“Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided” (Qur’an 16:125)
“Do they feel secure from Allah’s plan? None can feel secure from Allah’s plan except the people who are losers.” (Qur’an 7:99)
﷽
Our colleague recalls the first time they encountered this sentiment from an individual from another school. “Look! This Ibadi scholar says that Non Ibadis are going to hell!” They claimed they had the Arabic text, the book, the quote of the author, the whole package.
It turns out that the statement was that Non Ibadis are guilty of kufr ni’ama (ungrateful of blessings). However, this same nomenclature is used of Ibadis, who commits major sins as well.
So we find these claims incredulous and extremely insincere. Contrary to popular belief, takfir is not a known way with us (those who follow the Ibadi school).
Anyone who says the shahadatayn is a Muslim by default. Just to be clear, this means the Ahmadis, Sunnis (including the Salafis, Sufis, Deobandis, Dhahiri, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Hanafi schools), The Shi’i (including the Ismaili, Zaydi, Ithnā ʿAshariyyah). This is the default position with us. All of them are afforded what is afforded a Muslim brother or sister.
That is because it is common knowledge that when you meet any individual you deal with them on the basis of their dhahir (their apparent). People’s beliefs are not known unless they divulge them. When they do, one of their rights upon us is that we correct their errors.
All we have are labels. However, it is best that we deal with beliefs and positions. That we deal with proofs and evidences.
It is important to know that we are not Ibadis who follow Islam. Rather, we are Muslims who follow the Ibadi school. If we put our sectarian label first, how can our commitment ever be to the truth?
In fact, in our experience, we have known of an Ithnā ʿAshariyyah Shi’i, who left the beliefs of his sect behind but retrained the fiqh (jurisprudence of their prayer). Possibly he did not see the need to reinvent the wheel. The same can be said of a Nizari Ismaili who kept the label because he wanted the social contacts that came with the affiliation, but he no longer believed in their creed. Or the Sunni who doesn’t believe the Qur’an is uncreated or that he will see Allah in the hereafter.
So who knows best the inward state and condition of any individual at any given time?
So all we have are labels and dealing with the dhahir (the apparent).
Who is truer than Allah (swt) who says:
“You cannot guide whoever you please: it is Allah who guides whom He will. He best knows those who would accept guidance.” (Qur’an 28:56)
The simple fact that all schools of traditional Islam (even pseudo-Islamic groups) have exclusivist statements.
We have said it before, and we will say it again: Every Muslim is some other Muslims non-Muslim.
It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah(saw) said:
“The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The main body.”
In a recent irony, someone from another school brought up that view among some Ibadi scholars that followers of other schools are in kufr ni’ama (ungrateful of blessings). Then this same person claimed that his school was saved, and he quoted the hadith of the 73 groups.
Imagine the irony of the thinking involved here: “Did you know that your school has exclusivist views and, therefore, it is flawed. However, my school has exclusivist views and it is correct.”
Like, really, what was the thought process here? “Look! Your school has scholars who have this view and others who do not. Yet, come and join my school, where there is unanimity that everyone else but us goes to hell. That is because they are the people of innovation.”
Our advise concerning dealing with people like him are as follows:
“Ask him about the 73 sects hadith, are we Ibadi that magical saved group or are we on Pan Am Flight 72 with an express ticket to hell?”
“If we are on Pan Am Flight 72, ask him how long we are in hell for? If he says, 17 minutes, 100 years, a billion, reply: “See you in heaven big guy!” If he says “forever”, then put your hand on your hip and say in your best Southern Mississippi accent: “Darling, look at you over here kicking up a fuss!”
For those who do not understand our sense of humor, the question is very straightforward.
It is to ask this individual how they understand the ultimate destiny of the other 72 sects — aka Pan Am Flight 72? If the rest of us (Ibadi and others) go to hell, what is the duration?
a) If it is only for a little while, then as per instructions to reply to him: “See you in heaven big guy!”
b) If it is forever well, then our second reply is equally relevant: “Darling, look at you over here kicking up a fuss!” Meaning to say: Then why is it a big deal if we have exclusivist views which you, yourself and your school hold onto? This means they believe those who consider themselves Muslims wil burn in hell forever.
c) A way out of the dilemma presented by a and b is to make takfir of the other 72 groups. Which expells them from Islam altogther; and makes the group or individuals takfiris. And if that is not exculusivist we don’t know what exclusivism is.
EXCLUSIVIST VIEWS ARE NOT SOMETHING NOVEL TO THE IBADI SCHOOL.
Recall what what we said above:
The simple fact is that all schools of traditional Islam (even pseudo-Islamic groups) have these types of exclusivist statements.
The Qadiani sect, which is considered pseudo-Islamic due to its belief in another Prophet after Muhammed (saw), has a similar position to some in the Ibadi school on the concept of kufr ni’ama, (though they do not use this terminology). Their moto is : Love for All, Hate for None. However, all Muslims who do not accept their views are Kafir.
The above stance is very clear about who are those going to heaven. The title Muslim for other sects is futile when it comes to the day of judgment. This, however, is actually a very moderate position.
The above belief you will find among 12er Shi’i and Imami Shi’i in general, that whoever does not recognize the Imam of the time dies the death of a kafir (unbeliever).
This would mean that different Imami Shi’i groups would takfir each other after splits or schisms.
A concerned member of the Ismaili sect sent us the following concerning the refutation of the Nizari Ismaili (he himself) being a Mustaali Ismaili. He wrote to us of his concern that Nizar, in their view, was a shyster and a fraud.
“Hey brother , I’ll send a reply to the first question later on. Concerning the Nizari-Mustaali split and how to know who is the actual Imam. The primary evidence for any Imam is the Nass from the previous Imam, we as Fatimid Ismailis can demonstrate that Imam Mustaali is the true Imam through the following points :
1-His Nass from his father Imam Mustansir as mentioned in our sources you can find it in Al-Sijillat Al-Mustansariya and Uyun Al-Akhbar. Our Nizari friends fail in providing Nizars Nass.
2- The big Dais of Imam Mustansir in Yemen one of them the Sayyida Arwa Alsulaihi who was the Imams Hujjah (a hujjah is someone very close to the Imam and knows his secrets in a nutshell) all recognized Mustaali as Imam even those in Egypt recognized his Imamate.
3- The family of the Fatimids also recognized Mutaalis Imamate including all his brothers and even Nizars close sister witnessed that Nizar was never an Imam.
4- Nizars fishy behavior makes it even more doubtful that his claims in Imamate were Genuine. e.g Al-Maqrizi mentions in his book that when Mustaali became Imam-Khalifa Nizar refused to accept his Imamate and claimed that he has a Nass from his father, he was given time to go and bring his alleged Nass to the Fatimid officials but instead he secretly escaped to Alexandria and caused a civil war.
“IF he was indeed an Imam and has a Nass why didn’t he show it to the Fatimids and their officials? That would be strong evidence for his case, instead he ran away not demonstrating any evidence for his claim. This behavior shows that his claims were not true and he just wanted the power and prestige of being a Caliph for his own good.“
We wish the brother would do some introspection. Because, by his own admission, this statement itself is enough to show that not everyone who is a descendant of Ali is an upright individual.
THE ZAYDI SHI’I WE HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOLLOWING:
Watch and listen to what he says, citing what came in the book “Al-Ahkam” by Yahya al-Rassi, who brought Zaydism to Yemen. “Islam is not complete except by the guardianship of Ali. The imamate of Ali is one of the pillars of Islam. No one escapes the punishment of the Merciful, nor is the name of faith fulfilled for him, until he believes in the guardianship of Ali with certainty of certainty.”
For us, we do not find this to be a creedal issue or even one of its branches. For Zaydi, this is obviously not the case.
MAKING TAKFIR UPON OTHER GROUPS OR SECTS IS NOT A KNOWN WAY WITH THE IBADI.
AHL SUNNAH WAL JAMMAH (THE PEOPLE OF THE SUNNAH AND THE GROUP).The name itself implies that ‘They’ are the only people following the Sunnah: as if Shi’i or Ibadis do not eat with their right hands, or keep beards etc or follow the Sunnah.
DOES IMAM MALIK GET HARD CORE ON THE IBADIS?
What does the text attributed to Imam Malik say?
And DO NOT pray behind the Ibadis-Neither should their dead be prayed over nor should they’re deceased be followed to the burial. Nor, should their sick be visited. It is more beloved to me that one should leave the home/city/country where the Ibadis are.
The Ibadis/ Hururis, and all people of desire: I believe they should repent; either they repent or they are to be killed.
What is important to note about the above image is that only the green part of the text is attributed to Imam Malik. All the red parts indicate that the rest of the page belongs to Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam. So, even if not authentically attributed to Malik there were certainly people who held such views and wanted to attribute them to Malik.
The vast majority of their scholars uphold the validity of the hadith of the 73 groups (though they have dissenting views).
Those that uphold that hadith believe that every other group (Ibadis, Shi’i, Mu’tazilah etc….are on that Pan Am Flight 72, meaning we are all bound for hellfire.
However, it doesn’t stop there.
AMONG THE AHL SUNNAH WAL JAMMAH (THE PEOPLE OF THE SUNNAH AND THE GROUP) ARE MAJOR DIVISIONS.
Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah (The People of the Sunnah and the Group)
Salafi/Athari — very often believe that followers of the other schools of aqidah (creed), Ashari/Maturidi, are going to hell and vice versa. (Though there are dissenting views).
There is the Deobandi and Barelvis split. With many among them considering the other to be outright kafir (and for them that means outside the fold of Islam).
VIOLENCE AND DIVISION AMONG SUFI TARIQA
If you think for one moment that those loveable hugable Sufis are all above the board when it comes to politics, mud slinging and even violence. Well, let us hold up a mirror and show you a person who has never been affiliated with a Sufi Tariqa.
Lots of rivalry and fighting (often leading to violence) among them.
The “Battle of the Book Seven” (Internal Mevlevi Conflict) A fascinating example of rivalry within a single order is the controversy over Rumi’s Mathnawī in the 17th century. This dispute shows how doctrinal interpretation could split a community and draw in outside authorities.
The Spark: The renowned Mevlevi shaykh Ismāʿīl Rusūkhī Anqarawī wrote a commentary on what he claimed was the “Book Seven” of Rumi’s Mathnawī. The problem was that the vast majority of Mevlevis believed Rumi’s masterpiece consisted of only six books and considered the seventh text apocryphal.
The Rivalry: This created a bitter internal rift within the Mevlevi order. Anqarawī and his followers were pitted against other Mevlevi shaykhs who saw his work as an illegitimate innovation.
THE HADITH OF THE 73 SECTS ANALYZED & NEUTRALIZED BY THE IBADIS
From what we know (and we admit our collective ignorance of the other schools in this regard), from what we know is that we are the first among the schools of Islamto interpret the hadith of the 73 groups under a lens and interpret it in a more ecumenical fashion.
We are not aware of any school of Islam that has preceded us in this. If you, the reader, find information to the contrary, feel free to correct us.
The above book is: Kitab al Wada’ Al Mukhtasar Fi Usul Al -Fiqh Abu Zakariyah Yahya B. Abil Khayer Al Jannawiny. Commentary by: Shaykh Ibrahim At-Fayyish (h)
The comment is concerning Muslims being divided into 73 sects. All will be in loss, except one, and they will all claim that their group is the one that is correct.
In the comments under the line: He states: “It is better to bring the sayings or the view of Shamsu-Deen Abu Ya’aqub Yusuf B. Ibrahim al-Warijilani (May Allah have abundant mercy on him) (d. 570 ah)
Shaykh Shamsu-Deen says: “Whoever worshiped Allah, that which came to him from Islam and that one was ‘wara in his din (that means that person was pious). He was not eating haram. This person had ‘wara (self vigilance against the haram). This one does not say, ‘I am right, and he is wrong’ This one will escape and be on the path to safety. This applies to everyone who follows Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of his Prophet (saw) up to what has reached that individual from his madhab (his school) and this one has not said bad things by his tongue to the Muslims. That would be enough for him because this is what has reached him of his religion by his striving and sincere efforts and ability. The group that escapes is the one that follows the Prophet (saw) and his companions (the pious among them).”
When you look at the time in which the venerable Shaykh al-Warijilani (r) lived, his view would be quite progressive by today’s standards.
This understanding seems to be what is espoused by Shaykh Hatim Abdis-Salam.
We would also like to bring your attention to the understanding of the hadith of the 73 groups by Shaykh Hatim Abdis-Salam (May continue to bless him).
Next we have this intelligent insight into the hadith by the Ibadi master Shaykh Ali Yahya Muammar (r). This is a very short, concise and insightful read.
We are in agreement with the assessment of this master, Shaykh Ali Yahya Muammar (r)
“The hadith states that each of these sects will claim that it is saved. The claim of every sect that is alone is the saved one is only natural: only a madman would insist on following a sect that will perish. The members of each of the sects have tried hard to prove that they follow the truth and are on the right path, the one followed by the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace and his companions, and that all others have strayed from the way of God, in both doctrine and conduct.”
The following video is titled:PARADISE IS FOR WHO?(Shaykh Dr. Majid Al Kindi. The general custodian of the Iftaa office in Oman. A very knowledgeable scholar with two PhDs.
The following is a translation of the respected Shaykh
“That is Paradise, which We give as inheritance to those of Our servants who were fearing (of Allah).”
“And not for the one who was an ibadi, nor a hanafi, nor a shafi’, nor a maliki and not for other than them from every group, whether it being from a school of theology or a school of jurisprudence, (but) for the one who was God-fearing (God conscious).”
“That which we have affection for and desire, is that people leave all of these labels and commit to that which Allah the Almighty has labelled us when He said,
“And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty. [It is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you “Muslims” before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people. So establish prayer and give zakah and hold fast to Allah . He is your protector; and excellent is the protector, and excellent is the helper.”
This is what we want.
And the Imam (May Allah have mercy on him), when he was asked about the school (ie. al-Ibadiyyah) and its naming, he (May Allah have mercy on him) replied by saying, “We don’t have any school except Islam.”
So, we don’t take the individual’s understanding as Islam or the Shariah of Allah. It is instead ideas that people have come with and call to.”
THERE ARE NO SECTS AT THE GATES OF HELL.
Even though Shaykh Dawud Al BuSinan (h) is of our school, he is giving us a clear and sobering reminder!
So where does your aqidah lead you to? Does it lead you to cause fasad; have pride, disobey Allah; sin more and fear him less? Make light of his promises and punishments and that of his blessed Prophets (upon them all be peace). Does it encourage you to do good and speak good. There is no gate in heaven called: “Ibadiyyah gate.”
There is most likely someone who follows our school, and they are the worst sinner than any of the other groups and Allah (swt) knows best!
SECTARIANISM IS CAUSING DIVISION: OUR MISSION A UNIFIED UMMAH — By Shaykh Khalfan ibn Muhammed Al Esry (May Allah have mercy on him) He is a prominent Omani scholar, and he was a former member of the Omani state council (before he passed away)-May Allah have mercy on him.
IF IBADIS ARE NOT GOING TO CHUCK EVERYONE IN HELL THAN WHY FOLLOW THE SCHOOL?
In an interesting and unfortunate turn of events that once happened in our English WhatsApp group, a brother objected: “Well, if we are not sure if they are all going to hell, then what is the point?” What he means is what is the point of propagating this school of thought?
We feel there is a huge misunderstanding here. How can we be deciders of who goes to heaven or hell when we are not certain about ourselves? How can we be deniers of who goes to paradise when we are not guarantors of paradise ourselves?
In fact, this very much sets us apart from those schools that believe they will all go to heaven (even after a brief sojourn in hell). We have no such position.
For many of us, we follow this school because it is the most sensible and honest about what happened in the past. We discuss it and move on. We are not fiaxted with the past.
We find this school most cohesive and cogent in its theological positions and that gives me peace of mind and peace of heart. We find this school to be a school frozen in time, as if we can see and live the very Islam of the companions. May Allah be pleased with them. We find this school holding fast to the Qur’an and being fervent in calling to the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Though we have our hardline views, we are also welcoming and willing and ever ready to work with other schools of Islam. We marry Sunni and Shi’i. Our scholars read the works and writings of all other schools of Islam because we recognize and believe what Allah (swt) says:
“He gives wisdom to whom He chooses, and whoever is given wisdom is blessed abundantly. But only insightful people bear this in mind.” (Qur’an 2:269)
Knowledge is not an exclusive to the Ibadi school.
We are probably the only school in Islam in which our scholars have given legal verdicts for the permissibility to pray behind the Imams of other schools. Nor do we issue fatawa saying to kill other Muslims who have different aqidah.
WE HAVE NOT DONE A GOOD JOB OF CLARIFYING THESE POINTS TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE OUR SCHOOL
Observe:
So recently this website received the following comment:
So, we head on over to Shaykh Wikipedia and what do we see? We see impossible feats of mathematics!
“Ibadism is currently the second-largest Muslim denomination in Oman with over a third of its population being adherents.”
“Ibadis still form the majority of the contemporary Omani population and the royal family of Oman are Ibadi.”
Prima Qur’an has a question for Shaykh Wikipedia. How are we the second-largest denomination and yet still form the majority of the population? Your math is not mathing.
However, it looks like the real source of the misunderstanding with Shaykh Wikipedia was from Ms. Valerie Hoffmans book: Source: The Essentials of Ibadi Islam:-Valerie J. Hoffman.(pg. 30)
“Although one must treat non-Ibadi Muslims with the courtesy that all monotheists deserve, according to classical Ibadi doctrine, neither they nor sinning Ibadis will be allowed into paradise. They are doomed to hellfire.”-Valerie Hoffman
This is extremely reckless and can be the cause of real-life physical attack upon those in our community. For example, it has NEVER been the position of the Ibadi school that sinning Ibadi or sinning non-Ibadi Muslims are doomed to hellfire. The position has ALWAYS been that Ibadi’s who repent are subject to the mercy of Allah. Second, as regards non-Ibadi, at the very least a person needs to be: mukallāf—someone pubescent and sane. Next, the clear evidence has to be presented to the individual, and we take as evidence the following:
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32). That judgement can only be passed on non-Ibadi on the basis of masail al-din and not masail al-ra’y.
If she bothered to look into the position of the school in regard to the theological position as regards those who Islam may not have reached (isolated islands etc.) she would have appreciated it as such.
Again, personally, we find it a bit of a disrespect. Here you are being welcomed in a country by its people. They open up their libraries and manuscripts to you. The claim is that you are exposing the Western world to Ibadhism. Yet, you leave comments like the above which could have been clarified. It is certainly not helpful. In regard to one passing comment, it is actually dangerous in today’s hyper-sectarian world not to clarify the position of the school or at the very least pass over the matter.
One thing you will get from Prima Qur’an is full disclosure, transparency and the fact that we believe in laying the cards on the table.
THE “HARD LINE POSITION” AMONG IBADI SCHOLARS CONCERNING NON IBADI MUSLIMS.
So remember what we said about the term: “Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah”. Well, in general we call ourselves as: Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness). So the very name can imply that others are not people of truth or straightness. Just as the term Ahl Sunnah can imply that others are not following the Sunnah.
If you watch this video on YouTube, do take note of the comments below. The updated comments in the black text are provided by our sincere brother. The brother that is doing his level best to provide all of you with unfiltered information. May Allah (swt) reward him for his sincere efforts! We will provide those comments below:
This is an important video by the late Qadi, Shaykh Salim bin Khalfan al Rashidi(May Allah have mercy on him) where he talks about who will go to heaven and refutes the common notion put forth by people that Ibadis believe only they will go to heaven.(May Allah make this video open our hearts and ease us all and make us amongst the people of Jannah, Ameen. * I think that I need to make this clear to not misunderstand the qadi. Basically, for us Ibadis, all those who disagree with us on anything of aqeeda/belief/whatever you call it, is in Bara’ah. Because in Aqeeda there can only be one absolute truth, unlike fiqh issues where khilaf is possible. But does that mean we say they’ll go to hellfire? No (as they may have repented). Go to Jannah? No. Rather, their judgment is up to Allah (swt). And when someone says it’s not only Ibadis that’ll enter Jannah, then that’s true, as the name is not necessary rather the belief is.* This translation was done by the Ahlul Haqq wal Istiqamah English group, link to our discord is below.
Prima Qur’an comments: May Allah (swt) bless this brother.
So, basically, this is the so-called “hardline view.” We have already mentioned that every sect, or school in Islam has exclusivist views. This is nothing novel to the Ibadi school.
So this line of thinking is that Non-Ibadi Muslims are in a state of “Kufr Ni’ama” — recall the perspective of the Qadiani sect above. That they are still Muslims but because they have rejected the truth. Rejecting the truth = being in a state of sin.
The evidence must be presented.
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
So we can see in the first verse the first condition. “How then are you turned away?”
The proof must come to them by proof it can be : from (messengers, scholars, TV, Internet), whichever way by invitation. Even reading this blog.
You have to present the evidence. You cannot be turned away from something not presented to you. We are 100% supportive of this position, not because this is due to our desires, it is because it is self-evident. If one sees the truths and strengths and evidence of this school, acknowledges it and turns away, they are without doubt in ‘kufr ni’ama’ and if they die in that state, then the apparent with us is that they will meet a terrible ending. As do all who reject the truth. However, in the end, ultimately, Allah is the judge.
