“And do not conceal the testimony, for whoever conceals it, their hearts are indeed sinful. And Allah knows what you do.” (Qur’an 2:283)
﷽
The following snippet is part of a much larger program with Dr. Mahmoud Ismail.
The episode is titled: The Kharijites, History’s Wronged
Again, as with others, it is unfortunate the nomenclature of the word ‘Kharijite’ or ‘Khawarij’. It is something we are unfortunately going to be accustomed to by historians and academics.
“They were the most loyal soldiers of Ali. Firstly, they were from the Qurra’, who read the Qur’an, recite it, and teach it. They taught in the Masjids of Basra and Kufah.”
“They were the most loyal to Ali and the bravest.”
“They rejected arbitration from the beginning, opposite to the Sunni narrations and some Shi’i ones, which say they forced Ali to accept arbitration. Then they turned around and forced him to reject it! This never happened! I have written about this with evidence. Text has been cited with high importance and relevance.”
Their banner was: “There is no rule except from Allah.”
“Everyone pledged to Ali except a man from the Levant called Muawiyah bin Abi Sufian-from the off-hand Muslims. You understand? The accusation of accepting arbitration they distanced themselves from the camp of Ali. They headed to a village called Harura.So they were called ‘Harauris’. These are those who rejected it(arbitration) from the beginning. So how can it be when the results of abritration came they reject it? Ali was with their opinion. The opinion of the Khawarij. Hence, when Ali sent Ibn Abbas to debate them he said be nice witih them, speak to them softly. Ali was with the opinion of Khawarij. However, he indeed was forced. Who forced him? Who forced him to accept arbitration? Al-Ash’ath Bin Qaid Al-Kindi.”
If you wish to watch the full discussion kindly see the following:
In fact, they quote a Sunni historical source as a provocative claim about Abu Bakr (ra) in regards to the house of Fatima (ra). Yet these same Shi’a do not ponder the implications of someone so hated by Abu Bakr (ra) being among one the confidents of Imam Ali!
“Yes, I am not upset for anything in this world, except three things I have done and I wish I had not done them and three things I have not done and I wish I had done them and three things I wish I had asked the Prophet (saw). But what I wish I had not done, first is that I wish I had not invaded the house of Fatima even if they closed it to me for war, second is that I wish I had not burned Fuja’a Sullami and instead I either had killed or released him. The third is that I wish on the Day of Saqifa, I had left the caliphate on either of these two men ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubayda that one of them would become the caliph and I would become his minister.
But the three things I did not do and wish I had: the first is that when Al-Ash’ath bin Qais was brought to me in captivity, I wish I had struck his neck, because I suspect he will enforce evil wherever he finds it; and the other one is that I wish when I sent Khalid Bin Waleed to the battle of the apostates I had remained at Zil Qissah so that I could help the army if they were defeated; and the third one, I wish that when I delegated Khalid to Sham I had sent Omar to Iraq so that I had opened my two hands in the cause of Allah.
Then he opened his hands and added:
I wish I had asked the Messenger of Allah (saw)that to whom the caliphate belonged, so that nobody would go to war on it; and I wish I had asked him did Ansar have any right in this matter; and I wish I had asked him if the the brother’s daughter and the father’s sister would inherit anything [from the deceased], because I’m not sure about it.
Source: (Târîkh Tabarî, v 3 p 429 ; Târîkh Ya’qûbî, v 2 p 137)
You really have to wonder how someone like Al-Ash’ath bin Qais, an apostate who came back to Islam and found such high favour, station and status in the ranks of Imam Ali.
“Also, abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as was the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.” (Qur’an 33:33)
﷽
If one is already pure, there is no need to purify. If one claims there are degrees and grades of purification, then this does not indicate absolute perfection.
The totally pure cannot become purer and the totally perfect can’t be purified.
The very verse that the ’12er Shi’i’ rely upon to establish their position gives them trouble from the outset.
“Also, abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as was the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.” (Qur’an 33:33)
This verse is clearly talking about the women of the Prophet (saw) his wives.
Two points within the verse preclude this being a reference to men.
Point 1)
It would be odd to think of any male of the Prophet (saw) household “displaying themselves” in a feminine manner. Unless now people are going to tell us that the males of the ‘Ahl Bayt’ were displaying themselves in a feminine manner in previous times.
Tabarrajna — display yourselves.
Understand this in light of the following verse:
“Also, women of post-menstrual age who have no desire for marriage — there is no blame upon them for putting aside their outer garments but not displaying adornment. But to modestly refrain from that is better for them. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 24:60)
Mutabarrijātin—displaying your adornment
Point 2)
Also, do the men of the ‘Ahl Bayt’ abide in their houses? No! Obviously, they don’t.
Also, note that the text is an admonition to the people of the ‘Ahl Bayt’ who were doing something that deserves admonishment.
So let us look at the text in context.
“O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality – for her, the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah, easy. And whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does righteousness – We will give her reward twice; and We have prepared for her a noble provision. O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech. And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification. And remember what is recited in your houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom. Indeed, Allah is ever Subtle and Acquainted with all things.” (Qur’an 33:30-34)
Wives, women, her.The wives of the Prophet (saw) are all pure and purified. These verses, in their context, have absolutely nothing to do with any male relations of the Prophet (saw).
Keep the following in mind.
The controversy surrounding the Blessed Prophet (saw) parents.
The fact that Abu Muttalib did not die as a believer is well known.
The fact that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is reported to have had three sons, Qasim, Abdullah and Ibrahim (May Allah’s mercy cover them all). None of them lived beyond the age of 2.
The following verse makes it abundantly clear that Allah (swt) will purify whomever He (swt) wills.
“So if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, not one of you would have been pure, ever, but Allah purifies whom He wills, and Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 24:21)
O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.
How does Allah (swt) intend to purify the household?
Then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech.
And abide in your houses.
Do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance.
And establish prayer and give zakah.
However, the Imams of the ’12er Shi’i’ have come along and made a huge exegetical stretch out of these verses.
So they come along and isolate the following text from context:
“Allah intends only to remove from you (ʿankumu) the impurity of sin, O people of the Prophet’s household, and to purify you with extensive purification.”
So they will focus on (ʿankumu) as it is in the masculine form. In Arabic grammar, this is quite natural. The presence of many women but only one man, the pronoun switches to the masculine. So, the presence of the Blessed Prophet (saw) renders this masculine. Members of the household =the women. Whose household? The household of Muhammed (saw)—whom is masculine.
From this lens, the grammatical argument isn’t a “clue” left by Allah; it’s a “hook” found by later interpreters to hang a doctrine onto a verse that originally had a different, clearer meaning.
Another example is here:
“They said, “Are you amazed at the decree of Allah ? May the mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you (ʿalaykum), people of the house. Indeed, He is Praiseworthy and Honorable.” (Qur’an 11:73)
Sarah (as) is being addressed in the feminine singular. However, when they address her as a member of the household of Ibrahim (as), the pronoun becomes masculine plural.
The purification of the wives is on account of the Blessed Prophet (saw). So that his consorts may resemble him in purification and perfection.
The term l-rij’sa (the impurity) is originally dirt that soiled bodies. It is borrowed here for sins and religious defects. As they render a person’s reputation in this world and the hereafter despised and disliked, like a body stained with dirt.
Does being a descendant of a Prophet guarantee you to be sinless and free from error?
