“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:
“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!
“When they see it, the criminal will wish he can ransom himself from the chastisement of that day by sacrificing his children.” (Qur’an 70:11)
“Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.” (Qur’an 4:40)
﷽
“And the request of forgiveness of Ibrahim for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to Ibrahim that his father was an enemy to Allah, he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Ibrahim compassionate and patient.” (Qur’an 9:114)
In this short entry we will be discussing a very curious hadith found in Bukhari.
We like to call this: The TO BE CONTINUED….hadith.
We call the above hadith: The TO BE CONTINUED hadith.
You know, sometimes you get wrapped up in watching a series on television, and suddenly they cancel season three just when it was getting really interesting!
That’s the case with the following hadith:
“Ibrahim will meet his father on the Day of Resurrection, and Azar’s face will be dark and covered with dust. Ibrahim will say to him, “Did I not tell you not to disobey me?’ His father will say, ‘Today I will not disobey you.” Ibrahim will say, ‘O Lord! You promised me not to disgrace me on the Day of Resurrection; and what will be more disgraceful to me than cursing and dishonoring my father?” Then Allah will say, ‘I have forbidden Paradise to the disbelievers.’ Then he will be addressed, ‘O Ibrahim, what is beneath your feet?’ He will look and there will be a sacrificial animal (Dhahb) WHICH WILL BE CAUGHT BY THE LEGS AND THROWN INTO THE FIRE!”
In ya go ya little booger!
“He will look and there will be a sacrificial animal (Dhahb) which will be caught by the legs and thrown into the fire!”
When you look at this text, it is sensible that it stops at this part: “Then Allah will say, ‘I have forbidden Paradise to the disbelievers.” This concludes the matter.
Now the messy part.
The following part is all too easily an accretion by a redactor:
“Then he will be addressed, ‘O Ibrahim, what is beneath your feet?’ He will look and there will be a sacrificial animal (Dhahb) which will be caught by the legs and thrown into the fire!”
So we saw that this particular Hadith had a sensible conclusion. Yet theology won’t have it that way….we need it to continue…. “THEN….”
From this part on, the redactor just lets the imagination run wild…..
This becomes more interesting when you consider that, in Islamic history, both theShi’i Muslims and the Ash’ari Sunni Muslims have had a real problem with the idea of the parents of the Prophet (saw) being in hellfire or even the father of Ibrahim being in the hellfire.
The Shi’i have made some very wild attempts to assert that Azar is not the father of Ibrahim but his uncle instead. Not to be outdone by none no other than Jalal Al-Din Al-Suyuti, threw his weight behind the idea as well.
(insh’Allah, perhaps these are subjects for future articles) ..
So there are two things to be immediately said about the Hadith above.
First point.
If Prophet Ibrahim (as) gets to ask for privileges on behalf of his father, then this means that all the Prophets will get to ask privileges for their wives, sons, daughters, uncles. Noah (as) gets to ask for his sons. Lut (as) gets to ask for his wife.
Second point.
This will indicate double standards. The Prophets get special treatment from Allah (swt) — Astaghfirullah and the rest of us. If we go to the Jannah, can we ask the same for our family members:” Will Allah (swt) be just and give this same treatment to everyone or only to the Prophets?
“And certainly We know best those who are most worthy of being burned therein.” (Qur’an 19:70)
So what did the sacrificial animal do to be burned by the fire?
Was this (let’s say a goat) was he:
Among the Mujrimun-criminals?
Among the Fasiq-defiantly disobedient?
Among the Munafiq-hypocrites?
Among the Mushrik-those who associate partners with Allah (swt) ?
May Allah (swt) forgive us. May Allah (swt) deal justly with those who forge narrations and put words in the mouth of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Our understanding in the Ibadi school is that the animals are the creations of Allah (swt). They are created according to their fitra, and they do not rebel against Allah (swt). They are not subject to any punishment, certainly not hellfire.
To believe that the Blessed Messenger (saw) would not overburden camels or that he would cut his robe so as not to disturb a sleeping cat and then turn around and think that he narrated something like this is certainly wanting.
All praise be to Allah. Al hamdulillah.
“And the request of forgiveness of Ibrahim for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to Ibrahim that his father was an enemy to Allah, he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Ibrahim compassionate and patient.” (Qur’an 9:114)
The idea of not accepting that the father of Prophet Ibrahim (as) goes to hell is the same train of thought that leads some Sunni Muslims to launch attacks upon the very Sahih hadith themselves!