“And those who argue about God after having answered His call, their argument has no basis whatsoever with their Lord. Anger enfolds them, and a severe punishment awaits them.” (Qur’an 42:16)
2. Being Baligh, Mukallak or Muhallaq!
“And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and under the wall was a treasure that belonged to them, and their father had been a righteous man. So your Lord willed that these children should come of age and retrieve their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord. I did not do it ˹all˺ on my own. This is the explanation of what you could not bear patiently.” (Qur’an 18:82)
“Test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then, if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them.” (Qur’an 4:6)
It is clear that for one to be able to be entrusted to receive their property and or wealth, they must be both physically and mentally capable to care for it. If this is for the dunya — which is dust and perishing, how much more for the hereafter which is forever and enduring?
Baligh, Mukallak or Muhallaq, one who has reached puberty and mentally matured. That is when they come under Taklif responsibility. Considering that out of 1.8 billion Muslims with an explosion in youth population, how many countless millions who are not of the Ibadi school and at any given time and are not baligh, mukallak or muhallaq!
3. Masa’il Ad-Din & Masa’il Al-Ra’y What the differences must be concerning:
As mentioned above: “Because in Aqeeda there can only be one absolute truth, unlike fiqh issues where khilaf is possible.“
Masa’il Ad-Din: Matters that are proven from the clear nass (text) on aqeeda — the Ahl Khilaf (People of the opposition, those who oppose our school) should not disagree with us on matters of aqeeda, or they would be in “Kufr Ni’ama.”
Masa’il Al-Ra’y: Matters that pertain to (usul al fiqh), if it is a clear text, then there is no room for ijtihad; however, if it is not a clear text, the ijtihad is in the text itself.
4. The different categories of Ahl Khilaf.
A) Muqallids: Understanding that the majority of the people of all schools (including the Ibadi school) are Muqallid—That means one who practices Taqlid. They follow qualified scholars according to their school without knowing the evidence (dalil, burhan, and hujat).
B) Scholars of the different schools.
Further divided into two:
B1) Scholars who have received the evidence, understood the evidence,acknowledge the evidence. Or they knowingly reject the evidence= “Kufr Ni’ama” (Judgement is based upon the dhahir in this case, we are correct) — We judge according to the apparent.
B2) Scholars that are not catching the evidence are not comprehending the evidence. (From the outward we perceive they are rejecting the truth) (Judgement is based upon the dhahir in this case, we are in error) — We judge according to the apparent.
5. A clear delivery of the truth.
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Quran 64:12)
The Blessed Messenger (saw) is said to have delivered the message clearly. So how about non-Messenger humans that use our own styles and methods to speak and demonstrate and use of reasoning which may or may not be flawed?
“˹Say to the believers, O Prophet,˺ “Whatever you may differ about, its judgment rests with Allah. That is Allah—my Lord. In Him I put my trust, and to Him I ˹always˺ turn.” (Qur’an 42:10)
5. Factor of Time. The time needed to comprehend and implement the truth of any particular subject.
For example, a new individual just embraces Islam. The upcoming time for prayer is coming. Is this person excused from the prayer? No they are not. However, they do not know the dalil, burhan, and hujat concerning the prayer. How much time is needed for someone to know the akham — meaning what is wajib (obligatory), mustahabb (recommended), muharram (outright forbidden), makruh (disliked), halal (permissible).
And this is only for prayer. How much more time is needed to establish certainty in other disciplines, like aqeeda.
TOP SCHOLARS OF THE IBADI SCHOOL HAVE SIGNED THE AMMAN MESSAGE.
Ibadi Muslims signed the Amman accords.
The Grand Mufti and Assistant Grand Mufti both signed.
Top scholars of our school have signed the Amman Message. Shaykh Ahmad bin Hamad Al -Khalili (h) the Mufti of the Sultanate of Oman.
Shaykh Dr. Kahlan bin Nahban Al-Kharusi (h) The Jurisprudential Advisor in the Office for the Issuance of Fatwas.
The Muslims can continue to compete and vie with one other for influence over the Ummah of Muhammed (saw).
So respectful engagement is absolutely key to having meaningful discussion. We have Husn al-Dhan, that Muslims from other sects are generally brought up with good parenting. This is the default thinking in regard to them. However, when a Muslim from another sect starts to hurl abuse and insults, we shut down. The dialogue stops immediately. Is this because we wish to retreat? No. Because at that moment the thinking among us is that your parents brought you up with good mannerisms. Mannerism that you are now ignoring. Which means you must not respect your parents. If you do not respect your parents, how can you respect us or even the conversation?
“So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you ˹of the truth˺ regarding your differences.” (Qur’an 5:48)
However, it is also incumbent upon us to work together when ever and however we can for the betterment of the communities and countries that each of us live in. Social cohesion is a prerequisite to convey the truth. For, after all, who can convey the truth among the piercing sounds of gunfire and the terrified screams of little children?
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“They shall have whatever they wish with their Lord.” (Qur’an 39:34)
﷽
The Christian Heaven: Virgins, Violence, and Coup D’état!
Much seems to be made of the idea that the Qur’an mentions carnal pleasure in heaven, drinking of heavenly wine, and/or the eating of foods. Thus, the Qur’an is made out to be a depraved book that focuses on the lust and passions of men in particular.
This is unlike Christianity, where when we reach heaven we have an ‘eternal walk’ with the Lord. As Shabir Ally said in a debate with Jay Smith, “That’s going to be a long walk, Jay.”
First and foremost, it is absolutely imperative that anyone reading this should know that the Qur’an nowhere promises anyone 72 virgins in paradise! Nowhere!
This statement is in Hadith literature.
“It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham ‘Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa’id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet (saw) saying, ‘The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy-two houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San’a.”
Even then it should be noted that the above hadith is considered to have weak chain.
It is attributed to the Messenger of Allah (saw) that he said:
“In Paradise, there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy their wives.”
So one hadith above mentions servants and houri (beings created for pleasure) and it is not mentioned if they are for those without spouses, those with spouses or not. The second hadith is addressing people who have wives. Now, if there was no decency involved, one would wonder the need to have distance? Again, the idea is that this is a reference to a man who has more than one wife and just as you would not make love to one wife in front of the other in this life (this is just etiquette and respect), you would not do as such in the next life.
“He it is Who has sent down the Book upon thee; therein are signs determined; they are the Mother of the Book, and others symbolic. As for those whose hearts are given to swerving, they follow that of it which is symbolic, seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation. And none know its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7)
“No soul knows what comfort is kept hidden for it as a recompense for that which they used to do.” (Qur’an 32:17)
Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said that Allah said: “I have prepared for My righteous servants what no eye has seen and no ear has heard, nor has it occurred to the human heart. Thus, recite if you wish, ‘And no soul knows what joy has been kept hidden for them.”’
The above verse of the Qur’an coupled with the below hadith is often argued to say that the afterlife is allegorical. This is not true. The verse of the Qur’an coupled with the hadith says exactly what it says. That is that no soul knows what comfort is kept hidden from it. It does not mean we will not have that which we are familiar with or that we do not have a frame of reference for.
So now let’s get to two places in the Qur’an that the missionaries seem to be having a field day with. Here is comparing three different translations of the Qur’an chapter 56, verses 35–37.
Now some Christian apologists, being embarrassed about details and language that the Holy Spirit supposedly inspired people to write in the Bible, are pulling out all the stops to make the verses above say ‘swelling breast’.
We think Christians like them are embarrassed that the Holy Spirit inspired someone to write the following in the Bible (according to their theology)…
“Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.” (New International Version Ezekiel chapter 23 verse 20)
Ain’t nobody trying to hear that! We already got the picture that this woman was carried away.
The sad thing is that in the Bible you will never see a man match a woman in terms of lewdness or promiscuity.
Women are always used as symbols for evil, and that which is vile and filthy.
“The Whore of Babylon” …for example…
“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;….” (Isaiah 64:6)
Giving charity to the people of Haiti, or giving your organ to a dying child or spouse so that they may live, is simply described as a woman’s ‘filthy rag’ in Christianity. All good deeds on this Earth are compared to a woman’s menstrual cloth.
Every noble act ever committed by any human being anywhere is simply a ‘filthy rag’
Feeding a starting child. Giving comfort to an orphan. Providing a blanket for the homeless cold and feeble old man. All of it is likened to a woman’s menstrual cloth!
So no better image could be conjured up in the mind of the Holy Spirit than a woman having her monthly bleeding – bleeding we might add that was given to her as a punishment by God according to Christianity.
However, later we find out that God gets cheated on. That the ‘wife’ of God became like a prostitute.
“‘But you trusted in your beauty and capitalized on your fame by becoming a prostitute. You offered your sexual favors to every man who passed by so that your beauty became his. You took some of your clothing and made for yourself decorated high places; you engaged in prostitution on them.” (Ezekiel 16:15-16)
Prima Qur’an: We have always wondered why many Christian and Jewish men had a very unhealthy relationship and attitude towards women. When the Creator of Heaven and Earth gets cheated on, then who is the average man compared to God?
Even some Christian polemist who got cheated on may feel a kindred spirit with God.
So here are the verses that Christians think are embarassing for Muslims.
(Qur’an 56:35)
YUSUFALI: We have created of special creation. PICKTHAL: Lo! We have created them a creation SHAKIR: Surely We have made them to grow into a growth,
(Qur’an 56:36)
YUSUFALI: And made them virgin – pure, – PICKTHAL: And made them virgins, SHAKIR: Then We have made them virgins,
(Qur’an 56:37)
YUSUFALI: Beloved, equal in age,- PICKTHAL: Lovers, friends, SHAKIR: Loving, equals in age,
And let us look at the next set of verses in the Qur’an comparing three different translations. (Qur’an chapter 78 verses 31-33)
(Qur’an 78:31)
YUSUFALI: Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of desires; PICKTHAL: Lo! for the duteous is an achievement – SHAKIR: Surely for those who guard is an achievement,
(Qur’an 78:32)
YUSUFALI: Gardens enclosed, and grapevines; PICKTHAL: Gardens enclosed and vineyards, SHAKIR: Gardens and vineyards,
(Qur’an 78:33)
YUSUFALI: And voluptuous women of equal age; PICKTHAL: And voluptuous women of equal age; SHAKIR: And voluptuous women of equal age;
In talking about the Qur’an mentioning of physical pleasure in heaven, a Lebanese Christian convert to Islam, Hajji Gibril Houdad, says the following,
“The perfection of Islam dictates that it have a motivation for every type of person including those that are not motivated except through sensory reward, which is the common lot whether Christians deny it or not and that the principle of Paradise as a reward for martyrs is also very much present in their doctrine. However, Paradise in Islam also describes a higher level called Ridwan i.e. the lavishing of Divine good pleasure, to which we pray that Allah guides us.”
What about Muslim women? What will they get in paradise?
“And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer – those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, even as much as the speck on a date seed.”(Qur’an 4:124)
“Women shall derive benefit from what they acquired. Ask, therefore, Allah out of His bounty: behold, Allah has indeed full knowledge of everything.” (Qur’an 4:32)
One of the scholars said that the rewards of women in the Quran are implied (rather than specifically stated)because they are more bashful than a man. A man needs it to be spelled out to him and a woman can read between the lines.
Allah mentions some of the pleasures of Paradise. The translation of the verse is: “And round about them will (serve) boys of everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think of them as scattered pearls.” (Qur’an 76:19)
“These are creatures that are created for service. This is what they love to do. There is no exploitation or anything like that in the modern politically-correct world we live in. These people are created for this. This is their Ibadah (worship) to Allah. If you –the prophet SAAWS- saw them you would consider them scattered pearls and this is just indicating how beautiful they are” -Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.
“They shall have whatever they wish with their Lord.” (Qur’an 39:34)
So in Islam, we are not crude people. We are taught to be refined and to be cultured. Allah says that women will have what they wish from Allah. If a person wants to ask for details, this just shows the level of their own civility. We don’t speak about our mothers, sisters, and daughters in such an open way as many people do today. May Allah give them more shyness, modesty, and refinement! Amin!
In this article, we ask: Does the Christian Heaven have a place for women? We were hard-pressed to find any verse in the Bible that unequivocally stated this as such:
Women are little more than an afterthought in the Christian salvific scheme.
It also seems to me that the Christian paradise is not really something to look forward to but simply a refuge away from something.
Unlike the Qur’an, where Allah is inviting people to paradise, Christians never use descriptions of paradise or ‘long walks with God for all eternity’ as a means of bringing people close to God.
Christianity is more or less about being ‘saved’. Saved from what? Saved from eternal everlasting hellfire.
In Christianity, heaven is not something to be invited to, rather it is an escape from.
It’s as if someone is telling you that you have the choice between:
A) Go into a room and be burned alive forever and ever for all eternity.
Or
B) You can go into a room and eat potato soup for all eternity.
Only a glutton for punishment would choose option A.
Now the analogy of spending time with God to potato soup is most definitely lacking. Yet this is what Christianity does. For all its doctrine and evangelical teaching, none of it is about calling people to God. It’s all about fleeing from wrath!
Now, obviously the Qur’an teaches that hellfire is eternal. Those who dwell therein will dwell forever. Yet as Shaykh Gibril mentioned above, some people are motivated by reward/punishment and others may not be so.
Early Christianity and, indeed, western civilization seem to have some rather unhealthy feelings towards sex and sexuality in general.
So there you are, long walks with the heavenly father, the lion lays down with the sheep (how nice for the sheep) and so forth…
So there you have it….paradise ….heaven, a place of eternal peace, with everyone singing kumbaya……OR IS IT?
War and Coup D’état in heaven!
“And there was WAR IN HEAVEN. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.” (Revelation 12:7)
Good grief!
Is heaven a place of war and violence? Let’s keep reading…
So much for Jesus’ argument that he wasn’t casting out devils by the power of Satan!
“So Jesus called them together and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, it cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, it cannot stand.” (Mark 3;23-25)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12)
Well, apparently you don’t have to be saved after all! If you’re violent enough, you can simply take the kingdom of heaven by force!
What on Earth is going on?
“He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” (Luke 10:18)
“The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.” (Revelation 12:9)
Ahh yes, Sunday school days. As one of our colleagues recalls the story. There was an angel named Lucifer who apparently got jealous of God. Lucifer wanted to run things, and so he had a secret meeting with some angels, and together they tried to sack the boss!
Now the story itself is nowhere in the Bible. It’s not Biblical! We have no idea who cooked this up. Allah knows best. There are a lot of problems with this story. It makes you wonder where the idea to rebel against God came from? If everything was as pure as the driven snow.
It also makes a mockery of God, as if Allah wouldn’t know that the angels were plotting against him. Not only this, but this is NOT Islamic theology. We have NO concept of fallen angels.
“O believers! Protect yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is people and stones, overseen by formidable and severe angels, who never disobey whatever Allah orders—always doing as commanded.” (Qur’an 66:6)
“who do not speak until He has spoken, acting at His command.” (Qur’an 21:27)
As we asked before what is to stop the next disgruntled angel from wanting to sack the boss!
So we don’t know about you but as a believing man or woman, we would much prefer the heaven in which we are relaxing on a couch, with handsome servant boys (if we are a women) and beautiful young maidens (if we are men) than to be witness to the next Coup D’état!
Jesus, heaven, and virgins…
Let’s open our Bibles to Matthew chapter 25 verses 1-13
Matthew 25
“The Parable of the Ten Virgins”
1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6 “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’
7 “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’
9 “‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’
10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. ???
11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’
12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’
13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
Now did you notice that it says, “The Parable”? It does not say that in the Greek Text. This is a heading that someone has put into the story. Anyhow, there are a number of things about this story that are odd. If Jesus is the bridegroom, then are these the brides,plural—polygamy?
“In the parable of the ten virgins (Matt 25:1-13), there is no mention of the bride simply because the virgins are the brides. In fact, copyists of New Testament manuscripts recognized the straightforward meaning and added “and bride” to a number of manuscripts at the end of Matthew 25:1. As mentioned above in the quote from Maimonides, Jewish law permitted marrying multiple wives at the same time and no doubt some Israelite kings built their polygamous households in this manner.” -Blaine Robinson
Now it gets strange because, apparently, these virgins go with Jesus, “The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.”
Now, of course, there is no mention of sex, but there is a picture of virgins being married to Jesus. If people say that the brides refer to both men and women, you’re not helping your case. You are actually painting a picture which, indeed, would be even more bizarre.
So who are these virgins that go with Jesus?
144,000 Virgin Men Offered To Jesus In Heaven!!!!
Move over Islam and your paltry sum of “72 virgin women” you ain’t seen anything yet! Here comes’ Jesus with 144,000 virgin men!
“Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.” (Revelation 14:1)
*note* Jesus and the Father do not share the same name!
“No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins(parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb.” (Revelation 14:3-5)
Now, if we allowed ourselves to enter into the minds of perverted polemicists like many of the Christians who assail Islam, we could allow our imaginations to just run wild with passages like the ones above. Like why are 144,000 virgin men likened to fruit?
Why is sex (as we mentioned above) seen as something dirty in Christian theology? Remember it says “who did not defile themselves with women” –This also means sex in marriage.
Why the emphasis upon virgin men?
Does the Bible ever give us a clue anywhere else as to the use of virgins?
“Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31.17-18)
According to the Christians, “Jesus” orders the Israelites to keep alive the young virgin girls for themselves because they have special purposes (shrugs shoulders).
Take a look at the the weak hadith that mentions the 72 houri again.
“It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham ‘Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa’id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet (saw) saying, ‘The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy-two houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San’a.”
The text does not say the houri are for pleasure. But if it is assumed to be the case, then…
“But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. ???
Thus, it is hoped that Christians will take our understanding of the Qur’an based upon its chief principle of interpretation of chapter 3 verse 7 a little more seriously.
The Christian heaven: Wars, Sedition, Violence, and filled with 144,000 lucky virgin men!
The Islamic heaven: Eternal peace. The sovereignty of Allah reigns supreme, mind-blowing cosmic orgasmic sex with earthly beings and celestial beings on a level you could never have imagined! A place where delights await both men and women.
“And from the people, there are those who will purchase a baseless narratives with which to mislead from the path of Allah without knowledge, and to make it a mockery. These will have a humiliating retribution.” (Qur’an 31:6)
﷽
“The Myth of the Mahdi” Is among the clearest evidence of the falsehood of the hadiths about the Mahdi and the falsehood of the appearance of his character at the end of time, and that it is a purely Hashimite fabrication.
Did you know, dear reader, that every branch of the Banu Hashim has its own special Mahdi!? The Abbasids—branch of Al-Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim: They claimed that the Mahdi is the caliph Muhammed ibn Abdullah, Abu Ja’far al-Mansur.
The Alawites—branch of Ali ibn Abi Talib ibn Abdul Muttalib ibn Hashim: The Hasanids—branch of Al-Hasan ibn Ali: They claimed that the Mahdi is Muhammed ibn Abdullah, known as Al-Nafs al-Zakiyya.
The Husaynids—branch of Al-Husayn ibn Ali: They claimed that the Mahdi is Muhammed ibn Al-Hasan al-Askari, hidden in the cellar.
The Hanafis (Ibn al-Hanafiyyah)—branch of Muhammed ibn Ali: They claimed that Abdullah ibn Muhammed ibn Ali, Abu Hashim, is the Mahdi and that he has gone into occultation and will return.
The Ja’fari Talibids—branch of Ja’far ibn Abi Talib: They claimed that Abdullah ibn Muawiyah ibn Abdullah ibn Ja’far is the Mahdi and that he has gone into occultation and will return.
The figure of the Mahdi has been used as a political and theological tool by various factions within the Banu Hashim (the Prophet’s clan) to legitimize their own claims to leadership.
Let’s break down the evidence we’ve presented.
The Political Utility of the Mahdi
Our central argument—that the Mahdi is a “Hashimite priestly fabrication”—aligns with the scholarly view that messianic figures often emerge in times of political crisis or succession disputes. In early Islam, the idea of a restorer of justice (the Mahdi) was particularly useful for:
Legitimizing a new caliph: Claiming that a ruler is the Mahdi gave him divine sanction.
Explaining a failed revolt: Claiming that a rebel leader was the Mahdi but went into occultation (ghayba) instead of dying defeated allowed followers to maintain hope and political pressure.
Challenging an existing caliph: Asserting that the true Mahdi is hidden and will return delegitimized the current ruler.
Examples: A Survey of Hashimite Mahdis
We’ve listed several factions, each with its own Mahdi. Let’s verify and expand slightly:
Branch of Banu Hashim
Claimed Mahdi
Key Detail
Abbasids
Muhammed ibn Abdullah (Abu Ja’far al-Mansur, the second Abbasid caliph)
He was proclaimed Mahdi by some early Abbasid propagandists to rally support against the Umayyads. Later Abbasid caliphs like al-Mahdi (r. 775–785) even took the title.
