er Shi’ism. In this regard, may Allah (swt) grant him success. Any attempts to build bridges among the Muslim community may Allah (swt) grant him success. However, when it comes to his “knowledge” of the Ibadi school, it is a naked display of ignorance, mischaracterizations and straw man “arguments.”
These are his two voice clips sent to sister Roxanna. You listen and be the judge. We have our own response to these. Apparently sister Roxanna was harangued by them over it. May Allah help us.
This is quite literally a transcription of the above voice notes. One may feel free to give it a listen and follow along. Below is a response to his (Syed Ali) claims.
“Ali had already answered these doubts. He said, “Who told you we made human beings arbitrators? We made the Qur’an the arbitrator. The job of the human beings is simply to deliver the verdict of the Qur’an. You understand? The arbitrator is the Qur’an. And that no one in the Ummah can deny. Even the Qur’an itself says that Allah is supposed to be the hakam right? Allah is supposed to be the arbitrator. But how does Allah be…how does Allah act as the arbitrator? He’s not gonna, he’s not an old man in the sky as the as some of those who believe in Israliyaat (narrations from the children of Israel) would perceive him. Or as the Anthropomorphist would perceive him. That he will that he’s an old man in the sky authbillah (seek refuge with Allah) and that he will descend, you know he will send down on a ladder and he will descend and he will come and issue the verdict. When the Qur’an promotes takheem (arbitration) of Allah. When ever you have a dispute or iktilaaf (difference) the hukm (judgment) will come from Allah. Hukm will not come from Allah in the sense that you look towards the sky and Allah will write the verdict on the sky. He has already, he has already revealed the book. The book contains the judgement. But the book does not have a mouth, with which it can pronounce the judgement. So the mouth Allah has given to the human being. Human agents. O.K? They will bring out the judgement of the Qur’an. And and obviously the judgement of why do you have a qadi in courts then? You know tell tell the government of Oman to fire all the qadis. Who are they? Why are they bringing human agents? You know they should just put a Qur’an on the seat of the qadi; and let the Qur’an give the judgement. So this is Imam Ali’s problem with the Khawarij. He is telling them you are foolish. This is not how it works. You can’t ahh directly ask the Qur’an to issue the judgement. You need to appoint human beings the hakam (judge)O.K.? And those hakam (judges) will extract the verdict from the Qur’an. And than they will say, Why did you appoint Abu Musa Al Ashari say by the way he’s he was not my choice. Why do you allow them to appoint Amr Ibn Al ‘As say Baba this is not my choice. They have their own ah army, they have their own separate government. Uh we cannot impose, we cannot dictate who they will choose. You understand? We cannot impose our choice on them. If we could impose our choice on them at this stage than why are we having the battle between them? The, the reason why we are having the we were having the battle with them is because our authority on them had not yet been established. They have not accepted our authorities. So how can we start appointing people on their side when they don’t even accept they have not even submitted to our authority? But yes they are prepared to submit to the authority of the Qur’an. And they are saying that they are ready and willing to appoint someone from their side who will uh at least as far as they are alleging will sincerely try to extract the verdict, verdict of the Qur’an. So yeah we have to go with that! We can’t determine. We can’t impose our choice Imam Ali was not allowed by the Khawarij in his army to choose his own arbitrator also. He wanted to choose Ibn Abbas or Malik al Ashtar or someone of that sort. But no they imposed Abu Musa Al Ashari because they wanted someone who is anti-war, not pro-war. And let us not forget that it was the Khawarij who applied all the pressure, or the major part of the pressure in getting Imam Ali to uhh to enforcing him to accept takhim (arbitration). And uhh they they at that it seems they were completely you know enamored with this they were they were hypot-they were sorry they were hypnotized by this um by this um by this call to come to the judgement of the Qur’an. They were like how can we fight when people are inviting us towards the Qur’an? Now as far as the verse of surah Al Hujrat (chapter 49) is concerned uhhh Imam Ali did not violate it. Allah says, The obligation to fight the rebellious party only is binding okay soo far as the party is not willing to submit to the Amr (command) of Allah. But as long as as soon as the rebellious party says, even if they don’t accept your authority, and your caliphate, and the ij, bayah (oath) and mashura (collective decision) of the muhajirin (those who migrated) and ansar (those who helped) all of that no problem. As soon as the rebellious party says look we are ready to surrender to the Qur’an. Ah what is the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the amr (command) of Allah is it not? Ahhh so at that point if you want you can invoke this part of the verse and say that look Allah say, until it returns to the Amr (command) of Allah. By raising the Mushahif (Qur’an on parchments) on the spears they are at least zahiran (outwardly apparent) even if if they are batinan (hidden) and munafiq (hypocrites) there you know not serious they are not sincere whatever you say about their batin (what is hidden). But Zahiran (outwardly apparent) so long as the rebellious party is offering to submit to the judgement of the Qur’an. Then you cannot say that Quranically we are still obligated to continue fighting them. No. At that point the Qur’anic obligation is lifted and now it becomes a matter of the what is the requirement of the political and military wisdom. So now poli, the rules of politics and military wisdom dictate that you should try to ascertain are these people really sincere or not. Now, We have already, Imam Ali had already seen these people are not sincere because the beginning of the battle we did call them towards the Qur’an. They didn’t accept it than. Now that they are losing the battle all of a sudden they now want the Qur’an to be the judge? So on that basis politically Imam Ali even after the arbitration continued to maintain he said yes politically what you people forced me to do was not the best. Uhmm it was not the best approach you should have listened to me I was telling you even though the Qur’anic obligation at that point now starts to rest on on a, you see the the critical point the Khawarij did not understand. o.k Which is that Allah’s commands in the Qur’an are absolute, they have to be followed under all circumstances right? But, sometimes they are predicated upon uh worldly, politically and military ijtihad (striving to derive rulings from the sources). So, For example, Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an that we have to fast. O.K we have to fast. And the Sunnah has already made it clear that as soon as you see the moon start fasting shahru Ramadan (month of Ramadan) right? But seeing the moon on shahrul Ramadan this is a human worldly astronomical matter. It is not an absolute uhh divine yani(you know) Allah does not inform us when the moon has been sighted. This is something we human beings have to apply our ijtihad to find out ehh uh has the moon been sighted or not. Here there can be mistakes. So if lets say a human being by mistake has a hallucination or some illusion and he ends up seeing the moon or lets say because of some defect in his eyes he is not able to see the moon and no one is able to see the moon and they don’t fast the next day when in reality the moon had appeared in the ilm (knowledge) of Allah the moon had appeared, Allah doesn’t have a case against such people. You can’t say but I sa my command was to start fasting as soon as you see the moon. The problem is we didn’t see the moon even if it may have been there so yes the requirement of worldly wisdom should have been that we should have put enough arrangements in place to ensure that you know that the moon is sighted. But we failed in that. So similarly Imam Ali is saying that look Allah’s obligation to fight against the forces of Sham (Syria) was only binding so long as they were completely stubborn and they were not re, Muaviya this is how he came to Siffin. He said I don’t have anything for you except the sword. Imam Ali tried to negotiate with him. He wrote letters to him. All of that! Everything failed. That’s why the battle happened as a last resort. When his side attacked the side of Imam Ali and committed aggression against him. So he fought them in defense. So this is what the fight was about. Now when Allah says, You keep on fighting them until they return to the Amr of Allah. Now this until they return to the Amr of Allah this is going to be determined by how do you determine when a party has returned to the Amr of Allah? This will be determined by worldly factors. Which are not God is not going to send you wahy telling o.k now they have returned or ok no no no they have not actually they are not sincere keep fighting. No these are human ijtihadi matters. Now the army of Imam Ali not Imam Ali himself Imam Ali’s ijtihad was correct wal hamdulillah (praise be to Allah)from the beginning he, Ibn Abbas, Malik Al Ashtar they all saw through this and they said yeah but look the correct worldly and military ijtihad requires us to continue this fight. Because we have enough against these people to prove to Allah that they are not sincere. We can see that. But the rest of the army uhhmm and especially these um foolish khawarij were not able to see through that. They were deceived. And in some of the reports indicate that its not just that they were deceived its it’s that the battle had really broken them. They just wanted an end by any means. Some of them were like that. Their were people in the army of Imam Ali that were completely the battle had been so fierce and it was so much bloodshed they were psychologically effected by it, and they were just looking for any excuse to stop the battle. And these are the first people to have jumped on this thing that no no no let’s stop the fighting. Let’s stop the fight. They were desperate. So this desperation caused them to make this faulty ijtihad and Imam Ali said o.k if they had gone against the Qur’an with this ijtihad Imam Ali would have said you know what let us die. It is better to die than to go against the Qur’an. But because their faulty worldly ijtihad was only a worldly political mistake and military mistake that they were making Imam Ali tried to warn them against it but he did not stick to his gun. He did not impose it on them very ferociously. In the end you see him saying that o.k I can clearly see you people have lost the will to fight and it does not befit me as your leader to force you in a direction that you are not pleased with. You people don’t’ wanna fight o.k What you are proposing because it does not go against the Qur’an and established sunnah accepting arbitration a call to make the Qur’an the judge between two parties is never against the Qur’an and Sunnah. In fact it is 100% in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah. The only issue is that the worldly aspect of it. The worldly aspect is you have to you have to determine rather the other party is really sincere or not. You people are just taking their word for it. Which is not uuh a good thing to do from a worldly political military perspective. But it’s uh ah yani if this is what you have determined. Than yeah it’s fine. Doesn’t go against the Qur’an or Sunnah. Da da they are outwardly calling us towards the Qur’an yeah? So fine uh the Allah (swt) in the Qur’an promotes this idea that the Qur’an and his his revelations should be made the judge in all disputes. and the appointment of two human beings from both sides this mirror’s uuuhh Qur’anic uh prescription such as in the case of husband and wife Allah says, “send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people” and the husband does not get to decide who the wife will choose as her hakam. The woman should have the right to bring her arbitrator, whoever she chooses from her family and whoever her family is agreed upon and happy with and the husband uuhh should have the right to bring whoever he is pleased with from his side. Right? Th zz You can’t impose you know this foolish argument that Imam, why did Imam Ali let them choose a wicked man like Amr ibn Al As yeah you can’t dictate terms to the the other army. If the Khawarij were really interested in not having Amr Ibn Al As as the hakam they should have continued fighting as Imam Ali instructed them to do at first. But they disobeyed him. And their disobedience of him there was uhh it was worldly foolishness. Ummm and that is why Imam Ali maintained until the end he said you people did something foolish and now your trying to pin the blame for your foolishness on me because you’ve now seen with your own eyes the results of your foolishness so in any case Imam Ali appointed these two arbit he he agreed he acquiesced in the appointment of these two arbitrators he put strict conditions that they will make the Qur’an and the Qur’an alone the hakam and in areas where the Qur’an is silent the Sunnah of the Messenger (saw) and then latter on as you see what happened in takhim u-ma? Imam Ali says, they went astray these two arbitrators. They broke the terms and agreements the the the terms of the agreement. They followed their whim desires and so it was very clearly mentioned in the contract and in the pact that if you know if they go against the requirements of the Qur’an aaa and the Sunnah then their decree is not binding. And therefore when they deposed Imam Ali it was an illegal verdict and when the verdict is illegal you go back to the default which is as mentioned in the contract the original state of war and the original state of war was based on what status quo on the status quo that the Muhajirun and Ansar. The vast majority of them ah have given bayah to Imam Ali he is the rightful legitimate caliph and Muawiyah has to submit to that bayah if he doesn’t he’s a baghy (rebel) and a rebel against the Muslims and the Muslims have the right to impose their authority on him and this is exactly what Imam Ali went back to to doing. Preparing the next campaign against Muaviyah.” — Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an response:
Syed Ali Hur often seems incoherent.