“The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; there is nothing like unto Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”(Qur’an 42:11)
﷽
This verse is sufficient to refute the rational proofs that the Ashari may try and bring forth to assert that Allah (swt) is perceptible.
This article will give the position of the Ibadi School, The Muslims, also known as: (Ahl al Haqq wal Istiqamah) on seeing Allah (swt) on the day of judgement.
We will critique the position of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah. As Ahl Sunnah is divided on this issue we need to make sure that our arguments are addressed to both sides of the divide among Ahl Sunnah itself.
The school of Ahl Sunnah that asserts that Muslims will see Allah (swt) in an apparent sense. (Athari, Salafiyya)
The school of Ahl Sunnah that asserts that Muslims will see Allah (swt) as being perceptible in the heart or mind.
In our estimation, the Athari, Salafiyya among the Ahl Sunnah are more consistent in their principles on ‘seeing’ Allah (swt) than are the Ashari. We will leave that to you the reader to decide where lay the truth.
Whereas we regard the Ashari/Maturidi to be the most inconsistent in this regard, as there are a few positions of them on this matter. Insh’Allah that will be shown in this article. We will present two examples straight away to prove this point:
“The Day the shin will be uncovered and they are invited to prostration but the disbelievers will not be able.” (Qur’an 68:42)
Ask all the Ashari/Maturidi on the planet, do they take the outward meaning of this verse? Certainly, this would be a strong verse to support their position? That people will see Allah (swt) by seeing the ‘shin’ of Allah (swt).
“People asked the Prophet (saw): O’ Messenger of Allah will we see our Lord in the Day of Resurrection? Then the Messenger of Allah replied: Is there any dispute among you whether a full moon is visible? They answered: No. then The Prophet (saw) continued asking them: “ Is there any dispute among you whether the sun is visible in a cloudless sky? They replied in the negative. Then The Prophet stated (saw): “Then you will see your Lord JUST LIKE this”. Allah will get the people together in the Day of Resurrection then He says: those who were worshiping any deity shall follow it. Then the ones who were worshiping the sun will follow the sun and the ones who were worshiping the moon will follow the moon and those who were worshiping Rebels will follow Rebels …Then Allah will come to them in a FORM other than WHAT THEY KNEW and say: “I am your Lord”, they reply: “We seek refuge in Allah from you. This is our place until our Lord Comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him. THEN ALLAH WILL COME TO THEM IN A SHAPE THEY KNOW and will say, I am your Lord’ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.”
Source:(Al Bukhari hadith no.6573 Book Of Ar-Riqaq)
They (Ashari/Maturidi) leave their students absolutely gob smacked that on the one hand, they battle against fellow Sunni who takes the outward meaning and they(the Ashari/Maturidi) constantly deny corporeality, and space/time for Allah (swt) and yet at the same time assert that we will see (sorry Mohamed Ghilan) I mean look upon Allah (swt) !!
We will show the strength and consistency both textually and intellectually of those of us who say that we will not see Allah (swt) on the day of judgement.
We will also be interacting with material from two videos. In the first video, you will only need to watch the first half-hour. That is the only section relevant to this post. https://youtu.be/5_6zRI0eH44 When we quote from this we will reference this as video A.
I personally was quite shocked and taken aback as I listened to our respected brother Mohamed Ghilan. Yet, as I listened he showed such what has to be described as a simple understanding of basic tenets of creed and certainly did not understand the beliefs of others. May Allah guide him and us.
Mohamed Ghilan echoing Shaykh Hamza Yusuf calls seeing Allah (swt) in the hereafter as “beatific vision” borrowing terminology from Roman Catholics. He states this @ 54:14 seconds (Video B) into the discussion.
Like when he says about Moses and the burning bush… “He really spoke.”
Oh, do tell us what do you mean when you say that, “He (swt) really spoke”??
What follows will be fromvideo A above. The Ustaz ask:
First Question: Is it rationally conceivable that Allah (swt) can be seen?
The Ustaz says that we can conceive of images in our minds. So Allah (swt) is being compared to temporal objects and bodies with accidents!
Now, this is important you will notice some bait and switch tactics going on with Ahl Sunnah. They are all over the place on this point of creed. All of this about “seeing” Allah (swt) and yet the first point is to talk about “seeing” Allah (swt) in the mind! Not with the eyes, not with the faces nor with the hearts.