Keep in mind the following:
“Moreover, it sailed with them through waves like mountains, and NOAH CALLED TO HIS SON, who was apart [from them], “O MY SON, come aboard with us and be not with the disbelievers. [But] he said, “I will take refuge on a mountain to protect me from the water.” [Noah] said, “There is no protector today from the decree of Allah, except for whom is given mercy.” And the waves came between them, and he was among the drowned.”(Qur’an 11:42-43)
Then Allah (swt) informed Noah…
“So Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed MY SON IS OF MY FAMILY and indeed, your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges! He said, “O NOAH, INDEED HE IS NOT OF YOUR FAMILY; indeed, he is [one whose] work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant. [Noah] said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 11:45-47)
“Moreover, remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: “I will make you an Imam to the Nations.” He pleaded: “And also (Imams) from my offspring!” He answered: “But My Promise is not within the reach of evildoers.” (Qur’an 2:124)
If you notice Allah (swt) didn’t write a blank check for the descendants of Abraham. If you were made virtuous by being a descendant of a prophet, then Allah(swt) would have simply granted Abraham’s du’a; however, he did not. He made a caveat, “My promise is not within reach of the evildoers.”
Is this not interesting? Make Imams of me and my offspring!
In other words, I will grant your du’a to those who hold on to my commands and strive their utmost to be righteous servants.
Cain killed his brother Abel. Both were descendants of the Prophet Adam (upon whom be peace). Yet, one was righteous and the other became the ‘first’ murderer. Such that Allah (swt) made an example of this particular incident throughout time.
“So his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:30)
In reality, if you want to be technical, from the perspective that we all came from Adam, or are ‘Bani Adam’—the children of Adam, we are in reality all descendants of the Prophets.
Is this not interesting? He murdered his own brother. Both had the blood of a Prophet in their veins.
We love, and we honour the noble Prophet Muhammed (saw) and his family. However, we have no evidence from the Qur’an to substantiate the position that they were infallible or beyond reproach. No one can establish this from the Qur’an.
“Look how We make the signs clear; then look at how deluded they are.” (Qur’an 5:75)
“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)
﷽
Narrated `Ikrima:
that Ibn `Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
One could simply ditch the narration from Ikrima (ra) above. And use the following. Although the following allows for more interpretative scope than does the narration given via Ikrima (ra).
Abu Sa`id Khudri reported:
One who is better than I informed me, that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said to `Ammar as he was digging the ditch (on the occasion of the Battle of the Ditch), wiping over his head: “O son of Summayya, you will be involved in trouble and a group of the rebels would kill you.”
So why are a group of companions castigated when it becomes even apparent to them that Muaviya and his part were the unjust group? They warned Ali, this was a ruse, and they remembered well what the Blessed Messenger (saw) said: and a group of the rebels would kill you
By the way, Ammar (ra) was killed BEFORE arbitration.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
Some Muslims really do imagine that they can have their cake and eat it too when it comes to Ikrima (ra).
On the one hand, they want to use Ikrima (ra) as a narrator when it comes to clearly showing that the kharijites truly were, none other than Muawiyah and his band.
In the following post you can see how Ibn Taymiyyah tripped over himself with regard to one of the narrations of Ikrima regarding Ammar ibn Yasir (ra).
Yet, then they want to cast aspersions upon the narrator, Ikirma (ra), because he has none other than Ibn Abbas (ra), who narrates that he himself differed with the ijtihad of Ali, concerning the burning of apostates.
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
So, an ex-12er, Shi’i shared the following video with us and what an eye-opener!
The YouTube channel, known to be Pro-Alid, featured a “Sunni” ?? Scholar Dr. Suhail Zakkar (possibly Shi’i or diet-Shi’i) who pulled out all the stops to throw Ibn Abbas (ra) under the bus!
Ibn ‘Abbas reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) came to the privy and I placed water for him for ablution. When he came out he said:
Who placed it here? And in one version of Zuhair they (the Companions) said, and in the version of Abu Bakr (the words are): I said: It is Ibn ‘Abbas (who has done that), whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: May Allah grant him a deep understanding of religion.
Dr. Suhail Zakkar (1936–2020) was a highly respected and prolific Syrian historian and academic, widely considered a leading authority on medieval Arab history, particularly the Crusades and early Islamic history.
Early Life & Formative Years: Being born under the French Mandate and experiencing its economic hardships firsthand instilled in him a strong sense of Arab nationalism and a desire to understand the forces—historical and colonial—that shaped the modern Arab world. This personal context deeply influenced his academic pursuits.
Academic Credentials: After obtaining his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Damascus, he earned a doctorate from the prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. This gave him Western academic training which he combined with his deep knowledge of Arabic sources.
Magnum Opus: His life’s work, the “Comprehensive Encyclopedia in the History of the Crusades” (Al-Mawsuʻah al-shamilah fi tarikh al-hurub al-salibiyah), is a monumental 50-volume reference work. It is not a narrative history but a critical compilation and analysis of primary sources, making it an indispensable resource for scholars.
Legacy: He represented a school of serious, source-critical Arab historiography. He passed away in Damascus in March 2020.
Ibn Abbas (ra) and his empathy with the Khawarij?
Complete Withdrawal and Neutrality: Ibn Abbas did not just withdraw from his post; he withdrew entirely from the conflict. He did not return to Ali’s camp in Kufa, nor did he offer further political or military support during the escalating war with the so-called Khawarij. This neutrality in a conflict he had previously argued was a matter of truth versus error that could be interpreted by Dr. Zakkar as a fundamental shift in allegiance.
Interpretation of His Silence: From a historical analysis perspective, Dr. Zakkar could argue that Ibn Abbas’s silence and absence during the latter part of Ali’s caliphate and during the period of the so-called Khawarij’s peak activity is deafening. For a figure of his stature and previous unwavering support, this silence could be read as tacit approval or, at a minimum, a strong empathy for the Khawarij’s grievances against Ali.
In our school we know why this is. For those who are reading up on history, and they know that Ibn Abbas (ra) saw the soundness of the argument of the sahaba of Al Nahrawan.
What the good Dr. left out was the fact that Ali sent Ibn Abbas (ra) to the sahaba of Al Nahrawan to try and when them back after leaving Ali’s camp over the arbitration.
Ali knew that they had been correct from the beginning!
The companion Ibn Abbas (ra) debates the companions at Nahrawan.
Argument #1
“O you who believe! Kill not game while in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you does so intentionally, the compensation is an offering, brought to the Ka’ba, of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed, AS ADJUDGED BY TWO JUST MEN AMONG YOU; or by way of atonement, the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts: that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past: for repetition, Allah will exact from him the penalty. For Allah is Exalted, and Lord of Retribution.”(Qur’an 5:95)
‘As adjudged by two just men among you’. Keep this in mind as well. This is a key part of the text.
The companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) replied:
“Are you comparing the law relating to the killing of game animal on the sacred land or the law that is intended to resolve the misunderstandings that occur between a man and his wife, with the law that is intended to govern the matters of greater magnitude such as the act of shedding of Muslims’ blood?”
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 13.)
So, through qiyas (analogy), it is logical to reason that, in the above verse, during the pilgrimage, when someone kills a game animal, they are ordered to compensate for the following judgement by two just men than it stands to reason the shedding of Muslim blood has a better claim to be dealt with diplomatically.
In response to what Ibn Abbas (ra) had presented, the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) argued that there is a significant difference between the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) refereed to and the verse which is used to justify Ali’s war against Mu’awiya.
In the verses Ibn Abbas (ra) referred to, Allah did not mention any ruling, nor did he make any decision between contending parties. Instead, He assigned the task of arbitrating to men.
On this point, there is no issue with Ibn Abbas (ra) and his thought process here.
However, in the verse which gave Ali the right to fight the war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) Himself has mentioned step by step the measures that should be taken and decided on. What should be done at each step?
Thus, Allah (swt) lays down the ruling in this case. The verse states: “Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)
Also, another point concerning the text that Ibn Abbas brought forth.