Hasanids
Muhammed ibn Abdullah al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (“The Pure Soul”)
He led a major revolt against the Abbasids in 762 CE. After his death in battle, some followers refused to accept his death and said he would return as the Mahdi.
Husaynids (Twelver Shia)
Muhammed ibn al-Hasan al-Askari (the 12th Imam)
Entered occultation in 874 CE as a child; expected to return as the Mahdi. This became the mainstream Twelver doctrine. The “cellar” (sardab) in Samarra is a pilgrimage site.
Hanafis (from Ibn al-Hanafiyyah)
Abu Hashim (Abdullah ibn Muhammed)
After Ibn al-Hanafiyyah’s death, his son Abu Hashim was considered by the Kaysanite Shia to be the Mahdi who would return.
Ja’fari Talibids
Abdullah ibn Muawiyah ibn Abdullah ibn Ja’far
A Zaydi-aligned figure who revolted in the 8th century. His followers claimed he was the Mahdi and had gone into occultation.
The Problem This Poses for Traditional Understandings.
If the Mahdi were a genuine, unambiguous prophecy from the Blessed Prophet Muhammad (saw), you would expect:
One consistent figure across all Hashimite branches.
Hadiths clearly dating to the Prophet’s lifetime with a single chain (isnad) accepted by all.
No need for post-facto “occultations” to explain historical failures.
Instead, what we see is:
Multiple, contradictory Mahdis emerging after political defeats (e.g., after the deaths of al-Nafs al-Zakiyya, Abu Hashim, and al-Askari).
Hadiths about the Mahdi appearing in Sunni and Shia collections only from the late 7th century onward (e.g., in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, d. 855 CE), not in the earliest surviving hadith works like the Musnad Al-Imam Ar-Rabee’ (Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih), the Muwatta of Malik (d. 795 CE), Bukhari and Muslim– showing the tradition developed over time.
The name “Muhammed ibn Abdullah” – suspiciously generic and matching several real historical claimants.
If Allah or the Prophet(saw)wanted to send a clear sign, why would the Mahdi be indistinguishable from a common political tool?
Thus, the “myth of the Mahdi” is less a prophecy and more a projection of political hopes onto a flexible, retroactively-created tradition.
You may be interested in reading the following article:
What happens is that people who have more knowledge than ordinary people will come to them with a list and try and overwhelm them with a mountain of evidence. But a pile of dust, even if it reaches the sky, is still but a pile of dust.
For example:
Names of the Imams who recorded the hadiths and reports concerning the Mahdi in their books:
Abu Dawud in his Sunan
Al-Tirmidhi in his Jami’
Ibn Majah in his Sunan
Ibn Abi Shaybah in Al-Musannaf
Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) in his Musnad
Al-Harith ibn Abi Usamah in his Musnad
Al-Bazzar in his Musnad
Ibn Hibban in his Sahih
Al-Hafiz Abu Nu’aym in Kitab al-Mahdi and in Al-Hilyah
Al-Tabari in Al-Kabir, Al-Awsat, and Al-Saghir
Al-Daraqutni in Al-Afrad
Abu Ya’la al-Mawsili in his Musnad
Al-Barudi in Ma’rifat al-Sahabah
Al-Khatib in Talkhis al-Mutashabih and in Al-Muttafaq wal-Muftariq
Ibn ‘Asakir in his Tarikh
Ibn Mandah in Tarikh Asbahan
Tamam al-Razi in his Fawa’id
Ibn Jarir in Tahdhib al-Athar
Abu Bakr ibn al-Muqri’ in his Mu’jam
Abu ‘Amr al-Dani in his Sunan
It all looks very impressive at first. Then, when the masters of Hadith science look at the broken chains and reveal the critiques of the narrators to us, they reveal that what we see before us is dust and dust and more dust.
Implications for the current geopolitical situation of Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah.
The followers of Muhammed ibn al-Hasan are becoming disillusioned. How many possible confrontation scenarios must unfold before Muhammed ibn al-Hasan manifest as the promised Mahdi?
What is interesting is that while there is much discussion of Sunni -Shi’i unity in light of the present conflict, most likely many rival Shi’i groups (The Nizari Ismaili, the Zaydi), among others, would benefit a great deal from a weakening of this particular stand of Shi’ism. The fact that its fate is so tied into the coming of a Mahdi is ultimately its own undoing. Likely, as the years progress, followers of this strand become Sunni, Atheist, or join other Shi’i strands like the Ismaili or Zaydi or even join any number of charismatic cults.
Concluding thoughts.
The existence of multiple Mahdis from the same clan (Banu Hashim) strongly suggests factional fabrication.
The timing (after deaths or defeats) is textbook myth-making.
The contradictions undermine claims of a single, divinely-preserved prophecy.
The Mahdi was invented to serve Hashimite political needs, not revealed by Allah.
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although the mushrik make dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
The following is a translation from the talk by Shaykh Mustafa al Adawi. Any mistakes or flaws in the translation belong to us.
What is the truth about the awaited Mahdi?
“The awaited Mahdi, as they call him, is ultimately a righteous man who will be an imam, establishing justice among the people. This is the extent of his role according to the established evidence from the Messenger of Allah, (saw). Most of these narrations do not explicitly mention the Mahdi. Rather, they state that before long, his name will appear, coinciding with mine and his father’s name, and he will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been oppressed. This is the most that can be said about him.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“Furthermore, even if there is a chain of narration (isnad) that is not strong enough to allow us to base significant rulings on it—such as a hadith narrated by Malik from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar, or by Zirr from Salim from his father, or one that was narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim—there is none of that. It is not narrated by al-Bukhari or Muslim, and it is not a definitively strong chain of narration. Many narrations revolve around Aim ibn Abi al-Najud, and Asim is a narrator whose reliability is questioned. Some scholars consider his hadiths acceptable, but others question his memory. This is the strongest narration I have found on this topic. It is not explicit in mentioning the Mahdi. Rather, it is a hadith about how you will be when the son of Mary descends among you. And before you, from among you, the Muslims present the Messiah, (as), to lead them in prayer. The Muslims present the Messiah to lead them in prayer, and the Messiah, (as), says, “No, rather some of you are imams for one another. Allah has honored this nation.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“Beyond that, many sayings have been woven about the awaited Mahdi. I repeat that the hadiths concerning this awaited one are not so strong that they can reassure the soul without doubt or uncertainty. Rather, their chains of transmission are questionable. One can accept that the hadith is sound in this regard, but the wording of the sound hadith is: “The Hour will not come until a man emerges whose name is like my name and whose father’s name is like my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with injustice and oppression.” I had mistakenly thought there was an authentic hadith in this regard, which is the hadith: “When you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then go towards them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” But Abu Hatim al-Razi mentioned that this hadith is flawed and rejected, and it is as Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, said.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“As for the much talk about the awaited Mahdi, it should not be taken lightly. This matter has garnered significant attention because of the hadiths it contains, as I mentioned earlier. I tasked one of our brothers, a student of knowledge named Adil ibn Abd al-Salam, with compiling all the related material. He compiled it, and the result, after careful review with him and after I researched it in my book,The Authentic and Attributed Collection of Hadiths on Tribulations, Battles, and the Signs of the Hour, is as follows: With Allah’s help, I see that many have spoken on this topic, but many of them are not scholars of hadith; rather, they are like those who gather firewood in the dark. The meaning of “those who gather firewood in the dark” is that they collect what is true and what is weak, like someone gathering firewood at night who might also gather a snake. Allah knows best. As for the Shia, they have myths that have no basis whatsoever in this regard.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
Question from the students of knowledge.
Peace be upon you. Peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy. And upon you be peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings.
How are you, Sheikh Mustafa? Praise be to Allah. Please, Shaykh, I have a question: Is there a single authentic hadith that mentions the name of the Mahdi? And if there isn’t, how can someone who denies the Mahdi be considered wrong?
“Yes, praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. There is a hadith on this matter: “If you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then know that the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi, is among them.” However, this hadith appears to have a good chain of narration, but it was deemed weak by the learned Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him. I agree with his assessment, as the hadith is weak. As for the hadith, “The Mahdi is from us, the family of the Prophet. The Mahdi has a broad forehead and a prominent nose. The Mahdi will rule for seven years. Allah will rectify the Mahdi in one night”—it is all weak and not authentic.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“The most prominent hadith on this topic is one narrated by Asim ibn Abi al-Najud: “The days an dnights will not pass until a man emerges whose name matches my name and whose father’s name matches my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with injustice and oppression.” Regarding Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, there is some scholarly debate; some accept his hadiths, while others question his reliability. Another hadith states: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you? Will he be presented to lead the prayer, or will they present the Messiah? He will say, ‘No, rather some of you are imams over others, a blessing from Allah to this nation.'” As you mentioned, I have not found any authentic hadith from the Messenger of Allah explicitly stating the name of the Mahdi, except for the hadith I mentioned to you: “The Mahdi is from the progeny of Fatima.” This hadith is weak and unreliable. Many hadiths on this subject are also unreliable. I have researched this extensively and have not found any authentic hadith except for the one I mentioned to you: “When you see the black banner coming from Khorasan.” However, this hadith is flawed, as Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, pointed out. The hadith of `Asim ibn Abi al-Najud and the hadith of Muslim are also problematic.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“The text mentions the name of the Mahdi. Also, I sent a message to some of our sons and brothers who are students of knowledge here. I was tasked with compiling a comprehensive treatise, and they dedicated time to this, and it came out with the same result. A treatise, I think it was printed, O Abd al-Rahman. Yes, check if it was printed or not. In short, what is notewrothy is that the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not include any hadith about the Mahdi except what I mentioned form the hadith of Muslim: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you?” Our beloved Shaykh, yes, if you encountered someone who denied the Mahdi, would you rebuke him? By Allah, I mean, we iniform him of what is established according to the opinion of Hasan al-Khabar and Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, but the rebuke is not severe. May Allah reward you and the Muslims. What I have brought to your attention regarding the hadiths of the awaited Mahdi—you may be surprised if I tell you that most of them are not authentic, and I do not know of a single authentic hadith that contains the name of the Mahdi. Rather, they are all fabricated. For example, the hadith, “If you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” I used to doubt its authenticity, but it turned out to be defective.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“Abu Hatim al-Razi, in his book Al-`Ilal, mentions a hadith that might be considered acceptable: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you?” However, it doesn’t explicitly state that he is the Mahdi. Another hadith states: “The days and nights will not pass until a man emerges whose name is my name and whose father’s name is my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with oppression and tyranny.” This hadith also doesn’t name the Mahdi. He then asks about the hadiths concerning the awaited Mahdi. Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. Regarding the Mahdi, there are few hadiths, and people are divided between excess and negligence in their understanding of him. Some cite a vast number of weak hadiths on this subject and base their rulings upon them, while others deny the Mahdi altogether. Both approaches are reprehensible. As I mentioned earlier, very few hadiths are considered authentic or sound.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“The authentic ones include: “What will you do when the son of Mary emerges among you?” or “When the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you?” In this hadith, Jesus,(as), is presented by the Muslims to lead them in prayer, but he says, “No, rather some of you are imams over others.” Allah honors him for this. The nation is divided into two groups of scholars. Some said this is the Mahdi. Another authentic hadith, or one considered acceptable despite some ambiguity in its narrators, states: “The Hour will not come until a man emerges whose name matches my name and whose father’s name matches my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with oppression and tyranny.” This hadith is acceptable and does not explicitly state that this person’s name is the Mahdi. Rather, the hadith states: “His name matches my name and his father’s name matches my father’s name.” A third hadith appears to have a sound chain of transmission, but it is flawed due to the wording: “When you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then go towards them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” This hadith is flawed, and Abu Hatim al-Razi mentioned its flaw in his book Al-`Ilal.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“These are almost all the reports that have been transmitted concerning the Mahdi with authentic chains of transmission. Yes, I know that some eminent scholars have compiled books in which they gathered the hadiths of the Prophet (saw) concerning the Mahdi. However, upon reviewing and scrutinizing these books, it became clear to me that most of what they included is not authentic. Their excuse is that they are not scholars of hadith. They included everything related to the Mahdi without considering its authenticity or weakness. This is a very brief summary. The most accurate thing that can be said is what Muslim included: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your Imam is from among you?” Scholars interpreted this Imam as the Mahdi, peace be upon him. The second hadith is: “He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with injustice and oppression.” As I mentioned earlier, some of the men in its chain of narration are not mentioned by al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him. He is not mentioned at all in either al-Bukhari or Muslim. Rather, in Muslim, there is the hadith that mentions: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you?” Regarding the name of the Mahdi, I do not recall at the moment a hadith with a sound chain of transmission that includes the name of the Mahdi. Rather, all that I have come across in this regard has a weak chain of transmission, or a sound chain but with a flaw, as I mentioned earlier in the hadith alluding to the black banners coming from Khorasan: “Then go towards them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
Prima Qur’an comments. What we found interesting is that Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi really went out on a limb to throw a life jacket to those who hold onto the belief that Mahdi is established in the authentic sunnah.
But what certainly raises an eye brow is the following:
“Regarding the Mahdi, there are few hadiths, and people are divided between excess and negligence in their understanding of him. Some cite a vast number of weak hadiths on this subject and base their rulings upon them, while others deny the Mahdi altogether. Both approaches are reprehensible.”
On what basis can those who deny the Mahdi altogether be considered among the reprehensible when Shaykh al-Adawi himself is among them.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
It seems that the trend is such that in another 20 to 30 years one will scarcely find someone from the scholars who believes in the coming of the Mahdi unless that one is a pariah. Allah knows best.
“This is a Warner of the series of the Warners of old. The (hour) ever approaches draws nigh” (Qur’an 53:56-57).
﷽
Yasir Qadhi: The Return of Jesus and the Qur’an.
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi takes a look at the four verses that are often advanced to make the claim.
“The issue about coming back at the end of times is one that has caused a little bit of controversy uh in the last few years online and before this point in time has also been a point of contention actually for the last few decades. I thought that in today’s library chat let’s take an academic look. Let’s remove ourselves from the emotional back and forth and let us see uh the reality of this issue and uh allow the evidences to speak for themselves. So today’s talk is going to be about a very interesting topic inshalla and it’s also one that uh on the one hand it is a very introductory level in the sense that everybody will benefit but on the other hand um because of the nature of this talk there will be quite a lot of packed information with names and dates and uh I will be at times speeding up uh I I know people say I talk uh quickly but I think I’m going to have to speed up quite a lot for this particular talk because I have quite a lot of information I want to just um uh put into today’s uh library chat. So it is at the same time an introduction and also it is a very uh comprehensive inshallah uh introductory level talk.”- Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Obviously I always make that caveat uh so that people don’t think that this is the end all and be all. Uh today’s talk will be dealing with theology uh with history even with methodology. And before I begin I’d like to point out that there’s there’s two primary ways to look at a controversy or to look at a contentious issue. Uh usually what I do is uh one of the ways to look at it is start from the end and to lay out all of the opinions and then to backtrack and say who says what and why did they say that and that’s a very standard and academic approach. You can flip it around and you have another approach and that is to build and that is to go back to the beginning and say what does the Quran have to say? What does the sunnah have to say? And so today we’re going to be following uh that particular uh procedure and I’m going to be working chronologically forward. And what we’re going to do is divide this entire library chat into a number of different sections. Firstly, does the Quran mention the return of or not? Uh secondly, what does the hadith have to say? And is are they a hadith mutawat or not? And who said they uh thirdly, uh what did the early scholars of Islam have to say about this issue? Uh fourthly uh the is there unanimous consensus on this issue. Uh fifthly what do the other strands of Islam say? Sunni Islam is obviously you know generally clear but what do the other strands of Islam say? And then finally sixth point uh what is the modern controversy and where did this arise and who are the main figures and players with regards to the modern controversy.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“So uh this is a fairly comprehensive uh lengthy introduction to the entire uh topic and I did spend a good amount of time uh around a day and a half doing uh this research to demonstrate uh a methodology of of how we talk about uh contentious issues. So we begin from the beginning and that is the book uh the book of Allah the Quran. The Quran uh has four verses in it that are used by some uh to posit that the Quran preaches the return “Isa of two of these verses have the exact same phrase in them. And so in reality it boils down to three particular phrases in the Quran because once again there are four verses but two of the verses are pretty much the same for what we want to do. So the two that are the same are (Qur’an 3:46 and Qur’an 5:110)and the both of them have the phrase that is going to speak this is repeated twice in the Quran. He shall speak shall speak to mankind which basically means you know in the cradle he’s going to speak as a baby.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Now uh the the word has been defined by many early scholars including that means when the whiteness of the hair begins to appear. So that’s what means and the actual age is something that is disputed. Most say around 40 some say 35 some say even beyond the age of 30. The number is not what is important. means that uh at at an older age and the the notion here is that the Quran says something that should be miraculous that he’s going to speak as a baby and he’s going to speak at an older age. Now it’s not a miracle to speak at an older age but if is not around at an older age then this is a prediction that he’s going to come back and speak when he’s an older man. So both the word and the context of the verse according to a group of scholars is indicating that is going to uh come back and uh this is the interpretation of quite a number of early authorities.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Nonetheless, it is not something that is explicit and uh the verse is ambiguous about this point about the return of this particular verse because even if we say that was 33 when his ministry finished Jesus was 33. So 33 would be considered by quite a number of uh linguists. Therefore, we say that this verse has been interpreted by a group of to imply that will come back. Nonetheless, A, it is not universally interpreted that way and B, the language in and of itself does not indicate that Isa is coming back. Okay? But it can be said that the context would indicate this. Okay? that why would it be miraculous unless there is a miracle involved.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“The third verse that we’re going to discuss is verse (Qur’an 4:159).That Allah subhana wa ta’ala says there’s not a single person of the people of the book except that he will believe in Isa before his death. Now the context of this series of verses is the context of the notion that the Yahood killed Isa. And Allah says very explicitly that they neither killed him nor did they crucify him but rather it was made to appear to them so. And Allah says they did not kill him for sure for certainty. They did not kill him. Rather Allah raised him up to himself. And then Allah subhana wa ta’ala says, “And there is no one from the people of the book except that he shall believe in him.” These are now pronouns. He shall believe in him before he dies. These are all pronouns here. Okay, the majority of early Mufasirun have interpreted this verse to mean that there will not remain a single person of the Ahl Kitab except that they will believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. Okay. So the and according to the majority say that this is Isa Ibn Maryam and therefore before Isa dies the Ahl Kitab will believe in him. Okay the Ahl Kitab will affirm him.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“However, there is a minority opinion from Qatada and Saeed Ibn Jubary and others that the pronoun biti and mauti are different and the bihi is a reference according to them to the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and the mauti is a reference to the person of the Ahl Kitab and therefore the verse will translate and there is not a single person of the Ahl Kitab except that he shall believe in the Prophet Muhammed sallallahu alaihi wasallam before he dies. And so they had a bizarre belief. Well, we say it’s bizarre. They don’t they wouldn’t think it is bizarre. They have a bizarre belief that at the time of death of the soul of the when the angel of death comes that before the angel of death takes the soul of the of the Ahl Kitab, the Kitabi must confess their emaan in the Prophet sallallah aii wasallam. This confession is a spiritual one. It doesn’t make them a Muslim. In other words, they’re not going to confess with the tongue that is physical. They’re going to confess with their soul and then they shall be allowed to uh escape their bodies. Now the problem of course is that uh the context of this these series of verses does not mention the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam at all. And also by the way uh the the the the notion that the soul is going to have to uh confess the belief of the Prophet it’s something that’s not found in any other source neither a verse of the Quran nor hadith of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. And that is why uh says so says the correct position about this verse is that it goes back to Isa and that none of the people of the book shall remain alive at that time except that they believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. and uh kir says there is no doubt that what says is the better opinion. So this verse therefore seems to be pretty strong. However to be clear it has been interpreted differently as well.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“There is a third uh problem if you like or problematization and that is done by the famous grammarian Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammed ibn al-Sarī al-Zajjāj and al-Zajjāj says that how can all of the Ahl Kitab believe in Jesus when most of them would have died before the coming of Jesus. Right? So al-Zajjāj says this verse does not mean what people think it means because he is saying that uh uh the verse says not a single person of the Ahl Kitab shall remain except that they believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. He is saying the bulk of Ahl Kitab have lived and died before the return of Jesus. By the way, al-Zajjāj is affirming the return of Jesus, he’s simply saying that this verse does not apply to that. That’s his interpretation. Others have responded that this verse is going to be restricted by common sense and the restriction by common sense means there is no person of the Ahl kitab that shall be alive when Jesus comes down except that he shall believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. So that restriction that shall be alive when Jesus comes down, it’s not in the Quran but it is assumed. It is something that is understood by the context of the uh verse. And another problematization that occurs is that uh the verse says there is not a single person of the Ahl Kitab except that they shall believe in him before he dies. Even if we say it is Jesus, what do we say to the Yehood that will be fighting on the side of the Dajjal and they’re seeing Jesus? they’re not going to believe in Jesus, right? So, what does this mean? And some have responded to this by the claim that well, iman here does not necessarily mean they shall believe uh in Jesus the belief of the Kalima and the belief of an acceptance of Islam, but rather they shall believe that Jesus was a prophet even if they reject his prophethood. Just like Allah says in the Quran that Allah affirmed the Quraysh have in Allah but they commit. So this is a partial im and so they believe in the concept of God. They believe that there is an Allah out there but they don’t believe that Allahel alone is the and the now the the same can apply over here that when you’re fighting on the side of the those people that are fighting they’re going to recognize that that is Jesus and they’re going to believe that that is the prophet but they know or they for whatever reason they are rejecting likel rejected they’re rejecting the following but they know that he is Jesus so to summarize this verse This verse seems to strongly indicate but to be fair uh a number of dissenting voices have not interpreted this verse to to confirm the return of Jesus Christ.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“The fourth verse that we will uh discuss is considered to be the most explicit and it is considered to be uh uh the strongest indication that the Quran is affirming the coming of Jesus, the second coming of Jesus and that is Qur’an 43:61. Allah says in the Quran and he is or it because again and it or he is a knowledge of the day of judgment. Now what is the context of these verses? Go back a few verses and Allah subhana wa ta’ala describes the that when uh the son of Mary is given as an example your people they uh break out in applause in applause and they they become happy and they say which one is better our gods or Jesus and Allah says they’re only using him to argue now the the context of revelation that when Allah subhana wa ta’ala revealed uh in the Quran you and those whom you worship uh besides Allah will all end up in Jahannam. One of the members of the Quraysh thought that he had outwit the Quran. And he said, “Okay, if everything that is worshiped besides Allah is going to end up in Jahannam. How about the Christians who worship Jesus and you guys think that Jesus is a prophet? This means that Jesus is going to go to Jahannam as well.” And of course we know from the Quran and from the Sunnah that uh the righteous who were mistakenly worshiped uh will not end up in Jahannam and uh the idols that were constructed as false god will end up in Jahannam. So the verse here says when the son of Mary is given as an example your pe your people meaning the Quraysh they become happy at this and they say which one is better our gods or Jesus and then the verses go on he is but a righteous example and a good a good servant and then Allah says and he shall be a a knowledge of the day of of the hour a knowledge of judgment So do not have any doubt about this.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Now this verse has been interpreted by a number of Sahabah most prominently Abbas as being an explicit affirmation of the return of and in fact Ibn Abbas and a number of other uh early Sahabah Ubai and others they actually had a variant recitation of this verse which is actually even more explicit and that recitation rather than it would become means a flag means a sign means an indication and they would recite the verse. Now, of course, the whole concept of recitations and something is a very very deep one and you’re probably aware that it’s probably best I do not go into a lot of detail because people are super sensitive about this topic even though again the evidences are very clear about this. But uh the Sahabah had their multiple recitations and all of them are valid as our Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said is very explicit that do not argue over these uh verses. Our Prophet said do not argue over these recitations and the Quran was revealed in seven and uh Abbas and others would recite this verse in a different recitation and Jesus is a sign for the day of judgment. Now that recitation it is authentic from the Sahabah. However, it has not been preserved in the 10 recitations. It is not preserved in the 10 karat that are commonly recited in our times. It is however well known in the early books of so the way that we recite the verse and is and he comments on this that whoever recites this verse as it means that he is a knowledge of the closeness and proximity of the day of judgment. And whoever recites it with a fat then that means that he is an and he is a sign for the day of judgment. The point being that whether you recite or uh the meaning uh slightly changes but the concept is still the same. Either Jesus is a knowledge of the proximity of the day of judgment or Jesus is a sign of the day of judgment. So this is the majority interpretation of this verse from a whole bunch of early.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“However, still there is an alternative interpretation and that is the interpretation of Hassan Al Basri said wa-innahu la’il’mun lilssa’ means wa-innahu the ha goes back to the Quran or goes back to the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam that the Quran is uh the knowledge of the day of judgment and it goes back to the revelation of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and so he did not understand this verse to be uh now again Hassan Al Basri affirms the coming of Jesus. It’s just a matter of does the Quran talk about it or not. So these are the four verses in order of strength from the weakest in terms of its uh dala in terms of its evidence to the strongest. And to conclude this particular section about the verses of the Quran, the Quran suggests and indicates there is really a very strong suggestion that isa shall return. And this has been the derivation of the vast majority of Sahabah and the early commentators of the Quran that the Quran indicates the coming of. However, to be academic and pedantic, uh this is not the unanimous uh interpretation of the Quran. And again, right now we’re talking about does the Quran talk about to the coming of Jesus or not. As for other sources of the coming of Jesus, that is a separate topic. Does the Quran talk about the coming back of Jesus or not? For every one of these verses, you will find some of the early authorities, a minority opinion, uh interpreting the verse in a different manner. And therefore uh we can say that the Quran strongly suggests the Quran seems to have a very strong indication that Isa is coming. However, it is not definitive and it is not conclusive in and of itself. Just from the language of the Quran and just from the context of the Quran, we give it the presumption but not the certainty. And that’s the first evidence, the Quran.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
wa-innahu la’il’mun lilssa’ wa-innahu the ha
If you would like to see other articles in regard to Shaykh Yasir Qadhi we would invite you to read the following:
“Do they then only wait for the hour that it should come on them all of a sudden? But already come some tokens thereof, and when it comes to them, how shall they have their reminder?” (Qur’an 47:18).