So the Ustaz ask” “Is it possible in the mind?” He responds: “Yes he can! Why? Because he is existent. He is an existent being!”
My response:
That is a very weak argument. Because what will soon to follow will be likening Allah (swt) to spatial objects with accidents and bodies.
And sure enough @14:51 The Ustaz does exactly that. “Now this pen is made of substance body (plastic) and it’s made up of accidents, colour, shape size, weight, occupying space, etc, moving not moving. These are all accidents. Now can you is it possible in the mind for you to see this body without the accidents. Now you don’t see it. You don’t see it separate from its accidents but that does not mean it’s not possible. There is nothing in your mind to say to you, hear me out. There is nothing in your mind to say that you cannot see substance without the accidentsexcept that you are unable since bodies do not exist except with accidents. But there is nothing inconceivable in your mind. There is nothing that is blocking it in your mind.”
@21:19 the Ustaz continues… “Is it a contradiction in the mind that an accident can be seen. It’s not a contradiction. It actually can be seen because it exists. Anything that exists as an existent being can be seen.”
Notice the student @21:49 (whomever he is) he is brilliant. He tried to save the whole creed and its nonsense by saying what they should be saying, that is: “Because Allah exists it’s possible we can grasp his existence.” Then the teacher responds abruptly “That he is seen yes.” My response: “WOW!”
The student was on to something brilliant but the teacher wanted to quickly make sure that he affirms his (the teacher’s) position in the creed.
So the questions we really should be asking is:
“Is Allah an accident or a substance?”
“Is Allah’s wujud like or unlike his creation?”
The argument that Ustadh is making is that you can’t see accidents but that it is possible. However, he failed to give a single example of someone actually seeing an accident. So you can’t affirm something is possible when you haven’t given a single example of untold thousands of examples of this being a reality. That is even in relation to created things! How much more for that which is not contingent upon or dependent upon anything?
One of the students uses an argument about a man in a dark room. He is there but you cannot see him. So then the Ustaz replies that:
“The reason he can be seen is because he exists is not the means by which he is seen.”
This is fallacious. The reason he can be seen here is that he is a substance, a body. Which still does not make the argument the Ustaz is trying to establish at all. In fact, even in the case of the man in the darkroom, there are many things to be said:
He can’t be seen but he could be perceived. He could be perceptible without even being seen.
Even if you saw him would you say that you comprehend him?
The man has that which you can see his outward and that which you cannot see his inward.
It is part of the fitra that Allah (swt) created us and actually, a proof of his wahdat al wujud is the fact we can’t see him. The Ustaz can’t give a single example because it goes against the fitra. Another example that Allah (swt) has put inside of human beings that is quite powerful is the following:
The concept of nothing. It is part of your fitra, that you cannot picture nothing in your mind. Your mind will either picture an all-black space or an all-white space. That is still something. The irony here is that you can comprehend nothingness but you cannot see nothingness. Certainly, Allah (swt) is more than nothingness! If you cannot see nothingness how much more do you think you can see Allah (swt) who is the wahdat al wujud! You cannot comprehend Allah (swt) let alone see Allah (swt).
“Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators.”(Qur’an 52:35)
On the possibility of seeing Allah (swt) this claim is demolished by the fact that there are so many invisible existents The soul, the intellect, the sense, perception, sounds, ether, etc.
Their opening the door of comparison of the Creator and the creation will lead to describing Him with many of those that are impossible about Him, Exalted is He. The existence of creatures cannot be perceived except with the existence of space and time. Perishing existents do not have the capacity to see the Eternal.
The peak of perceptibility of Allah (swt) ends with: “There is nothing like Him, and He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing” (Qur’an 42:11)
Muslim narrated from Abu Dhar, he said: “I asked the Prophet Muhammad (Blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), Have you seen your Lord? He replied: ” A light. How can I see Him”.
Source: (Sahih Muslim hadith 341. Kitab Al Iman)
The aforementioned evidence is enough to demolish the rational proofs that the Ashari/Maturidi bring forth in trying to liken Allah (swt) to his creation. May Allah (swt) protect the believers from it!