Part of pur frustration with Syed Ali is that there are so many cut-off sentences and his thoughts seem to be jumbled on this. He will begin a sentence and just when you think he is about to make a point or an assertion, he quickly changes course to something else. Then he becomes very polemical and this is a far cry from academic discourse. He seems to like the word ‘foolish’ quite a bit.
Syed Ali Hur does not understand Ibadi jurisprudence.
It is clear to us that Syed Ali Hur neither understands the Ibadi school nor our jurisprudence. This is clear when he makes this gargantuan error concerning our school. To be fair, this tired polemic does not originate with him. It has been said by those before him. It not only insults our school, it insults Ali ibn Abu Talib as well as the reader’s intelligence.
“Whenever you have a dispute or iktilaaf (difference), the hukm (judgment) will come from Allah. Hukm will not come from Allah in the sense that you look towards the sky and Allah will write the verdict on the sky. He has already, he has already revealed the book. The book contains the judgement. But the book does not have a mouth with which it can pronounce the judgement. ” — Syed Ali Hur
” And and obviously the judgement of why do you have a qadi in courts then? You know tell tell the government of Oman to fire all the qadis. Who are they? Why are they bringing human agents? You know they should just put a Qur’an on the seat of the qadi; and let the Qur’an give the judgement. ” — Syed Ali Hur
Listening to Syed Alli make these types of statements was just wild. Are we really to believe that Ali ibn Abu Talib used these types of bizarre arguments?
In fact, it is very reminiscent of the straw man “arguments” and bizarre statements and actions that Sunnis attribute to their imams when attempting to refute the points of others.
“You see the the critical point the Khawarij did not understand. o.k Which is that Allah’s commands in the Qur’an are absolute, they have to be followed under all circumstances right? But, sometimes they are predicated upon uh worldly, politically and military ijtihad.” –Syed Ali Hur
Notice the word sometimes. That is exactly the point! Allah (swt) says,
“Moreover, it is not for a believing man, and it is not for a believing woman when Allah has decided and His Messenger a matter that (there) should be for them (any) choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger certainly, he (has) strayed (into) clear error.” (Qur’an 33:36)
When Allah (swt) has decided upon a matter, it is not for human beings to have any choice on something decided upon by Allah (swt). This text is nass—it is clear: a known, clear legal injunction, or a divine decree.
However, in matters of ijtihad, he needs to bring evidence to show the Ibadi school has disagreed with this, which he has not.
Syed Ali Hur contradicts himself.
“This is not how it works. You can’t ahh directly ask the Qur’an to issue the judgement.” Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an response:
Syed Ali Hur contradicted himself. He says: ‘sometimes‘.
However, this new statement that you cannot go directly to the Qur’an is falsehood.
Allah creates circumstances favorable to Muaviya and against Ali?
“They were deceived. And in some of the reports indicate that its not just that they were deceived its it’s that the battle had really broken them. They just wanted an end by any means. Some of them were like that. Their were people in the army of Imam Ali that were completely the battle had been so fierce and it was so much bloodshed they were psychologically effected by it, and they were just looking for any excuse to stop the battle. And these are the first people to have jumped on this thing that no no no let’s stop the fighting. Let’s stop the fight. They were desperate.” -Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments: Is it not interesting that, if we are to believe what Syed Ali tells us, that this just so happens to coincide with Muaviyah’s army putting the Mushaf of the Qur’an on spears and swords just when the battle was not going well for Muaviyah’s side?
You can deduce from this the following:
a) Allah (swt) himself wanted both parties to talk by creating this fatigue and exasperation. Thus, Ali’s alleged decision to “keep fighting” was wrong. Muslims do not believe in coincidence.
The people who were for arbitration wanted a good thing and Ali did not want the good thing!
“If they had gone against the Qur’an with this ijtihad Imam Ali would have said you know what let us die. It is better to die than to go against the Qur’an. But because their faulty worldly ijtihad was only a worldly political mistake and military mistake that they were making Imam Ali tried to warn them against it but he did not stick to his gun. He did not impose it on them very ferociously. In the end you see him saying that o.k I can clearly see you people have lost the will to fight and it does not befit me as your leader to force you in a direction that you are not pleased with. You people don’t’ wanna fight o.k What you are proposing because it does not go against the Qur’an and established sunnah accepting arbitration a call to make the Qur’an the judge between two parties is never against the Qur’an and Sunnah. In fact it is 100% in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah. ” -Syed Ali Hur
” As soon as the rebellious party says look we are ready to surrender to the Qur’an. Ah what is the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the amr (command) of Allah is it not? Ahhh so at that point if you want you can invoke this part of the verse and say that look Allah say, until it returns to the Amr (command) of Allah. By raising the Mushahif (Qur’an on parchments) on the spears they are at least zahiran (outwardly apparent) even if if they are batinan (hidden) and munafiq (hypocrites) there you know not serious they are not sincere whatever you say about their batin (what is hidden). But Zahiran (outwardly apparent) so long as the rebellious party is offering to submit to the judgement of the Qur’an. Then you cannot say that Quranically we are still obligated to continue fighting them. No. At that point the Qur’anic obligation is lifted and now it becomes a matter of the what is the requirement of the political and military wisdom.” -Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
a) So supposedly, these people are “making faulty ijtihad”
b) Then he (Syed Ali) turns around and says, “Accepting arbitration a call to make the Qur’an the judge between two parties is never against the Qur’an and Sunnah. In fact, it is 100% in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah.
c) This is because “ But Zahiran (outwardly apparent) so long as the rebellious party is offering to submit to the judgement of the Qur’an.”
Ali is portrayed as half hearted reed blown by the winds and not the Imam and resolute believer who trust and reliance is solely upon Allah (swt). He shirks from personal responsibility for his actions.
“Now, We have already, Imam Ali had already seen these people are not sincere because the beginning of the battle we did call them towards the Qur’an. They didn’t accept it than. Now that they are losing the battle all of a sudden they now want the Qur’an to be the judge? So on that basis politically Imam Ali even after the arbitration continued to maintain he said yes politically what you people forced me to do was not the best.”-Syed Ali Hur
“If they had gone against the Qur’an with this ijtihad Imam Ali would have said you know what let us die. It is better to die than to go against the Qur’an.”-Syed Ali Hur
“So in any case Imam Ali appointed these two arbit he he agreed he acquiesced in the appointment of these two arbitrators he put strict conditions that they will make the Qur’an and the Qur’an alone the hakam and in areas where the Qur’an is silent the Sunnah of the Messenger.” -Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
a) So, on the one hand: “You people forced me to do“
b) On the other hand: “You know what let us die. It is better to die than to go against the Qur’an.”
c) And on the other hand: “he agreed he acquiesced in the appointment of these two arbitrators.”
How come Ali wasn’t aware of these verses of the Qur’an?
“How often has a small host overcome a great host by Allah’s leave! For Allah is with those who are patient in adversity.” (Qur’an 2:249)
“When people said to them: ‘Behold, a host has gathered around you and you should fear them’, it only increased their faith and they answered: ‘Allah is Sufficient for us; and what an excellent Guardian He is!”(Qur’an 3:173)
Now again, we are only going by the narrative that Syed Ali Hur has given us. We do not know if these are his surmising’s based upon an oral narrative or actual historical data.
Syed Ali Hur claims without evidence that the so called “Khawarij” selected Abu Musa Al-Ashari? What is the reference for this?
“But no they imposed Abu Musa Al Ashari because they wanted someone who is anti-war, not pro-war. And let us not forget that it was the Khawarij who applied all the pressure, or the major part of the pressure in getting Imam Ali to uhh to enforcing him to accept takhim (arbitration).” -Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
Is Ali so weak that not only is he supposedly forced into arbitration, and now he cannot even accept his own arbitrator? Which brings us to his example of the separation of man and wife which falls back on him in a bad way.
This also blows open wide any false notion of Ali or his army believing he had any type ofʿIṣmah or that he was Maʿṣūm. The actions of his army be the admission of Syed Ali Hur is proof in the pudding.
Syed Ali Hur’s lack of understanding of the Arabic language and verse 4:35 of the Qur’an.
“The appointment of two human beings from both sides this mirror’s uuuhh Qur’anic uh prescription such as in the case of husband and wife Allah says, “send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people” and the husband does not get to decide who the wife will choose as her hakam. The woman should have the right to bring her arbitrator, whoever she chooses from her family and whoever her family is agreed upon and happy with and the husband uuhh should have the right to bring whoever he is pleased with from his side. Right?”-Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
a) Wrong! This actually shows poor grammar in the understanding of this ayat. The Arabic text is fa-ib’ʿathū (they choose), meaning the family of the respective party choose the arbiter. Not the wife chooses or the husband chooses. Their families choose. So, even if the allegation of the so-called ‘Khawarij’ chose Abu Musa Al Ashari by the understanding of the verse, it would be correct. Which, by the way, Syed Ali Hur did not give evidence that they chose him!
b) For the example of the husband and wife, Allah (swt) says, fa-ib’athu (appoint arbiters).
“If two parties among the believers start to fight against each other, restore peace among them. If one party rebels against the other, fight against the rebellious one until he surrenders to the command of Allah. When he does so, restore peace among them with justice and equality; Allah loves those who maintain justice. ” (Qur’an 49:9)
It is in the imperative form faqatilu! That is the AMR, the command of Allah (swt). There should be no talk of a document. There should be talk of bayah!