‘As adjudged by two just men among you’
Naturally, people would ask, “Are you saying Amru bin Al-As is a man of justice when it was he who spilled our blood yesterday?” If you believe that he is just, then we (including you — Ibn Abbas and Ali) are not just because we all fought the war against Mu’awiya and Amru bin Al-As who are just!”
So, the unfilled questions put to Ibn Abbas (ra) were.
A) Were there two arbitrators or one?
B) Were they just or unjust?
To the Shi’i reading this (Zaydi and Imami), we implore you to tell us. Who are the just ones in the camp of Mu’awiya? Can one who takes up arms against Ali be considered just? If you say yes, then let that stand on the record.
To the Sunnis reading this, we implore you to tell us. The one who rebels against the recognized Imam who has not been proven to go against the Qur’an and Sunnah. Are they just or unjust?
Ibn Abbas (ra) was quoted by Ahmad Ibn A’tham as saying: “O, men! Amru bin Al’As was not an arbiter, why then oppose us because of him? He was but an arbiter representing Mu’awiya.” Source: (Ibn A’tham, Al Futuh Vol. 4, p. 94.)
Is it imaginable that Ibn Abbas (ra) wanted to substantiate his position with a verse which strongly opposed him?
Naturally, our brothers from among the ‘Ahl Sunnah’ or the ‘Shi’i’ are either not informed about this side of the story or simply the learned among them withhold information. Allah (swt) sees and knows all.
It has been narrated on the authority of Aba Sa’id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.”
Argument #2 Let us look at the other verse that is said that Ibn Abbas (ra) brought as proof.
“If you fear a breach between couples, send an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If the couple desire to put things right, Allah will bring about a reconciliation between them. “Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware” (Qur’an 4:35)
This verse orders us to reconcile between a man and his wife in case of misunderstanding or breach. But the steps that ought to be taken when resolving such domestic disputes have not been mentioned. The arbiters are generally required to do their best, in being fair and just, to reach a peaceful, acceptable resolution for the concerned parties.
When you compare the two mentioned verses you will notice that they are intended for different purposes.
In the verse which gave Ali the right to wage war against Mu’awiya, Allah (swt) delegated no one to rule and decide on the issue. But He rather ordered the believers to abide by what He had ruled.
On the other hand, what Ibn Abbas (ra) armed himself with, was the verse that Allah (swt) granted deciding on a role to two fair and just arbiters. That is a clear and a huge difference between the two verses. So, we can say with confidence that Ibn Abbas’s analogy of linking this verse with the conflict of war between Ali and Mu’awiya is debatable.
It does not seem suitable for a person of his stature and understanding. Now, as mentioned above, Ibn Abbas (ra), after hearing all of this, knew very well that the arguments produced by the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that were in Nahrawan were airtight!
When Ibn Abbas (ra) was convinced by their arguments, he (Ibn Abbas) sheathed his sword. Meaning he did not assist Ali in his unprovoked attack upon the Muslims at Nahrawan. Remember, as the Dr. said, this same Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Ali at the battle of the Camel & Siffin.
So we are talking about the same Ibn Abbas (ra) who was with Ali opposite a field with Aisha (ra), Talha and Zubayr, and Ibn Abbas (ra) was with Ali opposite a field with Muaviya and Amr ibn al-As.
This same Ibn Abbas (ra) who said after his debate with the sahaba of Al Nahrawan the following:
“(The People of Nahrawan) have been on the Right Path“
Source: (Al-Shammakhi, Al-Siyar Vol. 1 p, 72,)
Another account says concerning Ibn Abbas (ra) and his debate with the sahaba of Al Nahrwan, that he (Ibn Abbas) “could not crush their proofs.”
Source: (Abu Qahtaan, Al-Siyar p. 107)
Another narration says he (Ibn Abbas) went back from this exchange with them: “Without being able to do anything.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p 18, Al-Barrad Al-Jawaahir p. 122)
“He could not prove anything to them!“
Source: (Ibn Abi Shaibah, Al-Musannaf Vol. 15, p. 312)
“The Nahrawanees established their proofs to him(Ibn Abbas).”
Source: (Al-Ya’qubi, Al-Taarikh Vol. 2 p. 191)
First they (Diet-Shi’i) tried to throw Ikrima (ra) under the bus. So, when they did not turn over any leaves, some of them started to go after Ibn Abbas (ra).
Ibn Abbas (ra) begins to distance himself from Ali
Can’t keep the truth hidden from the Muslims for too long!
Look at what Ibn Abbas (ra) says here
“I swear by Allah, it is better for me that I meet Allah with all that are beneath the Earth, starting with its gold and silver, and all that its surface is full with than meeting Him with my hands having split the blood of this umma (Islamic Nation) so that I may attain a kingship or leadership.” -Ibn Abbas
Ouch!
Source: (Al-Baladhuri, Al Ansab Vol 2, p 398. Ibn Abd Rabbi, Al-‘Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 326. Al Futuh by Ibn A’atham Vol. 4, p.75)
“If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer.” -Ibn Abbas.
Ouch Again!
Source: (Al-Qalhati, Al-Kashf Vol 2, p 251. IbnAbdiRabih, Al-Iqdu Al-Farid Vol. 4, p. 331.)
It is very clear from the aforementioned that Ibn Abbas (ra) had developed a disapproving attitude towards the war fought against the sahaba of Al Nahrawan. A complete change of heart from the previous conflicts.
It is clear that, in this war with the Nahrawanees, Ibn Abbas (ra) found fault with Ali and condemned him for his unjustifiably wrong act of fighting those fellow sahaba.
After he was sent to debate with them, Ibn Abbas (ra) realized they were upon the truth. He accepted that he (Ibn Abbas) was wrong and the sahaba of Al Nahrawan were right. Certainly there is a lesson to be learnt from this experience that the accurate criteria with which to draw a distinction between right and wrong is not a coin-flip, but rather the Qur’an and authentic Prophetic traditions. After all, Ali made his hasty decision in the heat of the moment (giving in to pro-arbitration forces) and possibly did not consider the full ramifications of his decision.
When those sahaba who left Ali’s camp answered Ibn Abbas (ra) and his objections clearly and decisively, there was nowhere to go but the truth.
Having been fully convinced by the position of the Nahrwanees and the evidence that they had for their succession from Ali’s leadership, Ibn Abbas also detached himself from Ali and set out for Mecca.
Source: (Al-Tabari, Al-Taarikh Vol 6, p. 20)
Even though one of the reasons why Ibn Abbas (ra) left Ali and set out to Mecca was from their differences in the bait al-mal (House of Treasury/House of Properties), from which Ibn Abbas (ra) took what he regarded to be his lawful portion of the money, their differences were compounded by the fact that they were on opposing sides of the issue of the Nahrwanees.
Recall the statement:
“If my act of taking money was wrong, that could be easier to me than taking part in shedding the blood of a believer,” — Ibn Abbas.
In this statement, Ibn Abbas (ra) is basically saying: If I disagree with you on the issue of bait al-mal, then I am strongly opposing you on the issue of the Companions at Nahrawan. This was about the point in time where Ibn Abbas (ra) detached himself from Ali’s leadership.
May Allah (swt) open the eyes of the truth seekers!
Dear readers, you have been provided the information. All you need to do is to plug in the pieces. You were told that Ibn Abbas (ra) went and debated the companions at Nahrawan and that he (Ibn Abbas) had won hands down. Notice how you are never told their reply or their responses?
Brought to you by the same people who have no problem with mocking their own Imams!
“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
﷽
Praise be to Allah (swt) for the noble and truthful companion Ikrima (ra). He is the one who informed us that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had errors in his ijtihad. That a senior member of the Ahl Bayt Ibn Abbas (ra) corrected Ali Ibn Abu Talib.
Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ali had errors in his ijtihad that would go against the Qur’an & Sunnah. That he would get corrected by a senior member of the Ahl Bayt.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”
This noble and truthful companion, Ikrima (ra), also informed us that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.