BE CAREFUL OF THE BAIT AND SWITCH-RUHYA-IDRAAK-NAZAR
I want to caution you the student of knowledge the seeker of truth on something very important. Do yourself a favour and note down every time someone from Ahl Sunnah uses these words ‘Ruhya’ or ‘Idraak’ or ‘Nazar’. I have often found that one speaker will claim Ruhya means this and Idraak means that and then another speaker will actually turn around and say the exact opposite!
Also, take note of the proof text they use. When they use a proof text from the Qur’an which word is being used there and why? Are they using ‘Ruhya’ or are they using ‘Idraak’ or are they using ‘Nazar’?
When they use a proof text from the hadith which word is being used there and why? Are they using ‘Ruhya’ or are they using ‘Idraak’ or are they using ‘Nazar’?
What about Idraak?
Be familiar with these arguments because the advocates of seeing Allah (swt) will rush to this argument first. It is perhaps the strongest they feel that they have. Even in the comment section below you will see one of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah rush to it.
“And what will make you know (idraka) what the Reality is?” (Qur’an 69:3)
The meaning of idraka here means perception when it is connected to the senses.
It has the sense of seeing when connected to the eyes or sight. When Idraak is connected to sight (ba sad ra) it means to see.
In this text yud’rikkumu is to reach or overtake.
“Wherever you may be, death will (yud’rikkumu) reach you, though you should be in raised-up towers. And if a good thing visits them, they say, ‘This is from Allah’; but if an evil thing visits them, they say, ‘This is from you.’ Say: ‘Everything is from Allah.’ How is it with this people? They scarcely understand any tiding.” (Qur’an 4:78)
So will we totally comprehend Allah (swt) or not? To totally comprehend Allah (swt) undermines the Wahdat al Wujud of Allah (swt). Can it be said that the finite will comprehend the infinite?
If we only partially comprehend Allah (swt) this means Allah (swt) would be broken into parts. He would be a part that we can comprehend and a part that we cannot comprehend. If we do not comprehend Allah (swt) at all it strengthens the argument of those of us who say that we will not see Allah (swt) at all. This is because comprehension is of the eyes.
Now, one has to be careful when dealing with various translations of the Qur’an. No doubt the translators have to toe the line of the various theologies they are beholden to.
The faculties ofseeing (tudriku) cannot grasp Him, and He grasp all–seeing (yudriku), He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103)
Now the Ustaz in (video A) gave to his students the impression that Idraak means to ‘behold something in its entirety’. ‘To encompass‘ ‘To see something in its entirety to comprehend it‘.
My response:
There is a difference between reaching (idrak) and encompassing (ihata)
There is no lexical reference work which interprets idrak as ‘encompassing’. That is sufficient proof as to the error of this interpretation by the respected Ustaz and anyone else who follows suit in this.
One’s saying (for example) lahiqtu al-jidara bi yad-i (I reached the wall with my hand) does not mean anything other than touching the wall. It is impossible that the hand should ‘encompass‘ the wall.
if someone says, “ahata bi-hi al-sahmu (the arrow reached him) it is sensible. If someone says “ahata bi-hi al-sahmu (the arrow encompassed him) then no reasonable person will regard his utterance as anything but senseless.
“Allah will say, “Enter among nations which had passed on before you of jinn and mankind into the Fire.” Every time a nation enters, it will curse its sister until, when they have caught up with one another (‘iddarku) therein, the last of them will say about the first of them “Our Lord, these had misled us, so give them a double punishment of the Fire. He will say, “For each is double, but you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:38)
“when they catch up with one another.” It does not mean that each group encompassed the other.
If I cannot make you see this and if the usage of the lexicons cannot make you see it than I pray that Allah (swt) will open your eyes and your heart to what the pure Arab, and mother of the believers had to say about this.
Narrated Masruq:
I said to ‘Aisha, “O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad see his Lord?” Aisha said, “What you have said makes my hair stand on end! Know that if somebody tells you one of the following three things, HE IS A LIAR: Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord, IS A LIAR.” Then Aisha recited the Verses:
‘No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is overall vision. He is the Most Courteous Well-Acquainted with all things.’ (Qur’an 6:103)
‘It is not fitting for a human being that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.’ (Qur’an 42:51)
Source: (Al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 378)
Notice our mother Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her). Notice the response? “What you have said makes my hair stand on end!”
Now a desperate response to the above text after realizing that the first argument did not work is they may well say:
“The negation is without any condition, and therefore not bound to any meaning of ‘for all time’.”