Ali was the one in his letters who told Muaviyah that they could investigate the murder of Uthman, yet Muaviyah would need to recognize the legitimate government of the Muslims. Now Ali is laying all this aside for discussion? Give the bayah or perish!
“Th zz You can’t impose you know this foolish argument that Imam, why did Imam Ali let them choose a wicked man like Amr ibn Al As yeah you can’t dictate terms to the the other army. “-Syed Ali Hur
Prima Qur’an comments:
Thankfully, Syed Ali Hur went to verse Qur’an 4:35 of a dispute between a man and a woman. He did not go to the verse of Qur’an 5:95. Because the argument that the sahabah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who were at Narhawan had against Ibn Abbas was the following:
“O you who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you do so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka’ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, AS ADJUDGED BY TWO JUST MEN AMONG YOU; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition, Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution.” (Qur’an 5:95)
‘As adjudged by two just men among you’. Keep this in mind as well. This is a key part of the text.
The sahabah of Nahrawaan replied to Ibn Abbas :
“Are you comparing the law relating to the killing of game animals on the sacred land or the law that is intended to resolve the misunderstandings that occur between a man and his wife, with the law that is intended to govern matters of greater magnitude, such as the act of shedding of Muslims’ blood?”
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 13.)
Also, another point concerning the text that Ibn Abbas brought forth.
Naturally, people would ask, “Are you saying Amru bin Al-As is a man of justice when it was he who spilled our blood yesterday? If you believe that he is just, then we (including you — Ibn Abbas and Ali) are not just because we all fought the war against Mu’awiya and Amru bin Al-As!”
So the unfilled questions were.
A)Were there two arbitrators or one?
B) Were they just or unjust?
Now could a person think they are just and sincere in what they are doing?
Syed Ali Hur does not have a cohesive narrative concerning the so called kharijites and rather or not they are pro/anti-arbitration.
So, on the one hand: “You people forced me to do” — Syed Ali Hur
“And let us not forget that it was the Khawarij who applied all the pressure, or the major part of the pressure in getting Imam Ali to uhh to enforcing him to accept takhim (arbitration).”-Syed Ali Hur
However, he (Syed Ali) then turns around and says:
“The, the reason why we are having the we were having the battle with them is because our authority on them had not yet been established. They have not accepted our authorities. So how can we start appointing people on their side when they don’t even accept they have not even submitted to our authority? But yes they are prepared to submit to the authority of the Qur’an. “–Syed Ali Hur
His contradiction is obvious for all to see. If the so-called Kharijites were forcing Ali into arbitration, then why does he have to explain to them that these people do not accept our authority we cannot impose it on them? Seems like you are preaching to the choir. Especially if they were for it!
“Imam Ali maintained until the end. He said you people did something foolish and now your trying to pin the blame for your foolishness on me because you’ve now seen with your own eyes the results of your foolishness.”-Syed Ali Hur
Also, if these people forced Ali into arbitration and they “with their own eyes the results“, then why go their separate ways after? This is not adding up at all.
Especially, in light of the following:
“Now we have already, Imam Ali had already seen these people are not sincere because the beginning of the battle we did call them towards the Qur’an. They didn’t accept it then. Now that they are losing the battle all of a sudden, they now want the Qur’an to be the judge? So, on that basis, politically Imam Ali, even after the arbitration, continued to maintain he said yes, politically, what you people forced me to do was not the best.”—Syed Ali Hur
Why are people who are fighting, spilling blood, fighting for you at the battle of the Camel? Why are they now leaving? They could have said, yes Ali, in hindsight was correct and we were wrong.
It is quite clear that the people who left Ali’s camp wanted to do so because Ali went for arbitration. The companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) who left Siffin for Narhawan are famous for their cry:
“La Hukma Illa Lillah” (There is no rule but that of Allah)
In the end, with regard to arbitration, what is the result of it? What is the fruit? Did it return to the AMR of Allah (swt) ? No! It did not!
What is that the Shi’i believe was so insufficient about his letters to Muaviyah that he needed to give in to this arbitration? What is it that is not so clear in the Qur’an about what this “amr of Allah” is that we need to make a document, and have court recess and go our own ways?
And the key thing that Shi’i keep running from again and again and again is this one simple, straightforward question. “If the Qur’an is the arbiter, what is the verse or verses that make Ali in the right in his dispute with Muaviyah?”
The command of Allah (swt) is not clear?
Yes indeed it is!
In the example of the husband and wife, Allah (swt) says, fa-ib’athu (appoint arbiters)
“If two parties among the believers start to fight against each other, restore peace among them. If one party rebels against the other, fight against the rebellious one until he surrenders to the command of Allah. When he does so, restore peace among them with justice and equality; Allah loves those who maintain justice. ” (Qur’an 49:9)
It is in the imperative form faqatilu! That is the AMR, the command of Allah (swt)
Unless the Shi’i now want to say that Ali did not know what the amr of Allah (swt) was then let that stand on the record.
Unless the Shi’i want to say that Ali has no Qur’an-based text to support him, then let that also stand on the record.
How does what return to the Amr of Allah (swt)?
Very simple and easy to answer.
Avoid what Allah (swt) asked you to avoid and by doing what Allah (swt) has ordered you to do. Example: You are not making your prayer, then start praying. This is not rocket science.
Whenever the Shi’i are cornered in an argument and have nothing more to offer. They will always return to the incident of Ghadir Khum. It is what they believe is their instant win card!
We have explained the incident of Ghadir Khum here:
Also, do correct your Shi’i friends. There is no such thing as ‘THE’ hadith of Ghadir Khum. However, there is THE incident of Ghadir Khum and various versions of that incident, which means hadiths (plural). Some of these variants have accretions and variations.
Remember that our position is Prima-Quran.
Some groups try to elevate the hadith over the Qur’an. Whereas for us, we do not elevate the hadith above the Qur’an. Nor can hadith clash with the Qur’an.
The verse in question describes the two opposing groups as believers.
Logic dictates that Ali could be in either group A or group B.
Let us say that Ali is in group B, the group that is being oppressed. How can it be reasoned that the people in group A are being labeled as enemies of Allah, yet still be called believers by Allah (swt) himself?
“Allah is the Friend (Waliyy)of those who believe He brings them out of darkness into light. And those who disbelieve their friends are the devils who take them out of light into darkness. They are the companions of the Fire; therein they abide.” (Qur’an 2:257)
Surely Allah (swt) the All-Knowing is aware that Ali could be in category A or B.
You must hate those whom you apply the judgement of Allah (swt) to? No, not necessarily.
Based upon mantiq (logic) and the fact that this particular statement of the narration would clash with the qati’i (decisive) nature of Qur’an, such that a particular understanding of being infallible or not accountable becomes null and void.
Secondly. There is a story which you can read here full of grandiose verbiage that many are familiar with. Ali fights a man and the man spits in Ali’s face. Ali is said to have sheathed his sword. You can read that here: https://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/n-I-3721.html
The point is that just because you oppose someone does not necessarily entail hatred.
An example is this:
Narrated `Aisha:
Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict the legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”
So let us imagine a scenario where Fatima did steal, and she did get caught. Would one necessarily have to have hatred in his/her heart towards Fatima when executing the punishment?
That means that every judge or Qadi would need to hate the person they pass sentence on?
Would that mean that Ali, as an Amir, any time he inflicted a punishment upon anyone who transgressed, meant he would need hatred in his heart as a prerequisite?
If this is how people reason, reason is in a state of decline.Allah (swt) says,
“Never will your family bloodlines/ties or your children be of any use to you on the day of Resurrection. He will separate you and judge between you. For Allah is All-Seeing what you do.” (Qur’an 60:3)
Adam made a mistake.
“Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went Astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance.” (Quran 20:121-122)
David made a mistake.
“And David perceived that we had tried him by this parable, and he asked pardon of his Lord: and he fell down and bowed himself, and repented.” (Qur’an 38:25).
Saying that Ali is infallible in his decisions puts him above the Prophets. It also makes the following verse not applicable to him.
“Then did they feel secure from the plan of Allah ? But no one feels secure from the plan of Allah except the losing people.” (Qur’an 7:99)
Are we to say that Ali was from the losing people because he felt secure from the plan of Allah (swt)? Certainly not!
Ibadis are not the people known for hating and hatred, contrary to what you have heard.
Read, for example, the poem concerning Ali Ibn Abu Talib by the esteemed scholar, poet, and Sufi, Abu Muslim Al Bahlani (May Allah grant him paradise.)
A group of six great Ibadi scholars, J’afer bin A’Simak, Abu AlHur Ali bin AlHusain Al’Anbri, AlHattat bin Kateb, AlHabab bin Kulaib, Abu Suyan Qanber AlBasri, and Salim bin Thakwan among other unnamed scholars, they went to Umar bin Abdul Aziz and exhorted him to stop this cursing from the pulpits, this includes Ali.
If they hate Ali will they really exhort people to stop cursing him from the pulpits? The pulpit is the place where the tongue should be moist with the remembrance of Allah (swt) and exhortation to those in attendance to obey the commands of Allah (swt) and the Blessed Messenger, the Beloved Prophet Muhammed (saw)
If the Ibadi had personal hatred towards Ali, would we have the opinion in our tradition that he was remorseful and repented to Allah?
“Such is Allah, your true Lord. And, beyond truth, what is there except falsehood? So where else can you turn?” (Qur’an 10:32)
Would hope that one day Mr. Ali Hur finds the courage to repent and make tauba for the lies that he told. It is best to say that he was caught up in the moment, that he made a mistake. That would make him an honourable individual.
Based on the voice notes provided of Mr.Ali Hur and our arguments and quotes and response to the Shi’i reformist Kamoonpuri, the Ibadi side presents the more coherent, scripture-grounded, and logically consistent argument.
1. Fidelity to the Clear Text of the Qur’an (Nass) The Ibadi argument adheres strictly to the apparent and imperative command in Qur’an 49:9: “…then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah.”
The Ibadis argue that the command is clear and absolute. Since Muawiyah was the rebel (baghi), the fighting should have continued until he submitted. The arbitration was a deviation from this clear divine command.
Kamoonpuri’s argument relies on a complex layer of “worldly ijtihad,” “political wisdom,” and assessing the “sincerity” of the opponent to override the apparent meaning of the verse. He essentially argues that a human judgment about the opponent’s intentions can suspend a direct divine imperative. The Ibadi invocation of Qur’an 33:36 (“it is not for a believing man… when Allah has decided a matter that there should be for them any choice”) is a powerful counter to this.