﷽
Dr. Shabir Ally has a channel called: “Let the Qur’an Speak.” In one particular episode he went over the verses that are often used to justify the return of Jesus -alayi salam. Dr. Shabir Ally has concluded that these verses cannot be used to justify the return of Christ Jesus.
The episode is titled: The Coming Messiah | The Quran in Dialogue with Other Faiths, ep. 29 | Dr. Shabir Ally
Below is the transcript:
“Peace be with you. Thanks for joining me for this continuing chat in which we talk about the Quran in conversation with other scriptures and religions. Today I want to look at the widespread belief that there is going to be a future savior or messiah or some personality who is going to bring about all that we expect to be right with the world and do away with injustice and so on. So why do we have such a pervasive feeling among the world’s religions? Let’s look at them one at a time and see what exactly is expected, and then we will analyze why.” -Dr. Shabir Ally.
“First of all, the Quran. In the Quran, we have some mention of apparently something that is going to happen in the future, and then people have taken this to mean that Jesus, on whom be peace, is coming back. Take Surah 4, verse 159, for example, speaking about Jesus having been raised into heaven. Now it says in verse number 159 (Shabir speaks Arabic). In the English translation: “Every one of the people of the book will definitely believe in him before his death. And on the day of judgment, Jesus will be a witness against them.” Now it is interesting that this verse is being used to justify the belief that Jesus, on whom be peace, will come again. But at the same time, there are very ancient commentators on the Quran who said that this does not mean that at all. You see, there is a question: when it says that there is none of the people of the book except that will believe in him before his death, what does the word “his” refer to? Does it refer to “his” meaning Jesus’ death, or does it refer to “his” meaning the person of the book? So if it refers to the person of the book, it means that before the person of the book dies, all of reality will be open to him or her as it is open to every one of us when we reach that moment of death. That is when the person of the book will understand correctly and believe correctly about Jesus. So those who previously rejected him, such as his Jewish opponents, will come to understand him and believe in him correctly. And the Christians, on the other hand, who had so over-glorified him will come to recognize him truly as he is, as a prophet and as a messenger of God. So on that view, it is not really talking about Jesus coming back. But if it is taken to mean that “his” is a reference to Jesus, before his death, that would mean that Jesus has not died yet, and when he comes back, before he dies, at that time every one of the persons of the book will believe in him. So you cannot take an ambiguous verse like this and make it mean something of such major import as a major figure coming back into the future and doing all of these great things. Of course, that belief is in Hadith, and one who takes the Hadith as very authentic will naturally be constrained to that belief. But we should not read that belief back into the Quranic verses without proper warrant.” -Dr. Shabir Ally.
“Another verse that is cited to refer to the second coming of Jesus is Surah 43, verse number 61. So what does it say in the Arabic? (Shabir speaks Arabic). And the English translation – here, I will read first, then we will try to analyze it: “And his second coming is truly a sign for the hour. So have no doubt about it, and follow me. This is the straight path.” Now when it says “second coming” here in the English translation, the translator has used a half square bracket to insert the word “second” and mark it off as an insertion. But even without marking that word as an insertion, even the word “coming” is not there in the Arabic. There is nothing like (Shabir speaks Arabic) in the Arabic – “his coming” – it just says (Shabir speaks Arabic), which literally means “and he is” or “it is.” Now if it is understood to mean “it is,” then that is a reference to the Quran, which has been mentioned previously within the same context. So it (the Quran) will be a sign of the hour, or as it is also read alternatively, it will contain knowledge of the hour – that the Quran itself is knowledge of the hour, or knowledge personified, something like this. Only if it refers to “he” as a human person can it possibly refer to Jesus. But does it refer to his second coming? It may be just that it is referring to him as a fact because of some miracles pertaining to him or associated with him that he will become a sign, or he is a sign of the hour. By his performing these miracles, people can take heed from that and realize that God, who made it possible for Jesus to do all of these things, is able to bring about what is called the hour. So in short, we can say that there is no verse of the Quran that clearly indicates that Jesus, on whom be peace, is coming again. And apart from that, there is no future messianic figure that is mentioned in the Quran. The closest you have to a figure is Dabbat al Ard (a creature from the earth who will speak to people) or Ya’juj and Ma’juj. They are mentioned in the 18th chapter of the Quran and also in the 21st chapter of the Quran. But there is no future messianic figure in the Quran. Why? We will try to come back and analyze that. But I want to go forward to look at scriptures of the other Abrahamic faiths.” Dr. Shabir Ally.
Prima Qur’an: Dr. Shabir Ally is someone who has been involved in interfaith dialogues, discussions and debates for 35 years. If he felt there was some solid proof for the second coming of Christ Jesus in the Qur’an he would have advanced it.
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
He has been a guest at the behest of Paul Williams of Blogging Theology numerous times to discuss topics of interest in regard to Islam and Christianity.
That aside, what has intrigued us about Dr. Louay Fatoohi is that he believes that Jesus (as) has died and that he will not return. This brings him in line with the Ibadi school of Islam, as virtually no other school of Muslims shares this view.
Here is the PDF: The end of Jesus’ Life on Earth in the Qur’an. The title is interesting because it is a bit of bait. Because English can convey a meaning that seems in line with the majority position of Ahl Sunnah. As the majority of Sunni Muslims believe that Jesus (as) Earthly life came to an end (just not that his life itself) came to an end.
The readers are encouraged to show their gratitude for his academic work by subscribing to Dr. Louay’s YouTube channel, visiting his website and purchasing his many, many insightful books!
Now we are going to be very forward in saying we don’t think this particular article is one of Dr. Louay Fatoohi’s best. There is a great deal to be desired.
In some ways, if you are a traditional Sunni who holds the majority traditional views of Jesus (as) being taken up into heaven and returning again towards the end of time, you will enjoy this read….up to a point.
We say, “Up to a point,” because you are in the Jaguar with Dr. Fatoohi doing 160km on the freeway when suddenly he hits the breaks, giving you the biggest whiplash you ever had.
You read this article, and you see the footnotes, you see the scholarly quotations, you see the references from the Qur’an and the arguments that he builds. Then suddenly we get the following bold assertion from the good Doctor:
“In this paper, I have argued in favour of a combination of the majority opinion that Jesus was raised alive in heaven and the minority view that he died naturally. That Jesus died after, not before, he was raised means he died in the abode in heaven to which he was taken.”
“and the minority view that he died naturally.” No, no you didn’t, Dr. Fatoohi. Because you did not quote anyone who says: means he died in the abode in heaven to which he was taken.
No one who argues that Jesus (as) died naturally states he was whisked up to heaven alive in a body and then died in heaven. That is a far cry from any natural death. That is a bit of sleight of hand there. We must call it out for what it is.
Not only that, but indeed you did not give us a single quote from the Qur’an or the Sunnah to substantiate that Jesus died in heaven! Heaven being a place of death is news for us. We have to be quite honest in saying this.
Then there is this bit here:
“This phenomenological perspective seems to lend support to the minority view of al-Suddī (d. 127), which is favoured by al-Ṭabarī, 80 that the dialogue in 5:117 between God and Jesus happened after he was raised to heaven, rather than it will happen on the Day of Judgement.”
That makes little sense as Allah (swt) is already aware of this. It makes the knowledge of Allah (swt) redundant, and we seek refuge in Allah from this.
Yet, to make this happen on the day of judgement where it can be witnessed is more sensible. It is not for Allah (swt) to know redundant information but for those who party to the questioning.
Then we need to come back to the following verse of the Qur’an:
“Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I will be raised back to life!” (Qur’an 19:33)
What is the point of being raised back to life if you have already been made to die (in heaven) and are presumably there now?
Unless the claim is that Jesus is dead in heaven and will be brought back to life (at a point in the future), what is the purpose of this?
Again, heaven being an abode of death, rather than life, is truly news to us as Muslims. It must also be news to Christians and Jews as well.
There are just too many loose ends that Dr. Fatoohi has in the article.
Dr. Fatoohi offers really no engagement at all with the hadith tradition. That now becomes someone else’s task.
“The support for the traditional view comes mainly from aḥadīth. Such narratives are found in all major ḥadīth sources, including al-Bukhārī and Muslim. This has led to the treatment of Jesus’ return as a fundamental Muslim belief and even conflating it with Islam’s articles of faith,82 accusing those who deny it of kufr. 83 The conclusion of this article implies that those aḥadīth are inauthentic. Indeed, scholars who argue that Jesus died naturally on earth claim the aḥadīth on Jesus’ return are aḥād, rather than mutawātir, so their credal status is at best doubtful.84 Consequently, Jesus’ return is not a tenet of Islam. Books of creeds also distinguish it and other beliefs from the six articles of faith.”
“The conclusion of this article implies that those aḥadīth are inauthentic.”
A conclusion that we must admit, with all candor, is based upon the filmiest ground possible i.e. he (Jesus) died in heaven!
“scholars who argue that Jesus died naturally on earth claim the aḥadīth on Jesus’ return are aḥād, rather than mutawātir.”
Those scholars which have laid charge to the ahadith, none of which have argued that Jesus (as) was brought alive bodily to heaven and then died in heaven.
This became all the more curious in light of Dr. Fatoohi’s recent article:
“Among the Prophet’s (PBUH) sayings regarding Imām ʿAlī is his address to the Muslims at Ghadir Khumm, when he asked, “Do you not know that I have more authority over every believer than they have over themselves?” They replied, “Yes, we bear witness that you have more authority over every believer than they have over themselves.” He then declared, “Then for whomever I am a guardian, this is his guardian,” and he took ʿAlī’s hand.”
“This ḥadīth has been recorded by many scholars, including Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal,[29] al-Bazzār (d. 292),[30] al-Nasāʾī (d. 303),[31] Abū Yaʿlā (d. 307),[32] and al-Ṭabarānī (d. 360).[33]Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (d. 287) reported it via eleven companions, and he also documented a ḥadīth in which thirteen unnamed collectively testified to having heard the Prophet (PBUH) utter those specific words regarding ʿAlī.[34] In other words, this ḥadīth is mutawātir.”
So we asked Dr. Fatoohi in his X post the following:
“Another question I have. Would you regard it as Mutawātir Lafẓī or Mutawātir Maʿnawī? Given that we have thirteen unnamed individuals that are claimed to have heard this particular wording?”
Why is this important? It is important because in our article here:
“These scholars suggest that the majority consensus is based on a misunderstanding of the Qur’an, which Muslims have failed to correct for fourteen centuries.” -Louay Fatoohi.
The consensus is that Jesus (as) is coming back. Dr. Fatoohi goes against this consensus.
But as regards the distinction between Mutawātir Lafẓī or Mutawātir Maʿnawī, this is important for the following reasons.
The Sunni consensus is that the hadith on the return of Jesus are Mutawātir Maʿnawī. There are many hadith from many Companions. Some say Jesus will “descend,” others say he will “come,” others focus on him “praying behind the Mahdi.” The exact words differ, but the core meaning (Jesus will physically return at the end of time) is from the Sunni persepective, mass-transmitted and undeniable.
The Sunni consensus is that over 100 Companions narrated the event of Ghadir Khum. Few report the phrase “Whoever’s master I am, Ali is his master.” Others report different wordings or focus on different parts of the sermon. However, the core meaning (the Prophet stopped the caravan at Ghadir Khum and declared Ali had the right to the spoils) is transmitted by so many chains that it is historically certain. It is not considered Lafẓī because the wordings vary, and major collections like Bukhari and Muslim did not include it in its most famous verbatim form.
Concerning Ghadir Khum Shi’i will often try to catch people unaware of this very important point.
However, back to Dr. Fatoohi’s article and his views.
“Ibn ʿĀshūr also accepts that Jesus is dead but he argues he will still return, as stated in ḥadīth. He mentions the possibility that Jesus will have a special early resurrection, rather than the later universal resurrection of all other people and will descend to earth”
He is a well-known Sunni Muslim of the Maliki school of jurisprudence and Ash’ari school of theology.
“Being faithful to aḥadīth about Jesus’ return to earth is also given as a reason for the Muslim misunderstanding of wfy contrary to its more frequently used meaning.”
“I have critiqued these claims in detail elsewhere.”
“It concludes that Jesus was raised to heaven where he continued to live, which is the majority view, but he later died naturally there and will not return to earth, in agreement with the minority view.”
Again we are not sure which scholars hold the view that Jesus (as) ascended to heaven alive and died in heaven. That cannot be described as a natural death at all.
Dr. Fatoohi suggests: “When analysing Qur’ānic terminology, the hermeneutical principle that the Qur’ān interprets itself remains the best option when the Qur’ān provides enough relevant information.”
Prima Qur’an comments: Yet Dr. Fatoohi also states: “Twenty-one occurrences of the verbal root wfy in the Qur’ān are unambiguously associated with death, but the term is also used twice in connection with sleep. This fact suggests the term has a broader meaning than just the end of a person’s life.”
So why Dr. Fatoohi wants to interpret the word in light of it’s less common usage instead of the broader usage merits pensive reflection. He is correct, and it establishes that it has a broader meaning. However, the admission is that the overwhelming majority of the time it is used, it unambiguously means death.
“In the two remaining instances, the Qur’ān uses wfy in the context of describing God’s intervention to protect Jesus from the attempt on his life, so most Muslim scholars have taken this word to mean something other than death in the case of Jesus.”
Prima Qur’an comments: What Dr. Fatoohi does not mention is that this too is influenced by the hadith and the idea that Jesus (as) is coming back. If no such aprior belief was held, then it is more than reasonable for the text to translate as death. Since Dr. Fatoohi is not holding to those traditions, it puzzles one anymore why he takes the position that he does. For the sake of having a novel view? Only Allah (swt) knows what is in one’s heart.
Dr. Fatoohi informs us: “This conclusion is informed by other arguments as well, such as the denial of the crucifixion in 4:157 and the belief in Jesus’ return.”
Dr. Fatoohi states: “The fact that most appearances of wfy are in connection with death or separation of the soul from the body is usually used to conclude there is no justification for claiming the two instances of this verb in Jesus’ story have a different meaning.51 This claim ignores the fact that wfy is also used to mean something other than death.”
Prima Qur’an comments: This is a non-argument. None of the people he quoted are ignoring anything. They are astutely aware of the range of meanings.
Dr. Louay Fatoohi is trying to build an argument off of an objection that no one raised. What he did do correctly was to identify the reasons they felt it was translated as such.
He tries to make it look as if he has an argument based upon the trilateral verb of wfy, stating that almost 2/3 of its appearances in the Qur’an are not related to death. Only to follow that with the very revealing “The only form that is connected with death is the V of the verb, which appears 24 times as tawaffa, including once with reference to Jesus, as mutawaffi, which is the second time it is used in relation to him.”
Dr. Fatoohi says: “Allah yatawaffā the anfus (souls) at the time of their mawt and those that do not die during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed mawt and releases the others for a specified term. (39:42) Unlike in death, where wfy donates the permanent taking of the nafs (soul), in the case of sleep, it identifies the temporary taking of the soul. In death, the soul is taken for good, whereas in sleep, the soul is sent back, with wfy used in both cases. This is why Muslim exegetes have identified and distinguished between these two different types of wafat, one of death and the other of sleep.”
Dr. Fatoohi says: “In summary, tawaffī appears in the Qur’ān in the sense of claiming the soul permanently, which denotes death, or claiming it temporarily, which refers to sleep.”
Prima Qur’an comments: But what is very curious is he does not follow through on the conclusion.
If a person’s soul is claimed during sleep and returned, where does the body go? It does not go anywhere. If a person’s soul is claimed during sleep and is not returned to the body, where does the body go? It does not go anywhere.
Keep this very important point in mind when moving forward.
Qur’an 39:42 -manāmihā we have the word for their sleep.
Note Dr. Fatoohi’s translation of Qur’an 6:61 above.
” He sends over you guardians until when mawt comes to one of you, Our messengers tawaffathu, and they do not fail [in their duties].”
The question has to be asked. If they (the messengers, presumably angels) take the soul, what happens to the body? Does it go some place?