Response to that claim:
Obviously this is now how our mother Aisha (r.a) understood this verse. She did not reason that perhaps he did see that time whereas other times he did not. No. In fact, that argument also works in our favour as it is not conditioned upon a time (this life or the life to come).
Other textual evidence from the Qur’an.
“When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! show (Yourself) to me, that I may look upon you.” Allah said: “You shall never see me; But look upon the mount; if it abides in its place,then you will see me.”
When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.” (Qur’an 7:143)
This is a powerful text against the claims of the Ashari/Maturidi and all those who say that we can see Allah (swt)!
Moses was dealing with his stubborn and rebellious people and demonstrated them the futility of their request which was:
“The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us, Allah, outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We forgave them for that ˹after their repentance˺ And We gave Moses a clear authority.” (Qur’an 4:153)
“And [recall] when you said, “O Moses, we will never believe you until we see Allah outright”; so the thunderbolt took you while you were looking on.” (Qur’an 2:55)
“And Moses chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment. And when the earthquake seized them, he said, “My Lord, if You had willed, You could have destroyed them before and me [as well]. Would You destroy us for what the foolish among us have done? This is not but Your trial by which You send astray whom You will and guide whom You will. You are our Protector, so forgive us and have mercy upon us; and You are the best of forgivers.” (Qur’an 7:155)
Prima Qur’an Comments: There is so much to be said about the above-mentioned ayats. First of all Allah (swt) said, ‘you will never see me‘. However some of these people have no shame nor fear of their Lord and they will play with the English translations and perform all kinds of maneuvers to make you think that this verse should be understood as, “You will not see me now” meaning the possibility of being seen in the future is there.
In fact, the Ustaz in (video A) unfortunately, he did exactly that.
This is similar to the following verse:
Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth,Who feeds and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender (unto Him). And be not you (O Muhammed) of the idolaters. (Qur’an 6:14)
No one who reads the Arabic text understands this as Allah (swt) is not currently fed but has the possibility of being fed in the future! Authubillah min dhalik.
Not only that but if we do not understand the negative imperative to include all times what does it say about the laws of Islam? Does it ever occur to the mind that there will be a time in the future where shirk would be permissible? Authubillah! There will be a time in the future where adultery and taking the soul without the right will become permissible? Authubillah!
This argument is also negated by the fact that there is division among the Ahl Sunnah as regards Allah (swt) will be seen in this life or not.
Look at the hadith again.
“People asked the Prophet (saw): O’ Messenger of Allah will we see our Lord in the Day of Resurrection? Then the Messenger of Allah replied: Is there any dispute among you whether a full moon is visible? They answered: No. then The Prophet (saw) continued asking them: “ Is there any dispute among you whether the sun is visible in a cloudless sky? They replied in the negative. Then The Prophet stated (saw): “Then you will see your Lord JUST LIKE this”. Allah will get the people together in the Day of Resurrection then He says: those who were worshiping any deity shall follow it. Then the ones who were worshiping the sun will follow the sun and the ones who were worshiping the moon will follow the moon and those who were worshiping Rebels will follow Rebels …Then Allah will COME TO THEM in a FORM other than WHAT THEY KNEW and say: “I am your Lord”, they reply: “We seek refuge in Allah from you. This is our place until our Lord Comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him. THEN ALLAH WILL COME TO THEM IN A SHAPE THEY KNOW and will say, I am your Lord’ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.”
Source:(Al Bukhari hadith no.6573 Book Of Ar-Riqaq)
Can it really be imagined that Allah (swt) who knows all things, and is perfect in the expression of his language would say to Moses (a.s), ‘You shall never see me’ knowing that Moses (a.s) would see him in the afterlife?
Someone should ask the Ustaz (from video A) what form is it that the believers KNOW concerning Allah (swt)?
Not only that but if the negation in this verse is taken to mean for this world, not for the hereafter, then it must be allowed in similar verses, like His saying:
“Slumber does not overtake Him, nor sleep.”(Qur’an 2:255)
“He has neither a companion nor a son”(Qur’an 72:3)
“He is not brought forth from like-kind nor does like kind come forth from him.” (Qur’an 112:3-4)
Whatever is forbidden in this world like slumber, sleep, companion, peers must be permitted in the hear-after. Should we really reason like this?
It is obligatory for every Muslim to believe that this world and the next world have no effect on the essence of Allah!