2. The Practical Failure of the Arbitration The Ibadi point is devastatingly simple and empirical: What was the result? The arbitration did not return the situation to the amr (command) of Allah. It led to confusion, division, and strengthened Muawiyah’s position. If a course of action was supposedly “100% in line with the Qur’an and Sunnah,” as Kamoonpuri claims, one would expect it to produce a just outcome. It did not. This suggests the premise was flawed.
3. Exposing Internal Contradictions The Ibadi response effectively highlights the incoherence in Kamoonpuri’s narrative:
Who were the “Khawarij”? Kamoonpuri says they were the ones who forced Ali into arbitration. But then they are the ones who left Ali because of the arbitration. The Ibadi asks: if they forced him into it, why would they then leave him for it? This exposes a fundamental flaw in the historical narrative being presented.
Ali’s Agency: Kamoonpuri portrays Ali as both “forced” by his army and as someone who “agreed” and “acquiesced” and set conditions. The Ibadi response questions this portrayal of the Imam as a half-hearted leader blown by the wind, contrasting it with the Quranic ideal of a resolute believer who trusts in Allah.
4. Stronger Use of Quranic Analogy and Companion Reasoning The Ibadi response brings a powerful historical and Quranic argument by referencing the exchange between Ibn Abbas and the companions at Nahrawan using Qur’an 5:95. The companions rejected the analogy of arbitration in a marital dispute (4:35) or a hunting penalty (5:95) for a matter of massive bloodshed and the leadership of the Ummah. This shows that the earliest Muslims involved in the event understood the flaw in using those verses to justify the Siffin arbitration. Kamoonpuri’s use of the marital arbitration verse (4:35) is shown to be a weak analogy that even the contemporaries of the event dismissed.
5. The Central Unanswered Question The Ibadi request is the most direct and logical challenge: “If the Qur’an is the arbiter, what is the verse or verses that make Ali in the right in his dispute with Muaviyah?” This question cuts through all the talk of documents, arbitrators, and political wisdom. It demands a scriptural basis for the arbitration itself. Kamoonpuri’s entire defense is based on the process (they called to the Qur’an) and not the substance (what does the Qur’an actually say about this dispute?). The Ibadis correctly point out that the Qur’an’s command on how to deal with rebels is already clear, so there was nothing to arbitrate.
Conclusion of the Arguments Presented
While Kamoonpuri attempts a sophisticated defense based on the distinction between divine commands and their worldly application, his argument is convoluted, self-contradictory, and detached from the clear imperative of the Qur’anic text.
The Ibadi argument is superior because it is:
Textually faithful: It holds fast to the clear command of Qur’an 49:9.
Logically consistent: It points out the flaws and contradictions in the opposing narrative.
Pragmatic: It judges the action by its fruit, which was division and failure.
Historically grounded: It uses the reasoning of the companions who were actually there (the Nahrawan group’s argument to Ibn Abbas) to support its position.
The Shi’i reformist argument, as presented here, relies on a narrative that makes Ali appear weak, his opponents hypocritical, and the clear text of the Qur’an subject to the flawed “ijtihad” of a war-weary army. The Ibadi position, by contrast, maintains the sovereignty of the divine command over human political maneuvering.
“Oh you who believe! if a deviator brings you a report, scrutinize it carefully in case you attack people in ignorance and so come to greatly regret what you have done.” (Quran 49:6).
﷽
This is an examination of the hadith that Shīa uses as a justification for Ali either being infallible or without error in judgement.
Namely, the hadith that comes to us with conflicting statements: One being that Ali is with the truth and the truth is with Ali. There other is that Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with Ali.
The idea that the Shīa have in quoting this is that Ali could possibly never err. For the Shi’i, either version of this hadith is proof that Ali is infallible in his ijtihad.
In Islam, as is commonly known, no one is above the law; no one has an absolute authority by being free from the limitations of the law: anyone whose idea goes contrary to what Allah (swt) or what the Blessed Prophet (saw) says, has his idea disregarded and discarded irrespective of the class or caste to which one belongs.
The hadith contradict the Qur’an.
If the idea is that these hadith prove that Ali is infallible and beyond reproach that itself is contradicted by Allah (swt) in the Qur’an.
It would also mean that Ali or anyone who is guaranteed to be infallible or beyond reproach, would mean that he is secure from the Plan of Allah (swt) and that he would be under the power and the threat of the following verse:
“Were they secure from the Plan of Allah? None deems himself secure from the Plan of Allah except a people that are doomed to perish.” (Qur’an 7:99)
These hadiths are used in a polemical sense.
For example, they are intended to be used in the following polemical way:
Whoever opposed Ali on any matter was simply on the wrong side of history. Not only did they oppose Ali, but they opposed the haqq, the truth. Not only did they oppose Ali and the haqq, but they opposed the Qur’an. So this would include, but not limited to: Muaviyah and those companions (muhakima) who broke camp with Ali over the issue of tahkim-arbitration. It would include Aisha (ra), Talha and Zubayr etc.
Muslims are not born yesterday. Naturally, the thinking Muslim will ask the following questions.
Questions like:
Why not quote the hadith of the 10 promised paradise during all these skirmishes?
Why not quote ghadir khum hadith?
Why not quote the hadith of thaqalayn?
Why not quote all these things to avoid unnecessary bloodshed?
We will approach these narrations in three ways.
1. Does it contradict what we know from history or how other companions understood the data? Information that is accessible to you the reader.
2. We will look at the ‘matn’, which is the text itself. We are looking for anomalous statements or inconsistencies. This information is also accessible to you the reader.
3. We will be looking at the chain of narrators. This is a specialized field in which the majority of the readers do not have access to.
Does it contradict what we know from history or how other companions understood the data?
One thing which can be taken to absolutely prove the fact that many of these traditions are fabricated is that when Ali himself went to Nahrawan to debate with the people there, after Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) was defeated, Ali did not use any of those traditions as his arguments against them.
In fact, we challenge anyone to bring forth the claims that he did. And if he didn’t, and assuredly he did not, you have to ask yourself: Why is that?
Indeed, no man took those traditions as his proofs and arguments during the whole period of the Ali-Mu’awiya crisis: all of them had the Qur’an as the basis for their source of evidence for the ideas they held.
In other words, no one argued that: “Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali: it goes with him wherever he goes.”
Take for example:
Where are all these quotes from the Blessed Prophet (saw) about Ali?
Why are all these hadith that the (Shi’i) feel are effective for the Muslims of the 14th century but not seemingly not helpful at all to Ali and his contemporaries?
This in and of itself should give the sincere researcher a cause for pause.
If Ali is with the haqq and the haqq is with Ali, why would a good portion of the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) oppose Ali to begin with?!
We could simply end all this discussion at that. Case closed.
Then let us approach this from the angle of logic and real life scenarios.
The hadith above makes it seem as if Ali is always in the right no matter what. So in the scenario above where Al Abbas (ra) says to Umar (ra) about Ali, “judge between me and this one, liar, sinful, treacherous and deceitful.” How could it ever be fair? How could Umar (ra) judge at all? He could look and say, “Oh it’s Ali and the truth is with him, and he is with the truth out of my sight, Abbas!” In fact, Ali could win any court case by default with such a hadith!
This has all the trappings of abuse and manipulation. Especially when these types of weak hadith come to be used later in sufi tariqas and syed culture. When real abuse and mischief happens, people are shamed and silenced. Made to think evil will befall them if they report such people. A real type of psychological terrorism.
This is a far cry from the Blessed Prophet (saw) whom even Allah (swt) overturned a decision of his on the account of the woman who pleaded!
The hadith above makes it seem as if Ali is always in the right no matter what. So in the scenario above where Al Abbas (ra) says to Umar (ra) says about Ali, “judge between me and this one, liar, sinful, treacherous and deceitful.” How could it ever be fair? How could Umar (ra) judge at all? He could look and say, “Oh it’s Ali and the truth is with him and he is with the truth out of my sight Abbas!” In fact, Ali could win any court case by default with such a hadith!
Another crystal clear example of a person who did not accept that understanding is none other than Ibn Abbas (ra).
Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
Once the Prophet (saw) embraced me and said, “O Allah! Bestow on him the knowledge of the Book (Qur’an).”
Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ali had errors in his ijtihad that would go against the Qur’an & Sunnah. That he would get corrected by a senior member of the Ahl Bayt.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali, and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas, who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
‘Ali came to some people of Az-Zutt, who worshiped idols and burned them. Ibn ‘Abbas said: “But the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him.‘”
Clearly Ibn Abbas (ra) did not see that the haqq nor the Qur’an was with Ali on that matter.
Narrated from Abū ʿAbdillāh (Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq), who said: Amīr al-Muʾminīn (ʿAlī), said: “If it were possible for me, and if I found someone to help me, I would kill all the adherents of these sects (aṣnāf), and I would burn them with fire. And this is [in accordance with] the saying of Allah, Mighty and Exalted:
‘Say, I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your God is but one God. So, whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate anyone in the worship of his Lord’ (Qur’an 18:110).”
Source: (Bihār al-Anwār al-Jāmiʿah li-Durar Akhbār al-Aʾimmat al-Aṭhār Volume and Page: Vol. 25, p. 265, Hadith #30)
Prima Qur’an comments: If that is Ali’s understanding of that verse of the Qur’an, it is certainly not from any apparent reading of the text. It is a very strange take. How anyone reads the Qur’an 18:110 and takes away from it that we should burn people is shocking.
Another point to consider is that even if those traditions are really authentic, they still do not mean that Ali does not make mistakes, especially in matters like these, which depend almost entirely on human intellectual efforts.
For if “Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali: it goes with him wherever he goes,” then the inevitable, logical implication is: “The Prophet is with the truth and the truth is with the Prophet (saw): it goes with him wherever he goes.”
This is only logical. Yet, Allah (swt) has blamed the Blessed Prophet (saw) him for leaving a better way in some of his military and civil actions.
For example, the verse states: “May Allah forgive you (O Muhammed). Why did you grant permission to them (to stay behind), until those who told the truth become clear to you, and you had known the liars? (Qur’an 9:43)” , was revealed in order to blame the Blessed Prophet (saw) for his act to allow some people who brought him false excuses so that they might be exempted from taking part in the war of Jihad.
Typically, the verse: “O Prophet! Why do you prohibit ˹yourself˺ from what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”(Qur’an 66:1) was sent down to blame the Prophet (saw) for outlawing a certain thing which Islam makes lawful to him.