On what basis does Dr. Fatoohi make the following claim:
“These multiple Qur’ānic assertations are mainly behind the view of most Muslim scholars that wfy does not mean “cause to die” in the case of Jesus, although aḥadīth about his return are also cited.”
Prima Qur’an comments: How does he know that is the reason why most Muslim scholars believe that wfy does not mean to die? Did we get a list or a chart or even a citation? We did not see any.
The sleepers of the cave.
In the Qur’an 18:9-26 we have the revelation concerning the sleepers of the cave. There is nothing there that indicates that the bodies went any place.
Uzair and the doneky.
Or the one who passed by a city which was in ruins. He wondered, “How could Allah bring this back to life after its destruction?” So Allah caused him to die for a hundred years then brought him back to life. Allah asked, “How long have you remained?” He replied, “Perhaps a day or part of a day.” Allah said, “No! You have remained here for a hundred years! Just look at your food and drink—they have not spoiled. look at your donkey! And ˹so˺ We have made you into a sign for humanity. And look at the bones, how We bring them together then clothe them with flesh!”1 When this was made clear to him, he declared, I know that Allah is Most Capable of everything.” (Qur’an 2:259)
This can not be understood as an ascension. The bodies decomposed and were resurrected.
Dr. Louay Fatoohi then turns his attention to the ascension of Christ Jesus.
“First, all seven verses that use rfʿ in the sense of raising a person in status, not spatially, include a word that makes this meaning abundantly clear. Six (2:253, 6:83, 6:165, 12:76, 43:32 and 58:11) of these verses use the plural word darajāt (ranks). The other verse (7:176) uses āyāt (signs) as the way God would have raised someone in status.”
Prima Qur’an comments: So Dr. Fatoohi informs us that Jesus is a special case and that raising is only used of a person in terms of rank, darajāt (degrees) or the other word that is used is āyāt (signs).
However, this assertion falls apart rather quickly upon further investigation.
“and elevated (wa rafaʿnā)your renown for you?” (Qur’an 94:4) There is no mention of either āyāt or darajāt.
Secondly, the most glaring example is the case of Idris (as) Dr. Fatoohi was too dismissive of the case of Idris.
“And mention in the Book, Idris. Indeed, he was a man of truth and a prophet. And We (warafa’nahu) raised him to a high station. ” (Qur’an 19:56-57)
makānan ‘aliyyan (a high station/place). Not even Jesus (as) has been given this honour. It is the only place in the Qura’n where this is mentioned.
Dr.Fatoohi states: “Also, the makān (place) to which Idrīs was taken is described as ʿaliyyā (high). Each of the three other occurrences of the word makān in the same Qur’ānic chapter of the Idrīs verse also denotes a physical location.”
While that may be true, this is the one place in the Qur’an where makanan ‘aliyyan is used.
Dr. Fatoohi bodly states:
“Expectedly, no attempt has been made by proponents of the metaphorical interpretation to explain what that supposed exaltation of Jesus by God means, as there is no mention of it in the Qur’ān.”
Well, actually there is. In the very first example that he gave to prove his analysis actually goes against him.
Dr. Fatoohi says:
“First, all seven verses that use rfʿ in the sense of raising a person in status, not spatially, include a word that makes this meaning abundantly clear. Six (2:253….)
So what does 2:253 state?
“Those messengers – some of them We caused to exceed others. Among them were those to whom Allah spoke, and He raised some of them in degree. And We gave Jesus, the Son of Mary, clear proofs, and We supported him with the Pure Spirit. If Allah had willed, those [generations] succeeding them would not have fought each other after the clear proofs had come to them. But they differed, and some of them believed and some of them disbelieved. And if Allah had willed, they would not have fought each other, but Allah does what He intends.” (Qur’an 2:253)
So in the very text that Dr. Fatoohi uses to prove that rf’ does not mean spatially but in status none other than Jesus (as) is the first prophet mentioned by name that follows the text!
Recall Dr. Fatoohi’s own words: “When analysing Qur’ānic terminology, the hermeneutical principle that the Qur’ān interprets itself remains the best option when the Qur’ān provides enough relevant information.”
Thus,
Qur’an 4:159 makes perfect sense of raising Jesus (as) in honour, given that an impailed person is, in the eyes of Rabbinical law, cursed.
Also, Allah has already declared that Jesus (as) would be an ayat unto men.
“He said, “Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign āyāt to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.’ “
Dr. Fatoohi’s conclusion was thus:
“The traditional, majority view is that Jesus was raised to heaven alive, continues to live there and will descend to earth close to the end-time. A minority view that developed in the last one and a half centuries argues that Jesus died naturally on earth, so he was not raised alive to heaven and will not come back. In this paper, I have argued in favour of a combination of the majority opinion that Jesus was raised alive to heaven and the minority view that he died naturally.”
Now we admire Dr. Fatoohi. We take him to be a serious researcher. However, we were not amused with the line:
“I have argued in favour of a combination of the majority opinion that Jesus was raised alive to heaven and the minority view that he died naturally.”
First. There is no natural scenario where a person is put to sleep, raised bodily to heaven and then dies. Not one! That is supranatural and not natural. Second. There is no minority view that states that Jesus (as) was put to sleep ,raised bodily to heaven and then died.
Dr. Fatoohi states:
“The traditional, majority view is that Jesus was raised to heaven alive, continues to live there and will descend to earth close to the end-time.”
Prima Qur’an what is the traditional view?
Jesus was raised alive in heaven.
Continues to live there.
Will descend at the end of times.
Dr. Fatoohi believes in which of these three? He believes in point 1.
What else can Dr. Fatoohi tell us about points 1–3 above?
“The support for the traditional view comes mainly from aḥadīth.”
Conclusion and Summary.
Fatoohi does not cite any scholar—classical or modern—who explicitly argues that Jesus died in heaven after being raised alive. The minority view he references (e.g., Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Muhammed Abduh, Rashid Rida) holds that Jesus died a natural death on earth, not in heaven. By combining the majority’s “raised alive to heaven” with the minority’s “died naturally,” Dr. Fatoohi creates a hybrid position that lacks clear precedent. This does not make it wrong, but it does mean he is not simply synthesizing existing views—he is proposing something new. His failure to acknowledge this novelty weakens his claim.
Heaven is not described in the Qur’an or Sunnah as a place where death occurs. If Jesus died in heaven, that would imply death exists in the afterlife realm, which contradicts the understanding of Jannah as dār al-ḥayawān (abode of life). Dr.Fatoohi does not address this tension. His reliance on Qur’an 39:42 (sleep vs. death) does not resolve it, because that verse concerns earth, not heaven.
The Hermeneutical Principle – Qur’ān Interprets Itself. Dr. Fatoohi appeals to the principle that the Qur’ān interprets itself. We counter that he then prioritizes the less common meaning of tawaffā (sleep/temporary taking) over the overwhelmingly common meaning (death).
Dr. Fatoohi admits that 20 of 23 occurrences of tawaffā in form V refer to death. Only two refer to sleep, and one refers to Jesus. To then argue that Jesus’ case follows the rare meaning requires external justification (e.g., the denial of crucifixion, the belief in his return). But Dr. Fatoohi claims to be setting aside ḥadīth. Without ḥadīth, why prefer the rare meaning? His argument becomes circular: he assumes Jesus was raised alive (from 4:158) and then reads tawaffā accordingly. That is not the Qur’ān interpreting itself; it is interpretation driven by a prior conclusion.
The Case of Idrīs and Qur’an 94:4. We point out that Dr. Fatoohi’s claim about raf‘ always requiring darajāt or āyāt for non-spatial raising is false, citing Qur’an 94:4 (“We raised your renown”) and the case of Idrīs.
Qur’an 94:4 uses rafa‘nā without any qualifier, and it clearly means elevation in status, not physical ascent. Dr. Fatoohi overstates his case when he says “no attempt has been made by proponents of is claimed to be the ‘metaphorical‘ interpretation” – we have now made that attempt, citing Qur’an 2:253 and Qur’an 94:4.
Qur’an 19:33 – “The day I will be raised back to life” We ask: If Jesus died in heaven, what is the point of a future resurrection? This is a serious problem for Dr. Fatoohi’s view. Qur’an 19:33 lists three events: birth, death, and resurrection. If Jesus already died and is in heaven, then his “death” refers to that heavenly death. But then “raised back to life” would refer to a second resurrection after that death. That would mean Jesus dies twice (once on earth? no – he didn’t die on earth in Dr. Fatoohi’s view; once in heaven) and is resurrected twice. The Qur’ān nowhere suggests such a sequence. The natural reading of Qur’an 19:33 is that death occurs on earth, followed by resurrection on Judgement Day. Dr.Fatoohi does not address this.
Nonetheless we are happy that another independent researcher, and a representative of the ʿAliyya Qādiriyya Kasnazāniyya tariqa no less, has confirmed that Jesus (as) is dead and he will not return to Earth.
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
In today’s entry on Prima-Qur’an we will be going through this paper by Dr. Louay Fatoohi and sharing some thoughts on what he has written.
So now to the topic at hand: The Non-Crucifixion Verse: A Historical, Contextual, and Linguistic Analysis by Louay Fatoohi.
We read from his article:
“In the Qur’an, though, there is little interest in how and when false beliefs appeared, what their historical development was, or whether they were traceable to oral or written tradition. When certain beliefs are rejected in the Qur’an, this comes in the form of asserting that these were not communicated by God through prophets but distortions of the revelations and/or total fabrications by people.” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: We would agree that the Qur’an is not “speaking to the wall.” It is certainly addressing claims. In this case, we would both agree with claims made by Jews.
“It sounds unrealistic and farfetched to think that if an average Jew at the time was asked why they thought that the Christian Messiah was false, they would have pointed to one of those few passages in a polemical book that they probably had never read any part of!” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: Again we agree. Though it seems rather obvious that the Qur’an 4:157 at least addresses some claims made by some Jews as to a possibility of why they would reject Jesus as the Messiah.
“Also, if 4:157 is to be linked to the known claim that the Jews killed Jesus, then the logical source of choice should be the Gospel narratives, not a passing and vague reference in the Talmud.”-Dr. Louay Fatoohi.
Prima Qur’an: Yeah, so at this point we are glad that Dr. Fatoohi has made his statement conditional. “If 4:157 is to be linked.” Because it begs the question: Why would the Gospel be a logical source of evidence for Jews? Dr. Fatoohi doesn’t quite flesh that out for us.
“Had the Qur’an engaged with the Talmud, it would have probably attacked it and accused the Jews of creating a book that was not revealed by God.” -Louay Fatoohi
Prima Qur’an: Much like the hadith, it is considered a second source of revelation for Muslims. Perhaps Dr. Fatoohi had not considered that the Talmud acts in much the same way. The Rabbis believe their teachings go back in direct transmission to an oral Torah received by Moses (as).
There is also this verse where Allah (swt) could have plainly stated the word Torah. The Torah is never used in a disparaging way in the Qur’an.
“How terrible it is to those who write the Book with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” to sell it for a little money. How terrible it is for them for what their hands have written, and how terrible for them what they have earned.” And they say, “The fire will most certainly not touch us for more than a limited number of days.” Say [unto them]: “Have you received a promise from Allah- for Allah never breaks His promise – or do you attribute to Allah something which you cannot know?” (Qur’an 2:79-80)
Prima Qur’an:We want to re-emphasize that we are in complete agreement with Dr. Fatoohi’s statement here:
“In the Qur’an, though, there is little interest in how and when false beliefs appeared, what their historical development was, or whether they were traceable to oral or written tradition. When certain beliefs are rejected in the Qur’an, this comes in the form of asserting that these were not communicated by God through prophets but distortions of the revelations and/or total fabrications by people.” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima Qur’an: So coming to the verse in question under the section titled: The Non-Crucifixion Verse in Focus, Dr. Louay Fatoohi states:
“In this section, I aim to show that both the language and context of 4:157 repeatedly and unambiguously indicate that this verse can only be a denial of both the killing and the crucifixion of Jesus. This is what underpins the consensus of Muslim exegetes in their understanding of this verse. Conversely, rejecting this ubiquitous interpretation is driven by a priori views and convictions, which I have already quickly reviewed, that are extraneous to the Qur’anic text.” – Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an:We are going to strongly suggest that this is what Dr. Louay Fatoohi and early Muslim exegetes did. In fact, quoting Dr. Louay Fatoohi:
“In his historical tome Tārīkh al-umam wal-mulūk, al-Ṭabarī quotes Wahb Ibn Munabbih (d. 114/732) on the crucifixion. The latter is known for introducing Jewish and Christian narratives into Islamic tradition.” – Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: Dr. Louay Fatoohi then beautifully demonstrates that the Qur’an 4:157 when taken into context is addressed to Jews.
“More specifically, we will focus on the four verses leading to 4:157 and the verse that follows it, as they provide immediate contextual information that is useful for avoiding any misunderstanding of 4:157. We will start with verse 4:153 as it commences a new context in which the Jews, and later Jesus, are the main subject.”-Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: So this is where our frustration with Dr. Fatoohi and the popular view on these verses comes in. Again, no blame on Dr Fatoohi because he seems to be following those early Muslim commentators who tried to fill in the void by relying upon extraneous material.
Point 1. When reading the verses in context. Where is there any mention of Romans?
Allah (swt) is not unfamiliar with the Romans.
“The Romans (l-rūmu) have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:2)
There is no text in the Qur’an that connects Romans (l-rumu) with an act known as salabu.
Point 2. There is no text in the Qur’an that connects Christians (nasara) with an act known as (ṣalabū)
Point 3. Because Allah (swt) is addressing Jews, salabu cannot be a reference to a cross or a crucifixion! Why? Because Jews simply do not crucify people. Dr. Louay Fatoohi, or anyone under the sun, has given us a shred of evidence that they do!
How could we explain this away if we were a Muslim apologist? Aha! This particular group of Jews were already rebellious, so they crucified him in violation of their laws! Then we thought about it some more and said that doesn’t make any sense.
Think about it. Allah (swt) is addressing claims made by Jews against Jesus (as). Among their boast is a claim tantamount to saying: “We did something to Jesus that is not prescribed by Jewish law!”
It is among the most bizarre claims we have ever come across.
In fact, as Dr. Fatoohi quoted John of Damascus, who rightly critiques this view.
“A much more detailed early Christian account of the Muslim belief about the crucifixion comes from the monk John of Damascus, around a century after Muḥammed’s time. Having accused the Prophet of authoring the Qur’an by plagiarizing the Old and New Testaments with help from an unnamed Arian monk, he goes on to say the following: And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the Law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven.” -Louay Fatoohi
Dear readers, this error is so serious that this one issue would be enough to make anyone reconsider their Islam! How could Allah (swt) not be aware of Jewish methods of execution?!
We have two options.
1. Imputing ignorance to Allah (swt) concerning Jewish methods of execution.
2. Muslim exegets being mistaken by relying upon extraneous material and imposing meaning upon the plain text of the Qur’an.
It is clear that the first option is not an option for the believing Muslim. Besides, is there any proof that these early Muslim exegetes were well versed in the laws of the Jews?
Ironically, the verse that Dr. Fatoohi calls ‘The Non-Crucifixion Verse’ actually is a crucifixion verse, not just the crucifixion of Jesus.
Point 4. Dr. Fatoohi seems comfortable to translate (ṣalabū) as crucifixion!
Though Dr. Fatoohi has stated:
“Finally, I should add a note about the Arabic word root ṣ-l-b, which is ubiquitously translated as “crucify.” This word appears in the Qur’an in a verbal form six times (al-Nisāʾ 4:157; al-Maʾida 5:33; al-Aʿrāf 7:124; Yūsuf 12:41; Ṭāhā 20:71; al-Shuʿarāʾ 26:49). In one instance, Pharaoh makes this threat to the magicians who accepted Moses’ claim to being God’s messenger.” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: This is frustrating because usually wefind Dr. Fatoohi to be circumspect but he did the exact same thing that Todd Lawson did. Which is to ignore an analysis of the use of the word with the text of the Qur’an. Dr. Fatoohi also left out that this root word s-l-b is used twice as a noun form. Something Lawson at least did not leave out. Such a crucial word is treated by Professor Todd Lawson and Dr. Fatoohi as nothing more than an afterthought.
““It occurs in the Qur’an eight times (4:157; 12:41; 7:124; 20:71; 26:49; 5:33; 86:7;4:23). Six of these are as a verb with the accepted meaning of ‘to crucify’. The others are as a noun meaning ‘back’ or ‘loins’ (86:7; 4:23). ”
Source: (pg 31 The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought)
“This use may indicate that ṣ-l-b means some kind of execution by suspension.“-Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: Dr. Fatoohi goes into a discussion about some debate over the form of Jesus’ crucifixion.
“There is some debate about how Jesus was crucified, whether he was nailed to a cross, and what shape it had, or was suspended until he died.”-Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: Actually, this need not be a mystery for us at all. As Dr. Fatoohi has pointed out in the text of Qur’an 4:153-157 the whole focus is on the Jews. So why the curious fixation with the Romans?
Let us see what Jewish sources of punishment there are:
Notice that in the above text the culprit is killed first, and then they are impaled on a stake.
Notice that when Dr. Fatoohi dismisses the swoon theory, he states:
“Any claim that Jesus suffered a non-fatal crucifixion is also dismissed. The verse unambiguously states that Jesus was not killed or even non-fatally crucified.” -Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: There is a double denial. They did not kill him nor did they (ṣalabūhu) him. Which means he was not even impaled. (If we are being consistent). They didn’t kill him (which covers every type of death under the sun) nor did they impale him—which would be a post-mortem suspension. Seems quite consistent with what we are seeing from Jewish law.
Or as Dr. Fatoohi states: “not crucified” if we have some strange fixation on the Romans.
So, since Dr. Fatoohi believes the Qur’an is denying that Jesus was even on the cross, then it would be worth asking Dr. Fatoohi. The following: “Do you believe whoever was “crucified” was this crucifixion post-mortem (occurring after death) or an ante mortem (occurring before death)?
After all, Dr. Fatoohi does not seem certain when he says:
“This use may indicate that ṣ-l-b means some kind of execution by suspension.”-Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: This would seem to argue that he is on board with the idea of ante mortem crucifixion. However, I am in agreement with Dr. Fatoohi when he states:
“I would argue that such disregard for the basics of Arabic would make the Qur’an unintelligible.” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima Qur’an: However, such obfuscation is wholly unnecessary, if we allow the context of the Qur’an to speak, and it is clear that Jews practice post-mortem suspension.
“By the time of the Qur’an, the classical interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus using a T-shaped cross or a variation of it was already long-established. So, the crucifixion that is rejected in 4:157 seems to be the commonly accepted image of the execution of Jesus.”-Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: commonly accepted image according to whom? Since Jews are being addressed, why not reference what (salabu) would look like to them? Again, why the fixation with the Romans and the Christians when there has already been an admission that the immediate text and the context is a response to Jews?
Remember the fixation with Christian beliefs in the Qur’an, according to Dr. Fatoohi, is:
“The human nature of Jesus is repeatedly stressed in the Qur’an and his divinity is rejected in unambiguous terms.”-Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: Agreed! Obviously, there is a different agenda when dealing with Christian objections to Islam. If becoming a Muslim meant that a Jew had to accept Jesus as Messiah, then Allah (swt) would have a different agenda when dealing with their objections.
“But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.” (1 Corinthians 1:23)
“These scholars suggest that the majority consensus is based on a misunderstanding of the Qur’an, which Muslims have failed to correct for fourteen centuries.” -Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: Well, actually, these 1400 years of scholarship is really based upon copy and paste now, isn’t it? To pretend that every Muslim exegete independently researched every single verse of the Qur’an is just simply presumptuous. What we have is a majoritarian belief based upon individuals incorporating extraneous material from oral traditions without connected chains of narrations going back to the source that contain conflicting accounts.
We are also surprised by Dr. Louay’s appeal to the consensus of scholars when he himself does not believe in the return of Christ Jesus. This is certainly the position of the consensus of scholars. So we can take Dr. Louay’s appeal to consensus as not being serious.
We mean on what consistent basis does Dr. Louay Fatoohi dismiss the second coming of Jesus (as) which is mentioned in quite a number of hadith that do have connected chains and yet expect that we should not dismiss outright beliefs based upon individuals incorporating extraneous material from oral traditions without connected chains of narrations going back to the source that contain conflicting accounts?
None of what has been shared is from the canonical gospels. Would have been great if Dr. Fatoohi would have shared with us an exact quote from the tafsir literature of the tale of substitution. Because it sure the heck would have been very interesting reading a word-for-word detailed account of how the Jews (not the Romans) crucified stealth Jesus. Or about how the Jews killed and then crucified stealth Jesus.
Perhaps in a future article Dr. Fatoohi may give us a detailed quote of these narratives.
However, one central theme stands out. Someone was made to appear to look like Jesus.
This seems to be the understanding of: was made to appear to them so/walākin shubbiha lahum
Note the following:
“Third, the denial of the crucifixion in 4:157 is followed in 4:158 by a second action that is explicitly attributed to God, which is raising Jesus.”-Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: Yet, this was made to appear to them so/walākin shubbiha lahum is not an action attributed to Allah.