It is impossible for Allah (swt) that time can affect him or space to accompany him. His essence never changes and his attributes never shift.
What are we to do about the challenge of Allah (swt) in the Qur’an?
“But if you do not – and you will never (walan) be able to – then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.”(Qur’an 2:24)
This negation is eternal and permanent. Is the Ustaz (in video A) or any other going to claim no this statement of Allah (swt) is only for a ‘period of time’. Which means it is possible people will create the like of the Qur’an!
Also, we know that the mountain did not abide. Allah (swt) didn’t set his being perceived on the condition of the mountain but on his knowledge that it is not possible and that was manifest clearly to the people of Moses.
Also, note the concept of blasphemous ideas and concepts being related to mountains being destroyed as with the following blasphemous concept.
“The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son.” (Qur’an 19:90-91)
These are the people of disbelief. It is obvious when they say that they will not attain to faith until they see Allah (swt) plainly at which it says in response that the thunderbolt overtook them! Think about it! They are the ones who wanted a golden calf a ‘sura’ a form. These are the same people who want to look upon Allah (swt). They are wanting something perceptible to the eyes.
The people who adhere to the Ashari/Maturidi doctrine need to think clearly on this matter.
Again we have the following text…
And those who do not expect the meeting with Us say, “Why were not angels sent down to us,or [why] do we [not] see our Lord?” They have certainly become arrogant within themselves and [become] insolent with great insolence.” (Qur’an 25:21)
So now let us look at the positive proof that the Ashari/Maturidi will bring forth from the Qur’an to try and establish their proofs. Let us see if it is consistent with
a) The Qur’an itself.
b) with their own theology concerning Allah (swt) not being in space/time
c) reason.
Positive proof for the Ashari/Maturidi position from the Qur’an.
“The heart did not lie [about] whatit saw. So will you dispute with him over whathe saw? And he certainly saw him in another descent. (Qur’an 53:11-13)
“Andwithout doubt, he saw him in the clear horizon.” (Qur’an 81:23)
#1) If we are to believe that this is Allah (swt) then it clashes with the clear text of the Qur’an.
#2) If we are to believe that this is Allah (swt) then it clashes with Ashari/Maturidi Aqidah. For example:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace, and blessings be upon him, said, “Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven in the last third of every night, and he says: Who is calling upon me that I may answer him? Who is asking me that I may give him? Who is seeking my forgiveness that I may forgive him?”
Source:(al-Bukhārī 1094,Muslim 758)
So do the Ashari/Maturidi believe that in the hadith above that Allah (swt) descends?
Do the Ashari/Maturidi believe that distance is a hindrance to Allah (swt)?
Do the Ashari/Maturidi believe that Allah (swt) does the ascending and descending depending on the time of day as (the last third of every night) is depending upon the relative timings of the globe?
So if the Ashari/Maturidi use the above verses to argue that the Blessed Messenger (saw) had seen Allah (swt) then they must believe the part where it says, “certainly saw him in anotherdescent.”
#3) It goes against reason as already mentioned above. Allah (swt) is imperceptible.
#4) Lastly, it contradicts well-established hadith on the matter:
It is narrated that `Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, said: “I asked the Messenger of Allah about these two verses. He said, “That is Jibreel; I never saw him in the form in which Allah created him except on these two occasions. I saw him descending from the heavens, with his huge size filling the horizon between heaven and the earth.”
Source: (Muslim Book 1 Hadith Number 0337 Book of Faith)
`Aisha may Allah be pleased with her, was asked about the verse (which means): “Then he [Jibreel] approached and descended.”[Quran 53:8] She, may Allah be pleased with her, said, “That is Jibreel. He used to come to him (the Prophet ) in human form, but on this occasion, he came in his real form, and he filled the horizons of the sky.”
Source: (Muslim Book 1 Hadith Number 0340 Book of Faith)
Those counter proofs should be enough to ground to powder any Ashari/Maturidi pretension concerning those verses.
The big verse that the Ashari/Maturidi use to support their position from the Qur’an is the following:
“ Some faces, that Day, will be radiant, Looking toward their Lord. And some faces, that Day, will be contorted, Expecting that there will be done to them something backbreaking.” (Qur’an 75:22-25)
So here the Ashari/Maturidi interpret the word Nazar as looking, seeing. (Insh’Allah we will come back to this, especially in the context of brother Mohamed Ghilan above).
This word (Nazar) is more general than ru’yah.
Will they see with their faces?
Will they see with their eyes?
Will they see with some sixth sense?
This confusion is clear evidence that they do not have any ground for their opinion.
Remember the hadith:
“Soon you will see your Lord openly as you see the moon on the night of the full moon.”
We understand this verse as: “waiting for their Lord”.
We need to again ask if the Ashari/Maturidi position contradicts the following:
a)The Qur’an itself.
b) with their own theology that Allah (swt) is not in space/time.
c) reason.
We would translate or understand the text as: “Faces, that day looking forward to receiving mercy from their Lord.”
The first thing that should be pointed out, is that no one from the Ashari/Maturidi school can find fault with our interpretation of the text. Observe yourself and see the many forms, as a verb, noun, active participle, and passive participle.
Second, the context of the verse itself shows the people of the station waiting to receive their just rewards:
‘Some faces will be radiant, looking forward to receiving mercy from their Lord. Some faces will be contorted, expecting something backbreaking.’
To give you (the truth seeker) a solid proof to show you that Nazir does not have to mean seeing ponder the following text.
“Indeed, those who exchange the covenant of Allah and their [own] oaths for a small price will have no share in the Hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them or look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them; and they will have a painful punishment.”(Qur’an 3:77)
If Nazar in this verse is interpreted as seeing, it will lead to the meaning that Allah will not see these people on the Day of Resurrection. This is not possible, and such a belief is in real error because it is a rejection of faith in Allah (swt)! There is no way but to interpret Nazar here as mercy and favour. Allah (swt) will not show his mercy or favour upon them.
Now going back to what our brother Mohamed Ghilan said in his talk @ 54:32 “But the Sunni position is that we will actually see Allah (swt), but you can but that does not negate that Allah is above everything and he’s above comprehension.”
The other thing that our brother Mohamed Ghilan does is bring in a straw man argument. This is clear evidence that he is not confident of his position.
Thus, he brings up the following verse:
“And if you invite them to guidance, they do not hear; and you see them looking at you while they do not see.” (Qur’an 7:198)
It is clear to me that our brother Mohamed Ghilan by bringing into the discussion a non-argument he is preaching to the choir.
Perhaps our brother Mohamed Ghilan can mention to his students who among the Ahl Al Haqq Wal Istiqimah (The Muslims), the Mu’tazilis, the Jahmis, the Zaydi’s , the Imamis-12er Shia and from among those who scholarsfrom Ahl Sunnah who are independent of taqlid, who among them holds to the position or view that Allah (swt) is comprehensible?
Again a straw man.
As regardsQur’an 75: 22-25 The Ahl Sunnah differ who will see him in the next life.
They are of three views;
1) Only believers will see Him.
2) All people will see him at the Station, believers and unbelievers then the unbelievers will be veiled from him.
3) The third is that hypocrites will see Him but not the unbelievers.
This is enough to prove the weakness of the foundation on which they have established their belief.
By contrast, the truth cannot bear such conflict, because its arguments are clear and its path is straight.
Is this a special treat for the believers only? Is this a special treat just for the believers and people who have remained steadfast?
Apparently not. Ponder the following:
“Soon you will see your Lord.”-Hadith The context of this hadith requires the seeing to take place at the station where all are gathered. It will not be restricted to believers only, Hypocrites, “and this ummah will remain with its hypocrites. Then, Allah, Exalted is He, will come to them in a form other than what they knew, then he will say: “I am your Lord.” Then they will say: “We seek refuge in Allah from you. This is our place until our Lord comes.”
It also follows from it that Allah, will be seen by this ummah believers and hypocrites- This goes against the verse in the Qur’an from
Moses: “NEVER WILL YOU SEE HIM.”
Why the unbelievers and hypocrites from the time of Moses did not get to see Allah (swt) but the unbelievers and hypocrites will be able to see now?
As regards this hadith. Let me put the hadith again for you to read and reflect upon it.