Ikrima (ra) informs us that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) would be killed by the rebel group.
Narrated `Ikrima:
“That Ibn Abbas told him and `Ali bin `Abdullah to go to Abu Sa`id and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Sa`id and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, “(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while `Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet (saw) passed by `Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, “May Allah be merciful to `Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. `Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire.”
Such a problem is the above sahih hadith that the Hanbali Ibn Taymiyyah al Harrani tried to come up with all kinds of crafty ways of dealing with the impact of the statement from the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Some have said that it is not authentic, and others have interpreted it. People have had different statements about the tradition of ‘Ammaar; of them are those who have criticized it.” He goes on: “But the people who have knowledge of this tradition have had three different statements. One group of them regards it to be inauthentic because to them, it has been narrated through a weak chain of transmitters!”
The tradition itself despite being in Bukhari is actually daif.
It has a suitable interpretation.
The Imam of the Muslims, the People of The Truth and Steadfastness, Al-Imamu Al-Qannubi says: “We do not know whom Ibn Taymiyyah means by his claim “Some (have said that it is not authentic)….” There will come explanation that many have classified this tradition as authentic….”
Source: (Al-QannubiAl-Tufan Al-JarifVol. 3, section two, p. 625)
But this interpretation has been objected to by even Ibn Taymiyyah himself!
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 210-211)
But – all of a sudden – we, finally, find Ibn Taymiyyah himself turning around to clearly state that the said tradition is authentic. “The tradition is proved, and it is authentic, being from the Prophet (saw).”
Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Minhaju Al-Sunna Vol. 2, p. 211)
Yet, surprisingly, he has misinterpreted it by saying: “His killers were those who held weapons and killed him.” Which he means to say not Mu’awiya!!! He says again: “The word “killer”, if loosely or absolutely used, means the one that has killed: not the one that has issued the order (of killing).”
This bizarre philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah indicates that if he were to live in the present age, he would – of course – agree with the claim that presidents are not responsible for the crime of the illegal, haphazard bloodshed committed by their armies in different Muslim and non-Muslim countries, but rather their troops are the ones responsible for that! Indeed, while Ibn Taymiyyah defends Mu’awiya in that way, we find that Mu’awiya himself proves him wrong, as he says: “Ali had two right hands (two strong assistants and supporters), one of which I cut on the day of Siffin, meaning ‘Ammaar bin Yasir; and the other I cut today, meaning Al-ashtar”
Source: (Al-Tabari Al-Taarikh Vol. 3, p. 133. Ibn Al-Athir Al-Kamil Vol. 2, p. 705.)
Check mate!
Not only this but here is a tradition that contradicts Ibn Taymiyyah’s bizarre idea. The tradition says:
Not only this, but here is a tradition that contradicts Ibn Taymiyyah’s bizarre idea. The tradition says:
“He who assists with a half-uttered word in the killing of a Muslim, will come on the day of judgment between his two eyes there has been written “He has despaired of the Mercy of Allah.”
Source: (Al-Rabi’u bin Habib Al-Jami’u Al-Sahih p. 368, tradition no. 960. Ibn Majah Al-Sunan p. 444, tradition no. 2620. )
How does it come, then, that Ibn Taymiyya excludes the one from whose order the killing is carried out from being responsible for it?!
Typically, many Sunnis have used these tactics to get around this hadith. Even some of the early proto-Umayyad-proto-Sunnis say that the ones who slew Ammar ibn Yasir were the ones who brought him to the battlefield, meaning Ali ibn Abu Talib himself!
However, pro-Alid groups have tried to cast aspersions on this narrator, Ikrima, as well!
You can’t have your cake and eat it too! You can’t use ‘Ikrima as evidence against Muaviya and then say his evidence is not good when it comes to Ibn Abbas (ra) disagreeing with Ali burning people alive.
For those of you interested in reading more, you are invited to read:
May Allah (swt) open the eyes and the hearts of this ummah! May Allah (swt) unite us upon the truth!
“Glory to Him who journeyed His servant by night, from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him of Our wonders. He is the Listener, the Beholder.” (Qur’an 17:1)
“Perform the prayer at the decline of the sun, until the darkness of the night; and the Qur’an at dawn. The Qur’an at dawn is witnessed. And keep vigil with it during parts of the night, as an extra prayer. Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a laudable position. And say, “My Lord, lead me in through an entry of truth, and lead me out through an exit of truth, and grant me from You a supporting power.”. And say, “The truth has come, and falsehood has withered away; for falsehood is bound to wither away.”. We send down in the Qur’an healing and mercy for the believers, but it increases the wrongdoers only in loss.” (Qur’an 17:79-82)
﷽
Many believe that Muslims only pray five times a day. However, Muslims have many invocations of divine remembrance throughout the day. There are invocations that are said by Muslims when we eat, embark on a journey, or even sleep.
Embark on a voyage of great spiritual discovery.
The ‘sublime oral tradition’, or hadith, reports that the Blessed Prophet Muhammed, (saw), received the five times daily prayer of Islam during his mystical ascension through the heavens into the glorious (Garden of Spiritual Essence). During this journey, the Noble Prophet was able to contemplate angels performing each of the various movements of prayer.
Prayer is a gift from the Creator, A spiritual technology, displayed first through angelic beings, rather than springing from human intellect, will or initiative. It is reported that The Prophet of Islam proclaimed, “Prayer is the ascension of the faithful.”
Prayer is more of a way of intimate discussion with the Creator than an offering to the Creator. The Creator does not ask for or need any offering. Prayer exists beyond the kingdom of personal will. Rather, it is the key to the kingdom of Divine Will.
The Blessed Prophet Muhammed, (saw), could have brought back from his ascension any gift from the infinite Divine Treasury. Since he returned with the technology of prayer, we can infer that it is most precious.
For Muslims, prayer is ordained by the Creator as the most effective way to unfold the fullness of our humanity. The Creator does not need our prayers but offers the technology of prayer to us as His supreme gift.
We as Muslims pray not only from a sense of obligation but as an act of tender responsiveness, just as a lover desires to fulfill every wish of the Most Beloved, the Most Covetous.
The unified lines of prayer, with the intention of the hearts in perfect alignment as well, produces such an experience of spiritual power and communion, it is as though all humanity was standing together in prayer.
To humble oneself and prostrate during prayer is to plunge directly into the ocean of Divine Mercy. How sublime for the one who discovers it and how unfortunate to miss even a single occasion of it.
“And DO NOT OBEY the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend their ways” (Qur’an 26:151-152)
﷽
What Did Imam Malik Say About Abu Hamzas Khutbah? – His Eminence Shaykh Nasir al MarMuri رحمة الله تعالى.
English subtitles:
Abu Hamza al-Mukhtar bin ‘Awf, one of the prominent Ibadi’s of Basrah had this to say about the Umayyad rulers in general and Yazid in particular during a Friday sermon in Medina in the presence of Imam Malik ibn Anas:
“There came Yazid, a libertine in religion and unmanly in behavior, in whom was never perceived right guidance. He would eat forbidden food, and drink wine, and wear a robe worth a thousand dinars, through which you could see his flesh so that the veil of modesty was rent, an unpardonable disrobe. And Haraba the singing girl on his right, and Salama the singing girl on his left, both singing if you had taken drink away from him, he would rent his garments!
And he would turn to one of them and say, Shall I fly? Aye, he flew. To God’s damnation, and the burning Fire, and a painful torment!
He then turns to the Umayyads:
“The sons of Umayyads are a party of error, and their strength is the strength of tyrants. They take conjecture for their guide, and judge as they please, and put men to death in anger, and govern by mediation and take the law out of context and distribute the public money to those not entitled to them. For God has revealed those who are entitled, and they are eight classes of men, for He says:
“The freewill offerings are for the poor and the needy, those who work to collect them, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and slaves and debtors, and those in the way of Allah and the travelers.”