How can a person of understanding mind, therefore, claim that ‘Ali was infallible simply because the Prophet (saw) is alleged to say: “Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali: it goes with him wherever he goes?!”
“The Prophet (saw) is with the truth and the truth is with the Prophet (saw): it goes with him wherever he goes.”
The logical question we ought to ask ourselves is: Was the Prophet (saw) not with the truth and the truth not with him? Of course!
Every Muslim’s answer will be “The Prophet (saw) was with the truth every time.” Thus, if the Prophet (saw) was the most truthful, and so was with the truth ,and the truth was with him, let us ask ourselves again: was he not blamed by Allah for leaving a better way in some of his actions?
Take for example:
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.”
“Imam Nawawi comments: “Scholars mention that his opinion (peace and blessings be upon him) in worldly/livelihood affairs is like the opinion of others, so the like of this [incident] is not impossible, and there is no deficiency entailed in this. The reason is the fact that their [the Companions’] central concern was the afterlife and its affairs.” [Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim]”
“Mufti Taqi Usmani mentions that the Prophet’s statement, “I don’t think that will provide any benefit,” was only based on his personal opinion and estimation, as before that, he had never himself engaged in farming and agriculture (peace and blessings be upon him). Mufti Taqi also mentions that matters such as this incident can only occur with respect to worldly affairs that are permissible (mubah), yet not with anything entailing a legal ruling of the Sacred Law, like commands, prohibitions, adjudication or legal verdicts. [Usmani, Takmila Fath al-Mulhim]”
“Allah has indeed heard (and accepted) the statement of the woman who argues with you concerning her husband and carries her complaint (in prayer) to Allah and Allah (always) hears the arguments between both sides among you: for Allah hears and sees (all things). If any men among you divorce their wives by Zihar (calling them mothers), they cannot be their mothers: None can be their mothers except those who gave them birth. And in fact, they use words (both) iniquitous and false: but truly Allah is one that blots out (sins), and forgives (again and again). But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered,- (It is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: You are admonished to perform: and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that you do. And if any has not (the wherewithal), he should fast for two months consecutively before they touch each other. But if any is unable to do so, he should feed sixty indigent ones, this, that you may show your faith in Allah and His Messenger. Those are limits (set by) Allah. For those who reject (Him), there is a grievous Penalty.” (Qur’an 58: 1-4)
As many of you may know regarding what is considered the historical context of these verses, Khawlah bint Tha‘labah (ra) went to the Blessed Messenger (saw) to complain about her husband. Many times it is reported that the Blessed Messenger (saw) gave his verdict on the matter.
Now, this should give us pause.
Here we have the case of this woman who, even after hearing the decision of the Blessed Messenger (saw), continued to argue with him! In other words, the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) wasn’t good enough for her! That’s right. She didn’t simply say, “Yes, Oh Messenger of Allah, thank you!” No! This woman went to the highest authority of justice and wisdom that there is. She took her pain directly to Allah (swt)!
So Allah (swt) took the side of the woman over the side of the Blessed Messenger (saw)!
Ali is nowhere near the Prophet (saw) when it comes to knowledge. So if the Blessed Prophet (saw) can make errors in worldy ijtihad, then so can Ali.
It is clear, therefore, that the idea of “Ali being infallible on the grounds that Ali is with the truth”…is the result of the politics of lies aimed at indoctrinating people with the creed of Alism during the time when the waves of the politics of division swept the Islamic nation.
Another example: it has also been narrated concerning Ammar bin Yasir (ra)
“Ammar (bin Yasir) is with the truth and the truth is with Ammar (bin Yasir): it goes with him wherever he goes.”
Source: (Ibn A’atham Al-Futuh Vol. 3, p. 269.)
Indeed, Ali himself has been quoted as saying: “Ammar (bin Yasir) is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ammar: it goes with him wherever he goes.” Source: (Ibn A’atham Al-Futuh Vol. 3, p. 129, p. 269. Similar to it has been narrated by Al-Hakim – from Hudhaifa – in his Al-Mustadrak Vol. 2, p. 162, hadith no. 2652. )
Yet no one has ever claimed that ‘Ammar bin Yasir has been infallible, for in case the account is authentic, the meaning intended thereby is that ‘Amaar is truthful: he does not intend to do wrong – no sense of infallibility at all is produced by the account.
Likewise with Ali. That he intends the truth, not that he is in any sense infallible.
The hadith in question: Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with Ali.
Al Hakim and al Tabarani narrate — from ‘Ali ibn Hashim ibn al Barid — from his father who said — Abu Sa’id al Taymi narrated to me — from Abu Thabit, the mawla (client) of Abu Dharr
“I was with Ali on the Day of the Battle of the Camel. When I saw ‘Aisha standing. Some of that (doubt) which entered other people (also) entered me. Allah disclosed that for me (i.e. removed from me the reservations I had to fight) at the time of Salat al Zuhr and so I fought alongside Amir al Muʾminin. When he finished, I proceeded to Madinah. I came to Umm Salamah and said, ‘I have come, by Allah, not asking for food or drink; rather, I am the mawla (client) of Abu Dharr.’ She said, ‘Welcome.’ I told her my story and so she said, ‘Where were you when the hearts flew their course (i.e. when the fighting broke out)?’ I said, ‘I was such that Allah disclosed it for me (i.e. removed the reservations I had) at noon (and then I went to fight alongside Amir al Muʾminin).’ She said, ‘Excellent! I heard the Messenger of Allah(saw) say: ‘‘Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with Ali. They will never separate UNTIL they meet me at the Hawd (Cistern).’”
Sources: (Mustadrak al Hakim 4628 / al Tabarani: al Mujam al Awsat, Volume 5/4880 / & al Mujam al Saghir, volume 2 /720.)
Interestingly, these statements are not found in either Bukhari or Muslim. Neither in the Muwatta of Imam Malik nor the Musnad Al-Imam Ar-Rabi’ (Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih).
Chain analysis: a look at the sanad (chain of narrators)
Al Hakim says, “This hadith has a sahih (authentic) chain of transmission. Abu Sa’id al Taymi is (Abu Sa’id al Taymi) al ‘Aqisaʾ. He is a thiqah (reliable) and maʾmun (trustworthy). Imam al Bukhari and Imam Muslim did not include it in their respective collections.”
Dinar Abu Sa’id ‘Aqisa al Tamimi (or al Taymi) is not as al Hakim supposed.
Imam al Nasaʾi says he is not a thiqah (reliable).
Al Daraqutni says he is matruk al Hadith (suspected of forgery).
Al Sa’di says he is not a thiqah (reliable).
Additionally, Abu Thabit could not be traced. The identity of Abu Thabit is a bit of a mystery, he is not mentioned in the books of Hadith narrators. So, Thabit is Majhul (unknown)
Therefore, this hadith is etiolated, totally weak.
Some time on Al Hakim Al Naysaburi
Al-Hakim, Muhammed ibn Abd Allah ibn Muhammed ibn Hamduyah, Abu Abd Allah al-Dabbi al-Tamhani al-Naysaburi al-Shafi’i, also known as Ibn al-Bayyi.
Al-Hakim is known among the people of Hadith to be mutasahil (lenient hadith critic).
Al-Hakim’s Mustadrak was criticized by Hadith scholars due to the number of mistakes and inaccuracies found in it. Al-Sakhawiin alilan wal-Tawbikh and others mention that he declares many forged reports to be rigorously authentic; up to 100, according to some authorities. This is not to mention extremely weak ones. Instead of clinging to his own expressed precondition, he only reports with the chains of the rank of the status of Bukhari and Muslim. For example, he narrates in the Musadrak from Ibn Abbas that Allah revealed to the Blessed Messenger (saw), the following:
“I have killed seventy thousand [in punishment] for [the murder of] Yahya ibn Zakariyya and I will kill seventy thousand times seventy thousand [in punishment] for [the murder of] your daughter’s son al-Husayn.”
Al-Hakim said this report has a sound chain, while Al-Dhahabi added: “By the criterion of Muslim” but Ibn Hibban said this hadith is untraceable (la asla lahu), Al-Dhahabi himself rejected its matn as munkar in the Siyar while Ibn Kathir similarly declared it “highly anomalous” (gharib jiddan) in al-Bidaya. [1]
Sources: Ibn Hibban, al-Majruhin (2:215), al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad (1:142), al-Hakim(1990 ed 2:319, 2:648, and 3:195), Fayd al-Qaiîr (1:205), Tadhkirat al-Huffaz (1:77 gharib), Mizan (sv. Qâsim ibn Ibrahim al-Hashimi), and Siyar (Risala ed 4:342-343).
Some say Al-Dhahabi went to excess in regretting that al-Hakim had compiled the Mustadrak in the first place.
“It would have been better if al-Hakim had never compiled it!” as mentioned by Dr. Bashshar Awward Maruf in his doctoral thesis.”
Source: (al-Dhahabi wa Manhajuhu fi Kitabihi Tarikh al-Islam.)
His classing al-Hakim “among those who are lenient, like al-Tirmidhi” does not apply to al-Hakim in absolute terms but only to his grading of narrations in the Mustadrak, which the Scholars pointed out he compiled in his old age, intending to revise it, a task left unfinished beyond the first volume.
Sources: Dhikr Man Yutamadu Qawluhu fil-Jarh wal-Tadil (p.172) & (Cf. Al-Sakhawi, Fath al-Mughith (1:36) and Mamduh, Raf` al-Minara (p. 153 n. 1).
This is proven by the fact that al-Hâkim’s mistakes are fewer in the first volume of the Mustadrak, as shown by al-Dhahab’s own minimal corrections there. “Outside the Mustadrak,” Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh said, “his positions are as strict as those of the meticulous Imams of hadith”
Source: (al-Sakhawi, Fath al-Mughith (1:36) and Mamduh, Raf` al-Minara p. 153 n.)
Prima Qur’an comments:
A look at the matn.
Abu Thabit had to identify himself to Umm Salamah.
He twice claims that Allah (swt) had removed his reservations to fight alongside Ali. He actually says this twice. It was at the time of the afternoon prayer. He doesn’t disclose how.
The hadith contradicts another hadith (below) where he is also the transmitter in which the text (matn) is changed.
Ali is with the qur’an and the qur’an is with Ali. They will never separate until they meet me at the Hawd (Cistern)
Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali. They will never separate UNTIL they both arrive at the Hawd (Cistern) on the Day of Judgment
This stand-out line would not be difficult for someone to recall. The fact that the narrator redacts words in the mouth of Umm Salamah and cannot get the facts straight shows that they are confused.