“People asked the Prophet (saw): O’ Messenger of Allah will we see our Lord in the Day of Resurrection? Then the Messenger of Allah replied: Is there any dispute among you whether a full moon is visible? They answered: No. then The Prophet (saw) continued asking them: “ Is there any dispute among you whether the sun is visible in a cloudless sky? They replied in the negative. Then The Prophet stated (saw): “Then you will see your Lord JUST LIKE this”. Allah will get the people together in the Day of Resurrection then He says: those who were worshiping any deity shall follow it. Then the ones who were worshiping sun will follow the sun and the ones who were worshiping moon will follow the moon and those who were worshiping Rebels will follow Rebels …Then Allah will COME TO THEM in a FORM other than WHAT THEY KNEW and say: “I am your Lord”, they reply: “We seek refuge in Allah from you. This is our place until our Lord Comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him. THEN ALLAH WILL COME TO THEM IN A SHAPE THEY KNOW and will say, I am your Lord’ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.”
Source: (Al Bukhari hadith no.6573 Book Of Ar-Riqaq)
Response:
First point. It also follows from it that His Essence (dhat), Exalted is He, changes from one form to the other. Such change is a characteristic of contingent existents (huduth).
Second point.
Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (May Allah continue to benefit us through him) asked our brothers from the Ahl Sunnah, the following:
“Whoever has read the Book of Allah and has studied the Sunnah of His Messenger must know that real form in which He will see His Lord, Exalted is He, so that, when he sees Him in another form he does not recognize Him.Then please bring me the description of this form and definition of it from your knowledge through your reading of the Qur’an and your study of the hadiths of the Messenger (saw)? Then they were taken aback and their arguments became void.”
Third point.
Both wordings are clear that their knowledge of His form will be a result of previous seeing. There is no way for those who take the hadith literally but to say that He is seen in this world. Yet most of them have rejected that (the seeing of Him in this world).
Fourth point.
Most believers in the seeing hold that it will happen without kayf (without an understanding how it will happen). The comparison in the hadith with the seeing of the moon ‘like that you will see Him‘ contradicts this view. So too does the mention of the form in the hadith and their not recognizing it when it has changed from what they were familiar with.
Fifth point. How will an angel be commanded to lie? It is a shameful thing.
Abu Musa reported: The Prophet (saw) said, Verily, In Paradise are two gardens with silver vessels and two gardens with golden vessels. Nothing comes between the people and their looking at their Lord but the mantle of Majesty on His Face in the Garden of Eden.”
Source: (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 2527)
In other words, you won’t be seeing Allah (swt) in the afterlife after all!
Remember the Ashari/Maturidi understand face as Allah himself, his essence! That ‘mantle of majesty‘ will prevent you from looking at Allah (swt).
“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.”(Qur’an 42:51)
“The Messenger of Allah stood among us with five words he said Verily Allah exalted is he does not sleep, and that is not appropriate for Him. He lowers the Balance and raises it. To him are carried aloft the actions done in the night before the actions done in the day and the actions of the day before the actions of the night. His veil is “light” (and on one narration “fire”). If He lifts the veil then the light of His Face will burn whatever it reaches of His creation.” The universe itself will be utterly annihilated! Allahu Akbar!
Source: (Sahih Muslim 179a, Book 1 Hadith 352 English reference Book 1 Hadith 343)
“And call not, besides Allah, on another god. There is no god but He. Everything that exists will perish except His Face. To Him belongs the Command, and to Him will you all be brought back.” (Qur’an 28:88)
So regarding this verse that those of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah believe that the Qur’an 75:22 to be strong proof. However, it is weak from all conceivable angles.
It also goes to show to anyone who has eyes and a heart after the truth that the Ahl Sunnah and their consensus down through the ages, has not been guided on this matter. Rather they are in error.
Is it reasonable to assume that the seeing of Allah (swt) is merely hinted at in the Qur’an whereas food and drink, accommodation, gardens, rivers are mentioned time after time with clear phrases with no scope for any other interpretation? Think about it. May Allah (swt) be with you.
So we can see that the Ashari/Maturidi position concerning thee verses in question contradicts other clear text of the Qur’an.
It also contradicts their own theological position.
It also contradicts reason.
The difference between us Ibadi (Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama) and our brothers from the (Ahl Sunah) when it comes to Qur’an 75:22is that we use an understanding that is consistent with the verb form itself, used throughout the Qur’an: in the way we translate and interpret it, and is consistent with the clear verses of the Qur’an, that clearly negate seeing Allah (swt).
We do that in all verses that indicate corporeality, or time/space for Allah (swt). It is clear that some of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah do so only when it suits them. Allah (swt) knows best.
“Would you question your Messenger as Musa was questioned before? But whoever changes from faith to unbelief has strayed without doubt from the even way.”(Qur’an 2:108)
Prima Quran 