They, the Umayyads make themselves the ninth category and take it all! Such are those who rule by what Allah has not sent down.” (The World of Islam John A Williams p 218)
“We have not sent down to you the Qur’an that you be distressed.” (Qur’an 20:2)
﷽
“Allah does not require any soul more than what it can bear. All good will be for its own benefit, and all evil will be to its own loss. “Our Lord! Do not punish us if we forget or make a mistake. Our Lord! Do not place a burden on us, like the one you placed on those before us. Our Lord! Do not burden us with what we cannot bear. Pardon us, forgive us, and have mercy on us. You are our Guardian. So grant us victory over the disbelieving people.” (Qur’an 2:286).
The above verse is an often misunderstood verse. It is misunderstood to mean a personal life crisis. Notice the phrase: “Do not place a burden on us, like the one you placed on those before us our Lord!”
This is a reference to the Children of Israel.
“The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes [of books]. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah . And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 62:5)
By not observing what Allah (swt) had ordered them and forbade them and by not applying laws to context, they made the law a burden for themselves. The donkey carries books, yet it has no grasp of their contents, and it does not benefit from them. In fact, the donkey is looking forward to having that weight removed from it.
The Shariah law is meant to be the path to victory. Notice the verse above also states:
“So grant us victory over the disbelieving people.”
In Arabic, Shariah (شريعة) literally means “a path to water.”
Allah does not require any soul more than what it can bear.
This is in regard to the Shariah. There is no aspect of the sacred law that is difficult for anyone to carry out. If there becomes a difficulty or a challenge, an ease or a dispensation is introduced.
So, surely with hardship comes ease. Surely with hardship comes ease. (Qu’ran 94:5-6)
Certainly it is enough for the Creator to say something once. Yet, here there is a repetition.
This is not a redundancy. This is an example of (tikrār) for the purpose of confirmation, consolation, and emphasis. The repetition drives home the message of hope and divine assurance, making it absolutely unequivocal.
The above verse is understood by us that periods of hardship are followed by periods of ease. It is also understood in jurisprudence that difficulties create dispensations.
There are many examples in the Qur’an where a challenge or hardship may come and Allah (swt) grants an ease.
Eating something generally forbidden is an act of worship when faced with starvation.
“Ad-dararatu tubīhu al-mahzūrāt” (Necessity permits the prohibited).
“Indeed, He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:173)
Key Points:
It provides an important exception: in a situation of genuine necessity where no other food is available to preserve life, a person may consume it without sin.
It lists four primary prohibitions: carrion (dead meat), blood, pork, and meat sacrificed to idols.
“And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but what your heart intended. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:5)
Exemptions due to honest mistakes and not intentional acts.
The following verse deals with the accidental misuse of names in adoption
The key distinction is made between an honest mistake (akhta’tum) and an intentional act (ta’ammadat qulubukum).
This principle is generalized in Islamic law. For example, if someone unknowingly eats pork because they were deceived or, it was mislabeled, they are not considered to have sinned.
There was a video circulating online that showed a father playing a cruel prank on him (who embraced Islam). Only telling him after the meal that he had eaten pork. The young man committed no sin. Only the father will answer for his evil. Anyone who thinks that by deceiving a Muslim in such a way has only deceived themselves.
Exemption Under Duress (Ikrah)
The following verse was revealed about a companion, Ammar ibn Yasir, who was tortured into uttering a word of disbelief while his heart was firm in faith.
“Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief… except for one who is forced while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment.” (Qur’an 16:106)
Exemption from using water for prayers.
“O believers! Do not approach prayer while intoxicated until you are aware of what you say, nor in a state of impurity—unless you merely pass through —until you have bathed. But if you are ill, on a journey, or have relieved yourselves, or been intimate with your wives and cannot find water, then purify yourselves with clean earth, wiping your faces and hands. And Allah is Ever-Pardoning, All-Forgiving.” (Qur’an 4:43)
The first point to notice here is that Earth is something purifying for Muslims. We do not view the world as something that in and of itself is filthy.
Some other schools of jurisprudence have attacked Ibadis by saying that we don’t perform wudhu or ghusl with water when there is the presence of wells. That is not true. The situation is evaluated.
Some schools may take a literalist approach. They take the part that says, “Until you have bathed” and “cannot find water” as the priority. So, if there was a man in a caravan who was intimate with his spouse and needed to perform major ritual purity and there is the availability of a well. That school may deem it necessary for that man to wash himself with the available water. Our school would evaluate the distance or journey to the next well or wadi. How many people are in the caravan? If it is deemed that water is more necessary for drinking and preservation of life, then it is used for this purpose and not ritual washing.
Should the whole tribe or group die of dehydration, so one man can wash his private parts?
A recent fiqh ruling.
A man asked about a condition where a person takes medications in the afternoon. This medication is necessary for him to take. However, the medication makes him excessively drowsy. This individual will usually sleep through the asr and the maghrib prayers. So what are they to do?
A man asked about a condition where a person takes medications in the afternoon. This medication is necessary for him to take. However, the medication makes him excessively drowsy. This individual will usually sleep through the asr and the maghrib prayers. So what are they to do?
Notice the above verse says:
“O believers! Do not approach prayer while intoxicated until you are aware of what you say.”
“Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship.” (Qur’an 2:185)
Shaykh Rashid Al Miskiri (h) had replied to the man with the following:
“Ibn ‘Abbas reported:
The Messenger of Allah (saw) observed the noon and afternoon prayers together in Medina without being in a state of fear or in a state of journey. (Abu Zubair said: I asked Sa’id [one of the narrators] why he did that. He said: I asked Ibn ‘Abbas as you have asked me, and he replied that he [the Holy Prophet] wanted that no one among his Ummah should be put to [unnecessary] hardship.)
Thus, the man is advised to do 4 rakats of dhuhr immediately followed by 4 rakats of asr. When he wakes up, he has to perform 3 rakats of maghrib followed by 4 rakats of isha.
Delaying your prayer if you need to relieve yourself by going to the toilet.
Section on Disliked Acts in Prayer
“It is clear to you, O alert reader, that disliked acts of prayer are matters alien to its essence, and they are inconsistent with its Sunnah acts and its desirable etiquettes. They might distract one’s attention from his prayer. Thus, they should be abandoned to attain the reward despite the fact that there is no sin with the one who does any of them. Therefore, hold fast to the Sunnah and avoid heresy. The following are a number of reprehensible acts in prayer: 1 — Praying when one is resisting urine or stool. This is a disliked act because it disturbs one during prayer. Indeed, it makes one miss the greatest pillar of prayer, which is Khushū‘1. The proof was correctly ascribed to the Prophet (PBUH) when he forbade prayer while resisting the two akhbathayn, body wastes (urine and stool).2”
Source: ( pg 283 Shaykh Al-Muatasim Al-Mawali (Religious Studies Supervisor at Sultan Qaboos University). This book, Al-Muatamad (The Reliable Jurisprudence on Prayer)
2 3- Khushū‘ in prayer is to have reverence, consciousness and attentiveness. – ar-Rabī‘. Ḥadīth number 301. – ar-Rabī‘. Ḥadīth number 253.
So does this mean that bodily waste is more important than prayer or our Creator? Of course not. It is simply reasonable that one will not be able to give the Creator the proper focus and respect while they need to answer the call of nature.
Exemption from fasting in Ramadan and/or paying back the missed fast.