Another example is the following:
“And the answer of Ibrahim’s people was not but that they said, “Kill him or burn him,” but Allah saved him (fa-anjaynāhu) from the fire. Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe.” (Qur’an 29: 24)
Why don’t we see that language, ‘Allah saved him (fa-anjaynāhu) from ‘salabu’ ?
This much is clear when The Ashari in aqidah and Shafi’i in Fiqh, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, who was not satisfied with the substitution theory, was absolutely merciless in his take-down of this concept when he pins:
“This opens the door of sophistry, So that if we saw Zayd it would be possible that it was not really Zayd but that the likeness of Zayd had been cast upon another. This would imply the nullification of social contracts such as marriage and ownership. Also it would lead to the impugning of the principle of tawatur, bringing into serious doubt all transmitted historical knowledge. This principle should be upheld as long as it is based on perceived phenomena (al-mahsusat). Such confusion about perceived phenomena would threaten the foundations of all religious laws (shar-iya). Neither is it permissible to argue for such transference of identity by appealing to the tradition that allows for miracles during the time of prophecy. Such a provision would bring into question the identity of the prophets themselves, which in turn would call into question the probity of the sources of religious knowledge.”
So it is obvious that ‘made to appear to them’ is not something one can attribute to Allah.
Allah (swt) tells us about his sublime revelation:
“It is a blessed Book which We have revealed for you so that you will reflect upon its verses and so the people of understanding will take heed.” (Qur’an 38:29)
“Surely We know well that they say about you: “It is only a human being who teaches him,” (notwithstanding) that he whom they maliciously hint at is of foreign tongue, while this (Qur’an) is plain Arabic clear.” (Qur’an 16:103)
There really is no need for so much confusion and obfuscation over this verse. We do not need to appeal to extraneous material that is not divine in authority, has no connected chain back to the original sources, is confused in its reports and proclaims some supra natural event that Allah (swt) himself did not claim.
“It was made to appear to them so” is not a text addressed to anyone who witnessed anything at all!
ٱخْتَلَفُوا۟ Tells us that there are disagreements
شَكّ Tells us that they are in doubt
مَا لَهُم بِهِۦ مِنۡ عِلۡمٍ Tells us they are not basing this upon knowledge
ٱتِّبَاعَ ٱلظَّنِّۚ Tell us they are following dhan (assumption or conjecture)
“And indeed, those who differ in it surely are in doubt about it. Their knowledge is based upon the following of dhan assumption or conjecture.”
In other words, those who are saying: “We killed Christ Jesus the Son of Mary the Messenger of Allah.” Are not eyewitnesses to anything. They are only following the traditions of those who make claims based upon conjecture and no knowledge.
ٱتِّبَاعَ ٱلظَّنِّۚ it is this same following of dhan (assumption and conjecture) taken from the very same people whom Allah (swt) tells us are in disagreements, are in doubt, not based upon knowledge that we get ultra bizarre translations of the Qur’an an like the following:
And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not (i.e. Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ) (Qur’an 4:157) –Muhsin Khan & Muhammed al-Hilali
Does that make a lick of sense to anyone?
So let’s get this right. Wahb Ibn Munabbih takes his knowledge from people whom Allah (swt) tells us are in disagreements, are in doubt, not basing information upon knowledge, only following conjecture, and they get to inform us about what Allah’s revelation says?
“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammed], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those (ahla l-dhik’ri) who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.” (Qur’an 10:94)
Notice the phrase: ahla l-dhik’ri and not ahla l-kitābi
The above verse is only applicable in those matters where they themselves do not have doubts about the matter and has to be taken into context with what Allah (swt) has description of those in (Qur’an 4:157)
May Allah (swt) bless Dr. Louay Fatoohi for his sincere and noble efforts. For the most part, he is only defending the indefensible. 1200 plus years of fuzzy logic and copy-and-paste scholarship. Statements by converts to Islam which are based upon conjecture and have no connected chain of transmission going back to the companions of Jesus.
“Wherever you are, turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque. And wherever you are, face towards it, so that people will have no argument against you, except the wrongdoers among them. Do not fear them; fear Me, so that I may perfect My favour upon you and so you may be guided.” (Qur’an 2:150)
﷽
Introduction: The Qur’anic Framework and the Principle of Non-Accountability
“That was a community that had already gone before. For them is what they earned and for you is what you have earned. And you will not be accountable for what they have done.” (Qur’an 2:141)
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Quran 59:10)
These verses from the Qur’an should be very important for us. Sometimes, when reading these reports about what happened among the companions, people’s faith can be shaken. It shouldn’t. What can be shaken are false doctrines likeʿadālah aṣ-ṣaḥābah’. What we can say is that the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw) did their job and Islam is here. None of them worshiped a golden calf. None of them declared Muhammed (saw) the son of Allah or even worshiped the Blessed Prophet (saw).
In general, the issue of the Caliphate of Uthman is historical, though a controversial one, but should not be the cause of discord in the Muslim community today. It is irrelevant because none of the existing sects took part in it. But enemies of Islamic unity keep recalling it repeatedly and putting the blame on the Ibadis as if they were the ones who killed him. The Ibadis recognizes the Caliphate of Uthman and have no dispute with him in the matter of religion. In fact, in the collection of hadiths by Imam Rabi’ which Ibadis rely on has recorded several traditions narrated by Uthman.
Sometimes some Muslims seem so certain of a particular companion’s status. Wasn’t he known as the one who opened Khaybar? Wasn’t he the one who married the daughter of the Prophet (saw)? In fact, did he not marry two of the Prophet’s (saw) daughters!!?
And so forth. These same people tend to forget the following hadith:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet (saw) said, “Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, ‘My companions!’ Then it will be said, ‘You do not know what they innovated in the religion after you.”
This indicates that after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw), he was unaware of the affairs and conditions of the companions.
Being married to righteous people does not indicate righteousness for oneself.
“Allah sets forth an example for the disbelievers: the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. Each was married to one of Our righteous servants, yet betrayed them. So their husbands were of no benefit to them against Allah whatsoever. Both were told, “Enter the Fire, along with the others!” And Allah sets forth an example for the believers: the wife of Pharaoh, who prayed, “My Lord! Build me a house in Paradise near You, deliver me from Pharaoh and what he does, and save me from the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 66:10-11)
Another point to note is that the manifest declaration of disavowal regarding specific individuals and entities is reserved solely for scholars and jurists who are well-versed in the detailed rulings pertaining to it.
As for us laypeople, the innocence of the general statement suffices. Without singling out specific individuals. Except for those whom the Qur’an has identified as disbelievers or destined for the Fire.
Wuqoof is a well known and safe positioin within the Ibadi school.
“Do not judge or decide except based on what you know. If you are uncertain about a matter, wait until you understand it fully, or write to me concerning it.”
The Ibadi Methodological Distinction: Politics vs. Theology
Uthman, like Ali and Muawiyah, are narrators of hadith in the Al-Jami’i Al-Sahih (Musnad Al- Imam Al-Rabii).
Despite these political dissociations (which are a matter of barā’ah, or disassociation), we do not equate a political error with being a liar in religious matters. This allows us to accept a hadith from Ali or Uthman if its chain of transmission is sound by our own standards .
In short, the Sunnis find it strange because their ilm al-rijal (science of narrators) methodology is more intertwined with a narrator’s political and theological affiliations, whereas the Ibadi approach is to judge a hadith’s authenticity based on a separate set of criteria that can accept narrations from figures we politically disagree with.
As Shaykh Soud H. Al Ma’awaly (May Allah continue to benefit us by him) mentioned above that Uthman, Ali and Muawaiyah are dissociated on political grounds, not theological grounds. So you will find transmissions from them.
The above are taken from Shaykh’s book: Ibadhism: The Cinderella Story of Islam.
The Two Ibadi Positions: Wuqoof vs. Barā’ah al-Dhāhir
So, in regard to Uthman, there are two positions held among the Ibadi.
Wuqoof. Suspend judgement. That is not to put Uthman in wilayah or bara’ah. To leave his matter to Allah.
Bara’ah al-Dhahir – The apparent dissociation. This is a matter of jurisprudence. Uthman committed kufr ni’ma and there is no indication that he repented of his sins.
The Ibadi position on Uthman is that during the first part of his reign he was upon guidance, and it was good. However, gradually Uthman gave way to nepotism and corruption. Uthman was counseled many times by the believers.
The believers felt that he, as commander of the faithful, was duty-bound to be in service. From the perspective of those who revolted, so tone-deaf was Uthman to the cries of those who were suffering, those who were calling out inconsistencies in his administration that everything came to a head.
What started off as a protest became a full-blown insurrection. Once seen as a commander and servant of the faithful, Uthman, now a despot in the eyes of some of his companions, was violently deposed.
Ibadi authorities based upon their research have reported divergent attitudes held by companions concerning Uthman.
Those who held that Uthman deserved to be killed by Muslims for his innovations. The Muslims tried for six years to make him change and keep the path of his predecessors or resign. When he refused to agree with them they kliled him. Among this group were the companions: Abdullah bin Masud, Ammar bin Yasir, Abu Dharr, Al-Ghifari, Abdul Rahman bin Awf, Amr bin Muhammed bin Maslamah, and Zaid bin Thabit as well as most of the Ansaris. (Bara’ah al-Dhahir)
Those who held that the question of civil war (fitna) was a matter of personal judgement (ijtihad) some even say that both sides were correct. (Wuqoof)
Those who say that Uthman had repented for his innovations, and that he was killed after he repented, therefore his opponets were wrong. This was the opinion of the companions Talha, Al-Zubair and A’isha. (Walayah al-Dhahir)
Those who reserved their opinion on the civil war and refused to take part in it. Among those were Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas, Abdullah bin Umar, Muhammed bin Maslamah and others. (Wuqoof)
Finally, the attitude of Mu’awiya and Amr bin Al’As who held that Uthman was right all the way and claimed revenge for his death. In fact, one thing you are not told is that those who went to fight Ali felt that he (Ali) had a hand in the death of Uthman. (Walayah al-Dhahir)
It is important to note there are no so called ‘Khawarij’ at this time. The Ibadi school did not come about until much later.
A person has to be truly lacking in intelligence to think anyone alive today took part in that revolution. That was 1400 years ago. Which person alive today is that age? Secondly, what of the people who convert to Islam and adopt the school? What possible part did their non-Muslim ancestors play?
In the case of the Caliph Uthman, there were no sects when he was killed; but there had been general complaints from all the spectrum of society in the Islamic state. The Ibadi historians reiterated what those complaints were, which happened to be shared by many of the companions.
The above chart shows the chains of transmission in regard to those who put Uthman in (Bara’ah al-Dhahir). That is those companions who removed Uthman by force. As those people joined the ranks of Ali Ibn Abu Talib. That was the position of the Shi’i Ali or the supporters of Ali. At Siffin, some of the companions differed over Ali’s decision. These are the Muhakkima. From the Muhakkima later came the Ibadi school. The position of Bara’ah al-Dhahir for Uthman is not something new or novel to the Ibadi school. Rather they are following a pattern. Rather, these were the views held by those deemed righteous and the views before them by those deemed righteous and so on. Ultimately we are with the companion Ammar bin Yasir (ra). Our position is his position.
The Sunni Shaf’i scholar Al-Dhahabī relates concerning the above.
In his book on trustworthy narrators, al-Dhahabī says on page 23:
“If we opened this door for ourselves, many Companions, Followers, and imams would enter into it. Some Companions declared others disbelievers based on interpretation.”
Al-Dhahabī affirms takfīr occurring among the Companions themselves. Based on interpretive ijtihād, not because the target of takfīr had actually left Islam.
If anyone from among the Sunni Muslims suggests that you kill those whom you are in walayah with, you need to tell them to take matters of the religion more seriously.
One of the secrets of the history of the people of truth and integrity is that if they appointed an imam after the advice of the people of the solution and the contract, the imam was their servant, and if he erred, they replaced him with another imam, and they never sanctified him and did not put him before the command of Allah.
This certainly seems to be the attitude of the sahabah, the first generation of Muslims.
The Imamate as a Servant-Leader.
First and foremost, it should be understood that the office of the Imamate or Caliphate has never been proven to be a position or post (for life).
For us, the office of the Imamate or Caliphate is like being the CEO of a company. If the CEO does well and manages the company well, it is good for everyone. If the CEO mismanages the company, it is unfortunate for everyone.
Part of our faith is an-naseehah (sincere advice). It is to be given to all Muslims, including the leadership. Thus, in the case of the CEO, he is advised by his board members, senior members and if he changes course, that is a good thing. It has khayer (goodness) and baraka (blessings) in it.
If he, the CEO, does not change course, he is asked to step down (peacefully) and if he does, no harm comes to him nor his family. Why should it?
Lastly, if the CEO does not change course after advice and after being asked to step down, then he is forcefully removed from office. We should add here that Ibadi scholars have stated this also depends upon the will of the people and their initiative to remove such a one. Otherwise a stale mate with civil war is not considered practical or pragmatic.
Two points of consideration and refutation of the lies said against this school.
Ibadis do not encourage revolts against the Imams. This is in order to avoid the obvious bloodshed that could result from such an undertaking.
The proof of the above is that the Ibadis had the third-longest running continuity of leadership in the history of the Muslims.
Which are the top 3 longest lasting Muslim empires/dynasties in terms of longevity & stability?
1. 1299-1922 Ottoman/Sunni/Hanafi = 623 years
2. 750-1258 Abbasid/Sunni/Hanafi = 508 years
3. 1154-1624 Nabhani/Ibadi = 470 years
The massive lie that Uthman was not removed by the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Do not be fooled by those who would lead you to think that Uthman was killed by some secret clan of ninjas, or delta force etc. It was the very companions of the Prophet (saw) that removed him.
In fact, one famous Salafi—Athari Shaykh had choice words for a companion that stabbed Uthman in the chest 9 times. When that same Salafi-Athari Shaykh was informed that it was a companion who stabbed Uthman, he walked back his words!
(May Allah be pleased with them all) is the doctrine. At least of the Abbasid Sunnis, not so the Umayyad Sunnis.
“‘Abdur-Rahmaan bin ‘Udays, the ringleader of the rioters rejected it saying: “If you are a liar, you are not fit to remain as a Caliph. In case you are true in your claim, then such a weak Caliph should not be left to rule if he is not able to keep control over his administration and lets anybody write anything on his behalf.” At last, ‘Abdur-Rahmaan bin ‘Udays asked ‘Uthmaan bin ‘Affaan to quit the Caliphate. However, he said: “I can’t put off the garment that Allah has caused me to put on.” That is, he refused to give up the post of the Caliph.”
“When the intensity of the siege increased and even the supply of water was stopped, ‘Uthmaan bin ‘Affaan went to the roof of his house and reminded them of his sacrifices for Islam and the position he held after embracing Islam. A section of the rioters seemed to forgive him but Maalik bin Al-Ashtar intervened to keep them firm in their plan. Moreover, when the rioters were convinced of the arrival of rescue forces from the provinces, they determined to do away with the Caliph.”
“The rioters scaled the walls, entered the house of ‘Uthmaan bin ‘Affaan, and made an assault on him. First of all Muhammed bin Abu Bakr came near ‘Uthmaan bin ‘Affaan, may Allah be pleased with him, and said catching hold of his beard: “O long-bearded one, may Allah put you to disgrace.” ‘Uthmaan, may Allah be pleased with him, replied: “I am not a long-bearded man, but ‘Uthmaan, the Chief of the Believers.” Thereupon Muhammed bin Abu Bakr angrily said: “You covet the Caliphate even in your old age.” ‘Uthmaan, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “Had your father been alive, he would have valued my old age.” At this Muhammed bin Abu Bakr got ashamed and left. Followed by his retreat a group of criminals came down scaling the wall. The group included ‘Abdur-Rahmaan bin ‘Udays, ‘Amr bin Hamiq, ‘Umayr bin Jannabi, Sudan bin Humraan, Al-Ghaafiqi and Kinaanah bin Bishr, who first struck ‘Uthmaan, may Allah be pleased with him, with a sword. His wife Naa’ilah came forward and stretched her hand to stop the stroke, with the result that her fingers were cut off and thrown away. However, he struck ‘Uthmaan, may Allah be pleased with him, a second time, which led to his martyrdom. It so happened when ‘Uthmaan, may Allah be pleased with him, was reciting the Quran, his blood dropped on the verse (which means): “…. and Allah will be sufficient for you against them. And He is the Hearing, the Knowing.” [Quran 2:137]”
“‘Amr bin Hamiq gave him nine wounds with his spear. ‘Umayr bin Jannabi moved forward and kicked him violently more than once, so that his ribs were broken. At every kick he would say: “It was you who had imprisoned my father and the poor man died in captivity.” Naa’ilah called out to those upstairs who were unaware of what was happening in the house. The rioters had completed their evil act before those upstairs arrived. The criminals fled and the slaves of ‘Uthmaan killed a few of them.”
“Nobody was needed now to guard the door. The rioters then made a forced entry into the house and plundered all the articles that they found. The news of this tragedy spread like lightning. This soul-shattering incident came to pass on Friday, Thul-Hijjah 18, 35 AH. The dead body of ‘Uthmaan laid unshrouded and unburied for three days.”
What information do we get from this? The following is claimed.
Abdur-Rahmaan bin ‘Udays, calls Uthman a liar. Demands he is removed from office.
Malik bin Al-Ashtar encourages people to continue to deny Uthman water. Muhammed bin Abu Bakr says to Uthman: “May Allah disgrace you!”
Amr bin Hamiq stabbed Uthman with a spear nine times.
Uthman’s body remained unburried for three days.
It is reported from the companion Hashim ibn Utbah bin Abi Waqqas that he, in introducing Uthman’s killers, said:
“He rushed to the attack and did not turn away until he had struck with his sword. He then made free with abuse and curses, and Hashim b. ‘Utbah said to him: “Servant of God, after such talk there is conflict and after such fighting there is the reckoning. Fear God, for you are returning to Him, and He will question ou about this encounter and what you sought by it.” He replied,”I am fighting you because your master does not perform the prayer ritual, as I have been told, and neither do you; I am fighting you because your master killed our caliph, and you urged him to it.” Hashim said to him: “What have you got to do with Ibn ‘Affan? It was the companions of Muhammed and the sons of his companions and the qurra’ of the people who killed him when he introduced innovations (ahdath) and opposed the authority (hukum)of the Book. They were people of religion (din) and more worthy of handling the affairs of the people than you and your companions. I do not think the affairs of this community and of this religion have been neglected even for an instant.”
“It was said that this man was ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Udays al-Balawi, who is the one who brought the people of Egypt to rebel against ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him); he died in 36 AH. And it was said that Kinanah ibn Bishr, one of the leaders of the Kharijites, also led the people in prayer. When these people attacked Madinah, ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) used to go out and lead the people in prayer, and he continued to do this for a month, then he went out one day and they threw stones at him, which caused him to fall from the minbar, and he was not able to lead the prayer on that day, so Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf led them in prayer. Then they stopped him from doing that, so they were led in prayer sometimes by ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Udays and sometimes by Kinanah ibn Bishr, and continued to do this for ten days. They were the ones of whom it was said that they were the imams of fitnah.”
Prima Qur’an comments: You will notice that they put Kinanah ibn Bishr as “one of the leaders of the kharijites” but when it comes to ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Udays al-Balawi, they do not add such a description! They patch up the case in the commentary.
Ibadis are the first group among the Muslims to accept the following as the first four caliphs: Abu Bakr-Umar-Uthman-Ali.
For the proto-Sunni -Umayyads, the first four caliphs are Abu Bakr-Umar-Uthman-Muaviya. None of the Umayyads put anyone after Uthman other than Muaviya. The proto-Sunnis kept the original Tashahhud, which did not be used to support an interpretation that included sending blessings upon the household of Ali.
The Abbasid Sunnis (those who are the majority today) the caliphs are: Abu Bakr-Umar-Uthman-Ali (in line with the Ibadis). These latter Sunnis accepted a modified Tashahhud which can be interpreted as including the sending of blessings upon the household of Ali.
Narrated by Ibn Mas`ud:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) taught me the Tashah-hud as he taught me a Sura from the Qur’an, while my hand was between his hands. (Tashah-hud was) all the best compliments and the prayers and the good things are for Allah. Peace and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on you, O Prophet! Peace be on us and on the pious slaves of Allah. I testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and I also testify that Muhammed is Allah’s slave and His Apostle. (We used to recite this in the prayer) during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw) , but when he had died, we used to say, “Peace be on the Prophet.”
The same happened over the meaning of the Āl Muḥammed
Interpretation
Meaning
Broad / General
Āl Muḥammed refers to all believers, the ummah (community) of the Prophet. This interpretation is sometimes supported by the idea that the “family” of a prophet includes his followers in a spiritual sense. Thus, they are covered.
Specific / Narrow
Āl Muḥammed refers specifically to the Prophet’s blood relatives: ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, and their descendants (Ali’s children), often excluding those who were not part of the household, such as the Umayyad branch. This usually intends to exclude the Prophet’s descendants through his other daughters.
You can imagine which version the Abbasis favoured.
The Historical Grievances: A Categorized List of Complaints
Uthman was besieged by his companions.
Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman narrated:
When ‘Uthman (ra) was circled (by the rebels), he looked upon them from above and said, “Ias you by Allah,I ask nobody but the Companions of the Prophet (saw), dont you know that Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, ‘Whoever will (buy and) dig the well of Ruma will be granted Paradise,’ and I (bought and) dug it? Don’t you know that he said. ‘Whoever equips the army of ‘Usra (i.e., Tabuk’s Ghazwa) will be granted Paradise,’ and I equipped it ?” They attested whatever he said. When ‘Umar founded his endowment, he said, “Its administrator can eat from it.” The management of the endowment can be taken over by the founder himself or any other person, for both cases are permissible.
Dear readers. These words that you see in red: (by the rebels) are not in the Arabic text at all! The people who translate this are trying to deflect the fact that those who are besieging Uthman were the companions of the Prophet (saw). Think about it. He (Uthman) was alive. He is speaking to his companions.
It was narrated by Nafi` from Ibn `Umar, that Uthman (رضي الله عنه) looked out at his companions when he was under siege and said:
Why do you want to kill me? I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: `It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim man except in one of three cases; a man who commits zina after being married, so he is to be stoned, or a man who killed deliberately (committed murder), so he is to be killed in retaliation, or a man who apostatised after having become Muslim, so he is to be executed.” By Allah, I never committed zina either during the Jahiliyyah or in Islam, I never killed anyone such that my life should be taken in retaliation; and I never apostatised since [became Muslim bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammed is His slave and His Messenger,
It is a wonder that Uthman did not shout from his house: “Oh, people who here remembered the Hadith of the ten promised paradise?”
The fact that Uthman appealed to his actions (digging the well, equipping the army) rather than a prophetic pronouncement about his status is itself revealing about what the community recognized as authoritative.
The besieging Companions many of whom were themselves among the ten (Talha, Zubayr, Sa’d, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Ali) did not reference it either in their criticism of him or in his defense
This failure to do so raises legitimate historical questions about the provenance and circulation of this tradition at the time of the siege.
Talha and Zubayr, both among the ten promised Paradise according to Sunni tradition. They were part of the opposition to Uthman. Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas and Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, also among the ten, adopted a position of wuqoof (suspension) rather than actively defending Uthman. The behavior of these figures toward a fellow member of the ten is itself a historical problem for those who insist upon this tradition.
As our article shows: “Ali did not wash Uthman for burial nor did he pray the funeral prayer over him.”
If Ali believed Uthman was among the ten promised Paradise, his refusal to perform the funeral prayer is significant.
While Sunnis hold that Uthman was among the ten promised Paradise, Ibadi historians note that Uthman himself did not invoke this promise during the siege, suggesting this tradition may have been a later Umayyad-era attribution.
Ali ibn Abi Talib also did not invoke the “ten promised Paradise” tradition during his conflict with Mu’awiya. There are many questionable hadiths that inflate the status of Ali as well.
Some of the historical collections have been very careful in how they try to narrate events. Observe the following:
Source: Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti’s Tarikh al-Khulafa’ (تاريخ الخلفاء) History of the Caliphs.
Aisha (ra) the wife of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and mother of the believers incites others to kill Uthman?!
The Sunni, Shafi’i, Ash’ari, Shaykh Izz ad-Dīn Abū al-Hasan Ibn al-Athīr and others narrate that Aisha (ra) claim she issued a fatwa in which she says: “Kill Na’thal (meaning Uthman) becuase he has become a disbeliever.”
Sources: (See: Al-Futuh by ibn A’tham, Vol. 2, p. 437. The history of al-Tabari, Vol. 3, p. 477. Tajarib al-Umam by ibn Miskawayh, Vol. 1, p. 469. The complete history by ibn al–Athīr, Vol. 3, p. 206. al-Imāmah wal-Siyāsas by ibn Qutaybah, Vol. 1, p. 51.)
Nepotism and the Appointment of Relatives
The Case of the Governor of Egypt: Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh
Let’s talk about this Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh for a moment. Uthman in his prudent wisdom, gave control of the governorship to Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh.
Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh. This companion embraced Islam than left Islam and claimed that he was actually a Prophet! So not only was this a matter of leaving Islam, the man was clearly involved in the sedition of the highest magnitude for the fledgling community.
Source:(Abd al-Ghani al-Ghanimi al-Maydani, Sharh al-‘Aqida al-Tahawiya. Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 1988, p. 124)
Narrated Sa’d:
“On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Messenger of Allah (saw) gave protection to the People except for four men and two women, and he named them. Ibn Abi Sarh was one of them. He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn Abi Sarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Messenger of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his head and looked at him three times, denying him every time. After the third time he received his oath. He then turned to his Companions and said: Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We do not know, Messenger of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us a hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye.”
So out of all the people that Uthman ibn Affan could have appointed governor of Egypt he appointed his own brother (Abdullah bin Abi Al Sarh) (through breast feeding), and one whom the Blessed Messenger (saw) would not have minded at all if he was killed for his treachery.
The Case of Al-Walid ibn Uqba.
He is also Uthman’s maternal half-brother. Al-Walid ibn Uqba converted to Islam only after the Blessed Messenger (saw) conquered Mecca. When it was obvious that Islam was the victor over the polytheist.
Uthman appointed al-Walid bin Uqba b bi Mua’ayt over Kufa Al-Walid led the people in the morning prayer while drunk, making four prostrations; then he vomited in the mihrab and turned to those praying behind him and said, Shall I give you more?”
“When al-Walid arrived (in Medina) , Uthman said, “Who will flog him?” The people held back due to al-Walid’s kinship. He was Uthman’s half-brother on his mother’s side. ‘Ali then rose up and flogged him. Later Uthman sent al-Walid to be in charge of collecting the alms payments (sadaqat) from the tribes of Kalb and Balqayn.”
Source: (The works of Ibn Wadih Al-Yaqubi An English Translation volume 3 pg. 800-801)
What is interesting is the report from Al-Yaqubi, a Shi’i historian, as well as the hadith in Bukhari (a Sunni hadith collection).
Now, of course, a big difference is the chains of transmission.
Woefully absent from Yaqubi’s telling. In Yaqubi’s telling, Ali is decisive and doesn’t hesitate to whip Uthman’s brother. Whereas in the Hadith, Ali refuses a direct order from the commander of the faithful. Ali passes the order to his eldest son Hasan, who refuses the order of his father (this annoys Ali), until finally Ali instructs Abd Allah ibn Ja’far (Ali’s nephew) to flog him.
In Yaqubi’s telling, Al-Walid ibn Uqba increases the rakats to 4, whereas in the hadith transmission the number is not disclosed, if any. Also, the way Al Walid presents himself is as if he is mocking the well-known occasion where the Blessed Messenger (saw) accidently performed an extra rakat in prayer.
The Shi’i don’t narrate this because it comes back to damage to their doctrines.
The case of Al Hakam (Uthman’s paternal uncle)
“Uthman wrote to al-Hakam b [Abi]l-As that he should come to him. Al-Hakam had been a man expelled by Allah’s messenger. When Abu Bakr came to power, Uthman and a group of the Banu Umayya came to Abu Bakr and petitioned him concerned al-Hakam, but Abu Bakr would not grant permission for him to return. When Umar came to power, they did the same thing, but Umar would not grant him permission. Therefore the people disapproved of Uthman’s permission to al-Hakam. One of them said: I saw al-Hakam b. Abi -‘As the day he arrived in Medina; he was wearing a tattered old garment and driving a Billy goat. He entered Uthman’s residence while people gazed at his evil state and that of his companions; he came out wearing a silk tunic (jubba) and a shawl (taylasan)
The reason for the Blessed Messenger (saw) expelling al-Hakam to al-Ta’if is given variously as his eavesdropping on the Blessed Messenger (saw), and relaying to his Qurayshi opponents his sayings about them or his mocking imitation of the Prophet’s gait. He would mock the way the Blessed Messenger (saw) would walk. Al Hakam had accepted Islam after the conquest of Mecca on 8/30. He was Uthman’s paternal uncle.
Sources: (Al Baladhuri, Ansab, 5:27; Ibn al–Athīr, al-Usd al-ghābah fi ma‘rifat al-sahabah, 2:35)
Uthman and his treatment of Companions
The case of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud
Of the tribe of Hudhayl. This is the companion whom the Blessed Messenger (saw) spoke about when he said:
Narrated Masriq:
`Abdullah bin `Amr mentioned `Abdullah bin Masud and said, “I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur’an from four: `Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Salim, Mu`adh and Ubai bin Ka`b.’ “
Uthman Ibn Affan withheld the pension and salary of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud for two years.
Source: (History of Ibn Kathir 7/163 and al- Mustadrak 3/13)
“Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud entered the mosque while Uthman was giving the sermon. Uthman said, “Truly an evil beast has come to you!” When Ibn Mas’ud spoke harshly to Uthman, Uthman gave orders, and he was dragged away by his foot, so that two of his ribs were broken. When A’isha spoke up and said many things, Uthman sent her to the Ansar.”
Source: (al-Baladhuri, Ansab, IV/1, 524-526, and The Works of Ibn Wadih Al Ya’qubi volume 3, pages 810-811)
Abu Dharr had begun his agitation in Medina after Uthman had given 500,000 dirhams to Marwan I, 300,000 to al-Harith ibn al-Hakam, and 100,000 to the Medinan Zayd ibn Thabit from the khums of the booty seized in Africa in 27/647. He then quoted relevant Qur’anic passages threatening the hoarders of riches with hell-fire. Marwan complained to Uthman, who sent his servant Natil to warn Abu Dharr, but to no avail. Uthman displayed patience for some time until, in the presence of the caliph, Abu Dharr launched an angry verbal attack on Ka’ab al-Ahbar, who had backed Uthman’s free use of public money. Uthman now chided Abu Dharr and sent him to Damascus.
Historians have recorded Uthman’s letter to Mu’awiya. When Mu’awiya sent a report against Abu Dharr from Syria, Uthman wrote to him, “Send Jundub (Abu Dharr) to me on an unsaddled camel, alone, with a harsh man driving it day and night.” When he reached Medina, Abu Dharr’s legs were bruised and bleeding.
Sources: (Ibn Sa’d, in his Tabaqat, Volume IV, page 168 & Ibn -Athīr’s al-Nihayah fi Garib al-Hadith wa al-Athar)
“Words were exchanged between Ali and Uthman on account of this, so much so that Uthman said, As far as I am concerned, you are no better than he!” -and they spoke coarse words to each other. People criticized what Uthman had said and intervened between the two until they made peace.” Source:(Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, IV/1, 544)
“When Uthman learned of Abu Dharr’s death, he said: “May Allah have mercy on Abu Dharr.” Ammar b Yasir replied: “Yes, may Allah have mercy on Abu Dharr more than us!” This annoyed Uthman. Source:(Al-Baladhuri Ansab, IV/1,545)
Was Abu Dharr subtly accused of being a deviant by Mu’awiya?
Notice Abu Dharr’s ingenious way he deals with it. So Mu’awiya asked Abu Dharr to list down the deviants in Damascus. Abu Dharr knows that the only people who know them are those who associate with them. Hence, his reply: “What do I have to do with the deviants of Damascus and how would I know them?”
Hadith reports where Abu Dharr chided Uthman and those who hoard wealth.
Narrated Zaid bin Wahab:
I passed by a place called Ar-Rabadha and by chance I met Abu Dharr and asked him, “What has brought you to this place?” He said, “I was in Sham and differed with Mu’awiya on the meaning of (the following verses of the Qur’an): ‘They who hoard up gold and silver and spend them not in the way of Allah.’ (9.34). Mu’awiya said, ‘This verse is revealed regarding the people of the scriptures.” I said, It was revealed regarding us and also the people of the scriptures.” So we had a quarrel and Mu’awiya sent a complaint against me to `Uthman. `Uthman wrote to me to come to Medina, and I came to Medina. Many people came to me as if they had not seen me before. So I told this to `Uthman who said to me, “You may depart and live nearby if you wish.” That was the reason for my being here because even if an Ethiopian had been nominated as my ruler, I would have obeyed him.
While I was sitting with some people from Quraish, a man with very rough hair, clothes, and appearance came and stood in front of us, greeted us and said, “Inform those who hoard wealth, that a stone will be heated in the Hell-fire and will be put on the nipples of their breasts till it comes out from the bones of their shoulders and then put on the bones of their shoulders till it comes through the nipples of their breasts the stone will be moving and hitting.” After saying that, the person retreated and sat by the side of the pillar, I followed him and sat beside him, and I did not know who he was. I said to him, “I think the people disliked what you had said.” He said, “These people do not understand anything, although my friend told me.” I asked, “Who is your friend?” He said, “The Prophet (saw) said (to me), ‘O Abu Dharr! Do you see the mountain of Uhud?’ And on that I (Abu Dharr) started looking towards the sun to judge how much remained of the day as I thought that Allah’s Messenger (saw) wanted to send me to do something for him and I said, ‘Yes!’ He said, ‘I do not love to have gold equal to the mountain of Uhud unless I spend it all (in Allah’s cause) except three Dinars (pounds). These people do not understand and collect worldly wealth. No, by Allah, Neither I ask them for worldly benefits nor am I in need of their religious advice till I meet Allah, The Honorable, The Majestic.”
Abu Dharr said that he came with his stick in his hand and asked ‘Uthman for permission to enter and this was granted. ‘Uthman then told Ka‘b that ‘Abd ar-Rahman had died leaving some property and asked what he thought about it. When he replied that if he had given what was due to God on it there was no harm in it, Abu Dharr raised his stick and struck Ka’b and said he had heard God’s messenger say, “If I had a quantity of gold equivalent to this mountain which I could spend and have accepted from me, I would not like to leave six uqiyas behind me.” He then adjured ‘Uthman three times to tell him if he had not heard him, and he replied that he had. Ahmad transmitted it.
As for Ammar’s case, Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi mentions a report related by Al-Tabari which suggests that there was some friction between Ammar and Abbas ibn Utbah. Uthman felt that the two needed to be disciplined by physical punishment. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi states that this is within the right and jurisdiction of the Caliph. Umar used to do that with many people, several of whom were of a higher standing than Ammar.
Source: (Al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad)
When Miqdad b ‘Amr died he appointed Ammar as his executor and Ammar prayed over hm without notifying Uthman. Uthman became furious at Ammar and said: “Woe to me from that son of a black woman! Yes, I know of his hidden antagonism towards me.”
Sources: (Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Isti’ab, 4:1863; a& Khalil ibn Aybak al-Safadi, Kitab al-Wafi bi’l-Wafayat, 15:457)
Fiscal Policy and Distribution of Public Funds
The case of Al Hurmazan and Ubayd Allah ibn Umar
“The people talked much about the blood of al-Hurmuzan and Uthman’s withholding of Ubaydallah b Umar. Uthman therefore ascended the pulpit and addressed the people. He said: I am indeed the guardian (wali) of al-Hurmuzan’s blood: I have granted it to Allah and to ‘Umar, and have relinquished it for ‘Umar’s blood.”
Al-Miqdad Bin Amr rose up and said: “Al-Hurmuzan was a client (mawla) of Allah and His Messenger. it is not up to you to grant that which belongs to Allah and His Messenger.” Uthman said, “We see things our way and you see things your way.” Uthman then sent Ubayd Allah ibn Umar out of Medina to Kufa and settled him in a residence; the place came to be called: “Kuwayfat Ibn Umar” after him.
This became a huge grievance against Uthman Ibn Affan. Al-Hurmuzan was killed without judicial process and he was a Muslim!
By withholding of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar from punishment for having killed al-Hurmuzan, the Persian general who been granted protection as a Muslim. Ubayd Allah ibn Umar killed al-Hurmuzan because he suspected him of involvement with his father’s assassin. Because al-Hurmuzan’s involvement was not proved, and because he had no heirs to take vengeance on his behalf, the onus fell on Uthman as head of the community. Uthman’s decision not to exact blood vengeance by killing Umar’s soon, and to accept blood money (which he paid himself) caused controversy.
It is also little wonder that Ubayd Allah ibn Umar fought on the side of Muaviyah at Siffin, against Ali. Rather or not, that was loyalty/treachery for Uthman, sparing him depends on whose side you were on and how you look at it.
Sources: (al-Tabari, Tarikh,1:2795-2797 & Al-Baladhuri Ansab, IV/1, 510 (where Ali is mentioned as explicitly demanding the death of Ubayd Allah ibn Umar via qisas.).
Apparently it’s O.K. for Al Miqdad Bin Amr to say to Caliph Uthman: “Al-Hurmuzan was a client (mawla) of Allah and His Messenger. It is not up to you to grant that which belongs to Allah and His Messenger.“
However, for some reason, it’s not O.K. for the Sahaba to say to Caliph Ali: “It is not up to you to grant which belongs to Allah,” at the battle of Siffin. Double standards much?
Al-Miqdad bin Amr also had a famous Qira’at of the Qur’an that is attributed to him. The Qira’at of Miqdad! He married Duba’ah Bint Al-Zubayr, the relative of the Blessed Messenger (saw), the daughter of his (saw) paternal uncle.
Analysis of the Assassination: Deconstructing the “Mysterious Letter” Narrative and the Role of Key Figures
The Most Shocking Account of Historical Events.
The following account from al-Suyuti is presented not as an objective fact, but as a narrative preserved in Sunni historiography. It contains literary motifs—such as the ‘mysterious letter’ and the forensic identification of handwriting—that warrant critical examination.
“Ibn Asakir narrated by another route that az-Zuhri said: I said to Sacid ibn al-Musayyab, ‘Can you tell me how was the killing of Uthman? What were people up to and what was he up to? And why did the Companions of Muhammed (saw), fail to help him? Ibn al-Musayyab said, ‘Uthman was killed unjustly, whoever killed him was wrongdoing, and whoever failed to help him is free of blame.’ I said, ‘How was that?’ He said, ‘When Uthman was appointed, a group of the Companions disliked his appointment, because Uthman used to love his people. He ruled people for twelve years. He used to appoint people from Bani Umayyah who had not kept company with the Prophet (saw). His amirs used to produce matters which the Companions of Muhammed (saw) would repudiate. Uthman used to ask people to have good will for them and he would not remove them.”
“In the year 35 AH. During the six last years he chose in preference the tribe of his paternal uncle. He appointed them and did not let anyone share with them. He ordered them to fear Allah, he appointed Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh in charge of Egypt and he remained in control there for years. The people of Egypt came to complain of him and to complain of his wrongdoing. There had been slights before from Uthman to Abdullah ibn Masud, Abu Dharr and Ammar ibn Yasir. Banu Hudhayl and Banu Zuhrah had what they had in their hearts because of the state of Ibn Masud. Banu Ghifar, their allies and whoever was angry because of Abu Dharr, had in their hearts what they had in them. Banu Makhzum were furious at Uthman because of the condition of Ammar ibn Yasir. ‘The people of Egypt came to complain of Ibn Abi Sarh, so he wrote a letter to him in which he threatened him, but Ibn Abi Sarh refused to accept what Uthman forbade him, he struck one of those of the people of Egypt who came to him from Uthman, one of those who had gone to Uthman, and he killed him. Seven hundred men left Egypt and dwelt in the mosque (of Madinah). They complained to the Companions at the times of the prayers about what Ibn Abi Sarh had done. Talhah ibn Ubaydullah stood and addressed Uthman very severely. A’ishah (ra) sent a message to him saying, “The Companions of Muhammed (saw) came to you and they asked you to remove this man and you refused? This one has killed a man from among them so treat them with justice (in their complaint) against your governor.”
“Ali ibn Abi Talib came to him and said, “They are only asking you for a man in place of (in retaliation for) a man and they have claimed from him (retaliation for the spilling of) blood. Remove him from over them and give a (just) decision between them. If there is anything due against him, be just to them.” He (Uthman) said to them (the Egyptians), “Choose from amongst yourselves a man whom I shall appoint over you in his (Ibn Abi Sarh’s) place.” The people indicated to him Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr. They said, “Appoint Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr over us.” He wrote his covenant and appointed him. A number of the Muhajirun and Ansar went with them to look into that (dispute) which was between the people of Egypt and Ibn Abi Sarh. Muhammed went and those with him. When they were about three days’ journey from Madinah they came upon a black slave on a camel beating the camel so much that it was as if he was pursuing or being pursued. The Companions of Muhammed (saw), said to him, “What is your story? What is your business? It is as if you were fleeing or pursuing someone.” He said to them, “I am the slave of the Amir al-Mu’minin and he has directed me to the governor of Egypt.” A man said to him, “This (Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr) is the governor of Egypt.” He said, “It is not this one I want.” Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr was told of his affair and so he sent a man in search of him who took him and brought him to him. He said, “Slave, who are you?” He began to say, one time, “I am the slave of the Amir al- Mu’minin,” and another time, “I am the slave of Marwan,” until one man recognised that he was the slave of Uthman.”
“Muhammed said to him, “To whom are you sent?” He said, “To the governor of Egypt.” He said, “With what?” He said, “With a message.” He said, “Do you have a letter with you?” He said, “No.” They searched him and didn’t find a letter with him. He had with him an ewer which was dry, in which was something which moved about, so they moved it about to bring it out but it didn’t come out. They broke the ewer and there was a letter in it from Uthman to Ibn Abi Sarh. Muhammed gathered those with them of the Muhajirun, the Ansar and others, then he opened the letter in their presence. There was in it, “When Muhammed, so-and-so, and so-and-so come to you, then find a way to kill them, and declare this letter to be false. Uthman ibn Afan ( Consider yourself confirmed in your governorship until my advice on it comes to you, and imprison whoever tries to come to me to accuse you of wrongdoing. My advice on that will certainly come to you, if Allah wills.” ‘When they read the letter they were terrified. Then they became resolved and returned to Madinah. Muhammed sealed the letter with the signet rings of the group who were with him, and then entrusted the letter to a man who was with them.”
“Then they went to Madinah. There they gathered together Talhah, az-Zubayr, Ali, Sa’d, and whoever there was of the Companions of Muhammed (saw). He broke (the seals of) the letter in their presence, and told them of the story of the slave. They read out the letter to them, and none of the people of Madinah was left who was not enraged at Uthman. It only increased those who were angry because of Ibn Masud, Abu Dharr and Ammar ibn Yasir in fury and rage. The Companions of Muhammed rose and kept to their houses. There was no-one among them who was not incoherent when he read the letter. The people besieged Uthman in the year 35 AH, and Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr raised Bani Taym and others against him.”
“When Ali saw that, he sent for Talhah, az-Zubayr, Sa’d, Ammar and a group of the Companions, all of whom were at Badr. Then he went in to Uthman, with him the letter, the slave and the camel. Ali said to him, “This slave is your slave?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “And the camel is your camel?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “Then you wrote this letter?” He said, “No,” and he swore an oath, “By Allah I did not write this letter, I did not order it, and I had no knowledge of it.” Ali said, “The seal is your seal?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “How does your slave go out on your camel, with a letter upon which is your seal, and you know nothing about it?” He swore again, “By Allah, I did not write this letter, I didn’t order it, and I never directed this slave to go to Egypt.” As for the handwriting, they recognised that it was that of Marwan, and they came to doubt as to Uthman. They demanded that he should give them Marwan and he refused, while Marwan was with him in the house. The Companions of Muhammed (saw) left him in anger, and in doubt about his affair. They knew that Uthman would not swear an oath that was false, but people said, “Uthman will never be free of guilt in our hearts unless he hands Marwan over to us for questioning, so that we know the situation of the letter, and how he could order the killing of a man of the Companions of Muhammed (saw) without right. If ‘Uthman wrote it, we will remove him from office. If Marwan wrote it as if it had been written by Uthman, then we will have to look seriously at what we shall do in the case of Marwan.”
“They stuck to their houses, and Uthman refused to send Marwan out to them, for he feared that he would be killed. People continued laying siege to Uthman, and they prevented water (from reaching him). He looked over the people (from an upper floor) and said, “Is Ali among you?” They said, “No.” He said, “Is Sa’d among you?” They said, “No.” He was silent and then he said, “Will no-one reach Ali and ask him to get us water to drink?” That reached Ali, so he sent him three water-skins full of water, but they almost didn’t reach him. Because of them a number of the freed slaves of Banu Hashim and Banu Umayyah were wounded in the course of the water getting to him. ‘It reached Ali that it was intended to kill Uthman, and he said, “We only want Marwan from him. As for the killing of Uthman, no!” He said to al-Hasan and al-Hussein, “Go with your two swords and stand at the door of Uthman and allow no-one to reach him.” | Then az-Zubayr sent his son, Talhah sent his son and a number of the Companions of the Prophet (saw) sent their sons to prevent people getting to Uthman, and to demand the surrender of Marwan.”
“When people saw that, they shot arrows against the door of Uthman until al-Hasan ibn ‘ Ali was reddened with blood at his door, an arrow struck Marwan while he was in the house. Muhammed ibn Talhah was smeared with blood and also Qanbar, the freed slave of Ali, was wounded in the head. ‘Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr was afraid that Banu Hashim would become angry because of the state of al-Hasan and al-Hussein and provoke a tumult. He took the hands of two men and said to them, “If Banu Hashim come and see blood on the face of al-Hasan they will remove these people from around Uthman and what we wanted will be rendered useless. Let us go and scale the wall of the house and kill him, without anyone knowing about it.”Muhammed andhis two mengot over the wall from the house of a man of the Ansar and entered Uthman’s house, without any of those who were with him (Uthman) knowing, because everyone with him was up above the houses (on the roofs). There was no-one with him but his wife. Muhammed said to the two of them, “Stay where you are, because his wife is with him, until I first enter. When I have taken hold of him, then you come in and strike him until you have killed him.” Muhammed went in and took hold of his beard, and Uthman said to him, “By Allah, if your father could see you, your behaviour to me would cause him great distress,” and so his hand slackened (and he held back), and then the two men entered and struck him until they had killed him. ‘They went out in flight by the same way that they had come in, and his wife cried out, but her cry was not heard in the house because of the commotion in the house. His wife went up to the people and said, “The Amir al-Mu’minin has been killed!” The people entered and they found him slaughtered. The news reached Ali, Talhah, az- Zubayr, Sa’d and whoever was in Madinah and they went out – and their intellects had gone, because of the news which had come to them — until they came in to Uthman and found him killed. They repeated again and again, “Truly we belong to Allah and truly we are returning to Him.” Ali said to his two sons, “How was the Amir al-Muminin killed while you two were at the door?” He raised his hand and slapped al-Hasan, struck the chest of al-Hussein, abused Muhammad ibn Talhah and Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, and went out – enraged – until he came to his house.”
Source: (The History of the Khalifahs who took the right way by Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti translated by Abdassamad Clarke pgs 167 to 173)
Prima Qur’an comments: First take a deep breath. Take time to process what you just read. It certainly is a very creative piece of narrative writing. Especially given that this is done in retrospect. Keep in mind we have to protect the doctrine of ʿadālah aṣ-ṣaḥābah‘. Marwan ibn al-Hakam becomes the fall guy, and of course, he gets removed from the list of companions.This narrative structure serves to exonerate Uthman by shifting culpability entirely to Marwan ibn al-Hakam, a figure whose reputation was already compromised in later Islamic historiography. It fits very nicely and dovetails into ʿadālah aṣ-ṣaḥābah‘. With the Umayyads out of the picture, using Marwan ibn al-Hakam as a plot device makes perfect sense.
However, we would like to draw the reader’s attention to some all too revealing points in the above account.
The first plot device.
The mysterious letter.
“When Muhammed, so-and-so, and so-and-so come to you, then find a way to kill them, and declare this letter to be false. Uthman ibn Afan (Consider yourself confirmed in your governorship until my advice on it comes to you, and imprison whoever tries to come to me to accuse you of wrongdoing.“
Notice: and declare this letter to be false? That doesn’t seem like thinking ahead. It’s as if the person knows the letter will be discovered. Notice that the letter is to the governor, Ibn Abi Sarh. So the letter instructs Ibn Abi Sarh to deny the letter after he receives it, which would be pointless. Simply destroy the letter duh! Also, if Ibn Abi Sarh is the type of person to just kill those under his rule, why the hell would he need to explain a letter to anyone?
Second plot device.
Forensic science.
“As for the handwriting, they recognised that it was that of Marwan, and they came to doubt as to Uthman.” As if they are forensic scientist!
Then just a little further down.
“If ‘Uthman wrote it, we will remove him from office. If Marwan wrote it as if it had been written by Uthman, then we will have to look seriously at what we shall do in the case of Marwan.”
So which is it? Did these forensic scientist recognize that the handwriting was that of Marwan or are they still wrangling over the possibility that Uthman really did write the letter and was lying. Really shows you what some of them thought of Uthman!
Third plot device.
Who are the two that killed Uthman?
“He said to al-Hasan and al-Hussein, “Go with your two swords and stand at the door of Uthman and allow no-one to reach him.”
“Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr was afraid that Banu Hashim would become angry because of the state of al-Hasan and al-Hussein and provoke a tumult. He took the hands of two men.“
“Muhammed andhis two mengot over the wall from the house of a man of the Ansar and entered Uthman’s house.“
“Muhammed said to the two of them.”
“Then the two men entered and struck him until they had killed him.“
“Ali said to his two sons, “How was the Amir al-Muminin killed while you two were at the door?” He raised his hand and slapped al-Hasan, struck the chest of al-Hussein.”
The Identity of the Assailants
Who were the two men who entered with Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr and struck Uthman? The account in al-Suyuti’s Tarikh al-Khulafa’ does not name them directly. Yet the narrative structure is striking.
Consider the sequence: Ali orders al-Hasan and al-Husayn to stand guard at the door with their swords, instructing them to allow no one to reach Uthman. Later, Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr enters the house from another direction—scaling the wall—accompanied by “two men.” These two deliver the fatal blows. When Ali discovers the assassination, his immediate reaction is not to pursue the intruders but to turn to his two sons, strike them, and demand: “How was the Amir al-Muminin killed while you two were at the door?”
The text does not explicitly name al-Hasan and al-Husayn as the killers. But it places them at the door, positions the actual assailants as anonymous figures who enter from elsewhere, and then shows Ali holding his sons accountable. The narrative, as preserved in al-Suyuti’s work, seems to invite the reader to connect these details—whether the implication is that they failed to prevent the killing or that they were more directly involved, the text leaves the reader to discern the connection.
It couldbe argued that the narrative subtly implicates al-Hasan and al-Husayn in the assassination itself. Others contend that it merely shows them failing in their protective duty, not participating in the killing, and that Ali’s anger was directed at their negligence. Still others point out that the historical sources are contradictory on this point, with different traditions assigning responsibility to different individuals—some naming Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr alone, others implicating figures whose identities have been obscured by later apologetic revision.
What is clear is that the ambiguity is itself revealing. Whether the sources intend to implicate them or simply place them at the scene in a protective role, the narrative’s structure speaks to the contested nature of these events. The convenient anonymity of the actual assailants, combined with the pointed direction of Ali’s fury, suggests a literary hand at work—one that must navigate between preserving the reputations of Ali’s household and recording the historical reality that those same household members were deeply entangled in the conflict.
This ambiguity is characteristic of historical writing from this period. Later historiographical traditions—whether Sunni, Shi’i, or Ibadi—reflect the deep divisions that emerged from these events, and each tradition has shaped its sources accordingly. For the contemporary reader, the most responsible approach is to acknowledge the uncertainty, resist the temptation to assign blame with certainty, and recognize that these are matters about which even the early sources do not speak with one voice.
Reflection.
Dear readers, consider the convert who comes to Islam seeking peace, clarity, and connection with Allah. What possible benefit could it bring them to be drawn into the conflicts of Ali’s family and the Umayyad clan? These were political struggles of a particular era. They are not the substance of faith. The substance of faith is the Qur’an, the Prophetic example, and the sincere worship of Allah alone.
The Prophet (saw) said: ‘Leave that which causes you doubt for that which does not cause you doubt.’ The disputes between Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya are a source of doubt, division, and confusion. Leave them. Turn instead to what is certain: the Qur’an, the authentic Sunnah, and the worship of Allah. In that is your spiritual fulfillment.
For the contemporary Muslim—whether a new convert or one born into the faith—the question of whether Banu Hashim or Banu Umayya held the upper hand in the seventh century is spiritually irrelevant. Islam came to address the heart’s longing for its Creator, not to enlist believers as partisans in dynastic disputes over which tribe or bloodline is meant to rule over the Muslims.
Enough! The Muslim who turns to Allah in prayer, who weeps over the Qur’an, who seeks to purify their soul—what have they to do with the quarrels of Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya? Those were political conflicts born of their time and place. To make them the centerpiece of Islamic identity is to miss the entire point of the revelation.
Conclusion: The Case for Wuqoof
The following is based upon the information provided to us by the Sunni, Shafi’i, Ash’ari, Shaykh Izz ad-Dīn Abū al-Hasan Ibn al-Athīr.
We are thankful to our teacher, Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (hafidullah) for explaining the truth to the people!
TRANSCRIPT FROM THE SHAYKH.
“Moreover, before this there was manifest evil from Uthman towards Abdullah bin Masoud, Abi Thar, and Ammar bin Yasir.” “The people of Uthail and the people of Zuhra had in their hearts grieved concerning the condition of Ibn Masoud.” “And the tribe of Ghifar and it’s allies and all of them had rage in their hearts for what happened to Abu Thar.” “And the tribe of Makhzum were enraged against Uthman for the condition of Ammar bin Yasir.” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“It says, “Uthman remained for three days not buried and then Hakim ibn Hizam Al Qurashi and Jubayr ibn Muṭʽim talked to Ali to allow his burial and he allowed it.” So the final decision was with Ali. And Hakim ibn Hizam and Jubayr ibn Mut’im talked to Ali to allow his burial. “And Hakim ibn Huzam and Jubayr ibn Mu’tim went and talked to allow, “allow”, his burial. What does this phrase mean? “Allow?!”-Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
What do you understand from their act of talking to Ali to allow his burial so he allowed? What do you understand from that?
Food for thought.
Ali did not wash Uthman for burial nor did he pray the funeral prayer over him.
“When those seeking him (Uthman) heard that, they stood along the way with rocks [to throw at his janaza] and few family members of Uthman accompanied his body. The people of Medina didn’t leave for his janaza, the people of Medina, the armies of which flattened the Persians and the Romans in the life of the Prophet (saw) and the life of the two Caliphs before, they were completely unconcerned with the burial of Uthman!” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“This is what is documented in classical Sunni sources Oh Dr., this is not an Ibadi book. This is a book from the books which you trust and depend on. ” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“And from those who did not bother with the burial is Al Zubayr, and Al Hassan and Abu Jahm and Hudaifa and Marwan, between Maghrib and Isha, and they brought him to a wall from the walls of Madina called, ‘Hash Kawkab’ and it’s outside of Baqee’ and Jubayr bin Mut’im prayed over him.” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
Ali bin Abi Talib did not wash the dead body of Uthman nor did he pray over him.
Ali bin Abi Talib didn’t pray over him, Ali didn’t pray the janaza over Uthman, even though he exists.
“And it was said Hakim ibn Hizam and it was said that Marwan, and the people from the Ansar, Al Andar which the Prophet (saw) advised us concerning: “And people from the Ansar approached to stop them from praying the janaza, then they let them be for fear of fitnah.” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“There were people from the Ansar who wanted to stop them from praying on him. And Ali went to those sitting on the way wanting to throw stones at Uthman’s body and he stopped them. “And he was buried in Hash Kawkab’ “Meaning that he wasn’t buried in Al Baqee’. They were stopped from burying him in Al Baqee’.” “And when Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan was in charge he ordered that the wall be crushed and so it was. And he was entered into Al Baqee.” “And he ordered the people, so they buried the dead near his grave till the grave eventually connected to the graves of Muslims.” –Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“And it was said that he was buried in Al Baqee’ near Hash Kawkab and it was said that his Janaza was attended by Ali and Talha and Zaid bin Thaib and Ka’b bin Malik, the general population and then from his companions. “And it was said that they didn’t perform ghusl on him and he as shrouded in his clothes.” “These are documented in classical Sunni sources which testify to and speak about that.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“These are the stances of the sahaba. And in the book: “Tarikh Al-Khulafa” for Al Sayuti: “and narrated from Abi Al Tufayl Amr bin Wa’ila the companion that he entered on Muawiya, so Muawiya asked him: “Are you not from the killers of Uthman? He said: No, but I’m from those who were present but didn’t support him.” He said: “And what stopped you from helping him? He said: “The Muhajiroon and the Ansar didn’t support him.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
“So the list is long. “If I wanted to narrate to you all those who stopped on Uthman. From them is Ammar bin Yasir. Ammar bin Yasir, the one who’s stomach was stomped on by Uthman’s leg, causing him severe pain. And a whole bunch of sahabah, I can narrate you a list with those that are documented in classical Sunni sources. For example: al-Isaba from Ibn Hajar and al-Usd al-ghābah from Ibn al–Athīr, and at-Tabaqat from Ibn Sa’d and many other books which you trust and depend upon. They mentioned who did Khuruj on Uthman and who faced him and declared his deviance and so on.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h)
Final Reflections
In the end, the history seems rather murky. It seems the chief complaint against Uthman was nepotism. This is followed by accusations of what looks like Uthmans inability or unwillingness to punish his relatives when they did acts of injustice. The third accusation seems to be the distribution of public funds to members of his own family.In the end, it is probable although not certain that the sons of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, along with Muhammed ibn Abi Bakr, assassinated Uthman. This, of course, led to a permanent division among Muslims that has not healed until this day. It seems in hindsight and in retrospect, after the development of the doctrine of ʿadālah aṣ-ṣaḥābah’ and a few strokes of the pen, people are most likely companions and suddenly not companions and there are anonymous individuals where convenient.
It is very curious that you don’t see the Abbasid Sunnis (the majority of Sunnis today) remember the killing of Uthman like you see them remember the killing of Ali ibn Abu Talib. It is also noteworthy that you do not see the Abbasid Sunnis ask Allah (swt) to curse the killers of Uthman. Maybe they know something they don’t want to tell you.
The accusations against Uthman were used to justify his killing and later to delegitimize the Umayyads (who were his clan). The first Abbasid caliph, al-Saffah (“the Blood-Shedder”), ordered the hunting down of all Umayyad members, effectively destroying the dynasty in the east.
Ultimately those who championed the cause of Uthman came to be known as the Umayyads. They brought Islam to places it had not been before. At it’s height during the years 661 to 750 the caliphate was 11.1 million square km making it one of the largest contiguous empires in world history. It was an empire where the praise of Ali and his household was not central at all.
When it comes to Uthman Ibn Affan, the best position is to practice Wuqoof.
Wuqoof is to pause if there is khilaf on the person. Wuqoof is to stop at everyone you don’t know. You do not make a judgement on him/her to be in Walayah or Bara’ah. This is a very safe path to take.
“That was a community that had already gone before. For them is what they earned and for you is what you have earned. And you will not be accountable for what they have done.” (Qur’an 2:141)
“And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” (Quran 59:10)
And, of course, for our Arabic readers: This is prepared by the noble and respected, Shaykh Abu Tayyib Khalfan Altywani. May Allah (swt) bless him for this enlightening work!
May Allah (swt) guide this Ummah to a course that is just!
“And do not obey the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend.” (Qur’an 26:151-152)
﷽
The Ibadis do not encourage revolts against their Imams to avoid bloodshed. It is justifiable only as a last resort and in extreme circumstances. It is the right of every Muslim to be given consultation. The history of the Ibadi Imamate in Oman speaks for itself.
Which are the top 3 longest lasting Muslim empires/dynasties in terms of longevity & stability?
1. 1299-1922 Ottoman/Sunni/Hanafi = 623 years
2. 750-1258 Abbasid/Sunni/Hanafi = 508 years
3. 1154-1624 Nabhani/Ibadi = 470 years
Let us see who really presided over chaos and death and who were beacons of stability.
These excerpts are taken from the book: Ibadhism The Cinderella of Islam.
Uthman ibn Affan—murdered by fellow Muslims — This is because he was not killed by the Uthmaniyyun. He was killed by fellow Muslims as he would not be deposed peacefully. Ali bin Abi Talib—murdered by a fellow Muslim. He was killed by Ibn Muljam in retaliation for the slaughter at Nahawan.
We would personally have switched out the negative word ‘murdered’ with a more neutral word ‘killed’.
Because Muslims can kill if it is with in the limits set by Allah. But murder would imply that a person had no right.
Also, the use of the term Kharijee and Khawarij here by Shaykh Soud H. Al-Ma’awaly (May Allah continue to benefit us by him) is to grant the term to the sectarian reader.
Becasue on page 8 he clearly states:
“Ibadhism is one of the most misunderstood Islamic sects, and is wrongly considered as one of the Khawarij group of sects that are regarded as heretic or even apostate that has deviated from the mainstream of Islam.”
Now, let us take a look at house Abbasids
Now let us take a look at House Ibadi
Btw, when it says above: * deposed * this is like when the president of the former United States gets impeached, or removed from office, for example. Or like the CEO of a company being asked to step down due to negligence and/or other reasons.
The one who is deposed is not sought out and not killed. They are simply deposed for either being incompetent and/or not fit to lead. No favoritisms based upon tribal, clan, ethnic group or family loyalty.
Deposed is the graceful exit from public office.
However, if that individual does not go quietly, revolution is on the table. The Amir of the Muslims is in service to the Muslims and is not above the commands of Allah nor above public critique for lacking in issues of statecraft.
What happens is that the temperment of the general public is taken into an account. If the will of the people is strong the ruler is deposed by force.
However, if it is seen that the ruler has strong backing then one abides with it in patience. A stalemate in which an endless cylce of bloodshed takes place is never a good thing.
Allah (swt) knows best!
If you wish to read more, you are invited to read:
Ibadhism: The Cinderella Story of Islam. This is an excellent book by the noble Shaykh Soud H. Al-Ma’awaly (May Allah continue to benefit us by him)