The Qur’an is all truth but not all truth is the Qur’an.
In the second version of the hadith of Abu Thabit, there is no mention of his own doubts with regard to standing with Ali or his change of heart at the afternoon prayer.
Also, in the second version, it is simply that he came upon Umm Salamah. In the second version he does not need to identify himself to her.
The Hadith of Umm Salamah
This hadith comes to us via two ways:
The first is as follows:
Al Khatib narrates from ‘Abdul Salam ibn Salih — ‘Ali ibn Hashim ibn al Barid — narrated to us — from his father — from Abu Sa’id al Tamimi — from Abu Thabit, the mawla (freed slave) of Abu Dharr who said, “I entered the presence of Umm Salamah and saw her crying. She was mentioning the name of ‘Ali and said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw),’” saying Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali. They will never separate until they both arrive at the Hawd (Cistern) on the Day of Judgment.
Source: (Al Khatib: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/321.)
Chain analysis: a look at the sanad (chain of narrators)
‘Abdul Salam Ibn Salih is al Harawi. It has been mentioned previously that he is suspected of lying.
Al Haythimi said he is weak. Source: (Majma’ al Zawa’id vol. 9 pg. 114)
Dhahabi said he is censured: Source: (Siyar vol. 11 pg. 447)
He is accused of being a forger of hadith and one who steals chains to invent things.
Sources: (Al Kamil fi al Du’afa’ vol. 5 pg. 177) & (Lisan al Mizan vol. 4 pg. 144)
He is accused of lying and hadith forgery. Source: Mizan al I’tidal vol. 5 pg. 220.
Abu Sa’id Dinar is not a thiqah (reliable). He is matruk al hadith (suspected of forgery).
Abu Thabit could not be traced. He is mahjul (unknown)
Ibn Taymiyyah did not find a chain of transmission for this hadith; consequently, he denied it.
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 4/238)
However, there is a chain via Abu Ya’la here:
The Hadith of Abu Sa’id
Abu Ya’la narrates — Muhammed ibn ‘Abbad al Makki narrated to us — Abu Sa’id narrated to us — from Sadaqah ibn al Rabi’ — from ‘Umarah ibn Ghaziyyah — from ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Sa’id — from his father that ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) ,’” saying Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali. They will never separate UNTIL they both arrive at the Hawd (Cistern) on the Day of Judgment.
Source: (Abu Ya’la: Musnad Abi Ya’la, hadith no. 1052.)
Chain analysis: a look at the sanad (chain of narrators)
Sadaqah ibn al Rabi’ is regarded as a thiqah (reliable) by Ibn Hibban.
Source: (Ibn Hibban: Kitab al Thiqat, 8/319)
Ibn Hibban is known for deeming majhul (unknown) narrators as reliable.
Ibn Abi Hatim mentions a biography about Sadaqah ibn al Rabi’. However, he did not make mention of any jarh (impugning statement) or ta’dil (statement of approval). Thus, his status is unknown. Neither favourable nor unfavourable.
Source: (Ibn Abi Hatim: Kitab al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 4/433.)
Abu Sa’id is the mawla (freed slave) of Banu Hashim. There is a difference of opinion regarding his status. The better opinion is that he is Hassan al hadith (fair in hadith). However, this type of hadith from him is unacceptable.
In short, the hadith is da’if (weak); the first chain of transmission is saqit (wholly unreliable) and the second chain of transmission is da’if (weak).
Lastly, Allah (swt) has made it clear that we are a broken humanity. Yet, he showers abundant grace and mercy upon us all.
“If Allah were to punish people ˹immediately˺ for their wrongdoing, He would not have left a single living being on earth. But He delays them for an appointed term. And when their time arrives, they cannot delay it for a moment, nor could they advance it.” (Qur’an 16:61)
In other words if Allah (swt) wanted to exact due measure and justice for the failings of humanity this whole planet would be turned to ash. Everyone. No one is exempted.
I leave you with this final verse to reflect upon.
“These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?” (Qur’an 45:6)
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
﷽
Why does Allah not call Himself al-Mutakallim (the Speaker)?
This was a question that was sent to a Salafi Q & A and the response was quite shocking. Not only do the Salafi use logic and reasoning to reject attributes of Allah (swt) they use flawed logic and reasoning to do so.
In order to make it clearer, we could word the question differently and say:
Is it permissible to derive from the attributes and actions of Allaah that He has confirmed for Himself names for Him by which He may be called and by which His slaves may call upon Him, and which may be added to the list of His names so as to attain the reward mentioned in the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) “Allaah has ninety-nine names. Whoever memorizes them will enter Paradise” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2736) and Muslim (2677), or are there guidelines concerning the derivation of His names from His attributes and actions?
It is essential first of all to ascribe wisdom to Allaah, may He be exalted, for He is absolutely perfect, and He is to be named and described in a manner that is befitting to Him. People should be guided by that which He has told them in His Book of His perfection, majesty and might; to Him all things return and He has great wisdom.
But we shall try to understand His names and attributes based on what is mentioned in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and ponder that so that we might derive some guidelines for defining His most beautiful names.
The scholars differed concerning that which the brother asked about, which let them to differ concerning the number of the beautiful names of Allaah and definition of guidelines concerning them. Some of them regarded it as the matter of worship only, in which there is no room for ijtihaad and qiyaas (analogy), as was the view of Ibn Hazm. Some of them were very lenient about this matter and allowed calling Allaah by names such as al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), al-Mureed (the Willer) and every other word by which Allaah is described in the Qur’aan and Sunnah. This was the view of Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maaliki and others.
Some scholars took a middle approach; they studied the reports of the divine names and found that if an attribute implied a sense of praise only and could not be taken as implying imperfection or fault in any way, such as hearing and sight, then in the texts names were derived from it, so Allaah called Himself al-Samee’ (the All-Hearing) and al-Baseer (the All-Seeing).
But if an attribute could be taken as implying imperfection in some way, such as speaking, for example, as speaking may include lying, wrongdoing and other bad meanings, in which case it is a shortcoming and silence is preferable to it, so we do not find a divine name that is derived from this attribute, so we do not find that one of the names of Allaah is al-Mutakallim (the Speaker).
This was the view of the great scholar Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim, and it is the view of most of our contemporary scholars.
Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Isfahaaniyyah (1/19-20):
As for calling Allaah, may He be exalted, Mureed (Willer) and Mutakallim (Speaker),
These two names are not mentioned in the Qur’aan, or among the well known divine names. Their meanings are true, but the well known divine names are those by which Allaah may be called upon, and are mentioned in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and which imply perfection and praise in and of themselves.
Knowledge, power, mercy and so on are in and of themselves praiseworthy attributes, and the names which point to them are praiseworthy names.
As for speech and will, they may be divided into praiseworthy types such as truthfulness and justice, and blameworthy types such as wrongdoing and lying. Allaah can only be described in praiseworthy terms, not blameworthy ones, hence His names do not include al-Mutakallim (the Speaker) or al-Mureed (the Willer). End quote.
He also (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Bayaan Talbees al-Jahamiyyah (2/10-11):
Allaah has the most beautiful names, by which He has called Himself, and has revealed them in His Book and taught to whomever He willed among His creation, such as al-Haqq (the Truth), al-‘Aleem (the All-Knowing), al-Raheem (the Most Merciful), al-Hakeem (the Most Wise), al-Awwaal (the First), al-Aakhir (the last), al-‘Aliy (the Most High), al-‘Azeem (the Almighty), al-Kabeer (the Most Great) and so on.
All of these names are names of praise which indicate praiseworthy meaning, and have no blameworthy meaning. To Allaah belong the most beautiful names, and He is perfect in all ways. Names which are more general in meaning and may be applied to both good and bad things are not found among the beautiful names of Allaah. End quote.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Mukhtasar al-Sawaa’iq (2/34):
The names of Allaah does not include al-Mureed (the Willer), al-Mutakallim (the speaker), al-Faa’il (the Doer) or al-Saani’ (the Manufacturer), because these names may apply to both good and bad. Rather He is described by praiseworthy names such as al-Haleem (the Forbearing), al-Hakeem (the Most Wise), al-‘Azeez (the Almighty), the One Who does what He wills. End quote.
He also (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Madaarij al-Saalikeen (3/415-416):
That which may carry meanings of both perfection and imperfection is not included among the divine names, such as al-shay’ (thing) and ma’loom (known). Hence He is not called al-Mureed (the Willer) or al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), because these names may carry good and bad meanings. This is based on subtle understanding of the divine names and attributes, so think about it. And Allaah is the Source of strength. End quote.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Sharh al-Waasitiyyah (1/86):
Hence Allaah did not call Himself al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), although He speaks, because speech may be good or bad, and it may be neither good nor bad. Evil cannot be attributed to Allaah, and idle speech cannot be attributed to Him either, because it is foolishness; only good can be attributed to Him. Hence He did not call Himself al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), because the names are as Allaah has ascribed to Himself. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allaah” [al-‘A’raaf 7:180]. They do not include anything that suggests imperfection. End quote.
See also the answer to question no. 39803 and 48964.
For more information please see the book Mu’taqad Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah fi Asma’ Allaah al-Husna by Dr Muhammad ibn Khaleefah al-Tameemi (50-59).
And Allaah knows best.
PRIMA QUR’AN COMMENTS:
Well, can you imagine the Athari/ Salafiyyah making a big fuss about the Qur’an being the speech of Allah (swt) and than claiming that speech is an attribute of Allah (swt) and than turning around and admitting that Allah (swt) never called Himself “Al-Mutakallim”.
Then, saying that this is not appropriate to call Allah (swt) as Al-Mutakallim because speech may be good or bad! Yet they claim evil cannot be attributed to Allah (swt).
Pardon me for being more Athari than the Athari, but if your basic principle is that Allah (swt) cannot lie and that Allah (swt) does no evil than attributing the name of Al Mutakallim to Allah (swt) based upon that alone is not problematic.
Likewise simple logic. If the basic principle is that Allah (swt) cannot lie and that Allah (swt) does no evil and wills no evil than there is no harm in attributing the name of Al-Mureed. How can it be imagined that Allah (swt) wills evil?
In fact by the logic and the reasoning that the Athari/Salafi use in the above article you could reject the names of All Seeing and All Hearing.
Why? Because it is possible to hear gossip, and vile things. It is possible to witness and see vile and evil things.
Certainly Allah (swt) hears (perceives) and sees (knows) that which we as believers are forbidden to listen to and see. Allah (swt) has full grasp of all knowledge.