“˹Fast a˺ prescribed number of days. But whoever of you is ill or on a journey, then ˹let them fast˺ an equal number of days ˹after Ramaḍân˺.” (Qur’an 2:184)
“So whoever is present this month, let them fast. But whoever is ill or on a journey, then ˹let them fast˺ an equal number of days ˹after Ramaḍân˺. Allah intends ease for you, not hardship, so that you may complete the prescribed period and proclaim the greatness of Allah for guiding you, and perhaps you will be grateful.” (Qur’an 2:185)
There are among us in the Muslim community those whose hearts have become hardened and are often bereft of mercy, empathy, compassion. They recite Ar Rahman and Ar Raheem before the recitation of the Qur’an again and again and yet never seem to grasp concepts like mercy and compassion.
In fact, the most often repeated verses of the Qur’an are “Then which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?” are repeated 31 times after every description of Allah’s blessings and power. Where are these verses repeated? They are found in Surah Ar-Rahman (Chapter 55), a chapter titled: The Most Merciful.
So, in reality, those who seek hardship and difficulty with religion, it is they who are having a spiritual crisis. They possibly wake up in the middle of the night in cold sweats wondering if someone somewhere is taking a dispensation that will create ease in their life.
We have seen such people and been among them. They never want to shepherd their own souls. They are too busy wanting to shepherd the souls of others and even then it is not with sincerity they only wish in the darkness of their hearts to see others fall short, to fail.
We know of Muslims afraid to eat soup in front of others in Ramadan when they are sick.
Muslim women who have menses in Ramadan are often afraid to eat in front of other people simply because of this attitude that some people have, as if Allah (swt) and his angels are not sufficient as witnesses. Authubillah min dhalik!
You will hear that taking an easy fatwa—legal verdicts or taking the easiest opinion is a sign of weak faith or a giving into your nafs (self/ego).
Even though, as we have seen above that time and time again that Allah (swt) has permitted ease in our faith and that he doesn’t want to impose difficulty upon us.
What these people (those who accuse others of having weak faith or taking the easy way out) is that they themselves may be having a disease of the heart.
Even in the Qur’an, where a man insults his wife by calling her ‘like the back of my mother’, such a heinous thing even then Allah (swt) gives dispensation after dispensation.
“Those who pronounce thihar (saying you are to me like the back of my mother) among you to separate from their wives-they are not their mothers. Their mothers are none but those who gave birth to them. And indeed, they are saying a dishonorable statement and a flat lie. But indeed, Allah is Pardoning and Forgiving. 1) And he who does not find a slave to set free-then 2) a fast of two months consecutively before they touch one another; and he who is unable -then 3) the feeding of sixty poor persons. That is for you to believe in Allah and His Messenger, and those are the limits set by Allah. And for the disbelievers is a painful punishment (Qur’an 58:2-4)
Cannot set a slave free? Then fast for two consecutive months.
Cannot fast for two consecutive months than feed 60 poor people.
Those are the limits set by Allah.
The Sunnah of Allah is to want ease for his servants.
As we have seen at the beginning of this blog post that Allah (swt) desires ease. This is the Sunnah of Allah (swt).
“This is the way of Allah (Sunnat Allah) with those who passed away before, and you will not find any alteration in the way of Allah (Sunnat Allah).” (Qur’an 33:62)
“Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you.” (Qur’an 5:6)
“He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty” (Qur’an 22:78)
“And Allah wants to lighten for you your difficulties” (Qur’an 4:28)
“Recite then only that which is easy for you.” (Qur’an 73:20)
“It is part of the mercy of Allah that you deal gently with them. If you were severe or hardhearted, they would have broken away from you.” (Qur’an 3:159)
So which of the favours of your Lord would you deny?
Ibadi fiqh of prayer when traveling.
You may be surprised to know that in our school the combining of the prayers is for the duration that a person is traveling from what is considered their permanent home. This even means for business or going to school overseas. So this could be for weeks, months or even years. There are some exceptions to this.
*Traveling prayer* When traveling, prayers are a little bit different. Here are some rulings regarding prayer when traveling: – The traveling distance: 12 Km – There is no time limit for these rulings as long as you are not at home. – When traveling, you pray the 4 Rak’a prayers (Duhr, Asr and Isha’) in 2 Rak’as, and this is *mandatory*. – When traveling you can join Dhuhr and Asr (2+2) and Maghrib with Isha (3+2), and when joining them you don’t need to pray the Sunan Rawatib. – Joining the (congregational) prayer is not mandatory, but they are recommended when actively traveling, and discouraged when staying at some place.
-When you find a congregation, you always follow the Imam. If he prays 4, you pray 4 When choosing an Imam, the priority is for the resident over the traveler, because otherwise he will only pray 2 in Jama’a — If a traveler prays behind a resident, he prays 4 If a resident prays behind a traveler, he prays until the Imam finishes, but then he shouldn’t do Tasleem with the Imam but continue the 3rd and 4th Rak’a and only then he does the Tasleem The 2 prayers can be joined normally, so after finishing Dhuhr, for example, a new Iqama is said and the Asr prayer starts. There are two options when joining, you can join them at the time of the first prayer (Duhr/Maghrib) or join them at the time of the second prayer (Asr/Isha’) and in both cases the prayer is the same, it’s only about the time.
When you decide to pray Jam’ Ta’khir (the time of the second prayer), you cannot return home before praying the first prayer. For example: we are traveling, and it’s the time of Maghrib, and we decide that we will join them later with Isha’ at the time of Isha’. If the Maghrib time is out, and we return home without praying it, then we commit a sin by not praying a prayer at its time. Another important issue is that we pray based on our current location and not based on where we used to be at the time of Athan, so if the time of Duhr started when you were home, but you traveled at the time of Duhr, you should pray it as a traveler, and the opposite is true, but as we said you should be careful about returning home after the time runs out. Regarding the ruling about joining the prayers, first, it’s always allowed when traveling. There are distinctions when actively traveling (on the road/ moving) and staying (in a city/visiting someone).
We would like to give some practical examples:
1. Joining Duhr with Asr in a congregation: we are traveling. It’s time for Dhuhr. We decide to pray Jam’ Taqdeem with Asr (at the time of the first prayer), we enter a mosque, we find a normal congregation, what should we do? We should pray with the normal Jama’a 4 Rak’as, when we finish, one of us stands up and recites the Iqama, then another person leads 2 Rak’as of Asr.
2. Actively traveling: We were traveling from Muscat to Nizwa to visit the fort, before slightly before Maghrib time, when we reached Samail, it was time for Maghrib. We remembered that later we would be busy in Nizwa, so it’s better for us to pray Maghrib and Isha’ now (Jam’ Taqdeem), because we don’t know when we will pray later if we decide to pray Jam’ Ta’kheer, so we finally decide to join Maghrib and Isha’ at the time of Maghrib.
3. Staying when traveling: I am from Muscat and my family is in Nizwa, so I decided to visit them on the weekend, so during the weekend I am not home, but I am not actively traveling, so I have to pray Qasr, but it’s better not to join but to pray each prayer in its time.
This can be extended for longer time frames. For example: ‘Amr went to Russia to study for 4 years. He should pray Qasr as long as he doesn’t consider his place his stable home.
=============================
Some say that Qur’an 4:101 only allows (not orders) halving the rakat when you fear for your safety during traveling. They also add that the verse says nothing about the length of the trip. So the main excuse for halving the rakat is the absence of safety.
“When you travel through the land, it is permissible for you to shorten the prayer—˹especially˺ if you fear an attack by disbelievers. Indeed, the disbelievers are your sworn enemies.” (Qur’an 4:101)
===========================
We don’t see the argument against Safar prayer. While it’s true, in the verse it says you can pray Qasr if you fear the disbeliever, but it doesn’t say don’t pray Qasr in Safar. For us, this sounds like a logical error.
If one is looking for evidence, then there are many Hadiths. Among them is when the Blessed Proohet (saw) went to “Thil Hulaifa”, which is 2 Farsakh away from Medina ≈ 12 km, he prayed Salat Safar, and told the companions I came here to teach you Salat Safar, and all the other details on this topic is taken from different texts.
=============================
Here is some of our evidence on this topic:
1- The Blessed Prophet (saw), performed Qasr in all his travels, and there is no piece of evidence that he prayed a full prayer when traveling, not even once.
The Hadith: “He used to shorten and complete his prayers, and fast and eat in his travels” is a very weak Hadith, and can’t be used as an argument, as said by Shaykh Saeed Al Qannoobi — May Allah bless us with his knowledge.-
2. The Hadith of Aisha May (ra) (The prayer was obligated two Rak’as two Rak’as in residency and travel, then the prayer was fixed in travel and increased in residency)
‘A’isha, the wife of the Messenger of Allah (saw), reported:
The prayer was prescribed as two rak’ahs, two rak’ahs both in journey and at the place of residence. The prayer while travelling remained as it was (originally prescribed), but an addition was made in the prayer (observed) at the place of residence.
*note* Most Muslims are unaware that the shortened rak’ahs were initially the default.
3. “Ibn ‘Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Upon the resident are seventeen rak’ahs, and upon the traveler are eleven rak’ahs.‘”
Source: (Musnad al-Bazzar. by Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmed al-Bazzar )
Even though this specific hadith is weak, the numbers it mentions (17 for resident, 11 for traveler) arefactually correct and are established through the consistent, practical Sunnah (Fi’l) of theBlessed Prophet (saw) and the consensus of the Muslims.
We know the number of rak’ahs not from a single statement, but from the Blessed Prophet’s continuous, witnessed actions:
For the Resident:
Fajr: 2 Rak’ahs
Dhuhr: 4 Rak’ahs
Asr: 4 Rak’ahs
Maghrib: 3 Rak’ahs
Isha: 4 Rak’ahs
Total:17 Rak’ahs for the obligatory prayers.
For the Traveler: The traveler shortens the four-rak’ah prayers (Dhuhr, Asr, Isha) to two rak’ahs each.
Fajr: 2 Rak’ahs (cannot be shortened)
Dhuhr: 2 Rak’ahs (shortened from 4)
Asr: 2 Rak’ahs (shortened from 4)
Maghrib: 3 Rak’ahs (cannot be shortened)
Isha: 2 Rak’ahs (shortened from 4)
Total:11 Rak’ahs for the obligatory prayers.
Both of these two Hadiths are narrated by Imam Rabi’ May Allah have mercy on him.
Allah does not require any soul more than what it can bear
The Shariah law is neither a curse nor a burden.
However, ignorance of Shariah law is both a curse and a burden.
Dear seeker of truth do not make your ignorance a curse nor a burden. Seek knowledge.
Jabir said:
We set out on a journey. One of our people was hurt by a stone, that injured his head. He then had a sexual dream. He asked his fellow travelers: Do you find a concession for me to perform tayammum? They said: We do not find any concession for you while you can use water. He took a bath and died. When we came to the Prophet (saw), the incident was reported to him. He said: They killed him, may Allah kill them! Could they not ask when they did not know? The cure for ignorance is inquiry. It was enough for him to perform tayammum and to pour some drops of water or bind a bandage over the wound (the narrator Musa was doubtful); then he should have wiped over it and washed the rest of his body.
“That is Allah—your True Lord. So what is beyond the truth except falsehood? How can you then be turned away?” (Qur’an 10:32)
﷽
The Conditions of Takfeer/Excommunication in the Ibadi School by Shaykh, Dr Scholar Abdullah bin Saeed bin Abdullah Al Ma’mari May Allah protect him and continue to benefit us from him.
One of the principles established by Ahl al-Istiqama.
The evidence with clear-cut authenticity and clear meaning in theology is taken as definitive, absolute, certain and must be believed.
Whoever opposes this meaning in theology and rejects it is a Mushrik. We seek refuge in Allah from such people.
That is for those who reject it outright without interpretation.
The one who rejects it by means of interpretation is a fasiq.
In both cases, such people are misguided. Because this evidence can only have one meaning. Rejecting it is unacceptable. This rejection only comes from desire.
Allah (swt) says: “So what is beyond the truth except falsehood?” (Qur’an 10:32)
Whoever opposes clear-cut evidence in terms of authenticity and meaning should not receive sweet words from us.
Again, this is only if it has a clear-cut meaning, is authentic, and it comes from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Our beloved teacher and respected Shaykh Al-Qanoobi (h) has said: “Evidence does not become clear-cut unless it goes through certain conditions.”
There are four conditions in our school which must be fulfilled.
1) The first is that it must be authentically transmitted from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
2) The second is that it has a clear-cut authenticity.
3) The third is that the meaning has to be clear.
4) It has to be agreed as being tawatur.
Point 4 has a caveat.
By Tawatur/Mutawattir. That is to say, mass transmitted in practice without additions, accretions or innovations. Alternatively, mass transmitted by disassociated chains of transmission such that it is not possible for them to have conspired upon a falsehood.
For the person who says it is mutawatir. They should take it as part of their creed.
The one who takes a matter disputed as mutawatir by right cannot call another who disagrees as a fasiq. That is because the one who does so takes those hadith as ahad only.
For instance, the belief in Al-Siraat and some say the punishment of the grave.
Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) says:
The evidence regarding the punishment of the grave is mutawatir.
That was his position and he did not call other scholars from the school as fasiqs.
Example: Our luminous scholar Shaykh Imam Nasir bin Abi Nabhan (r) didn’t believe in the punishment of the grave. That is because he didn’t believe the narrations were mutawatir (clear-cut and mass transmitted).
Rather, Shaykh Nabhan (r) saw them as ahad.
Going back to the general principle of the school. No evidence should be accepted in theology unless it is clear-cut with a clear meaning.
However, Shaykh Imam Al-Salimi (r) and other scholars said it is clear-cut with a clear meaning and so they and their followers have to believe it. It is a point of creed.
This is done without calling Fasiq either side due to this difference of opinion.
This is an important principle mentioned by Shaykh Al Qanubi (h) in some of his books.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a wife?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
﷽
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
This a verse that is frequently misunderstood and used for very different, often opposing, theological arguments. We have identified the core issue: the misinterpretation of the word ṣāḥibatun (companion) and the failure to read the verse in its full rhetorical and theological context. The verse not a statement of inability or a lesson in biology. It is a powerful rhetorical device intended to shatter human-centric, anthropomorphic conceptions of God.
There are two categories of people who use this verse with two very different objectives.
Christians use this to show that the Qur’an gets Christian theology wrong.
Those that do not believe in miracles because they believe miracles violate the laws of causality. Thus, they want to negate the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The first category.
The Christian understanding is like the following:
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The second category.
“Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) This famous social reformer and educationist of nineteenth-century India denied that Jesus was born of a virgin”
Source: (See his Commentary of the Quran Tafsir al-Quran, published by Munshi Fazl Din, Kashmiri Bazaar, Lahore, vol. ii, pp. 24–35. See the section titled ‘Muslim Newspaper Sidq’)
Understanding the rhetorical question.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
“How can Allah have a child, when He does not have a companion?”
Now the very clear and sensible understanding of this rhetorical question is simple. One Creator being contrasted with the idea of having a companion.
Who is Allah?
You can translate Qur’an 112:1-4 as following:
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring for like kind nor was he from like kind And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute. (Qur’an 112:1-4)
Who or what is the companion in the verse?
Look at all the verb forms as well as the nouns and their use within the Qur’an.
Ṣāḥibah (from the root Ṣ-Ḥ-B) carries meanings of companion, associate, partner, consort, or one who accompanies. In this theological context, it negates any notion of a divine partner, consort, or equal—not merely a spouse.