So the reasoning and logic given by the Athari/Salafi for rejecting the names of Al-Mureed or Al Mutakallim are not sound nor consistent.
“That which may carry meanings of both perfection and imperfection is not included among the divine names, such as al-shay’ (thing) and ma’loom (known)“
Notice that they do not believe it is appropriate to call Allah (swt) al-shay (The Thing). Not a thing (one among many) but The Thing.
Things brings them directly in conformity with Mu’tazilite/Ashari/Māturīdī theology.
Why?
Qur’an 42:11 the verse quoted in the beginning of the article the Arabic text states:
“laysa kamith’lihi shayon” (There is not like Him anything).
So, there is even a textual evidence that someone could come along and say, “We say Allah (swt) is a thing unlike other things.” Yet, this is not a good descriptor of The Divine.
There are no two things alike. Even things we deem identical have different properties and/or attributes.
Look what they quote from Ibn Al Qayyim above:
“That which may carry meanings of both perfection and imperfection is not included among the divine names, such as al-shay’ (thing) and ma’loom (known). Hence He is not called al-Mureed (the Willer) or al-Mutakallim (the Speaker), because these names may carry good and bad meanings. This is based on subtle understanding of the divine names and attributes, so think about it.”
“This is based on subtle understanding of the divine names and attributes, so think about it“-Ibn Al Qayyim
Mash’Allah now only if our Athari/Salafi friends would think about it!
May Allah (swt) guide the to the haqq!
May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah! May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah!
(After rebuking his people) Moses turned to Aaron and said: “Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following my way? Have you disobeyed my command? Aaron answered: “Son of my mother! Do not seize me with my beard, nor by (the hair of) my head. I feared that on returning you might say: ‘You sowed discord among the Children of Israel, and did not pay heed to my words.” (Qur’an 20:91-93)
﷽
This is in response to other hadith that the Shi’i often use. They try to justify their claims of Ali being the correct or rightful Imam of the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
It is another example (of many) of them making a mountain out of a molehill.
The following hadith comes to mind:
Narrated Sa`d:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) set out for Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet (saw) said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
The hadith about Umar (ra) neutralizes any attempt to single out Ali for a uniquely elevated status.
This hadith (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4416) shows clear as daylight that Ali was not pleased being left to take charge of the affairs of the people of Medina. So how much more the whole Ummah?!
Rather than seeing this as an honor bestowed upon him as one being the most trustworthy to take care of the most vulnerable, Ali saw it as a slight.
So not being content with trusting his station to his Imam, which is none other than the Blessed Messenger (see), Ali quipped, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?”
Was Ali not aware of this verse of the Qur’an?
“Whoever obeys the Messenger has truly obeyed Allah. But whoever turns away, then ˹know that˺ We have not sent you ˹O Prophet˺ as a keeper over them.” (Qur’an 4:80)
Because the Shi’i cannot prove their case for the concept of the Imamate of Ahl Bayt from the Qur’an, they must quickly pivot the conversation to Hadith, which they feel justifies their position.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) is said to have replied to the recalcitrant Ali,
“Will you not be pleased that you will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
Somehow, the Shi’i seemed to close their eyes over the fact that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was trying to console his otherwise temperamental cousin.
Perhaps Ali sought glory or standing on the battlefield? Allah (swt) knows best. Yet, the Blessed Messenger (saw) gave Ali a more noble task than what Ali could have longed for.
The Shi’i run wild.
So, the Shi’i became laser focused on the part: “You will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
They start to surmise that this must be a strong indication that Ali, without a doubt, is the one who will lead the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw) is gone.
So they start to imagine that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said things that he did not say. For example, the Hadith says, ‘no prophet after me’ but it does not say ‘no messenger after me’.
So perhaps Ali could be a Messenger after the Prophet Muhammed (saw) ?
The Shi’i who are known to be lovers of Qiyas (analogy) so well …maybe just this once.. 😉 🤫
So, with the above hadith in tow, we can quickly turn to the Qur’an and find:
“We made an appointment of thirty nights with Moses (On Mount Sinai), to which We added ten more; so the term set by the Lord was completed in forty nights. Moses said to Aaron, his brother: “Deputize for me ((ukh’luf’nī) among my people. Dispose rightly, and do not follow the way of the authors of evil.” (Qur’an 7:142)-Ahmed Ali
“And We treated with Musa thirty nights, and We completed them with ten; so the appointment of his Lord was completed by forty nights. And Musa said unto his brother Harun: act thou (ukh’luf’nī) in my place among my people, and rectify, and follow not the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)=Abdul Majid Daryabadi
As archaic and jumbled as Abdul Majid Daryabadi’s translation sounds to us, it best represents both the Arabic and the context. Although Ahmed Ali’s translation is good as well.
As always, because we are not here to tell you how to think or what to think, but for you to research and come to your own conclusions, please proceed to:
Even some of the more modern translations do a very horrible job of translating the verse:
For example, Sahih International has:
“And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights and perfected them by [the addition of] ten; so the term of his Lord was completed as forty nights. And Moses said to his brother Aaron, “Take my place among my people, do right [by them], and do not follow the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)
“Take my place.” No. Moses was not going anywhere permanently. Moses went somewhere briefly.
The following translators translate (ukh’luf’nī) in a Shi’i friendly manner.
Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar-Iranian Christian translator Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali -Al Ahzar Ali Quli Qara’i -Shi’i translator Ali Bakhtiari Nejad -Shi’ia translator The Monotheist Group [2013 Edition]-Quranist
The following translates the verse that we feel best expresses the meaning of ukh’luf’nī given the context.
Abdul Majid Daryabadi Ahmed Ali Hamid S Aziz A.L Bilal Muhammed et al Mushraff Hussain Mohammed Shafi
So we know that it cannot mean to “take my place” permanently because Moses came back. We also know that it cannot mean taking my place in succession. How do we know this?
The historical data does not support this.
“Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses.” (Deuteronomy 34:9)
The following, which is quite literally, is titled: Joshua to Succeed Moses.
Then Moses went out and spoke these words to all of Israel: “I am now a hundred and twenty years old, and I am no longer able to lead you. The Lord has said to me, ‘You shall not cross the Jordan.’ The Lord your God himself will cross over ahead of you. He will destroy these nations before you, and you will take possession of their land. Joshua also will cross over ahead of you, as the Lord said. And the Lord will do to them what he did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, whom he destroyed along with their land. The Lord will deliver them to you, and you must do to them all that I have commanded you. Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”
Then Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the presence of all Israel, “Be strong and courageous, for you must go with this people into the land that the Lord swore to their ancestors to give them, and you must divide it among them as their inheritance. The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”
Next time your overly excited Shi’a friend starts to tell you about the above Hadith and quotes the above verse of the (Qur’an 7:142), inform them what it says just 8 verses later.
“And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by his head, pulling him toward him. [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 7:150)
“And recall when We summoned Moses for a term of forty nights, and then you set up the calf as your god in his absence. You indeed committed a grave wrong.” (Qur’an 2:51)
Moses scolded, “O Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following after me? How could you disobey my orders? Aaron pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” (Qur’an 20:92-94)
So, if the Shi’i want to make Ali analogous to Harun (as) in a very literal way, we have some real problems.
Let us replace the words Moses (as) with the Prophet Muhammed (saw) and wewill replace Aaron (as) with Ali and let us see how this works.
“And when Muhammed returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized Ali by his head, pulling him toward him. [Ali] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 7:150)
Muhammed scolded, “O Ali! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following after me? How could you disobey my orders? Ali pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” (Qur’an 20:92-94)
Are we to believe that it only takes the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to be gone for 40 days as Ali, fearing for his life, allows the people to fall into blatant shirk?
Are we to believe there could be a scenario where the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is so furious with Ali that he snatches him up by his beard?!
Are we to believe there is a scenario where the Blessed Prophet (saw) scolded Ali for disobeying his orders? Even to the point where Ali feared that the Blessed Prophet (saw) would say that he (Ali) caused division among the Muslims?
Keep in mind that Moses (as), like the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) would have been given knowledge by Allah (swt) that Aaron (as) was not, in any way shape or form, in dereliction of his duties. Yet Musa (as) snatched Aaron (as) up!
We do not believe these are things the Shi’i are willing to entertain regarding Ali.
The Moses Aaron comparison is also devastating to Shi’i claims.
Why? Because they do not have equal authority.
“When there comes to them some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the Messenger, or to those charged with (ulī l-amri) authority among them, the proper investigators would have tested it for them (direct). Were it not for the Grace and Mercy of Allah unto you, all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan.” (Qur’an 4:83)
Aaron did not have the knowledge of the divine will that Moses had.
“I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’
“And [recall] when Moses said to his people, “O my people, indeed you have wronged yourselves by your taking of the calf [for worship]. So repent to your Creator and kill yourselves [i.e., the guilty among you]. That is best for [all of] you in the sight of your Creator.” Then He accepted your repentance; indeed, He is the Accepting of Repentance, the Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:54)
This line: “I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.” This absolutely does not refer to Ali ibn Abi Talib at all! This was a man who, instead of pursuing the killers of Uthman, wasted no time in collecting his army to go fight the people of Sham!
Translation of the above:
“This year of his caliphate, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib, assumed leadership and appointed governors over the regions. He appointed Abdullah ibn Abbas over Yemen, Samurah ibn Jundab over Basra, Imarah ibn Shihab over Kufa, Qays ibn Sa’d ibn Ubadah over Egypt, and over Syria, Sahl ibn Hunayf in place of Muawiyah. Sahl marched until he reached Tabuk, when the close associates of Muawiyah met him and said, “We want to say…” It was said, “He knows.” They said, “We want to say…” It was said, “He knows.” They then said, “If Uthman sent you in his capacity [as the rightful caliph, then proceed], but if it was someone else, then go back.” They said, “Have you not heard what happened?” They replied, “Yes.” So he returned to Ali.”
“As for Qays ibn Sa’d, the people of Egypt differed concerning him. The majority pledged allegiance to him, but a group said, “We will not pledge allegiance until the killers of Uthman are brought to us.” The situation was similar in Basra. As for Imarah ibn Shihab, who was sent as governor to Kufa, Talhah ibn Khuwaylid prevented him from entering out of anger for Uthman. He returned to Ali and informed him. The strife intensified, the matter became grave, and opinions differed. Abu Musa wrote to Ali informing him of the obedience and pledge of allegiance of the people of Kufa, except for a few. Ali sent many letters to Muawiyah, but he did not receive any reply. This continued repeatedly until the third month after the murder of Uthman, in Safar.”
“Then Muawiyah sent a scroll with a man who came to Ali. Ali asked, “What news do you bring?” The man replied, “I come to you from people who desire nothing but revenge, deeply aggrieved. I left seventy thousand elderly men gathered under the shirt of Uthman, which is displayed on the pulpit of Damascus.” Ali said, “O Allah, I declare myself innocent before You of the blood of Uthman.” Then the messenger of Muawiyah left Ali’s presence, and those Kharijites who had killed Uthman intended to kill him, but he barely escaped after much effort.”
“Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, resolved to fight the people of Syria. He wrote to Qays ibn Sa’d in Egypt, urging the people to mobilize for fighting them, and to Abu Musa in Kufa. He also sent word to Uthman ibn Hunayf about this. He addressed the people, inciting them for that purpose. He was determined to prepare and depart from Medina, appointing Qutham ibn Abbas as his deputy over it. He was resolved to fight, with those who obeyed him, against those who disobeyed him, rebelled against his command, and did not pledge allegiance to him along with the people.”
“His son, Al-Hasan ibn Ali, came to him and said, “O my father, abandon this, for it involves the shedding of Muslim blood and the occurrence of division among them.” But he did not accept that from him; rather, he insisted on fighting and organized the army. He gave the standard to Muhammed ibn al-Hanafiyyah, appointed Ibn Abbas to be in charge of important matters, and Umar ibn Abi Salama over the vanguard. It is also said he appointed Umar ibn Sufyan ibn Abd al-Assad over the vanguard. He appointed as the commander of his advance guard Abu Layla ibn Amr ibn al-Jarrah, the nephew of Abu Ubaydah. He appointed Qutham ibn Abbas as his deputy over Medina. Nothing remained except for him to depart from Medina heading towards Syria, until there came to him what diverted him from all of that, which we will mention.”
Source: Al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (البداية والنهاية) by Ibn Kathir Volume: around Vol. 7 or 8 (depending on the edition)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Ali claimed that he is in Bara’ah with those who killed Uthman.
He did not spend his time looking for these killers. Ali did not seem concerned at all about finding the killers of Uthman.
Trying to find the killers of Uthman could have easily disuaded the tension or at the very least exposed Muawiyah as a hypocrite.
Rather, Ali wasted no time in raising an army for the continued fighting, and killing and slaughter among the Muslims.
Al Hasan ibn Ali was much wiser than his father (Ali), who was spoiling for a fight.
Look at the words of Al Hasan ibn Ali.
“O my father, abandon this, for it involves the shedding of Muslim blood and the occurrence of division among them.” But he (Ali) did not accept that from him.”
So try to apply the following statement of Aaron (as) to Ali : “I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.” This absolutely does not apply to Ali.
In addition to that, we have the following:
Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin Abbas
“Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of Allah’s Apostle during his fatal illness. The people asked, “O Abu Hasan (i.e. Ali)! How is the health of Allah’s Apostle this morning?” ‘Ali replied, “He has recovered with the Grace of Allah.” ‘Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, “In three days you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else), And by Allah, I feel that Allah’s Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of ‘Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah’s Apostle and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us.” ‘Ali said, “By Allah, if we asked Allah’s Apostle for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah’s Apostle for it.”
It is quite clear that Ibn Abbas was not aware of any Shi’i interpretations that Ali should be the one to lead the Muslims after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Ali himself was not of the understanding that it was something that was his to take simply by being related to the Blessed Prophet (saw).
This is another reason why it is best to make the Qur’an the pillar of our theology and faith, as the hadith themselves have narrations that the Shi’i themselves wince at.
Then there is this straight from Nahjul balagha itself. Straight from a Shi’i website:
“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it. When the caliphate came to me, I kept the Book of Allah in my view and all that Allah had put therein for us, and all that according to which He has commanded us to take decisions; and I followed it, and also acted on whatever the Prophet – may Allah bless him and his descendants – had laid down as his sunnah. In this matter I did not need your advice or the advice of anyone else, nor has there been any order of which I was ignorant so that I ought to have consulted you or my Muslim brethren. If it were so I would not have turned away from you or from others.”
This sermon is said to have happened long after the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) died. This sermon itself proves that Ali never considered that he was already the appointed Khilafa of the Muslims.
He said, “When the Caliphate came to me.” This means he was not the Caliph at the time, he recognized it as such and nor did he want it. Someone who is divinely appointed by Allah (swt) to the Khilafa of the Muslims takes pride in it, claims it and upholds that as a great trust.
It shows Ali himself viewed the caliphate as something that came to him by people’s invitation after Uthman’s death, not as a pre-appointed right he was claiming.
Someone who recognizes they are not divinely appointed but that people have chosen who will lead them and then gets pushed into a position of leadership makes the kind of statements that Ali made above.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
“My Lord, increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
Recently one of our respected sisters had commented with a question on this blog:
“Asalamu Alaikum, I read somewhere (Reddit) that Ibadis consider the Niqab/ Burqa to be a Zoroastrian innovation, therefore, making it haraam for Muslim women to wear the niqab. Is this true? what are the Ibadi opinions on the niqab? As in Tanzania Ibadi sisters tend to wear the niqab.”
So this is the response from our Shaykh Jumaa Mazruii (May Allah continue to benefit us by him).
Several points to be taken.
None of the Ibadi scholars have ever said that Niqab is a bid’ah or that it came into Islam by way of the Zoroastrians.
One of our biggest living scholars, and Mufti of Oman, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (hafidullah) says, that it is something preferable for women to wear. Men like to look at the face of the woman and it can become part of fitnah.
Our school does not say it is wajib (obligatory) rather, it is something highly stressed.
Prima Qur’an comments: (To be taken with a pinch of salt).
Our thoughts on the Niqab as a Muslim convert from the West and given the fact that our school has little presence where Muslims are the minority, some things need to be taken on board.
There are people in life that make bad decisions and bad choices. We all make bad choices /decisions from time to time. So imagine a situation where a woman went into a certain entertainment industry and there are, unfortunately, pictures of her all over the internet. That Niqab maybe an extra level of protection and/or anonymity for her.
Might we also add that current cultural dynamics in Western society offer absolutely no dignified approach for a woman who may have regretted such a course of action and wishes to move on with her life in a way that is dignified and anonymous. There is the possibility of changing one’s name. However, hiding the appearance is not part of the cultural norms of the west or most other societies at all.
The Niqab offers her both that dignity and anonymity.
2. We are now in the month of Ramadan. Once the Ramadan festivities have ended, many in Malaysia, Indonesia will practice what we call ‘Jalan Raya’, the walking celebration, albeit taxi, train and driving these days.
We visit our parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles, asking for forgiveness and to reestablish and rekindle familiar ties. What happens now is that many take the opportunity to take pictures at this gathering (very often without even having the courtesy to ask others if they want their pictures to be taken).
In such a situation, a man may feel more comfortable with others taking pictures of his wife, daughter etc. while wearing the niqaab. There is a certain gheerah (protective jealousy) in not having other men sharing and circulating pictures of one’s wife/daughter etc.
Albeit in today’s culture and society, we have shed gheerah like a deciduous forest sheds its leaves during the winter.
3. Often times, Muslims who have proclaimed they have a very “progressive” or “liberal” view of Islam will rail against the Niqab. This is strange because a progressive philosophy should be inclusive, which would include the niqab as part of a woman’s right.
4. Women may be able to get around with more ease in a mixed-sex setting that we find ourselves in very often in places like Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia. Often, men and women can mistake facial ques for something that is not intended. A slight grin, a bright-eyed smile can many times be interpreted by men in ways that a woman never intended for it to mean at all. In this case, the Niqab is a protection for both.
Now, although we find the argument for the Niqaab to be compelling on those grounds, it may not be ideal for Muslims living in the West or places where such customs and understandings of Islam are prevalent.
An example:
Women who teach in kindergarten or schools should have their face visible to children. Children need to be able to form bonds with their teachers and the face conveys many words and feelings that are often conveyed stronger than words. So, whereas as in point 4 above, the Niqab can help facilitate appropriate interaction, in the case of small children it may serve the opposite effect. Again, this is in the context of children who are not used to the niqaab, or it is something alien to them. It may be a source of discomfort for children and Allah (swt) knows best.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“And among those We created is a community which guides by truth and thereby establishes justice.” (Qur’an 7:181)
﷽
The next time someone says that we Ibadi are Khawarij and that we do not take our deen from them perhaps gently remind those people to stop using harakat when teaching your children how to read the Qur’an properly!
That system—you use to teach their children, which enables tajwīd, which facilitates tarāwīḥ prayers, and which is the very means of correctly reciting the Qur’an—was systematized by an Ibadi scholar.
There is scarcely a grammar book that talks about the essence of ilmu al-nahw except that the name: Al-Khalili ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi is mentioned.
The “Shining Star” of the Basran school of Arabic grammar, a polymath and scholar, he was a man of genuinely original thought. Al-Farahidi was the first scholar to subject the prosody of Classical Arabic poetry to a detailed phonological analysis.
He was born in Oman circa 718 and died in Basra, Iraq circa 791. He was an Arab philologist and the first to compile an Arabic dictionary. He was the teacher of Sībawayh, whom latter compiled al-Kitāb fī an-naḥw (“The Book on Grammar”).
The lie that Al-Khalili ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi al-Ibadi left the school of Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqamah to join Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah is a whopper of a lie!
“This is where history records the role of Khalil bin Ahmad al-Farahidy al-Ibadi. He then determined the form of fathah with the lowercase alif letter lying on top of the letter, kasrah with a small ya’ letter below it and dhammah with a small waw letter above it. Meanwhile, tanwin is formed by duplicating the writing of each of these signs, in addition there are several other signs.”
“In Khalili’s time, the Qur’anic manuscripts were equipped with various points with various functions and purposes. In the disciplines of the Qur’an, it is known as naqthi’rab, or simply the point of harakat, and naqthi’jam which are nothing but dots on each other. The two types of dots are written differently by using red for vowel points and black for letter points.”
“The number of dots scattered on each page of the Qur’anic manuscripts which then gave birth to problems, both for readers and writers. For readers, reading errors are not impossible to avoid because sometimes they cannot distinguish one from another. As for writers, it is considered a hassle because they always have to change colours at one time in the writing process.”
Every time your children use the system of harakat to read the Qur’an, rather it is in reciting the Qur’an in Ramadan during tarweeh prayers, or in one’s private reading of the Qur’an during prayers, or in any type of gathering all of that hasanat, all that blessing is being accredited to Al-Khalili ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi al-Ibadi!! May Allah (swt) cover him in mercy!
Prima Quran 