We find it interesting that, usually, people have decided to translate the Arabic term ‘sahibatun’ as ‘wife’ rather than ‘companion’. The Arabic term ‘zawja‘ (wife) is not used in this context at all. Whereas we would have translated it as ‘companion’ and for good reason. Whereas those in categories 1 and 2 above tend to focus on the term ‘wife’.
The way that these people have misunderstood the text, we either have to choose between some of the following options:
A) A creator that is incapable: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
B) A creator that is like his creation: (May Allah pardon us).
In other words Allah (swt) needs assistance in creating something.
C) A creator that takes on gender roles: (May Allah pardon us)
In other words if the companion is seen as a wife (zawja) than Allah (swt) is the husband.
D) A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology: (May Allah pardon us) /An argument against virgin birth of Jesus.
In other words Allah needs a wife (zawja) in order to have a son. Which Christians do not believe. It would be a blatant misrepresentation of their beliefs. This argument is also used by those who want to argue against the virgin birth of Jesus (as).
Dealing with proposition A. The Incapable Creator
A creator that is incapable (May Allah pardon us)
It contravenes the following verse:
“His being alone is such that when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, “Be” — and it is.” (Qur’an 36:82)
It seems a bit of a stretch to think that Allah (swt) would make an argument that he couldn’t have a son without a companion and yet create a vast universe from the command ‘Kun’.
“It is not for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.” (Qur’an 19:35)
It even contravenes the very verse that they quote to make their case!
Resolution: Allah’s creative power is absolute and uncaused. He does not require mechanisms, partners, or processes.
Dealing with proposition B.The Creator Like Creation:
The creator that is like his creation (May Allah pardon us).
The following verse is sufficient to refute this.
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
Resolution: An originator (badīʿ) is one who creates something without any prior model or precedent, emphasizing His utter transcendence and unlike-ness to creation.
Dealing with proposition C. The Gendered Creator
That the Creator takes on gender roles.
So, if Allah (swt) is making a rhetorical argument about human relations, is Allah (swt) now taking on the role of the husband or the male progenitor? Be sensible people! Allah (swt) is drawing attention to the fact that he has no peer, no companion.
Resolution: This is a result of the mistranslation “wife.” Islam completely rejects attributing gender or physical human characteristics to Allah. The argument is about divinity, not matrimony.
Dealing with proposition D.Ignorance of Christian Theology / Argument Against Virgin Birth.
A Creator who is ignorant of Christian theology/An argument against the virgin birth of Jesus.
Ironically, proposition D is also the position taken by those who want to deny the virgin birth of Christ Jesus in the Qur’an. So they (those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality) have ironically sided with the Christian in their misunderstanding of the verse. Albeit to reach very different ends.
Christians have no concept of The Father as having a companion. It would mean from their misunderstanding of the verse that the Qur’an is the product of a human mind. It would mean that the Qur’an has no grasp of the Christian theological position.
The questions that are put forward by those who hold the view that the virgin birth (a miracle) would violate the laws of causality would be:
Why can’t Allah (swt) have a son without a wife?
To which the reply to this is:
On what consistent basis could you make this claim if taking the verse as a whole?
Another question for them would be: Based upon your interpretation of the verse, would you be opposed to the idea of Allah (swt) having a wife or a son based upon your logic?
In other words, do you find it a theological impossibility for Allah (swt) to have a wife and/or a son?
Another question for them would be:
Why would Allah (swt) need to be like his creation in the process of bringing a son into being?
Why not look at the whole verse? Why only quote part of it?
“Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion, and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 6:101)
First, Allah (swt) is the originator of the heavens and the earth. Do these people now believe that there was a wife or an associate, or a partner or a companion that helped Allah (swt) in this?
What natural laws did Allah (swt) follow or was beholden to when creating our reality? The verse all says, “He created all things.”
Why do people seek out companionship/friendship/associates and peers, to begin with? Ponder it.
The need for companionship?
“They say, “Allah has taken a child.” Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient. Unto Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth. You have no authority for this. Do you say about Allah that which you know not?” (Qur’an 10:68)
Anything that human beings can receive from companions/friends/peers and associates stems from needs, and Allah (swt) is free from needs. Whatever people get from having associates and companions Allah (swt) can simply create it. Allah (swt) is the Self-Sufficient!
“There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)
If Allah (swt) had a companion /associate/ or peer that would entail being of the exact divine nature of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) crushes that notion with the following ‘He created ALL things’.
It is only logical that you can’t have two uncreated beings.
It is only logical that you can’t have two originators. This would also entail having a walad (a child). A walad or a child would be ‘like kind’.
The following verse more than drives home this point.
“Never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any god– in that case would each god have certainly taken away what he created, and some of them would certainly have overpowered others; glory be to Allah above what they describe.” (Qur’an 23:91)
That verse crushes the idea that Allah (swt) could even have a companion.
“Allah who created the heavens and the earth! How can Allah have a child, when He did not have a companion?” (Qur’an 6:101)
As for those who believe that miracles violate the laws of causality and are trying to reinterpret scripture to appease atheists, they understand Allah as saying, “But if I had a wife, I could have a child.”
Which is simply theologically unsound. Their interpretation of the text ignores the whole of the verse; and worse yet, it doesn’t negate for Allah (swt) the possibility of having a companion! (May Allah pardon us).
This is the same train of thought by those who believe miracles violate the laws of causality and therefore reject the virgin birth of Christ Jesus.
The focus for people who use this text as an argument is on the word ‘walad’, whereas Allah (swt) is saying he doesn’t have a ‘sahibatun’, a companion to begin with.
Resolution:
Against Christian Critique: The Qur’an is not misrepresenting mainstream Christian theology. It is attacking the logical implication of the claim “God has a son.” From a purely logical, non-creedal standpoint, if a being has a son, that son must be of the same nature (a peer). The Qur’an argues that since Allah has no peers or companions (no other divine being), the concept of a “son” is logically incoherent. It challenges the metaphysics of the Trinity, not the biology of the Nativity.
Against the Naturalist/Mu’tazilite Critique (e.g., Sir Syed Ahmad Khan): Those who deny miracles like the virgin birth because they “violate causality” profoundly misunderstand the verse. They interpret it as, “Allah needs a wife to have a son.” This is a catastrophic error. The verse is not providing the necessary condition for divine filiation (“a wife is needed”). It is rejecting the entire paradigm as impossible. Allah does not need a wife to have a son; He transcends the very category of having offspring altogether. The miracle of Jesus’s birth (ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) is a sign of Allah’s absolute power to create as He wills (Kun fa-Yakūn), outside of natural causality, which He Himself established. To use this verse to deny the virgin birth is to completely invert its meaning.
Conclusion:
The verse in question is a masterful rhetorical tool that:
Affirms Surah Ikhlas: Allah is One, Unique, without peer, partner, or companion.
Denies Anthropomorphism: Allah is beyond human categories like gender and biological reproduction.
Establishes Logical Coherence: The concept of “divine offspring” is metaphysically absurd because it requires a plurality within the divine, which is impossible for the One who created all things and has no equal.
Upholds, Not Denies, Miracles: The power that created the heavens and the earth from nothing can certainly create a human being in a womb without a father. Denying this is a failure to understand Allah’s absolute power, which the verse itself emphasizes.
The focus is not on the word walad (son) in isolation, but on the impossible pre-condition for it: a ṣāḥibah (companion). Since the pre-condition is impossible (Allah has no companion), the conclusion (Allah has a son) is also impossible. This is a definitive negation of any form of shirk (associating partners with God) while simultaneously affirming Allah’s limitless power to create as He wills.
“Say: “Allah Is Absolutely One.” Who is independent of all and whom all depend on. He does not bring forth like-kind nor was he brought forth from like-kind; And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)
For those interested, you may want to read the following articles:
