Allah (swt) reminded us of the promise of Satan where he said: “And I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah.” (Qur’an 4:119)
“And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbids, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal.” (Qur’an 59:7)
﷽
Some among those who call themselves: “Ahl Sunnah” and in particular those who label themselves as ‘Salafiyah’ will make a huge fuss and an ordeal about Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness) when we stand firm upon clear statements of the Qur’an and Sunnah that state such and such an act will send a person to hellfire.
So they deal in emotions where as we deal with evidences. Their aim is to rise an emotional response. As if they are to say the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt) are something trivial.
“Ah you see for such a small thing the Ibadis say these people will be in hell!”
However, when is disobedience of Allah and his Messenger ever a trivial matter?
Allah has cursed those women who practice tattooing and those who get themselves tattooed, and those who remove their face hairs, and those who create a space between their teeth artificially to look beautiful, and such women as change the features created by Allah. Why then should I not curse those whom the Prophet (saw has cursed? And that is in Allah’s Book. i.e. His Saying: ‘And what the Apostle gives you take it and what he forbids you abstain (from it).’ (Qur’an 59.7)
‘Abdullah reported that Allah had cursed those women who tattooed and who have themselves tattooed, those who pluck hair from their faces and those who make spaces between their teeth for beautification changing what Allah has created. This news reached a woman of the tribe of Asad who was called Umm Ya’qub and she used to recite the Holy Qur’an. She came to him and said:
What is this news that has reached me from you that you curse those women who tattooed and those women who have themselves tattooed, the women who pluck hair from their faces and who make spaces between their teeth for beautification changing what Allah has created? Thereupon ‘Abdullah said: Should I not curse one upon whom Allah’s Messenger (saw) has invoked curse and that is in the Book also. Thereupon that woman said: I read the Qur’an from cover to cover, but I did not find that in it. whereupon he said: If you had read (thoroughly) you would have definitely found this in that (as) Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, has said:” What Allah’s Messenger brings for you accept that and what he has forbidden you, refrain from that.” That woman said: I find this thing in your wife even now. Thereupon he said: Go and see her. She reported: I went to the wife of ‘Abdullah but found nothing of this sort in her. She came back to him and said: I have not seen anything. whereupon he said: Had there been anything like it in her, I would have never slept with her in the bed.
Where in the Qur’an are people cursed by Allah (swt) described as the people of paradise?
It cannot be said that those whom Allah and his Messenger (saw) cursed are the people of paradise. Thus, the Ahl Sunnah believe people will enter hellfire over plucking their eyebrows.
What we know is that the belief that people will enter into the hellfire for a short period of time is a belief of the Jews.
“The Jews claim, “The Fire will not touch us except for a number of days.” Say, “Have you taken a pledge from Allah—for Allah never breaks His word—or are you saying about Allah what you do not know?” (Qur’an 2:80)
We have already established that those who enter the hellfire, the unrepentant sinners they remain there in forever.
Allah (swt) is a being outside of space/time how we would understand the passing of time as 3D carbon based platforms is totally different than the one whom is outside the control of space/time.
“Through which˺ the angels and the ˹holy˺ spirit will ascend to Him on a Day fifty thousand years in length.” (Qur’an 70:4)
“They challenge you ˹O Prophet˺ to hasten the torment. And Allah will never fail in His promise. But a day with your Lord is indeed like a thousand years by your counting.” (Qur’an 22:37)
So the advise to those who count themselves as Ahl Sunnah is to deal with proofs and evidences rather than emotions and caprice.
Rather than attack other schools of Islam over the duration one would spend in hell fire for such and such a deed would that time not be better spent warning the believers? Advising the believers to obey Allah (swt) and his Blessed Messenger (saw) in all his injunctions and commands and fleeing from that which Allah (swt) and his Messenger have ordered us to flee from?
Time better spent on asking the believers to seek Allah’s mercy and to sincerely repent?
Surely that which you think you can bring against other schools can be brought against you.
But what is most important is establishing the haqq of any matter, and not stirring the emotions and the passions, less we ourselves become the Ahl-ul-Ahwa (The People of Whims and Fancies).
“Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you ˹O Prophet˺ under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down serenity upon them and rewarded them with a victory at hand..” (Qur’an 48:18)
﷽
“The noble verse was not phrased as: “Allah was pleased with those who pledged allegience to you under the tree”-which might imply that the pledge itself necessitated *walayah al-haqiqah* (affilation and guardianship based on inner spritual reality)-but rather qualified that pleasure with faith: “Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you.” Thus, Allah’s pleasure applies to those believers whom He knew would remain steadfast in piety. The verse does not specify any particular individual. Neither Ali, nor Abu Bakr (ra), nor anyone else; it is general in nature, and its application to specific individuals is a matter of probability rather than certainty.” -Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi
“Consequently, while is is certain that there were believers among those who pledeged allegiance, the question remains: Who exactly were they? For this reason, the rulings applicable to them are those of *walayah al-zahir* (affiliation and guardianship based on outward status) rather than *walayah al-haqiqa*. And Allah knows best.”-Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi
One of our teachers had informed us the following in regard to the above verse.
“There are accounts that indicate that Imam Ali-May Allah honour his face, in light of this verse (Qur’an 48:18) repented to Allah of his sins. For this reason, some of our scholars do not subscribe to the view of disavowing Imam Ali -May Allah honour his face.” -Shaykh Rashid Al Miskiri
What is also interesting is the exact same verse is used to show the outrage at the killing of the companions at Nahrawan.
And a large majority of those killed from Ahl Nahrawan were companions and thousands of Muslims and the majority of those killed from Ahl Nahrawan that day were from the best of people on the earth that day and the most ascetic. Amongst them were those who fought the battle of Badr; those who gave allegiance under that tree and reciters and the best of the tabi’un.
“Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you ˹O Prophet˺ under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down serenity upon them and rewarded them with a victory at hand..” (Qur’an 48:18)
And it is a known position that whomever Allah purifies becomes among the people of walayah (divine allegiance/guardianship). So how is it that, in the end, they label the Ibadiyya as Kharijites, as if they are challenging Allah by passing a judgment upon them that is contrary to Allah’s judgment?!
Prima Qur’an comments: For us Shaykh Abu Hamed Al Sawafi’s point is very strong. For even if we knew for certain that Abu Bakr (ra), Ali, or the companions of Ahl Nahrawan were present by name the verse is clear that Allah (swt) is pleased with the believers. He does not indicate who present at the pledge were believers.
Evidence used by the Ibadi school to show that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had repented for his sins.
That is repentance for the sin of arbitration and for the slaughter of the people of Nahrawan. That he felt remorse in his heart and realized that killing the people of Nahrawan was a greave mistake. Thus, by extension is reasoned that he would not feel that way if he did not see them as being in the right. ipso facto-the arbitration was a colossal mistake.
In other words there came a point in which he felt the walls closing in around him and saw the great loss the chain of events that befell him. These Ibadis are those who hold Ali Ibn Abu Talib in walayah. They do not hold him in bara’ah. Nor do they practice wuquoof. They will often say Karram Allahu Wajhahū (Allah honoured his face). Though it is unlikely they will say Radeyallāhu ′Anhu (May Allah pleased with him). As this is exclusively reserved for those companions who were not known to do any open sins against Allah (swt). However, the act of repentance is certainly the most pleasing forms of worship.
Narrated from Ikrimah, The client of Ibn Abbas, from Abdullah ibn Abbas, who narrated to him from Qunbur – the client of Ali – that when Ali had killed the people of Al-Nahr, he and I turned our faces toward the river to wash off. While we were doing so, Ali began to cry, and he cried for a long time. Then I asked him: “Why these tears, O Amir al-Mu’minin?” He said: “Woe to you, O Qunbur! Do you know whom we have just fought and killed here? We fought and killed the best of this Ummah and its reciters!” I then said: “Indeed! By Allah, it is as you say, O Amir al-Mu’minin.” I too then began to cry. Ali then said again: “Woe to you, O Qunbur,” scrunching his nose and frowning. He then cried for a long time again, and his regret for his action of killing them. The people of Al-Nahr became apparent, and we could see this from the state he had entered.
And it was told to me that after killing the people of Al-Nahr, Ali’s companions walked around surveying the dead so they could bury them. Then one of them passed by his brother’s corpse and said: “This is my brother so-and-so.” He then threw dust over his head and fled the army in anger. And those who fled the army on that very day alone numbered 12,000. They would search among the dead, see their own relatives, bury them, then flee from Ali’s army and desert him.
Source: (Al-Jawahir Al-Muntaqah – The Selected Gems – by Abul-Qasem Ibn Ibrahim Al-Barradi, may Allah have mercy on him, pp. 155–156)
Because of this, some Ibadi scholars do not advocate disavowing (bara’ah) Ali. This shows that the Ibadi position on Ali is not uniform. There is room for walayah (loyalty) and recognition of his repentance.
“Imām ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (may Allah honor his face) said in describing the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Whoever saw him suddenly stood in awe of him, and whoever mixed with him came to know him and loved him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“Yes. Whoever saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at first glance, without any prior acquaintance, was filled with awe. An awe of reverence, honor, respect, and veneration. But when one mixed with him, he would come to know him. Whether in the mosque, or in the market, or on the battlefield, or on the road. He would mix with him in war and in peace; he would see his interaction with events; he would see how he mixed with people; he would see how he spoke; he would see how he scattered his pearls of wisdom—how, how, and how. He could not help but love him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“And ‘Alī (may Allah be pleased with him) spoke the truth. That presence which those noble Companions attained, those who were around the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). No human being can match their station; no one can reach that exalted honor, that lofty glory, that sublime rank. No one.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“But that presence was not confined to the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Whoever comes to know the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) through the verses of the Book of Allah—for Allah described him with those magnificent, splendid, and sublime attributes and whoever looks at what has been transmitted to us by those noble men who recorded the biography (sīrah) of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and they reached the highest level in transmitting and documenting it. He knows and realizes that that presence remains. Whether the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was alive upon the earth or beneath the soil. May my father and mother be sacrificed for him, peace and blessings be upon him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“O beloved ones! In consecutive and successive sessions of a program that was previously held in the Great Mosque of Banī ‘Ubaydah in the south of Wilāyat al-Sīb.. This program is called “Malādh” and will be hosted next Thursday, starting from Thursday afternoon until the sunrise of Friday, if Allah wills. And in this edition, if Allah wills, which will be after a break. All of this by the grace of Allah. Our discussion will be about the Chosen Prophet, the Venerated, the Honored (peace and blessings be upon him). We will speak about his character, his conduct, his contemplation, some scenes from his life, and his daily routine. May the best of prayers and peace be upon him.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
“So whoever would like to join us, by the permission of Allah, I will attach some details to this clip for those who wish to participate. And may Allah grant us success, facilitate for us, make things easy for us, and enable us to broadcast the episodes in a live stream, if Allah wills, on the mosque’s platforms or any platform that will be announced at that time, if Allah wills. About the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So that we may achieve or reach that station—the station of one who tasted and knew, and one who knew and drew, and one who drew and attained honor.” -Ustadh Zahir Al Abdissalam
Summary and Conclusion.
Qur’an 48:18 is indeterminate (open to interpretation) and can be used to support different positions.
The verse speaks generally about “the believers” who pledged allegiance. It does not name any individual. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that it applies to any particular person. Whether Ali, Abu Bakr (ra), or the people of Nahrawan. However, it has been used to sanctify Ali, Abu Bakr (ra) and the people of Nahrawan.
This highlights the interpretive indeterminacy: the verse can be cited both to defend Ali and to condemn his actions against the Nahrawanites.
We hope this information is helpful for those seeking the truth.
“O believers, if an evildoer brings you any news, verify so you do not harm people unknowingly, becoming regretful for what you have done.” (Qur’an 49:6)
﷽
In Islamic jurisprudence, khabar al-āhād (solitary report) is a narration that does not reach the level of mutawatir (mass transmission). In terms of its epistemic value, it is generally considered dhannī (probabilistic/speculative) rather than qat’i (absolutely certain).
What has happened is that we as Muslims have not done a great job in explaining why do we accept the lone narrator reports in jurisprudence?
It is very clear on why we do not accept the lone narrator reports in matters of theology.
Shaykh Massoud bin Mohammed al Miqbali (h) he made this very clear in his lecture here:
This has lead many Muslims to have an inconsistent epistemology. Where one will take the word of people as given for practically all facets of life. However, the same one will be skeptical or outright reject the words of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The khabar al-āhād (solitary report) yields epistemic probability, and they do not yeild absolute certainty (qat’i).
This khabar al-āhād (solitary report)is further broken down into three categories:
Gharib (strange/scarce): Narrated by only a single reporter at every point in the chain.
Aziz (rare/strong): Narrated by exactly two people at every point in the chain.
Mashur (well-known): Narrated by at least three to nine people at every point in the chain.
Now coming back to the worddhannī. This means that there is a probability of it being true and a probability of it not being true.
This is why honesty and integrity are very important in Islam. It is why lying is a major sin in Islam.
In fact, every society at every level values honesty and integrity within individuals.
The Qur’an gives us qat’i (decisive text) that informs the Muslims that we are to rely upon dhannīin testimonies and as witness.
“The month of Ramadan is the month in which the Quran was revealed; a guide for the people, the most authoritative of all guidance and a criteria to discern right from wrong. Anyone from among you knows that the month of Ramadan has begun, he must start to fast. Those who are sick or on a journey have to fast the same number of days at another time. Allah does not impose any hardship upon you. He wants you to have comfort so that you may complete the fast, glorify Allah for His having given you guidance, and that, perhaps, you would give Him thanks.” (Qur’an 2:185)
The basis for begining out fasting in the month of Ramadan is on the report of a single witness.
“O believers! When you contract a loan for a fixed period of time, commit it to writing. Let the scribe maintain justice between the parties. The scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has taught them to write. They will write what the debtor dictates, bearing Allah in mind and not defrauding the debt. If the debtor is incompetent, weak, or unable to dictate, let their guardian dictate for them with justice. Call upon two of your men to witness. If two men cannot be found, then one man and two women of your choice will witness—so if one of the women forgets the other may remind her. The witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. You must not be against writing for a fixed period—whether the sum is small or great. This is more just in the sight of Allah, and more convenient to establish evidence and remove doubts. However, if you conduct an immediate transaction among yourselves, then there is no need for you to record it, but call upon witnesses when a deal is finalized. Let no harm come to the scribe or witnesses. If you do, then you have gravely exceeded the bounds. Be mindful of Allah, for Allah teaches you. And Allah has knowledge of all things.” (Qur’an 2:282)
“O believers! When death approaches any of you, call upon two just Muslim men to witness as you make a bequest; otherwise, two non-Muslims if you are afflicted with death while on a journey. If you doubt, keep them after prayer and let them testify under oath, “By Allah! We would never sell our testimony for any price, even in favour of a close relative, nor withhold the testimony of Allah. Otherwise, we would surely be sinful.” (Qur’an 5:106)
“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 24:4)
“And those who accuse their wives [of adultery] and have no witnesses except themselves – then the witness of one of them [shall be] four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful. And the fifth [oath will be] that the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars. But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the liars. And the fifth [oath will be] that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he was of the truthful.” (Qur’an 24:6-9)
“Then when they have reached the end of their waiting period, either retain them honourably or separate from them honourably. And call two of your reliable men to witness and bear true testimony for Allah. This is enjoined on whoever has faith in Allah and the Last Day. And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make a way out for them.” (Qur’an 65:2)
“O believers! Do not kill game while on pilgrimage. Whoever kills game intentionally must compensate by offering its equivalenceas judged by two just men among you to be offered at the Sacred House, or by feeding the needy, or by fasting so that they may taste the consequences of their violations. Allah has forgiven what has been done. But those who persist will be punished by Allah. And Allah is Almighty, capable of punishment.” (Qur’an 5:95)
“And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted with all things.” (Qur’an 4:35)
We will translate one section that is relevant for our discussion here. We will also translate the full discussion on the other matters as well.
“One of the rationalists comes and says: “Here you are, differing regarding such hadiths. The meaning of these hadiths is not correct; they indicate probability(dhann), as some have said, and probabilty is not acted upon.” Fine, probability is not acted upon. Meaning that it could be correct in one possibility, or it could be incorrect. So this also means he would not act upon the Qur’an in many matters, regarding the commands and prohibitions of the Qur’an. Allah, blessed and exalted, has commanded us in explicit text to accept the testimony of two just witnesses in judgment: “And bring to witness two just men from among you”. This is a definitive Qur’anic text. He says: Yes, this is definitive in the Qur’an. Fine, but if we come to application: suppose someone claims let’s say, the phone is broken, or in my estimation, this pen is yours. Okay, if this person stands up and takes this pen in his hand and says, “Ustadh Khalid said this is my pen,” then fine — bring two witnesses. He brings two witnesses, and the judge rules based on these two witnesses because they are just, according to what he sees either through his personal knowledge of them or through their being vouched for. Is this ruling definitive? Is it definitive or not? As for the fact that he rules by the testimony of two just witnesses, that is definitive from the Qur’an. That he is commanded to judge by the testimony of two just witnesses. But is the justice of these two men definitively established? It can never be definitively established. A judge can never be certain about any person. I said to him: We do not have definitive certainty regarding anyone’s testimony of course, except for the prophets and messengers. And he says what does he say? That no one’s testimony can be definitively affirmed. Allah, blessed and exalted, has poured the meaning into its molds, and it is not my fault if the cows do not understand. So we told him: In application, we cannot be certain that so-and-so is such-and-such. We do not say that the ummah has no just people. The ummah has just people. But when you want to rule based on the testimony of two just witnesses, fine. In terms of application, this is probablity(dhann). So if you rule by probabilty, fine. What about prayers? If a person does not know the direction of the qiblah, and one, two, or three people come and tell him the qiblah is this way, for example — is he certain of their statement?” -Shaykh Saeed bin Mabrouk Al-Qanubi (h).
“Fine, they say it is established. For example, two people even regarding the differences of opinion among scholars if two just witnesses testify to the sighting of the crescent for the beginning or end of Ramadan, it is established. Fine, two just witnesses testify to seeing the crescent on the day of doubt. Fasting is prohibited on that day, and on the day of Eid, fasting is prohibited. Does he accept their testimony and fast or break his fast? Yes. Fine, the fast of Ramadan is established by definitive evidence. Yes, “The month of Ramadan in which the Qur’an was revealed.” Fine, is he certain of the truthfulness of the two just witnesses? He is not certain of their truthfulness. Likewise, in matters of rights, and in many matters of purification. If, for example, someone knows that his garment was affected by impurity, and a just person tells him, “I have washed it,” is he certain that it has been washed? He is not certain, but he is not required to be certain in such matters. Testimonies cut off hands, and even cut off heads. Fine. And one follows according to the known rulings you have. Fine, by the testimony of two just witnesses, a person does not have certainty. A man marries a woman, saying “I married you,” and so-and-so and so-and-so testify that she is his wife. Fine, he then permits himself to look at her, touch her, have marital relations, and the children are his children, and he inherits from her and she from him, and all the other known rulings. And if he divorces, likewise the known rulings, and rulings on dhihar, manumission, and other matters the testimony of just witnesses all of these are probabilistic (dhanniyyah). The underlying principles are definitive, but in terms of establishment and application, they are probable. So how can they apply such matters if they wanted to?”-Shaykh Saeed bin Mabrouk Al-Qanubi (h).
Based on the information provided in the text, the Shaykh is making the following implications for Islamic jurisprudence regarding the use of khabar al-āhād (solitary/lone-narrator reports) and dhannī (speculative) evidence:
The Qur’anic Foundation: Certainty of Source vs. Certainty of Application
The Shaykh establishes a crucial distinction:
Definitive textual sources (e.g., the Qur’anic command to accept the testimony of two just witnesses – “And bring to witness two just men from among you”), which are qaṭ’ī (definitive and certain) in their textual authenticity.
The practical application of that text, which is dhannī (speculative/probabilistic) because it depends on human factors. Such as verifying the actual justice (‘adālah) of the two witnesses in a given case.
The key insights: Even when the source is certain (the Qur’an), the application in any particular case is always probable(dhannī). A judge can never be 100% certain that the two witnesses before him are truly just. He acts on outward indications.
Therefore, certainty in the source does not translate into certainty in the ruling derived from that particular application.
His point: Even when the source is certain, the implementation is always probable. A judge can never be 100% certain that the two witnesses before him are truly just; he only acts on outward indications (personal knowledge or external vouching). Therefore, certainty in the source does not translate into certainty in the ruling derived from that particular application.
The Practical Necessity Argument
Many everyday legal rulings cannot be established through mass-transmitted reports alone:
Details of prayer
Transaction rules
Family law
Purification rules
Without accepting khabar al-āhād, the legal system would lack guidance on most practical matters.
Despite being dhannī (speculative and fallible), the shaykh argues that such evidence is fully actionable in Islamic law. He gives multiple examples where even definitive rulings (like the obligation of Ramadan fasting, the prohibition of fasting on Eid, marriage, divorce, inheritance, purification of clothes, and even capital punishments) are implemented based on the testimony of two witnesses. Yet no one claims absolute certainty about the witnesses’ truthfulness.
Speculative Evidence is Sufficient for Action in Practice
The implication: Islamic jurisprudence does not require qaṭ’ (absolute certainty) for every ruling in practice. Probabilty(dhann), when based on valid legal mechanisms (like witness testimony), is legally sufficient and binding, even though it carries the possibility of error.
The Argument from Consistency (Reductio ad Absurdum)
Rejecting Speculative Hadith Would Lead to the Collapse of the Legal System
The shaykh uses this analogy to answer the rationalist who dismisses āhād hadiths because they are dhannī and “probability is not acted upon.” The shaykh turns this argument on its head:
“If you refuse to act on dhann in the case of hadith, then you must also refuse to act on dhann in all these other areas of Islamic law (testimony, prayer direction, purification, marriage, etc.).”
Since that is impossible and would render the entire legal system unworkable, the implication is clear:
Speculative evidence (dhann) is not only acceptable in Islamic jurisprudence, it is unavoidable and integral to the functioning of the law.
The Distinction Between Theology and Jurisprudence
Why take the dhanni in jurisprudence but not take the dhanni in theology?
Theology (ʿAqidah)
Jurisprudence (Fiqh)
Requires absolute certainty (yaqīn)
Probability (ẓann) is sufficient
Concerns eternal salvation
Concerns worldly actions
Doctrines about Allah, prophethood, afterlife
Practical legal rulings
Cannot risk error
Error is possible and accommodated
Qur’an + Mutawātir only
Qur’an + Ahad + Consensus + Analogy +Various legal parameters defined by respective schools.
Rationale: Matters of belief require certainty because they concern eternal salvation; legal rulings concern worldly actions where probability is acceptable for practical and pragmatic purposes.
The Real Issue is Not Epistemological Certainty but Legal Reliability
The shaykh implies that the proper criterion for accepting khabar al-āhād is not whether it yields qaṭ’ (certainty), but whether it meets the juridical standards of reliability (ṭhrāq al-dhann – giving a strong/overwhelming presumption of correctness).
Just as a judge accepts testimony based on outward justice without penetrating the inner conscience of the witnesses, scholars accept āhād reports based on established criteria of narrators’ reliability, without requiring absolute knowledge of their inner truthfulness.
Summary of the Implication:
The shaykh is arguing that the dhannī (speculative) nature of khabar al-āhād does not disqualify it from being a valid source of evidence in Islamic jurisprudence. On the contrary, most legal rulings in practice operate on dhann. Including those derived from the Qur’an when applied through human testimony.
To reject āhād reports on the grounds that they are merely probable would be inconsistent, because it would require rejecting the vast majority of Islamic legal rulings that are themselves implemented on the basis of probability, not certainty. Thus, speculative evidence is legally authoritative (ḥujjah) in action, even if it falls short of absolute epistemological certainty.
The Role of Human Fallibility
The Shaykh emphasizes that narrators are fallible:
They may forget.
They may err in retention.
They may have misunderstood.
They may have narrated before abrogation.
Their opinions may contradict their narrations.
Examples given:
‘Umar ibn al-Khattab(ra) forgot the tayammum incident.
Ibn ‘Abbas (ra and others differed on narrations.
Scholars may reject a narration due to hidden defects (‘ilal).
The Methodology of Evaluating Ahad Reports
The Shaykh outlines how ahad reports are evaluated for jurisprudence:
Examine the chain – Is it continuous? Are narrators trustworthy?
Examine the text – Does it contradict established principles?
Consider abrogation – Was it early or late in revelation?
Consider interpretation – Is the apparent meaning intended?
Check for consensus – Has the ummah agreed on the contrary?
Look for hidden defects (‘ilal) – Subtle issues undermining authenticity.
Summary: The Ibadi Position
Aspect
Theology
Jurisprudence
Standard
Certainty (yaqīn)
Probability (ẓann)
Source
Qur’an + Mutawātir
Qur’an + Ahad + Consensus + Analogy +Various legal parameters defined by respective schools
Result
Definitive doctrines
Practical rulings (may be revised)
Error
Not permitted
Permitted; law accommodates human fallibility
The Ibadi position is epistemologically consistent:
Certainty is required for theology because it concerns eternal truths.
Probability is sufficient for law because law operates in the realm of human affairs.
The Qur’an itself demonstrates this principle through its acceptance of witness testimony.
Rejecting probability would collapse the legal system entirely.
The Ibadi school thus maintains a dual-track epistemology:
High epistemic standard for matters of faith.
Practical epistemic standard for matters of action.
This allows us to preserve certainty in theology while having a functional, comprehensive legal system based on the full range of prophetic traditions.
The following is the respected Shaykh speaking on other matters not related to the above topic. However, we have decided to translate and share what he has said for the benefit of the general readers. The Shaykh is given legal verdicts and answering questions given by students and those who seek knowledge. May Allah (swt) continue to bless the Shaykh and bless others by him.
Shaykh Saeed bin Mabrouk Al-Qanubi (h) fatwa session.
“But I say: the one who does not examine many of these issues may reject some hadiths because he sees them as contradicting what has been settled upon, and he may rule that hadiths are contradictory, and he may blunder about blindly, and take from such [superficial views]. There come those wicked people and say: ‘No problem they all used to perform ablution together. No problem a woman can come with a non-mahram man and do this, uncover her head, do this and that. You are extreme and obstinate! This is the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw), and you claim to follow it, yet you reject those who oppose it, etc., etc.’
It is necessary to know the time in which the Messenger (saw)spoke or did something. Was it before the ruling that is now settled, or not? If we say the first excuse [abrogation], the scholar would not reject that hadith. The second issue is abrogation itself. Yes. He was speaking about the narration of Rabī’ah regarding the issue of [the prohibition of] predatory animals. So how does one respond to this narration? Yes . By reconciling it [with other texts], as we said. If it cannot be reconciled with the Qur’an, then [it may be rejected], but here it can be reconciled. No problem. He says: ‘I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden…’ yes, at that time there was nothing forbidden except these things, as we know. Even prayer had not yet been prescribed in the form we see today, and fasting had not yet been prescribed in the form it is now, and zakāh had not yet been fully detailed . It was general at the beginning, and jihād was not originally obligatory at all, but rather recommended. Likewise, some things like wine was lawful. Can someone come, for example, and find that Hamzah (may Allah be pleased with him) drank wine, as mentioned in some narrations, and then say that wine is lawful because Hamzah drank it, and that he (Hamzah) could not have done such a thing, and even if we assume he did, why did the Prophet (saw)not rebuke him?
The answer: He drank it at a time when wine had not yet been forbidden. So it is true that it can be said at that time: ‘I do not find it [forbidden]’. Then the prohibition of wine came later. Likewise, in many matters, no one can [ignore this principle]. And this is an issue where some may err regarding certain hadiths. They do not distinguish between what came early and what came later. For example, one finds a report that men and women used to perform ablution together. Someone may come and say: ‘This hadith is not authentic, because it is not possible for a woman to perform ablution with a non-mahram man. She would have to wash her hands, wipe her head, etc.’ But this hadith is not necessarily invalid, because it could be that firstly the report says ‘men and women’ in an absolute or general wording, and this absolute wording is intended to be restricted, or this general wording is intended to be specified. Who were the ones performing ablution together? They were mahrams with their mahrams there is no problem with a wife and her husband, nor with a woman and her brother, son, father, grandfather, grandson, nephew, etc. That is how some scholars interpret it. And some scholars said: Yes, but this was before the hijab was prescribed. But I am not in need of preponderance here.
What I am saying is: the one who does not examine many of these issues may reject some hadiths because he sees them as contradicting what has been settled upon, and he may judge that hadiths contradict each other, and he may blunder about blindly, and take such approaches. Those wicked people come and say: ‘No problem, they all used to perform ablution together. No problem, a woman can come with a non-mahram man and do this, uncover her head, do this and that. You are extreme and obstinate! This is the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw), and you claim to follow it, yet you reject those who oppose it, etc., etc.’ It is necessary to know the time in which the Messenger (saw) spoke or did something. Was it before the ruling that is now settled, or not?
For example, someone comes to the issue of visiting graves: it was permissible, then prohibited, then permitted again. Can someone take a hadith containing the prohibition and go to a man visiting graves and forbid him from doing so, claiming that the Prophet (saw) forbade it? When the Prophet (saw) later permitted it? Likewise, regarding predatory animals with fangs: they were permissible in the past, then later prohibited. Though some scholars say there is no problem with the hadith because the Arabs were not accustomed to eating such animals, so the prohibition came, and Allah said: ‘I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to eat except these things…’ And the Arabs originally did not eat these. I am not in need of preponderance between these two views, but I say: the hadith is authentic and established. No problem. And do we say this is from the category of abrogating and abrogated, or not? There is no problem in this, and it requires discussion: what is meant by permissibility here? Is it legal permissibility, or is it permissibility based on the original principle? This then branches into whether it is abrogating/abrogated or not.
Someone may also come to the issue of ‘water is from water’ . This was at a time when a man who came to his wife and did not ejaculate was not required to perform ghusl; ghusl was only required upon ejaculation. Later, ghusl was prescribed generally . Whether the man ejaculated or not. Can someone use the first hadith as evidence and say: ‘Ghusl is required because water is from water,’ and then say: ‘These two hadiths contradict. One says water is from water, and the other says when he sits between her four limbs… look at these contradictory hadiths!’? There is no problem with these hadiths. That was at one time, and this at another. Contradiction only occurs between two matters if they are at the same time. If one informant tells you I was in Muscat yesterday, and another tells you I am in Sinaw today is there contradiction? No, that was at one time, and this at another. But if both informants told you that at the exact same hour, not even the same day, because it could be morning or afternoon; they said I was in Muscat at that exact hour, then we would say this is a contradiction; one of them is mistaken. Either lying or erring. He may have seen my car there (and I have another car) and assumed I was there. This happens.
I remember once someone called wanting to speak to Shaykh Ahmad, and the call was transferred — there were voice recordings of Shaykh Ahmad. When they transferred him, someone in the other location said: ‘Peace be upon you, I wanted Shaykh Ahmad to listen to a lesson with him.’ When he heard that, he assumed Shaykh Ahmad was giving a lesson at that moment. But Shaykh Ahmad may have been traveling to another region of Oman, or even outside Oman. So one person says: ‘I heard Shaykh Ahmad just now in Sinaw giving a lecture,’ and another says: ‘No, Shaykh Ahmad is currently in such-and-such country.’ We say: No, that is wrong. He merely assumed. When he heard that recording, he thought Shaykh Ahmad was currently giving a lesson, but in reality it could have been from 10 or 20 years ago. It was recorded. Or someone saw Shaykh Ahmad’s car driven by someone else coming to the ministry, so he assumed Shaykh Ahmad was there. Such contradictions occur due to error. But if the matter occurred at two different times, there is no contradiction. And this is what abrogation is about: if a ruling was established before, then changed; if it was not previously established, then the first was based on the original principle of permissibility, and the second is a new ruling.
The same applies to domestic donkeys. Initially they were not forbidden, then later forbidden. And the same applies to temporary marriage (mut’ah). It was lawful, then forbidden, and scholars differed on whether it was permitted again then forbidden again. The outcome is that it is now forbidden. Some scholars say it was lawful, then forbidden, then lawful, then forbidden; others say it was lawful, then forbidden. As for the other reconciliation regarding the hadith of Khaybar that mentions that wording there is scrutiny over its authenticity. We do not need to establish that it was lawful at one time and then forbidden. Likewise, predatory animals were lawful at one time according to one view. Though we mentioned there is a view that they were never lawful, but rather were not part of Arab diet, so they were not even mentioned.
The excuse of that scholar or those scholars is that some of them had not come across the hadith at all; some criticized it; some came across it in a wording open to interpretation. Even if one says that prohibition in principle indicates forbiddance. As Shaykh al-Imām al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and its ruling is forbiddance and permanence. But here there is a contextual indicator that shifts it. However, if someone comes, what should he do? Should he say: ‘I follow such-and-such’? How can you say ‘I follow al-Sālimī’ when you were criticizing this hadith, and you were capable of criticism, or you were not? If he was not capable, why would he criticize it? In reality, he is not capable, or you have something in its text that needs discussion. But if you say: ‘I just follow,’ then we find people like this. They do not distinguish between these matters. Among them are ignorant people, and among them are those with ulterior motives. Authentic, established hadiths from the Prophet (saw)are brought to them, but if they desire a particular matter, they pay no attention except to those hadiths that suit them, claiming: ‘We are followers, and we follow so-and-so scholar, and we are safe — and no scholar has said you are safe by following in such matters.’
Yes, a person may be considered ‘safe’. Consider if a person prays facing the wrong direction, then the matter becomes clear to him. People whose testimony he cannot reject come and say: ‘O so-and-so, you are facing east, and the qiblah is west.’ Is he told ‘you are safe’? Fine . So-and-so, my companion, prayed and finished. How can you say ‘safe’? We say ‘safe’ because the proof had not been established against him. I think this is clear. The proof had not been established that the qiblah was in that direction; he knew the qiblah differently and thought it was that way. So he prayed, no problem. Or if a person performed tayammum and prayed outside. Fine. He prayed and finished, and they said: ‘So-and-so, you prayed. No problem; you don’t have to repeat it.’ This is the well-known correct view. He prayed, but he did tayammum. He must perform wudū’ or ghusl if he was in a state of major impurity, or if a woman was in menstruation or postnatal bleeding, then she must perform ghusl. But that does not mean he is commanded to repeat that prayer. However, tayammum does not suffice when water becomes available it does not suffice. He says: ‘How can you say he is safe? I also did tayammum like he did, he performed the prayer, and may have even died. But you did not perform the prayer because the proof had been established against you. For example, you were informed of the presence of water that you could reach before the prayer time ended, or even if water was available but at an excessive price. Scholars have detailed this issue regarding excessive price or otherwise. The point is: if a person does not intend to oppose [the truth], then here there is a difference.
So if he has come across the hadith but in what form? In a wording that allows interpretation, while it is authentically established in a wording that leaves no room for interpretation. A scholar may come across the hadith but forget it, and this is common, clear, and well-known. For example, ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allah be pleased with him) was with ‘Ammār and the Prophet(saw), and they performed tayammum, the Prophet(saw) instructed tayammum for ‘Ammār due to major impurity. But later, when the issue arose again, ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) forbade tayammum. ‘Ammār said: ‘O Commander of the Faithful, do you not remember when we were in such-and-such situation?’ and he reminded him of that incident, and the period between the death of the Prophet (saw) and the death of ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was only about a year. Even if we say it happened at the end of that period, there is no doubt it happened before. Yet he forgot.
Here, some people may come with ulterior motives and say: ‘Look at ‘Umar! How can he be a Commander of the Faithful and not even understand this matter?’ This is for the wisdom of Allah . A scholar may attain much knowledge, yet subḥān Allāh, some matters are hidden from him. Matters are hidden from those greater than him. One scholar is reported to have delved deeply into the chapter of sales and become very knowledgeable. Then one day a layman came and asked him a question, and he could not answer it. However, someone much less knowledgeable than him in that field answered it. He realized and said: ‘There is a share for the self here’. He had thought he had attained everything, but this is for those who hold themselves accountable in such matters. So no problem. ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) may have forgotten. But how many did he forget? If he forgot one, two, or three hadiths what can be said? He forgot (may Allah be pleased with him), even though ‘Ammār reminded him he reminded him, but ‘Umar did not recall. So what if there is a chain of narration: ‘So-and-so narrated to me from so-and-so from so-and-so…’?
I saw some people criticizing Musnad al-Rabī’ on the grounds that al-Rabī’ did not narrate from Abū ‘Ubaydah, citing that it is narrated from Abū ‘Ubaydah that he denied the prohibition of predatory animals. So how could he deny that while narrating the hadith? This does not impugn Abū ‘Ubaydah — neither his knowledge, nor his narration of the Sunnah, nor the fact that this hadith is narrated through him. It is possible he said that before he came across the hadith; or he came across it and forgot; or other known possibilities. Similar things occurred to other imams of the schools of jurisprudence. It is possible he narrated this hadith after holding that view and then retracted to what he narrated from the hadith. Moreover, that narration from Abū ‘Ubaydah may not be established. Even if found in some fiqh books — because the chain to Abū ‘Ubaydah is not continuous; the one who attributed that statement to Abū ‘Ubaydah may have erred.
As for their claim that they criticized the narrator saying ‘if the narration is authentic’ does that mean they criticized Abū ‘Ubaydah, or Jābir, or Ibn ‘Abbās? No, it does not necessarily mean they criticized any of them. But if the narration is established, it may be said they criticized the narration of that narrator because he erred — even if he was trustworthy. When someone rejects the narration of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) when he said ‘the Messenger of Allah (saw) performed ‘umrah in Rajab,’ and ‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) rejected it does that mean she impugned Ibn ‘Umar? No, it impugns his narration, though one might loosely say it impugns the narrator. By this we mean his retention of that particular narration. This is something one should be aware of: when it is said they impugned his memory, it does not mean they impugned his memory absolutely; it means they impugned his retention of that specific narration. This is well-known.
Sometimes, in books of jarḥ wa ta’dīl especially abridgments like al-Mīzān, al-Mughnī, al-Ḍu’afā’, al-Tahdhīb and its branches they abbreviate and do not mention the incident or the reason for the criticism. They simply say ‘they impugned his memory’ meaning his memory for that narration, not absolutely. They may even use expressions that seem to disparage the narrator, though that is not their intent. Similarly, scholars impugned the statement of Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Prophet (saw) married Maymūnah while in iḥrām. They said Ibn ‘Abbās erred. The news reached him about the timing of the marriage, and he assumed the Prophet (saw) married her at that time, while in fact he had married her earlier. When the news reached him, he assumed otherwise and reported accordingly.
From here comes the statement: ‘A solitary hadith does not establish creedal matters.’ They think that when we say this, we are impugning something we are certain came from the Prophet (saw). As some people say: ‘You are rejecting the Messenger of Allah (saw)!’ They say: ‘Whoever rejects the Prophet (saw) is lost and ruined.’ But he (the scholar) is saying: ‘The Prophet (saw)did not say this’ or at least ‘I doubt whether he said it or not.’ He is not saying: ‘The Prophet said it, and I reject his words.’ No Muslim would ever say: ‘O Messenger of Allah, you say such-and-such, but your words carry no weight.’ They should have paid attention to this. But calamity! Whoever is not granted success is in calamity; and its opposite is success. The successful one is guided to good, but the forsaken one is struck with calamity.
So one person, when confronted with the hadith ‘Where is Allah?’ said: ‘You are rejecting the Messenger of Allah (saw)!’ Fine. If we wanted to treat him likewise, we would say: ‘You too, when you narrated this hadith, then Allah willed [otherwise], you said this is a Jewish creed.’ On your own logic, someone can come and say: ‘You are rejecting the Messenger of Allah (saw) and describing his words as a Jewish creed. Meaning he held Jewish beliefs’. Even though the hadith is in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. What is your answer to this?
There is no doubt we do not accuse him of saying ‘the Prophet did not say this’ and this is an error whether from al-Bukhārī, or his shaykh, or his shaykh’s shaykh, or one of the narrators. The Prophet cannot have said it. And we say to you: if so, we also say: ‘Where is Allah?’ This wording was not said by the Prophet (saw) It may be from Muslim, or from Muslim’s shaykh, or from his shaykh’s shaykh. There is no doubt that al-Bukhārī is higher in rank than Muslim, and Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is higher than Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. If it is permissible for you to impugn a narration in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, why is it not permissible for us to impugn a narration in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim? What is his answer? Even if he died many years ago, what is the answer of his followers? They make things seem huge, so that some poor student or layperson thinks: ‘This school of thought rejects the Messenger of Allah (saw) and does not accept his words!’ This is flimsy, incoherent talk. No one has ever said this. We do not accuse any Muslim of rejecting a hadith of the Prophet (saw). Rather, we say: a scholar may reject a hadith because it is weak in his view.
They differ on some hadiths. They differ on their indications or even their authenticity. Abrogation in the Qur’an for example. Some scholars differed on whether certain matters are abrogated or not; this indicates prohibition, that indicates recommendation or permissibility, this indicates obligation, that indicates something else. In specifying generalities of the Qur’an, they differed; in restricting, in interpretation, in the meanings of many Qur’anic verses. Anyone who looks at books of tafsīr of rulings knows this. These things may raise some doubts. Not long ago, some people came to me with this doubt They did not know how to respond: ‘How can hadiths be probable and we act on probability?’ Fine. These rulings are agreed upon by the ummah, and the evidence indicates the authority of the Sunnah. This is a matter definitively established among the ummah. Leave aside those who have no value. But application of some hadiths remains we do not exaggerate the matter. Application in some hadiths this also exists in the case of the Qur’an. Yes, the establishment of the Qur’anic text is definitive, but hadiths differ.
What time is it now? 38 minutes [past]. Usually, how long do they stop? 11:30. So we have about an hour less. The point is: many matters arise. The issue of forgetfulness exists. A scholar may remember a hadith and forget it later. As I mentioned before, even some hadiths in Musnad al-Rabī’ , When Shaykh al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him), Shaykh Abū Nabhān, and Ibn Madād too, regarding some hadiths these are later books. They say: Musnad of Abū Ya’qūb is not sufficient, and scholars for example, if we bring an example from Ibn Barakah, or Abū Sa’īd, or some early scholars they would reject them because they had not seen Musnad al-Rabī’, as it was not available. Fine. SShaykh al-Sālimī saw Musnad al-Rabī’, and Abū Nabhān saw it. When Shaykh al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him) came to the hadith of combining prayers, initially he seemed to want to discuss it, but then he realized the hadith is in the Musnad. You can look at Shaykh al-Imām’s words in al-Ma’ārik this is present. So besides al-Rabī’, a scholar may forget.
Shaykh al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him), despite the closeness of time and his great memory but subḥān Allāh, for a wisdom Allah wills, something like this may occur to a scholar. In al-Ma’ārij, when he came to the issue of facing the qiblah he said it is not a condition for the supererogatory prayer if one is on a mount. And I say: ‘on a mount’ does not necessarily imply restriction, because if he is not on a mount but walking, offering supererogatory prayer facing other than the qiblah there is discussion about this. I do not intend restriction. The question is: when he intends to say the takbīr of iḥrām, should he face the qiblah? If we assume a man is on a camel or a mount and wants to offer supererogatory prayer, is he required to stop the mount or turn it toward the qiblah as it moves, to say the takbīr of iḥrām, and then proceed as he wishes? Or, for example, stop his car facing the qiblah? But in reality, it is not easy for a driver to offer supererogatory prayer. He should occupy himself with listening to the Qur’an, reciting, dhikr, supplication, reflection, and similar acts of worship; and there are many, praise be to Allah.
As for performing prayer with prostration and bowing, this could cause an accident and bring great harm to himself and others . It is not appropriate for a driver. But if we assume two men are traveling, and the one riding beside the driver wants to offer supererogatory prayer is he required to say: ‘Brother, stop the car so I can face the qiblah,’ then say the takbīr of iḥrām and continue on the path he wants? Or is this not required? Four authentic hadiths report that the Prophet (saw) used to offer supererogatory prayer facing other than the qiblah, indicating his bowing and prostration. A narration from Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him) states that the Prophet (saw) used to face the qiblah when intending the takbīr of iḥrām. Some scholars considered this narration sound, others weakened it and the view that it is weak is probably closer to correctness. But this is not the point of evidence. The point is that Shaykh al-Imām al-Sālimī (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in al-Ma’ārij the narration indicating this, but in Sharḥ al-Jāmi’ which is later than al-Ma’ārik and close in time he mentioned that there is no narration indicating that. So subḥān Allāh despite the Shaykh’s great memory, for a wisdom Allah wills, something like this may occur.
And also, a scholar may reject a narration because others among the narrators forgot it. A narrator narrates a hadith, ‘So-and-so told us from so-and-so from the Prophet (saw) and then the narrator relates the hadith from that , and later says: ‘I do not remember narrating that hadith to you.’ This is present, like the hadith of the takbīr narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. But this does not harm [the hadith], though some scholars say it does, and they criticize the hadith on that basis. A scholar may also criticize a hadith because it contradicts why? the madhhab of its narrator, or because the narrator contradicted that narration. Here, some scholars say: the criterion is the narrator’s narration, not his opinion that contradicts it. Others say: the criterion is the narrator’s opinion regarding his narration, because a just narrator cannot contradict a hadith he narrated unless that hadith is interpreted or carried upon other than its apparent meaning. In reality, we say: the matter requires some examination and scrutiny when judging each narration.
First, we need to examine the chain of the opinion attributed to that narrator, and also examine the chain of the narration he narrated. In many narrations, we find a narrator narrating a hadith, yet an opinion contrary to it is attributed to him; but that opinion attributed to him is not established from him. So here, there is no contradiction between his narration and his opinion; because that opinion is not authentically established from that Companion or that narrator (if non-Companion) for us to say: ‘We take the narrator’s opinion or his narration,’ because in reality it is only a narration, and the madhhab attributed to him is not authentic from him.
The opposite may also occur: the narration is not established, and the opinion attributed to him is what is authentically established from him. An example is the issue narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him) that divorce during the time of the Prophet (saw) three divorces counted as one. The narration is not authentic; rather it is weak. And the authentic view of Ibn ‘Abbās is that it counts as three. Someone might say: ‘How can Ibn ‘Abbās contradict his own narration?’ If both the opinion and the narration were authentic, we could examine and say: perhaps Ibn ‘Abbās knew this was initially the case, then abrogated. But we say: there is no abrogation here. The narration is not authentic, and the opinion is the correct one. So we must look: if the opinion is correct and the narration is correct, then we need to study the matter because it is possible the narrator abandoned it out of forgetfulness and absent-mindedness, narrated it long ago, then forgot and said otherwise. It is also possible he held that opinion first, then later narrated the hadith as we mentioned regarding Abū ‘Ubaydah (may Allah have mercy on him). It is also possible he understood it first, and then we look at his interpretation is it correct or not? Or he may have said it was abrogated, or specified, or restricted and then we examine. It may be said: his excuse is the context of this narration, which led him to his view. Or it may be said: he is a mujtahid like other mujtahids we look at his narration; if his opinion aligns with the correct meaning of the narration, we take it; otherwise, no.
This of course requires examples, but for now, you have the issue of wiping over leather socks (khuffayn) Abū Hurayrah is reported to have narrated that the Prophet (saw) wiped over them, but scholars said this narration is not established because it is authentically reported from Abū Hurayrah that he denied wiping over them, and that narration is not authentic from him. So we do not take his opinion nor his narration because his narration is not authentic. Similarly, Ibn ‘Umar narrated wiping over khuffayn from the Prophet (saw), but it is authentically established from him that he said otherwise. The narration he narrated is not authentic. This may actually yield a useful point: these Companions did not narrate wiping over khuffayn from the Prophet (saw). As for Ibn ‘Umar, it is possible likewise; and Abū Hurayrah embraced Islam late, so this may indicate as some of our scholars said that wiping over khuffayn was early, before Sūrat al-Mā’idah. There remains the issue of Jarīr, did he embrace Islam after Sūrat al-Mā’idah? This needs examination; it is possible Jarīr heard part of al-Mā’idah and the whole sūrah does not necessarily have to have been revealed at one time; al-Baqarah, for example, was not revealed at one time. He may have assumed it was revealed later among other possibilities. In any case, a narrator is fallible. He may be correct or err. I am not here to settle this issue, though you may say wiping over khuffayn is not established at this time because the verse explicitly commands washing the feet.
So in such cases, we must ascertain whether the narrator’s narration is established and whether the narrator’s opinion is established and then judge each case individually. A narrator may reject a narration because he thinks it contradicts consensus. How can a narration be rejected for contradicting consensus? Can the Prophet’s (saw) saying be rejected by consensus of people? Here we say, as we said regarding the issue of rejecting a hadith that contradicts the Qur’an: we understand from this that the hadith is not authentic because if it were authentic, it would not contradict the Qur’an and the Prophet (saw) cannot say something contrary to the Qur’an; that can never happen. Here too, a hadith may appear authentic in its chain, but when the ummah has agreed upon the contrary, that indicates to us that this hadith is either abrogated, interpreted, restricted, specified, or weak, even if its chain appears sound; because trustworthiness of men and their precision are conditions for authenticity, and continuity of chain is also a condition. The presence of these conditions does not mean all conditions have been met; we must examine the remaining conditions to judge the hadith authentic.
It may be said: the default is that if the chain is continuous, the conditions of trustworthiness and precision are met, and there are no hidden defects (‘ilal) that undermine its establishment then yes, it is established in principle. But when the ummah has agreed on the contrary, this indicates a hidden defect that must be sought; if we can identify it, fine; if not, we are certain of it without pinpointing the exact defect. This is well-known in the statements of scholars no one denies it.
However, there remains an obstacle: we must be sure of the authenticity of this consensus. How many narrations have been claimed to contradict consensus, yet that consensus turned out to be an illusion. The consensus was not established? This is an important point that a student of knowledge should pay attention to: not everything attributed to scholars is authentically from them. How many narrations in creed, worship, transactions, and other areas have been attributed to some scholars yet they never heard of them in their lives? For example, you find attributed to Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq that he said such-and-such regarding the vision [of Allah]; it is attributed indeed, it is said all the Companions agreed on it, and even the prophets and messengers agreed but in reality these narrations are not authentic. So if someone comes with such an attribution that many people claim, we must be cautious.
Therefore, when we encounter a purported consensus, we must reflect: how many claimed consensuses are not authentic? And how many opinions attributed to a scholar or to scholars are not authentic from them at all? Here, especially when we find some narrations contradict some claimed consensuses or rather, those consensuses contradict these narrations we must examine and scrutinize. Some of these narrations, as I said, may not be authentic from them. At the same time, we find some consensuses to be authentic, but we find some people attributing to certain scholars the contrary opinion to those consensuses. Consequently, some people follow those who differed, saying: ‘This issue is not agreed upon, and I take the view of so-and-so’ as we said earlier, those who take the view of al-Sālimī. And we said this statement is not absolutely correct they make the disagreement the arbiter over the legal evidence, whereas Allah commanded us when differing to refer the disagreement to the legal evidence meainng: to the Book and the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). He commanded us to refer it to Allah and His Messenger. Referring to Allah is referring to His Book, and referring to His Messenger is referring to his Sunnah(saw). We do not make disagreement the arbiter even when the disagreement is valid; so what if the disagreement is not valid, and the ummah is actually agreed?
When we find, for example, the issue of musical instruments of which more than 30 scholars have reported consensus on its prohibition. Yet some people come and say: ‘I follow so-and-so and so-and-so.’ This is not established from them at all. We must also note that some of those to whom such opinions are attributed are not qualified mujtahids. Even if authentically attributed to them. Some of them may have been hasty in their early days, or they may have thought there was no consensus when the matter is actually agreed upon. So we must be cautious in such matters. Not every consensus is authentic, and not every disagreement is valid. One must pay attention to these issues.
There are scholars known for reporting consensuses; many matters are subject to disagreement for many reasons. I have pointed to some, and there are reasons I cannot point to now. But students must be aware of these. I am not saying this now, but when you study, whether in university studies or later, even if only to a limited degree, a person should know why scholars differed and how to stand when there is disagreement among scholars, how to stand regarding the mujtahids, and regarding the followers (muqallids) who follow those scholars.
Followers themselves are of different types. Some are laymen who cannot read or write . When you try to ask about the simplest matter, they do not understand. If such a person says: ‘I follow so-and-so,’ and you say to him: ‘This hadith is narrated by al-Rabī’ and by Abū ‘Ubaydah,’ and he says: ‘I don’t know what al-Rabī’ narrated or what Abū ‘Ubaydah narrated’ fine. If such a person follows a scholar in a matter, one should try to explain to him, but sometimes it does not become clear.
I recall a story: someone heard a sermon or lesson in which the speaker said: ‘When a person wants to slaughter, he must say bismillāh it is obligatory and Allāhu akbar is recommended.’ So when that person went to slaughter, he said: ‘Bismillāh obligatory, Allāhu akbar recommended.’ The speaker had intended to explain that basmalah is obligatory meaning one cannot slaughter without saying bismillāh, and the meat is forbidden to eat if the basmalah was omitted, whether intentionally or forgetfully while takbīr is not obligatory but recommended; if omitted, there is no harm. But this person did not understand; he thought he had to say the words ‘bismillāh obligatory and Allāhu akbar recommended.’ So what can you do with such laymen? If a layman hears something from Shaykh so-and-so, and when told otherwise, he may say: ‘Shaykh so-and-so said this; he would not abandon a hadith, he is the one who can [evaluate].’ But sometimes, when he understands, he may. A student of knowledge is different from such a layman. As for laymen, one must see why he differed and if the understanding can be corrected, one tries. And inshallah, laymen are more accommodating than some people with ulterior motives.
The point is: there are matters that may relate to the chain of transmission or to the text that may lead one to reject a hadith and they are many. But I will suffice with this for now.”
If you enjoyed this article you may enjoy the following:
“We sent them with clear proofs and the Zabur. And we revealed to you the message that you may make clear to mankind what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” (Qur’an 16:44)
﷽
This section will be on engaging the Pseudo-Islamic.
In particular this section of the blog will have all articles related to two Pseudo-Islamic movements.
The first being the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion.
THE HAFS QUR’AN ONLY RELIGION
It is important to understand that we believe that the adherents of the Hafs Qur’an only movement are a distinct religion in much as we respect the way the Baha’i movement is a distinct religion from Islam.
Insh’Allah this section will deal with common arguments among the federation of sects that are known collectively as the ‘Qur’anist’.
This section will be refuting their many bold assertions; as well as showing why this particular attempt to re-interpret Islam and make it altogether different religion is deeply flawed.
Now why are they called the Hafs Qur’an only view? These people will either out of ignorance about the transmission and textual history of the Qur’an refer to their platform as ‘Qur’an Only’ or Quraniyoon. However, the Hafs Qur’an did not fall out of the sky. Thus, is important for them to reflect on why so much foundational trust is put into the men that transmittedthe Hafs Qur’an to the exclusion of all other transmissions of the Qur’an.
At the core of this religion of theirs is a massive epistemological problem.
In regard to approving comments from followers of the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion we have taken seriously the verse of the Qur’an: “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” (Qur’an 5:2)
Thus, they would do well to read the article listed below: Is the Qur’an a detailed explanation of all things? to understand the policy on this website that keeps them as well as us from sinning and keeps them consistent with in their worldview. Insh’Allah.
THE QADIANI MOVEMENT Also known as AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT is a divided movement, split into two competing jama’at or congregations. That is the LAHORI whom we refer to as The Ahmadiyya A and the QADIANI whom we refer to as the Ahmadiyya B.
As the Qadiani or Ahmadiyyah B believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a Prophet after The Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have been marked as being outside the millat of Islam. Likewise, they (the Ahmadiyyah B) or Qadiani have made anyone outside of their jama’at to be kafirs. Though, their is some tongue in cheek wordplay see their website. Source: (https://www.alislam.org/articles/are-non-ahmadis-muslim-or-non-muslim-ahmadiyya-muslim-perspective/)
To the dismay of the Muslim Ummah, The Qadiani have a Khalifa, named MIrza Masroor Ahmed, he lives in Tilford, United Kingdom, where he pays taxes to the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali were not known to have paid taxes to a Non Muslim government.
For future reference all articles addressed to either of the above movements will be found under: AHL AL-QIBLA / AHL AL-KHILAF under: Engaging with the Pseudo-Islamic:
Refutation that oral traditions came 300 years after the Prophet.
Even though they used to say that the hadith -oral traditions came some 300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw). Praise be to Allah the more educated among them have backed away from that claim. However, this article is here because many in that movement may be unaware.
See Harold Motzki (a Non-Muslim orientalist and academic) who made short work of that Quranist claim
Does the Qur’an itself tell us to reject all hadith?
This article is a nail in the coffin for the entire movement. Some from their movement have commented but ended up leaving in frustration. It looks at their arguments and misquotations of the Qur’an. Also given in this article is an irrefutable example of Allah confirming a hadith to the Blessed Messenger [saw].
Did the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) write the Qur’an?
Our colleague had written a refutation like this many years ago on the ‘Qur’an only‘ web site known as http://www.ourbeacon.com/ or it used to be known as ‘GalaxyDastak‘. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed founder of the forum had me banned. This was also the last our colleague heard from their former teacher Hamza AbdulMalik. Hamza AbdulMalik used to be the director of IPCI international until he dropped off the radar and re-emerged as a Quranist.
Well, our colleague may have been removed from the forum but here is the refutation of their arguments for all to see here:
A pre-eminent argument used by ‘Quranist’ ripped to shreds By Dr. Jeffery Lang.
The most oft-quoted verse used by Quranist is analyzed and ripped apart by a Muslim convert, academic, and professor of math, Dr. Jeffery Lang.
This is a centerpiece argument used by Edip Yuksel, Sam Gerrans, “Joseph Islam”, Rashad Khilafa, Shabir Ahmed and the lot of them. The reason why this argument is especially devastating coming from someone like Dr. Jeffry Lang is that Dr. Lang is critical of the hadith corpus as we have it today.
The following is a look how Quranist have both misunderstood the word hikma as a reference to the Qur’an and how they do not understand that it is something that Allah gives his messengers to deal with situations and context not immediately addressed by the revelations they were given.
Hating a hadith just for the sake of hating a hadith.
This article a hypothetical question is posed. What if a particular ahad hadith turned out to be correct? Especially one that is of a scientific nature? What would the Quranist do in such a scenario?
Salaat in the Qur’an is not ritual prayer? Examining the claim of some Quranist.
This article looks at one Quranist claim that salat is not ritual prayer. This is what happens when you abandon the understanding of the Blessed Messenger and follow the ‘every man for himself’ approach of the Quranist.
“Surely your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then established Himself on the Throne, conducting every affair. None can intercede except by His permission. That is Allah—your Lord, so worship Him. Will you not then be mindful?” (Qur’an 10:3)
“He knows what is ahead of them and what is behind them. They do not intercede except for whom He approves, and they tremble in awe of Him.” (Qur’an 21:28)
“Allah! There is no god except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining. Neither drowsiness nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who could possibly intercede with Him without His permission? He knows what is ahead of them and what is behind them, but no one can grasp any of His knowledge—except what He wills . His Throne encompasses the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of both does not tire Him. For He is the Most High, the Greatest.” (Qur’an 2:255)
“It is You we worship and You we ask for help.” (Qur’an 1:5)
“And he entered the city at a time of inattention by its people and found therein two men fighting: one from his faction and one from among his enemy. And the one from his faction called him for help ( fa-is’taghathahu)against the one from his enemy, so Moses struck him and killed him. said, “This is from the work of Satan. Indeed, he is a manifest, misleading enemy.” (Qur’an 28:15)
﷽
Seems there has been a great deal of heated debate and discussion on this topic as of late. However, this has been the case with the Muslim Ummah for quite some time.
Tawassul is asking Allah for help through an intermediary. This has it’s types and conditions.
Istigatha is asking for urgent help in times of distress. This too has it’s types and conditions.
First point.
Note that all three of the text (Qur’an 10:3) & (Qur’an 21:28) & (Qur’an 2:255) that are quoted above are speaking about third parties that may be in a position to to ask something on behalf of others.
None of the above three text speak about a first person party (a petitioner) seeking something from Allah (swt) via an intermediary, be it an angel, a wali of Allah (swt) or even his Blessed Prophets (upon them all be peace).
Second point.
None can intercede except by what Allah (swt) grants permission or approves.
If a righteous person like the Blessed Prophet (saw) for example prays for his Uncle to enter into heaven and his Uncle did not repent or enter into Islam, then the intercession of the Blessed Prophet (saw) is of no use.
“You surely cannot guide whoever you like, but it is Allah Who guides whoever He wills, and He knows best who are guided.” (Qur’an 28:56)
“Praying or not praying for their forgiveness will make no difference. Even if you (O Prophet) were to pray seventy times for their forgiveness, Allah would not forgive thembecause they reject Allah and His Messenger. Allah does not guide those who are defiantly disobedient people.” (Qur’an 9:80)
Or for example if the Prophet (saw) tried to intercede with Allah (swt) for those Muslims who died without repenting from taking the life without right, shirk, fornication or adultery and they did not seek repentance from Allah (swt). The Prophet’s intercession would be null and void!
“And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated –Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:68-70)
This is the world of asbab (أَسْبَابْ) a world of cause, means and occasions.
The Muslim understands that this is the world of cause, means and occasions. We are 3D carbon based platforms and this is how we understand and perceive things. However, we are also informed:
la hawla wala quwwata illa billah -there is no power or no strength except with Allah.
“If only you had said, upon entering your property, ‘This is what Allah has willed! There is no power except with Allah!’ Even though you see me inferior to you in wealth and offspring.” (Qur’an 18:39)
That is to say that if we believe that we can type this very text independent of Allah’s power, we are either making a claim to divinity or asserting a share of divine power.
A Muslim does not believe that a knife in and of itself has the ability to cut but that Allah (swt) grants it that quality and ability.
“It is You we worship and You we ask for help.” (Qur’an 1:5)
So if a Muslim seeks a doctor for a cure, or builds a shelter from the rain are they seeking or depending upon other than Allah (swt) for help? Of course not. The recognition is that we live in the world of causes, means and occasions. That is what is immediately perceptible to us.
Take the example of Mary (as) she was pregnant with Jesus (as) and was hungry.
The Angel directs Mary (as) towards a creation of Allah (swt).
“And shake the trunk of this palm tree towards you, it will drop fresh, ripe dates upon you.” (Qur’an 19:25)
The Angel could have directed Mary (as) to a dead tree, or a dead branch or a log. However, she (as) was directed towards a living tree.
جَزَاكَ ٱللَّٰهُ خَيْرًا or Jazak Allahu Khayran is a common Arabic expression among Muslims. It is said when receiving some good, service or benefit from another person.
It is a way of showing gratitude in a dual manner, by immediately thanking the person (he/she) that brought the good but also realizing that ultimately it is Allah (swt) whom used this person (he/she) to bring the khayer (goodness) to you.
Tawassul in the Qur’an?
First what is Tawassul?
Basically it means to use something to arrive to something else. As a path.
Tawassul is the act of seeking help from Allah (swt) via an intermediary. In relation to this we have the Arabic word Al-Wasila.
You can find derivates of the word twice in the Qur’an.
The first text ((Qur’an 5:35)is the one the usual champions of tawassul are quick to quote.
The second text (Qur’an 17:57) is the one the champioins of tawawassul are not so quick to quote. Insh’Allah you will see why.
1st instance of wasila.
“O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to) Allah and seek means of nearness (l-wasilata) to Him and strive hard in His way that you may be successful.” (Qur’an 5:35)
This is the text that usual champions of Tawassul would prefer you rather not quote.
Note that the text says to seek a means of nearness and it could have easily mentioned the Blessed Prophet (saw) exclusively but it did not.
Seeking the means of nearness is not exclusive to asking the pious to pray for us.
We know that praying in a group (Jamaat) is more beloved to Allah (swt) then praying alone. We know that praying in a Masjid is more beloved to Allah (swt) then not praying in the Masjid.
We know that praying in Mecca or Medina is more beloved to Allah (swt) then not praying in either of those two cities. Prayer in Mecca is more preferable then prayer in Medina.
Now the usual advocates of tawassul would have to prove that a singular individual praying to Allah (swt) via the station of the Blessed Prophet (saw) would be superior to a whole congregation of people doing dhikr of Allah (swt).
They would have to prove that a singular individual praying to Allah via the station of the Blessed Prophet (saw) would be superior to an individual praying to Allah (swt) in Mecca without mentioning the Blessed Prophet (saw).
In other words there are a plethora of acts and actions in Islam that are more meritorious then praying to Allah (swt) and beseeching Allah (swt) via the station of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
2nd instance of wasila.
“Say, “Invoke those you claim besides Him. They do not have the power to undo harm from you or transfer it.” “˹Even˺ the closest ˹to Allah˺ of those invoked would be seeking a way (l-wasilata) to their Lord, hoping for His mercy, and fearing His punishment. Indeed, your Lord’s torment is fearsome.” (Qur’an 17: 56-57)
Shaykh Dr. Kahlan Al Kharousi (h) speaks on three types of Tawassul.
First type: Asking Assad to make du’a and thinking that it will be accepted because Assad has got the power to do so. This is clearly shirk. We are very clear about this.
The evidence from this is from the Qur’an:
“If only you had said, upon entering your property, ‘This is what Allah has willed! There is no power except with Allah!’ Even though you see me inferior to you in wealth and offspring.” (Qur’an 18:39)
“How powerless are those who invoke and those invoked!“ (Qur’an 22:73)
For example if as a Muslim one were to believe that they could type this very text independent of the power of Allah (swt) this would be a claim to divinity and shirk.
Second type: (which all madhabs classify as Mubaah Halaal-meaning neutral or permissible.) -This includes the Ibadis.
This is the request of means and reason. Not a request of response and refuge.
That is to let someone who’s considered righteous amongst of people make du’a.
For example: Ridael and Assad and Hakki just had some food, Assad asked Ridael to make du’a; however, Ridael believes that Assad (at least what it apparent) is a better Muslim than him, so he says to Assad to make the du’a instead.
Examples of this in the Qur’an:
“They begged, “O our father! Pray for the forgiveness of our sins. We have certainly been sinful.” (Qur’an 12:97)
“And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammed], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:64)
“Take from their wealth ˹O Prophet˺ charity to purify and bless them,and pray for them. Surely your prayer is a source of comfort for them. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 9:103)
Or when we as believers pray on behalf of all believers no less than 17 times a day:
“Guide us to the straight path.” (Qur’an 1:6)
The third type: Is that when you mention someone’s name (in this case Assad) thinking by doing so your du’a gets accepted.
For example: In a battle and one were to say: “Oh Allah Assad is with us grant us victory.” Some say this is shirk and some say it is not. This has lead to allot of fighting among the Muslims.
Our school’s position is to leave these doubtful matters. Stick with what is firm from the Qur’an & Sunnah.
In the case of the person above a simple gentle reminder from the Qur’an and the history of the Blessed Prophet (saw) may suffice to set their thinking on the right course.
For example, having the Blessed Prophet (saw) with the Muslims was not a guarantee of victory. In fact, they lost conflicts when he (saw) was among them; and this was a test for the believers.
“Do you think you will be admitted into Paradise without being tested like those before you? They were afflicted with suffering and adversity and were so ˹violently˺ shaken that ˹even˺ the Messenger and the believers with him cried out, “When will Allah’s help come?” Indeed, Allah’s help is ˹always˺ near.” (Qur’an 2:214)
It was narrated that Abu Al-Hawra’ As-Sa’di said:
“I said to Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him: ‘What did you memorize from the Messenger of Allah (saw) ?’ He said: I memorized from him: ‘Leave that which makes you doubt for that which does not make you doubt.'”
Because there is dispute it is best to leave that which is doubtful. The Muslim is one who practices wara’ and it is best to leave the doubtful. That is also because this act is not wajib. The side that is very vocal for their practices have labeled it as mustahab, which is merely recommended.
So there is no harm in sticking with the clear formula of the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Our way is the moderate way and the safe passage. Let us turn to the Qur’an.
All duas in the Qur’an are just Allahumma, Rabbi or Rabbana. So what is wrong if the believer sticks with that sort of formulation and puts their trust solely in Allah (swt)?
“Your Lord has proclaimed, “Call upon Me, I will respond to you. Surely those who are too proud to worship Me will enter Hell, fully humbled.” (Qur’an 40:60)
“When My servants ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about Me: I am truly near. I respond to one’s prayer when they call upon Me. So let them respond ˹with obedience˺ to Me and believe in Me, perhaps they will be guided ˹to the Right Way˺.” (Qur’an 2:186)
As Allah (swt) is the Sovereign Lord of all creation.
Surely a Muslim can’t go wrong by calling upon Allah (swt) alone and trusting in Allah (swt) to answer us in the time and manner that Allah (swt) deems fit.
One can make du’a for others and when requested also have friends and family make du’a for them. This is very clearly sanctioned in the Qur’an because we see examples of Prophets praying for others as has already been mentioned.
So if we stick with the du’a formulations in the Qur’an and preserved Sunnah we are safe.
Who better than Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw) to teach us?
So yes why not direct all supplication , du’a , petition and request to Allah (swt) knowing full well that Allah (swt) can respond to that du’a, petition and request by using this world of asbab to send to you a person(s), angel(s), Muslim Jinn(s), or any of His (swt) creation to aid you.
In the Qur’an we find the following formulations when addressing Allah (swt).
Rabbi Rabbanaa A’udhu billahi Rabbanaghfir Rabbihkum Rabbighfir Rabbanaa Bismillahi (Qur’an 11:41) Ma’adhallahi (Qur’an 12:23) Inni a’udhu bir-Rahmani (Qur’an 19:18) Inni maghloobun fantasir (Qur’an 54:10) In all these passages: (Qur’an 7:155- 7:156), (Qur’an 7:189), (Qur’an 10:22) it is clear that the one being addressed is Allah (swt). Qul a‘ūdhu birabbil-falaq (Qur’an 113:1) Qul a‘ūdhu birabbin-nās (Qur’an 114:1)
So in conclusion on the issue of Tawassul is that for the Ibadi school asking the pious to make du’a for us is permissible.
We should ask each other to make du’a for one another all the time.
“Guide usto the straight path.” (Qur’an 1:6)
Allah (swt) for example, encourages us to make du’a for our parents.
“And be humble with them out of mercy, and pray, “My Lord! Be merciful to them as they raised me when I was young.” (Qur’an 17:24)
The woman who pleaded her path went direct to Allah (swt) for help even bypassing the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“Indeed,Allah has heard the argument of the woman who pleaded with you ˹O Prophet˺ concerning her husband, and appealed to Allah. Allah has heard your exchange. Surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 58:1)
In the above case in was Allah (swt) who was the refuge and succor of this woman and not Prophet Muhammed (saw). In fact, the above verse is one of those that let us know the Qur’an is not from the Blessed Prophet (saw), His, Sunnah is a form of guidance,-when not overruled by Allah (swt) and that the Prophet (saw) is genuine and authentic.
If it was good enough for the woman to appeal directly to Allah (swt) in her life time (by passing the Prophet -saw) while he (saw) was alive, it is good enough for us to go directly to Allah (swt) after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“Tawassul is not an obligation or a necessary matter, neither is the response to the supplication conditional upon it, Rather, the basis for the supplication is to call upon Allah, the Exalted, as Allah said: And if my servants ask you concerning me, then say that I am close (al-Baqara: 186) and: Say, “Call upon Allah or call upon al-Rahman: Whatever you call him by -to Him belong the best names.”
Source: (pgs. 74-75 Notions that must be corrected by Shaykh Muhammed b. Alawi al-Maliki al-Hasani)
ISTIGATHA
Istigatha is asking for urgent help in times of distress.
Those who are in favour of Istigatha themselves put it in the category of mustahab (مُسْتَحَبّ) meaning something that is recommended. However, it is not something that is fard or wajib.
An example of this from the Qur’an.
“And he entered the city at a time of inattention by its people and found therein two men fighting: one from his faction and one from among his enemy. And the one from his faction called him for help (fa-is’taghathahu)against the one from his enemy, so Moses struck him and killed him. said, “This is from the work of Satan. Indeed, he is a manifest, misleading enemy.” (Qur’an 28:15)
The example in the Qur’an of istigatha is of someone who is physically alive calling out to other people who are physically alive.
CAN AN ACT OR ACTION GO FROM NOT BEING SHIRK TO BEING SHIRK?
There have been those who claim that something is in a category of shirk or non shirk and these categories do not change.
This is absolutely not true.
If one has animals that they use and even call out to while alive. They call out to these animals after they have died. This is clearly shirk.
Another example is the following:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who were kafara (ungrateful disbelievers [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate (yush’rikuna) with Him. They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the (ungrateful disbelievers) dislike it. It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others (l-mush’rikuna) with Allah dislike it. (Qur’an 9:29-33)
Narrated ‘Adi bin Hatim:
“I came to the Prophet (saw) while I had a cross of gold around my neck. He said: ‘O ‘Adi! Remove this idol from yourself!’ And I heard him reciting from Surah Bara’ah: They took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah (9:31). He said: ‘As for them, they did not worship them, but when they made something lawful for them, they considered it lawful, and when they made something unlawful for them, they considered it unlawful.'”
So if you previously followed a command of Allah (swt) and then abandoned it in favour of what the monks and rabbis said that would be an act of worship and thus shirk.
Likewise, if you previously abstained from a prohibition of Allah (swt) and then indulged in that prohibition in favour of what the monks and rabbis have said that would be an act of worship, and thus shirk.
CAN THE DEAD (THAT WHICH WAS BIOLOGICALLY ALIVE) BENEFIT OTHERS AFTER IT’S DEATH?
We know this from direct empirical data. We benefit from the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered, the hide or wool from animals after they have died. The Inuit Eskimos have shown us how to essentially use virtually all parts of a whale after it has died.
We as human beings are living testimony that we continue to benefit by the knowledge of those who have died. From every facet of knowledge, to mathematics, to architecture to cherished recipes. We continue to benefit from from those who have long since passed.
Just as we benefit from them, what ever benefit we receive from them is accredited to them as well. So for example, when you teach someone to read the Qur’an you benefit from every time that person reads the Qur’an, even after you have long since died.
ISTIGATHA OF THE DEAD AND SCANT EVIDENCE.
Calling out to those who have died for aid and assistance.
There are some cold hard facts that stare in the face of those who advocate for Istigatha.
There are 25 Prophets mentioned by name in the Qur’an. We don’t have a single example of any of those Prophets doing Istigatha to a prophet that proceeded him that has died.
Considering that the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is the best example for us and considering that he is the last of the Prophets we do not have a single example of the Blessed Prophet (saw) making Istigatha of any of those prophets that proceeded him that has died!
Point 2 is extremely important considering there are 124,000 prophets and he did not consider to call upon any of them!
If the reply to point 2 is that the Blessed Prophet (saw) is the supreme prophet and the seal he is not in need of them to ask it still does not take away from point 1.
Narrated Anas:
Whenever drought threatened them, `Umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, “O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain.” And so it would rain
قوله : ( أن عمر بن الخطاب كان إذا قحطوا ) بضم القاف وكسر المهملة أي أصابهم القحط ، وقد بين الزبير بن بكار في الأنساب صفة ما دعا به العباس في هذه الواقعة والوقت الذي وقع فيه ذلك ، فأخرج بإسناد له أن العباس لما استسقى به عمر قال : اللهم إنه لم ينزل بلاء إلا بذنب ، ولم يكشف إلا بتوبة ، وقد توجه القوم بي إليك لمكاني من نبيك ، وهذه أيدينا إليك بالذنوب ونواصينا إليك بالتوبة فاسقنا الغيث . فأرخت السماء مثل الجبال حتى أخصبت الأر
Translation:
His statement: (That ‘Umar bin al-Khattab used to say that when they were parched) with the addition of the qāf and the kasra of the neglected one, that is, they were afflicted with drought. Al-Zubair ibn Bakkar explained in the genealogies the description of what Al-Abbas called for in this incident and the time in which it occurred, so he narrated with his chain of transmission that when Al-Abbas asked for rain with it, ‘Umar said: “Oh Allah, no affliction has descended except due to sin, and it has not been removed except with repentance, and the people have turned to me in place of your Prophet, and these are our hands to you for sins.” And We enjoined upon you repentance, and We poured rain. Then the sky fell like the mountains until the trees became fertile
Source: (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani Fath al-Bari Sharhu Sahih Al Bukhari)
“And O my people! Seek your Lord’s forgiveness and turn to Him in repentance. He will shower you with rain in abundance, and add strength to your strength. So do not turn away, persisting in wickedness.” (Qur’an 11:52)
The above example, often brought up by proponents of tawassul and istigatha realize just how deadly the above example is to their doctrines. In particular the doctrine of calling out to those who are in their graves or seeking a means by those who are now in their graves.
O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle
This is crystal clear. We used to (past tense) this of course is when the Blessed Prophet (saw) was alive.
However, NOW (in this time) we are asking his uncle.
To add insult to injury to proponents of tawassul and istigatha the formula of the du’a used by Ibn Abbas (ra) looks like this:
“Oh Allah, no affliction has descended except due to sin, and it has not been removed except with repentance, and the people have turned to me in place of your Prophet, and these are our hands to you for sins.”
Notice there is no ‘Oh Allah by the status of the Prophet’.
Notice there is no ‘Oh Allah by your love of the Prophet’.
These formulas are not used by Ibn Abbas (ra) !!
Now there have been some weak sauce replies by those who are clearly overwhelmed in the face of such evidence. It is clear that copium is the only reply in the face of such powerful evidence.
They will offer meekly. Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) has choice. So he choose Ibn Abbas (ra). Yes, but why not choose the best of Creation? Especially if that was an option?
The Prophet Muhammed (saw) is he (currently) dead or alive in his grave?
The central point of the controversy surrounding the issue is rather or not one can do istigatha to the Blessed Prophet (saw) after he died.
Narrated `Aisha:
All sides of the debate have agreed that the Blessed Prophet (saw) has died.
Abu Bakr came riding his horse from his dwelling place in As-Sunh. He got down from it, entered the Mosque and did not speak with anybody till he came to me and went direct to the Prophet, who was covered with a marked blanket. Abu Bakr uncovered his face. He knelt down and kissed him and then started weeping and said, “My father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah’s Prophet! Allah will not combine two deaths on you. You have died the death which was written for you.” Narrated Abu Salama from Ibn `Abbas : Abu Bakr came out and `Umar , was addressing the people, and Abu Bakr told him to sit down but `Umar refused. Abu Bakr again told him to sit down but `Umar again refused. Then Abu Bakr recited the Tashah-hud (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammed is Allah’s Messenger (saw)) and the people attended to Abu Bakr and left `Umar. Abu Bakr said, “Amma ba’du, whoever amongst you worshipped Muhammed, then Muhammed is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, Allah is alive and will never die. Allah said: ‘Muhammed is no more than an Apostle and indeed (many) Apostles have passed away before him ..(up to the) grateful.‘ “ (Qur’an 3.144) (The narrator added, “By Allah, it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this verse before till Abu Bakr recited it and then whoever heard it, started reciting it.”)
The interesting point about the above hadith is why would such shock over come the believers and why would Allah (swt) need to remind them that the Prophet (saw) will die as other humans have died if it was firmly planted in their (the companions) hearts that they would have a direct line of communication with the Prophet (saw) after his earthly life?
This verse would constitute an unnecessary redundancy.
The other point to be noted is that often proponents of those who say we can do istigatha to the Blessed Prophet (saw) after he died is to compare the situation of the Blessed Prophet (saw) to that of martyrs.
But this begs the question: How did the Prophet (saw) die?
Are we prepared to believe that The Prophet (saw) was indeed poisoned by a Jewish woman -thus making the Prophet (saw) a martyr?
One evidence brought forward to try and claim that the Prophet (saw) is alive in his grave is the following:
“And ˹remember˺ when they prayed, “O Allah! If this is indeed the truth from You, then rain down stones upon us from the sky or overcome us with a painful punishment.” But Allah would never punish them while you ˹O Prophet˺ were in their midst. Nor would He ever punish them if they prayed for forgiveness.” (Qur’an 8:32-33)
Some have used this as a proof text to try and say that the Blessed Prophet (saw) is still alive and the context shows that this misunderstanding of theirs is certainly in error.
The context is the disbelievers and not the believers.
However, when one looks into this matter it can be seen that the Muslim Ummah can be seen to have reached a sort of stalemate on the matter.
Rather or not the Blessed Prophet (saw) is dead or alive in his grave (currently) seems to be a secondary matter to the issue of rather or not we can call out to him, that is to say, making Istigatha to him, after he has died.
ISTIGATHA OF THE DEAD SIFTING FOR GOLD AND TRYING TO FIND ANYTHING!
The above video is apt when we are talking about proofs and evidences for calling out to the dead after they are deceased.
One should not be surprised to see when looking into this matter that there is a dearth of evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah that advocates of calling out to an individual after they have deceased can produce.
The book to your left: Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul) by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri. The book to your right: Notions that must be corrected by Shaykh Muhammed b. Alawi al-Maliki al-Hasani.
Both books are in our colleagues personal library and both books in their estimation failed to deliver.
In the book: Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul) by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri. You would think that a book that is 389 pages excluding the glossary, bibliography and general index would be teaming with evidences.
This is simply not the case at all.
On page 197 of the book we have: Intermediation through the Blessed Holy Prophet (saw) after his death. This section runs until page 253.
So one of the arguments advanced on page 208 is the following verse of the Qur’an.
“And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammed], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:64)
There is no indication that this verse is a reference to people calling upon the Blessed Prophet (saw) after he has died. In fact, the Qur’an has not given a single example of any of the former people calling upon any of the earlier prophets that have died. If the Qur’an recorded such incidents then these proponents would be quick to quote it. However, the Qur’an does not indicate any one doing this.
The other text often quoted: (Qur’an 8:32-33) has already been addressed above.
Taking a look at the evidence from the traditions to call out to the Prophet (saw) after he has died
Now, keep in mind dear reader you are reading from the perspective of an Ibadi.
We take a different approach to these matters as we are different kettle of fish.
The sanad-the chains are important to us. Equally important to us is the matn -the actual text. Are the text consistent with one another, do they present to us any anomalies or inconsistencies?
We ask you dear reader to ask Allah (swt) for guidance and to use the brain he has given you to reflect on what you are about to read.
The anonymous Bedouin and the dream of ‘Utbi.
“In this Qur’anic verse Allah is exhorting the sinners and evildoers that when they commit sins and errors they should call on the Messenger of Allah (saw) and ask forgiveness from Allah. They should also request the Messenger of Allah (saw) to pray for them. When they do so, Allah will turn to them and forgive them and He will show mercy to them. That is why He used the words la-wajadullaha tawwaban-rahima (they (on the basis of this means and intercession) would have surely found Allah the Granter of repentance, extremely Merciful). Many have stated this tradition. One of them is Abu Mansur Sabbagh who writes in his book al-Hikayat-ul-mashhurah that, according to ‘Utbi, once he was sitting beside the Prophet’s grave when a Bedouin came and he said, “Peace be on you, O Allah’s Messenger. I have heard that Allah says: ‘(O beloved!) And if they had come to you, when they had wronged their souls, and asked forgiveness of Allah, and the Messenger also had asked forgiveness for them, they (on the basis of this means and intercession) would have surely found Allah the Granter of repentance, extremely Merciful.’ I have come to you, asking forgiveness for my sins and I make you my intermediary before my Lord and I have come to you for this purpose.” The he recited these verses: “O, the most exalted among the buried people who improved the worth of the plains and hillocks! May I sacrifice my life for this grave which is made radiant by you, (the Prophet,) the one who is (an embodiment) of mercy and forgiveness.” Then the Bedouin went away and I fell asleep. In my dream I saw the Holy Prophet (saw). He said to me: O ‘Utbi the Bedouin is right, go and give him the good news that Allah has forgiven his sins.”
Source: (pg. 209-211. Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri)
You will not fail to note in these narrations that the individual is an unnamed or undisclosed person.
Why the redundancy on behalf of the Prophet (saw)?
Why not just show up in that unnamed man’s dream and tell him directly?
Next, why can’t the Prophet (saw) name the individual?
In other words why say: “O ‘Utbi the Bedouin is right.” Why not say O ‘Utbi, Abdullah bin Marwan ibn Khalid etc…”
On page 212 we are given another tradition by Imam Qurtubi in his famous exegesis al-Jami li-ahkam-il-Qur’an (5:265-6) similar to the ‘Utbi tradition. It states:
The anonymous villager and ‘Ali.
“Abu Sadiq has reported it from ‘Ali, A villager came to see us three days after the burial of the Holy Prophet (saw). He placed himself near the Prophet’s grave, sprinkled its earth over his body and said : ‘O Messenger of Allah, you said and we have heard it from you. You received commands from Allah and we received commands from you, and one of these divine commands is wa law annahum idh zalamu anfusahum. It is true that I have wronged myself, therefore, you should pray for my forgiveness.” (In response o the villager’s act of imploring) he was called out from the grave: ‘there is no doubt that you have been forgiven.’”
Source: (page 212 Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri)
What is quite eye opening is that these traditions, one can imagine if being circulated on their own may have passed in many circles as credible.
Yet, when we have them juxtaposed together the questions start to arise.
This time we have an anonymous villager. This anonymous villager unlike the anonymous Bedouin gets an immediate response from the grave.
Why in this case does the anonymous villager get an immediate response where as the anonymous Bedouin has be told via an intermediary via a dream at that?
Now in regard to the second report Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri is displeased that Shaykh Muhammed b. Alawi al-Maliki al-Hasani does not find it reliable.
Dr. Qadri states:
“Muhammed bin ‘Alawi al-Maliki expresses in his review an ambivalent attitude towards the tradition as he cannot positively, certify its authenticity,but in spite of its lack of certainty, most of the traditionalist have relied on its credibility.” Source: (pg. 213 Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul) by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri)
Actually what Shaykh Muhammed bin ‘Alawi al-Maliki says in his book is as follows:
“So, this is the story of al-‘Utbi, and these are the (scholars) who quoted it. It is irrelevant if this report is authentic or weak. We inquire: Did these (scholars) quote something that is idolatry and misguidance? Did they quote from something that invites to idol worship and grave worship? If that is indeed the case, then what reliability is there to be found in tehm or their books? Glorified are You my Lord this is manifest slander!”
Source: (pg. 119 Notions that must be corrected by Shaykh Muhammed b. Alawi al-Maliki al-Hasani)
In reality. Dr. Qadri basically re-words Shaykh ‘Alawi al-Malki’s words as his own so it is not wholesale plagiarism.
But these are eye opening statements.
“It is irrelevant if this report is authentic or weak.”
“but in spite of its lack of certainty, most of the traditionalist have relied on its credibility.”
As Allah (swt) states:“They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah”
Apparently this only applies to Jewish and Christian scholars and never to Muslim scholars!
The tradition concerning rain through the means of the Prophet (saw) after his death.
“The people of Medina were in the grip of a severe famine. They complained to ‘Aisha (about their terrible condition). She told them to go towards the Prophet’s grave and open a window in the direction of the sky so that there is no curtain between the sky and the grave. The narrator says they do so. Then it started raining heavily; even the lush green grass sprang up (everywhere) and the camel’s had grown so fat (it seemed) they would burst out due to their over piling of blubber. So the year was named as the year of greenery and plenty.”
Source: (pg. 215-216 Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul) by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri.)
The chain of transmission for this hadith is: Abu an-Nu’man heard it from Sa’id bin Zayd, he from ‘Amr bin Malik an-Nukri and he from Abu al-Jawza Aws bin Abdullah who has reported it.
Abu an-Nu’man ‘Arim was Muhammed bin al-Fadl Sadusi. He was Imam Bukhari’s teacher, and memorizer of traditions and they (Ahl Sunnah)claim he was a very truthful person.
This man who would say about Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib – “The son of the prostitute.” – This Abu an-Nu’man /Muhammed ibn Al-Fadl Sadusi he is the reliable and truthful one with these people?!
Nonetheless objections have been made against virtually the entire chain of transmitters. Against Abu an-Nu’man.
Against Sa’id bin Zayd. He has been classified as weak.
Against ‘Amr bin Malik and Abu al-Jawza.
At the end of the day let us say that this tradition had no one who disputed it. What does it say? It shows that Allah (swt) honoured the grave of the Blessed Prophet (saw) as he does till today.
There is nothing in the above narration about people either making tawassul or istigatha to the Blessed Prophet (saw) after his death.
In fact, we have the right to ask what would be the advise of the advocates of those who say we can do istigatha to the Blessed Prophet (saw) after he has died, if for example a similar situation happened any where else in the world that doesn’t have the grave of the Blessed Prophet (saw) near by?
A) If they can get similar results by doing istigatha to the Blessed Prophet (saw) after he died without needing to do any action at the grave; then why do people need to perform some action with the grave in order to receive the blessing?
I know the response is that it is not because of the grave but the person in the grave.
However, if my question in A) above is not answered the impression is that it is not the Prophet (saw) alone but a combo of Grave + Prophet that the people did istigatha to receive rain.
Thus, if people in remote parts of the world can do istigatha of the Blessed Prophet (saw) to receive rain and they do not have to do any action to his grave why did the people of Medina need to do so?
In other words, these people instead of trying to sell the Muslim masses a combo meal, inclusive of fries and a drink, they want to give us a Combo Istigatha Grave + Prophet.
B) If the teaching of istigatha by calling out to the Blessed Prophet (saw) after he died or making means of his burial site was a known thing among the people why did Aisha (ra) have to inform them what to do to begin with?
After all the text does say: “The people of Medinawere in the grip of a severe famine.” Among the people of Medina are heavy weights of knowledge concerning the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Intermediation through the Prophet’s grave during ‘Umar’s tenure?
Malik ad-Dar has related:
“The people were gripped by famine during the tenure of ‘Umar (bin al-Khattab), Then a Companion walked up to the Prophet’s grave and said, “O Messenger of Allah, please ask for rain from Allah for your Community who is in dire straights.” Then the Companion saw the Prophet (saw) in a dream. The Prophet (saw) said to him, “Go over to ‘Umar, give him my regards and tell him that the rain will come to you. And tell ‘Umar that he should be on his toes, he should be on his toes. (he should remain alert).” Then the Companion went over to see ‘Umar and passed on to him the tidings. On hearing this, ‘Umar broke into a spurt of crying. He said, “O Allah, I exert myself to fall until I am completely exhausted.”
Source: (pg. 229 to 230 Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul) by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri.)
What can be said about this. There are some people that the truth comes out of their own mouths and they do not stop to think about it! Allah is our refuge.
In this chain of narration is A’mash.
“A’mash is regarded a second-grade impostor, and this is a class of impostors from whom our religious leaders recorded traditions in their authentic books. Therefore, it is proved that this tradition narrated by A’mash is accepted.”
Source: (pg. 231 Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul) by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri)
What can we say people? Admitted imposters inform of us our faith! Do people have no hayya?
Also, this whole narration is flatly contradicted by the narration above!
O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle
This is crystal clear. We used to (past tense) this of course is when the Blessed Prophet (saw) was alive.
Take a close look at the above report and then go back and compare/contrast it with the two above ( The anonymous villager and ‘Ali & The anonymous Bedouin and the dream of ‘Utbi)
The anonymous Bedouin who ask himself has yet ‘Utbi (the one who did not even ask) is the one who has the dream.
“Then the Bedouin went away and I fell asleep. In my dream I saw the Holy Prophet (saw). He said to me: O ‘Utbi the Bedouin is right, go and give him the good news that Allah has forgiven his sins.”
The anonymous Villager who ask himself gets called out to directly from the grave.
(In response o the villager’s act of imploring) he was called out from the grave: ‘there is no doubt that you have been forgiven’
The anonymous companion who ask himself has a dream to go inform Umar (who did not even ask)
“Then the Companion saw the Prophet (saw) in a dream. The Prophet (saw) said to him, “Go over to ‘Umar, give him my regards and tell him that the rain will come to you.”
What on Earth is going on?!
The hadith of ‘Uthman bin Hunayf.
When it comes to this hadith I found it very curious as to why the Arabic was rendered into English the way that it was by Dr. Tahir-Ul-Qadri.
“By God! I did not say this, but once I was in the company of the Messenger of Allah (saw) that a blind man came over to see him and complained t him about the loss of his eyesight. The Prophet (saw) asked him to be patient, but he said: “O Messenger of Allah! I don’t have any servant and I am in great trouble. The Prophet (saw) said: fetch an earthen pot and perform the ablution, then offer two cycles of prayer and implore Allah with these praying words.‘ Then ‘Uthman bin Hunayf said: ‘By God! We had neither gone out far away from the meeting nor had the conversation among us stretched out that the man came running to us as if he had never been blind.”
Source: (pg. 242 Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul) by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri)
Two things to take note.
The first point to take note of.
The Prophet (saw) asked him to be patient. This is quite sly and I will tell you why this is.
`Uthman bin Hunaif narrated that a blind man came to the Prophet (saw) and said:
“Supplicate to Allah to heal me.” He (saw) said: “If you wish I will supplicate for you, and if you wish, you can be patient, for that is better for you.” He said: “Then supplicate to Him.” He said: “So he ordered him to perform Wudu’ and to make his Wudu’ complete, and to supplicate with this supplication: ‘O Allah, I ask You and turn towards You by Your Prophet Muhammed (saw), the Prophet of Mercy. Indeed, I have turned to my Lord, by means of You, concerning this need of mine, so that it can be resolved, so O Allah so accept his intercession for me (Allāhumma innī as’aluka wa atawajjahu ilaika binabiyyka Muḥammedin nabi-ir-raḥmati, innī tawajjahtu bika ila rabbī fī ḥājatī hādhihī lituqḍā lī, Allāhumma fashaffi`hu fīyya).’”
Why leave out the fact that the Blessed Prophet (saw) himself told the man that being patient with what Allah (swt) decreed would be better than the Prophet (saw) supplicating or interceding on his behalf?!!
In fact, the Qur’an mentions the action in which Allah (swt) rewards us without measure and it is not tawassul or istigatha.
“Say ˹O Prophet, that Allah says˺, “O My servants who believe! Be mindful of your Lord. Those who do good in this world will have a good reward. And Allah’s earth is spacious.Only those who endure patiently will be given their reward without limit.” (Qur’an 39:10)
The second point to take note of.
The text quoted does not give you the formula of the prayer. “with these praying words.” Well, what are those praying words?
Shaykh Muhammed Alawi al-Maliki does the same thing!
We read:
“From ‘Uthman b. Hunayf (ra) who said: “When a blind man came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) complaining from his loss of sight, he said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I have no one to lead me and things are difficult for me. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Go perform wudu’, pray two units of ritual Prayer, then supplicate: ‘O Allah, I ask you and turn to you through Your Prophet, the Prophet of Mercy, O Muhammed, I turn to your Lord through you so that He returns to me my sight. O Allah, grant him intercession for me, and grant me intercession for myself.” ‘Uthman said: “By Allah, we did not part company or speak for a very long, before the man came to us as if there was nothing wrong with him.”
Source: (pg. 87 Notions that must be corrected by Shaykh Muhammed b. Alawi al-Maliki al-Hasani)
Where is the statement: “be patient, for that is better for you” ?!!
Why leave out this key text?
For the record we (as Ibadis would have no issue) with the narration in Tirmidhi. This happened while the Blessed Prophet (saw) was still alive. No problem.
Yet,
The above hadith of ‘Uthman bin Hunayf comes under a section that is titled:Tawassul through the Prophet (saw) in his life and after his death. In Shaykh Muhammed b. Alawi al-Maliki’s book.
It is also is quoted by Dr. Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri is under a section titled:
“Intermediation through the holy Prophet (saw) after his death.”
So why would they include a hadith that is talking about an action of the Blessed Prophet (saw) while he was still alive in a section about intermediation after his (saw) death?
Because they both go on to provide another narration where ‘Uthman bin Hunayf teaches a man to pray the following formula after the Prophet (saw) died:
O Allah, I ask you and turn to you through Your Prophet, the Prophet of Mercy, O Muhammed, I turn to your Lord through you so that He returns to me my sight. O Allah, grant him intercession for me, and grant me intercession for myself.”
Remember this clashes with what we know from Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) who stated:
O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle
This is crystal clear. We used to (past tense) this of course is when the Blessed Prophet (saw) was alive.
Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) is using the plural form “We” this means a collective understanding and this trumps an individual understanding.
On what consistent basis can it be argued that we can’t ask the Prophet (saw) for rain now that he is dead but we can invoke him for other purposes?
In summary about 5 different traditions are cited by those who propose that we call upon the Prophet (saw) after his death. These traditions are either fraught with challenges to their chains of transmissions or out right contradict other transmissions that are stronger or have no challenges to their chains of transmissions.
I have been in circles and gatherings before that practice istigatha and tawassul to not only the Blessed Prophet (saw), but to scholars, people deemed saints or awilya (friends of Allah) and the frequency to which it occurs among them was really what put this whole thing into perspective.
Given the frequency of this occurrence among them and the fact that you would think that if such a practice was really going on in the early Muslim community then these people would not need to be like pan handlers or gold prospectors trying to sift and find anything, anything at all to support their claims.
So recall that the side that is saying that to call upon the Prophet (saw) even after he has died it is mustahab -recommended, not that it is wajib or fardh.
Also recall the quote from Shaykh Muhammed b. Alawi al-Maliki
“Tawassul is not an obligation or a necessary matter, neither is the response to the supplication conditional upon it, Rather, the basis for the supplication is to call upon Allah, the Exalted, as Allah said: And if my servants ask you concerning me, then say that I am close (al-Baqara: 186) and: Say, “Call upon Allah or call upon al-Rahman: Whatever you call him by -to Him belong the best names.”
Source: (pgs. 74-75 Notions that must be corrected by Shaykh Muhammed b. Alawi al-Maliki al-Hasani)
Thus, given the extremely contentious nature of this issue, it is best to keep to that tawassul which the scholars and the Muslims are in agreement upon. Leave that tawassul in which the scholars and the Muslims dispute about. It also would be best to keep to that istigatha which the scholars and the Muslims are in agreement upon. Leave that istigatha which the scholars and the Muslims dispute about.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah revealed the Verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” Allah’s Messenger (saw) got up and said, “O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Bani `Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah’s Messenger (saw)! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammed! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment.”
I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.”
“Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Universe” Allah (swt) is the Rabil alamin.
Allah (swt) is not once addressed in the entire Qur’an as: “The Lord of Muhammed (saw)”, as if that was some exclusive title.
Allah takes pleasure in not simply being The Rabb of Muhammed but “The Rabb of all mankind”.
“We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ only as a mercy for the whole world.” (Qur’an 21:107)
And the Blessed Prophet(saw) continues to be a mercy for the whole of mankind by leaving behind his examples, his Sunnah, his beautiful and noble character.
Summary:
Aqidah principles have to be based upon that which is certain.
Tawassul 1st Type: Asking Assad to make du’a thinking it will be accepted because Assad has the power to make it accepted. -This is shirk.
2nd Type: Asking Assad to make du’a thinking it will be accepted because of his closeness and proximity to Allah. -This is acceptable.
3rd Type: Thinking Allah will assit us simply by mentioning the name of someone in your du’a. Exampe: “Oh Allah Assad is with us, so grant us victory!” This seems to occupy a place between the 1st and 2nd type. Some say it is shirk some say it is not. We leave the doubtful so we abstain from this.
Istigatha.
Calling out to someone or something that is alive and has the abilty to aid you. Examples: Your friend, your brother, your parents, your children. -This is acceptable
Calling out to those who have died. Some say it is shirk and some say it is not shirk. We leave the doubtful so we abstain from this.
“When My servants ask you about Me: I am truly near. I respond to one’s prayer when they call upon Me. So let them respond ˹with obedience˺ to Me and believe in Me, perhaps they will be guided.” (Qur’an 2:186)
Some people say they call upon others to bring them closer to Allah (swt). However, Allah (swt) said that he is truly near.
“Your Lord has proclaimed, “Call upon Me, I will respond to you. Surely those who are too proud to worship Me will enter Hell, fully humbled.” (Qur’an 40:60)
Calling upon other than Allah. Any Muslim that says your du’a or prayer is defective if you don’t call upon other than Allah should cause alarm bells. How can you be faulted for calling upon or worshipping Allah alone?
Conclusion: A believer cannot go wrong by leaving the doubtful.
We maintain our connection via the Blessed Prophet (saw) via following his Blessed Sunnah.
“Believe then in Allah and His Messenger, and in the light which We have sent down. Allah is fully aware of all that you do.”(Qur’an 64:8)
﷽
There is no denying the light that cascades across the floor. Indeed, many cathedrals are beautiful and breathtaking. Yet, no Muslim would deny that the teachings that take place in such buildings are teachings that mix light with darkness. It mixes haqq with batil. It mixes truth with falsehood.
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)
“They say, The Most Compassionate has offspring. You have certainly made an atrociousclaim, by which the heavens are about to burst, the earth to split apart, and the mountains to crumble to pieces. in protest of attributing children to the Most Compassionate.” (Qur’an 19:88-91)
There is a shared conceptual structure between Christian Logos theology, Neo-Platonic emanationism and the Sufi/Shi’i doctrines of Nūr i Muḥammed.
This is something alien to Islam.
Nūr i Muḥammed is a concept primarily within Sufi and some Shi’i traditions, designating Prophet Muhammed (saw) as the first creation and the primordial light from which the universe was created. It represents his inner, transcendent reality and spiritual essence rather than his physical humanity.
We see in the sacred text of the Christians the following beliefs.
Part of the Nicene Creed reads as follows:
“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”
“For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 2:16-17)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. (John 1:1-8)
Contrary to what people think that the Qur’an being created is from Greek philsophy far from it. It is quite the opposite.
The position of the Sunni/Neo-Platonists. The Monad & the Logos
An uncreated ‘Kun’ by which everything else is created. The ‘kun’ acts as the intermediary between Allah, the transcendant and the material world.
However, the Sunnis believe that this uncreated ‘kun’ is not identical to the essence of Allah nor other than Allah’s essence. In our view, this is a step away from monotheism and a bridge towards Christology and logos theology.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:3)
In our article here, we have shown that Jesus is not the eternal word of Allah. Jesus is the created word of Allah. Created from nothing “dust” and that which is created from dust or nothingness is not an attribute of Allah at all.
It is historically accurate to say that Christian theology has been heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy. We know this was the downward road in regard to their creed. So we now want to look at how such beliefs influenced certain strands of Islam.
As a reminder, our aqidah needs to be built upon the verses of the Qur’an. Those that are clear. Or it needs to be built upon the tawatur from the hadith.
And it dazzles the mind how those Muslims get accosted who say that Muhammed (saw) is only a man. They get accosted by those who hold fast to batini and esoteric doctrines. Well, if Muhammed (saw) is not only a man, then what is he? An angel? A demigod? A deity?
The same people do not seem to mind when we say about Jesus (as) that he is only a man. Even though Jesus (as) was born without a father.
“Say, “I am only a (basharun) man (mith’lukum)like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.” (Qur’an 18:110)
“But now you seek to kill me, a man (anthropos) who has told you the truth which I heard from.” (John 8:40)
Question: What does the word Anthropos mean?
Answer: It means a mortal human being, full man. It distinguishes man from the animal kingdom on one hand and distinguishes man from a deity and divine essence on the other.
Anthropos is where we get the word anthropology, which means the study of man.
So this has not deterred those who wanted to bring Platonic Philosophy into Islam. In fact, it emboldens them. They reason well, Jesus (as) is anthropos, but he pre-existed as the word. So they reason that even if Muhammed (saw) is bashar, they can make him pre-exist as some eternal light.
What is interesting to note here is that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus (as) say: “I am a man like you.” However, the text of the Qur’an is explicit. Muhammed (saw) is a man like us.
“And We sent not before you except (rijalan) men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the people of the message if you do not know.” (Qur’an 16:43)
And We sent not before you, except men(rijalan) to whom We revealed [the message], so ask the people of the message if you do not know. We gave them not bodies that would not eat food, nor were they (khālidīna)immortals. (Qur’an 21:7-8)
khālidīna -this also means eternal. Jesus (as) is not the eternal word. Muhammed (saw) is not eternal light. Neither of them is eternal.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. messengers had gone before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both ate food. See how We make the signs clear to them, yet see how they are deluded!” (Qur’an 5:75)
“And they say, “What is this messenger that eats food and walks in the markets? Why was there not sent down to him an angel so he would be with him a warner?” (Qur’an 25:7)
In fact, if we do not accept the fact that Muhammed (saw) is a man like us, then we are accepting the belief of the Mushriks, who are surprised that Allah (swt) sends a man that eats food and walks among them.
“They say, “Why has no angel come with him?” Had We sent down an angel, the matter would have certainly been settled, and they would have never been given more time. And if We had sent an angel, We would have certainly made it a man—leaving them more confused than they already are.” (Qur’an 6:8-9)
The verse above has the Mushrik asking why no angel was sent with Muhammed (saw). So they are making a contrast between the two.
If Allah (swt) sent an angel, there would be no more room to debate about anything. This clearly tells us that Muhammed (saw) is not an angel. Angels are those beings which are created from light.
And nothing has prevented people from believing when guidance comes to them except their protest: “Has Allah sent a (basharan) human as a messenger?” (Qur’an 17:94)
“They challenge, “We will never believe in you until you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us, or until you have a garden of palm trees and vineyards, and cause rivers to flow abundantly in it. Or you should cause the heaven to come down upon us in pieces as you think, or bring Allah and the angels face to face (with us). Or you have a house of gold or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read.” Say, “Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?” (Qur’an 17:90-93)
They asked Muhammed (saw) the following:
Bring a spring to gush forth from the earth.
Bring forth gardens, palm trees and vineyards.
Cause rivers to flow.
Bring the heavens down.
Bring Allah and the angels face to face.
Have a house made of guild.
Ascend into the sky. -it is clear that Jesus did not do this either.
Bring us down a book.
Muhammed (saw) replied to this by saying: He was only a human (basharan) messenger.
“Say: I am no (bid’an)new thing among the messengers (of Allah), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.”(Qur’an 46:9)
If Muhammed (saw) is the first creation and primordial light, then he certainly is a new thing among the messengers, as this cannot be said about any of the messengers who have come before him.
Verses from the Qur’an that are used to try and prove Nūr Muḥammed.
“O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” (Qur’an 5:15)
mina l-lahi nurun wakitabun mubinun yahydi bihi from Allah a light and a book clear guides with it
The Qur’an is the light and a clear book. Allah guides with it, not with them(plural)
You may see how disparate translations render the Arabic into English.
“O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light.” (Qur’an 4:174)
bur’hanum min rabbikum wa-anzalna ilaykum nuran mubinan convincing proof from your Lord sent down to you a light clear
The Qur’an never references nazzala (sending down) to a human being ever! For example:
“Indeed, We have anzalna sent down to you the Book, in truth. So worship Allah , [being] sincere to Him in religion.” (Qur’an 39:2)
Rather, when speaking about prophets as messengers, Allah (swt) uses the word arsala (sent).
See: Qur’an 21:07Qur’an 33:45 and Qur’an 47:2
Allah (swt) tells us that the Qur’an is that light from Allah.
“And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, you guide to a (siratin mus’taqimin) straight path.”(Qur’an 42:52)
“Believe then in Allah and His Messenger, and in the light which We have sent down. Allah is fully aware of all that you do.”(Qur’an 64:8)
Notice the text says believe in Allah and his Messenger and in the light. The text does not say believe in Allah and his Messenger, who is the light! Just as the wa distinguishes the Messenger from Allah, the wa also distinguishes the nur from the Messenger!
First it should be said that the Qur’an is sufficient in this regard. Anything that one would bring from the hadith would come to clash with the overwhelming flood of evidence that the Qur’an has established.
Secondly, it should also be stated that none of the evidence brought from the hadith amounts to tawatur and, therefore, it cannot be established as an aqidah point.
Nonetheless, we will look at the evidence one tries to establish from the hadith for Nur-Muhammed. The idea of Muhammed (saw) as the first creation and/or the primordial light from which the universe was created.
It would also clash with other lone narrator reports.
Umm Salamah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Indeed you come to me with your disputes, and I am only a human being, perhaps one of you is more eloquent at presenting his argument than the other. If I judge for one of you, giving him something from the rights of his brother, then it is only a piece of the Fire that I am giving him, so do not take anything from it.”
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said prayer and he omitted or committed (something). Ibrahim (one of the narrators of this hadith) said: It is my doubt, and it was said: Messenger of Allah, has there been any addition to the prayer? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily I am a human being like you. I forget just as you forget so when any one of you forgets, he must perform two prostrations, and he (the Holy Prophet) was sitting and then the Messenger of Allah (saw) turned (his face towards the Qibla) and performed two prostrations.
It also contradicts other information from the Blessed Prophet (saw) about what was the first created thing.
Abdul-Wahid bin Sulaim narrated:
“I arrived in Makkah and met ‘Ata bin Abi Rabah. I said to him: ‘O Abu Muhammed! The people of Al-Basrah speak about Al-Qadar.’ He said: ‘O my son! Do you recite the Quran?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then recite Az-Zukhruf to me.’” He said: ‘So I recited: Ha Mim. By the manifest Book. Verily, We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic that you may be able to understand. And verily, it is in the Mother of Book with Us, indeed exalted, full of wisdom. Then he said: ‘Do you know what Mother of Books is?’ I said: ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said:’It is a book that Allah wrote before He created the Heavens, and before He created the earth. In it, it is (written): Fir’awn is among the inhabitants of the Fire, and in it is: Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!’Ata said: ‘I met Al-Walid the son of ‘Ubadah bin As-Samit the Companion of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and asked him:’What was your father’s admonition when he died?” He said:”He called me and said: ‘O my son ! Have Taqwa of Allah, and know that you will never have Taqwa of Allah until you believe in Allah, and you believe in Al-Qadar- all of it-its good and its bad. If you die upon other than this you shall enter the Fire. Indeed I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. So He said: ‘Write.’ It said : ‘What shall I write?’ He said : ‘Write Al-Qadar, what it is , and what shall be, until the end.’”
The Pen is presented as a created instrument for recording destiny. That is all.
The very first of what Allah created was the Pen.
None of the information that has been supplied mentions anything about spatiality.
So this leaves us with some points of discussion.
If spatiality is not a creation but something that co-exists with Allah. Then who or what creates spatiality? How do we square this with the belief that Allah creates all things?
If spatiality is a creation and the first thing that was created before spatiality was either the Pen or the Throne. This means that the Pen or the Throne existed prior to spatiality. Since we do not posit a place for Allah (swt), then one could conclude the Pen is like Allah (swt) in existing without a place.
The unresolvable tension in Neo-Platonic emanationism.
Neo-Platonic emanationism: The One is absolutely transcendent, beyond being, beyond space, beyond time. The first emanation (the Nous/Intellect) is the first thing that has being, but it exists in a framework of emanation that presupposes the One’s transcendence.
The Islamic doctrine of tawhid: “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an42:11). Allah alone is eternal, uncreated, without beginning. Everything else is created, contingent, and shares no attributes of divinity.
If the Muhammedan Light or the Pen was created before space and time, then:
It exists in a state of non-spatial, non-temporal existence.
This is precisely the definition of divine transcendence. Existing without being located in space or time.
Something now shares this attribute with Allah.
“There is nothing like unto Him” is compromised.
When the Nūr Muḥammed doctrine claims:
“The first thing Allah created was the light of Muhammed”
It must then answer: Where did this light exist before space and time?
There are three possible responses, all of them problematic.
It existed in Allah. Something created existed within the divine.
It existed in a place. Which mean space is either uncreated (co-eternal with Allah) or the light created its own container (nonsensical).
It existed in no place and no time. The light shares with Allah the attribute of existing without spatial or temporal location. There is nothing like unto him now has an exception. The light is, in this crucial respect, like Allah.
There is no escape.
The Neo-Platonic Framework Collapses Under Islamic Premises
Neo-Platonism works because:
The One is beyond being, beyond even the category of “existence”
The Nous is the first being However, being is already a category that the One transcends.
The Nous is divine, and the system is not radically monotheistic.
But Islam does not allow:
Degrees of divinity.
A hierarchy of being where the first emanation shares in transcendence with that which is beyond being.
When Sufi metaphysicians attempted to import the Neo-Platonic structure while claiming to preserve tawhid, they created an unstable hybrid.
Evidences from the hadith that are used to try and prove Nūr Muḥammed.
The first hadith evidence that is used.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
“They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw)! When was the Prophethood established for you?’ He said: ‘While Adam was between (being) soul and body.'”
This above hadith mentions nothing about when the Prophet (saw) was created or what he was created from. It simply establishes that the office of Prophethood was ordained for him. This the more straightforward and textually responsible reading. The plain sense of the text is about foreknowledge and divine decree, not ontological pre-existence.
The second hadith that is used.
He relates from Jabir ibn Abdullah who stated:“I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw)! May my mother and father be sacrificed for you, tell us of the first creation which Allah created before everything?’ The Prophet saw answered, ‘O Jabir! Indeed Allah created before everything the light of your Prophet from His light.”
Source: (Al-Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, pp. 63, Hadith 18)
This hadith is fabricated (mawḍū’)
The consensus is that it has no sound chain of transmission (sanad) and was falsely attributed to the Prophet (saw).
Bring us an authentic chain for this hadith.
The most dangerous aspect of the above hadith is the wording, “from His light” (min nūrihī). This can be dangerously understood to imply that the Prophet (saw) is a part of Allah or that Allah’s essence is divisible. A concept fundamentally opposed to Islamic monotheism (tawhid).
It is challenging to take seriously the claims of anyone who says they defend (tawhid) and expresses the above view.
Such groups who advocate this are like the mysterion cults. They hold that such sacred truths are revealed but cannot be fully understood by reason. They need esoteric (obscure) explanations or can only be explained via esoteric rituals that are not within the grasp of the uninitiated. The contradictory nature is laid bare for all to see. If that is the case, then you do need recourse to proof text. You simply need aprior convictions.
One of our team members was introduced to a Sufi Tariqa in which one of its members approached them asking about how they understood Nur i Muhammed. The follower of this Tariqa said: “The light of Allah is Allah!”
So how does this Nur of Muhammed (saw) actually work?
If you are involved in Sufism or Sufi Metaphysics, it is usually taught that this light enters into Adam.
Then it is passed from Adam to his son Seth. It goes all the way to Nuh. Then, at this point, something crucial happens. The light is passed onto Nuh’s son Sam (Shem). The Semetic people and his other son, Ham (Hamitic) people, receive a curse. Physically portrayed by being black-skinned.
It continues until it reaches Abrahams son (Isma’il). Now we get into a conundrum here. It cannot go through the son Ishaq because this line stops at Jesus (as) who had no children.
So it now passes through (Isma’il). But now we face another problem.
Historically speaking, there is a span of approximately 2,500 to 2,700 years between Isma’il, peace be upon him (born c. 2000s B.C.E.) and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him(born 570 C.E.). While Islamic tradition holds that Muhammed is a direct descendant of Isma’il, historians and early genealogists note that there is no continuous, verified, or documented written record for this connection.
Also, on top of that, it must be affirmed that for that span of 2,500 years, that entire line maintained a belief in perfect monotheism.
Critique of Esoteric Cults and Genealogy
Where this becomes a source for cults and manipulation. If you continue to hold that this nur i muhammed travels through his descendants, then not only are the descendants superior to you via bloodline, but they are metaphysically superior to you based upon this esoteric reality.
This has become a source of manipulation and abuse in many circles. A person who is claimed to possess such attributes becomes a deity in their circle. Unchallenged and unquestioned. The least infraction can bring wrath and damnation down upon one. If the Imam, Qutb (or Ghawth) is caught up in sexual impropriety, molestation, physical abuse and or squandering of funds, any whistleblowers would be shamed into silence.
The Ibadi school shuts the doors to these esoteric beliefs which have no firm basis in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Exploitation of people cannot come about through presumed superior metaphysical personages.
Put yourself for a moment in the position of a 7th century Bedouin hearer, the idea that Muhammed (saw) pre-existed as a cosmic light, or that there exists a “Muhammedan Reality” that is the first emanation and the instrument of creation, would have sounded unfamiliar. Perhaps dangerously close to what they had just been taught to reject about Arab polytheism (where lesser deities mediated between the high God and the world) and Christianity (where the Logos became flesh).
In the end, what is needed for the Muslims is a return to purity in creed. A creed based upon the firm and clear text of the Qur’an and the mass transmitted testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures.” (Quran 21:107)
﷽
The Mufti of Oman, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (H) has informed us:
“Celebrating the birth of the Prophet ﷺ was not practiced during the time of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), nor during the time of the Successors (tābi‘īn), nor during the time of the successors of the Successors (atbā‘ al-tābi‘īn). Most likely, this celebration began during the era of the Fatimids. It is said that their intention behind this celebration was to deflect accusations that they were not truly Muslims. There is much discussion about the Fatimids. Some even refer to them as the “ʿUbaydīs”. Though they attributed themselves to Fāṭimah (may Allah be pleased with her) and thus were called “Fāṭimids.” Yet, many exaggerations surrounding them go so far as to take them outside the fold of Islam. For example, some said about al-Muʿizz al-Fāṭimī: “Whatever you will happens, not what fate decrees; you rule, for you are the One, the Subduer.” This is evidence that those people were far from Islam and from the oneness of Allah, as this is deification of human beings.”
“They were the first to introduce the celebration, and Muslims later adopted it from them. Perhaps the desire to celebrate the Prophet’s birthday was in order to remind people of this great blessing. The blessing of Allah sending His Messenger ﷺ to us. However, we must consider several important factors. Among these is that people, in commemorating the Prophet’s birth, have attributed sanctity to human-authored texts recounting the story of the noble birth. They came to revere such writings as if they were the Qur’an itself, and this is impermissible. Nothing is sacred except the words of Allah. As for the words of the Prophet ﷺ, when we read them, it is for the sake of deriving benefit and guidance; reading them in itself is not an act of worship. If someone who does not understand the Prophet’s words were to recite them thinking it was an act of devotion, it would not count as worship. Unlike the Qur’an, whose recitation is worship whether one understands it or not.”
“Therefore, attributing sacredness to anything other than the words of Allah is problematic. If the celebration is meant to remind people of this great blessing, then one should not be bound to a single text authored by a person centuries ago as though it were a chapter of the Qur’an. Rather, the occasion can be connected to present-day circumstances. What the community needs to draw from this remembrance, such as reviving the call to Islam and renewing the message. This can be done by giving lectures, enlightening people about this blessing, and renewing the spirit of the message according to the needs of the time.”
“At the same time, all that contradicts the Sharīʿah in such celebrations must be avoided. Gatherings involving drums, dancing by men and women, and similar practices are contrary to Islamic teachings. These must be avoided. Likewise, the extravagant spending of large amounts of money on such occasions does not please the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. These funds would be better spent on things that benefit the Muslim community. Excessive decoration and lavish displays are also not a proper way of honoring the Prophet. These are matters that must be carefully avoided.” -The Mufti of Oman, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (H)
Prima Qur’an comments:
So there is no need for people to try and justify this practice to the people on the basis of what the early generation did or what the Blessed Prophet (saw) ordered us to do.
If people celebrate to remember the blessings of the Blessed Prophet (saw), by giving lectures etc then this is not something in our estimation that is totally forbidden.
Celebrating the birth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) with speech, and poems has become ‘urf (culture/custom). -It does not violate Islamic Principles.
Do we become the beloved of Allah (swt) by following the beloved of Allah (swt).
Celebrating the birth of our noble Prophet (saw) Say, “If you ˹sincerely˺ love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive your sins. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
We do not believe such celebrations should be done with haram music, dancing or free mixing. This time is used to send abundant blessings down upon the Blessed Prophet (saw) and used as a time to reflect on rather or not we become the beloved of Allah (swt) by following the beloved of Allah (swt).
#متابعات أحيت منارة الاستقامة لتعليم القرآن الكريم وعلومه بمدينةنالوت بالأمس ذكرى #المولد_النبوي_الشريف ضمن البرنامج الذي أعلن عنه مكتب أوقاف #نالوت حيث ألقيت بعض الكلمات بمناسبة هذه الذكرى الجميلة كما تخلل هذه الأمسية بعض القصائد والأناشيد والمدائح النبوية. @Taha_Asker12 pic.twitter.com/kMeVcCZDvp
Often in Oman, Sunni and Ibadi come together to celebrate the Maulid
“Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often.” (Qur’an 33:21)
و كان نبينا صلى الله عليه وسلم يتسابق في طاعته القرشي والحبشي و الفارسي و الرومي يذكر اسمه فتفيض العيون بالدمع، وتورد أحاديثه فتجيش الارواح بالشوق، له في كل مكان أتباع، وفي كل بلد أنصار، وفي كل قطر محبون، يدوي اسمه في الأذان وفي المنائر، ويذكر على المنابر، ويدرس في الدفاتر،… pic.twitter.com/3HQWoiCazd
Some of the justifications that we use to allow the practice are as follows:
“And as for the blessings of your Lord, speak of them” (Qur’an 93:11)
Is not the birth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) a blessing to humanity?
It heralds the arrival of Allah’s beloved.
It is a way to convey the message of Muhammed (saw).
It is a way to send blessings and peace upon him.
A way to adhere to his love and follow what he (saw) brought.
This entry is quite short because it is not a hair splitting issue for us. Our scholars are very clear that we do not have records of the early generations celebrating this. This is something from ‘urf that the people love to do out of their burning love for Allah’s beloved.
Those who do not participate are not looked down upon. Those who wish to participate are received warmly.
“But My mercy encompasses everything. I will ordain mercy for those who shun evil, pay alms-tax, and believe in Our revelations.” (Qur’an 7:156)
“And He is the All-Forgiving, All-Loving.” (Qur’an 85:14)
“Do you not love to be forgiven by Allah? And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 24:22)
﷽
I will begin this article by sharing a perspective that may seem counter intuitive to the very article that I am writing.
For me one of the biggest signs of Allah’s Love and Mercy is the Creation of Hellfire and the Creation of the Worst Possible Planets for any life to exist.
I was reading this article on the worst possible planet and it certainly made me very thankful to be on Earth!
“Leah Crane: The planet I think is the worst also happens to be my least favourite planet, which is Mercury. It’s really close to the sun, and when we think about a planet being bad for life, a lot of the time we think about it either being very hot or very cold. Mercury is both. It is tidally locked, so one side always faces the sun, and that side, which we call the day side, is about 800° Fahrenheit, which is 430° Celsius, all the time – absolutely awful.”
Leah Crane: A little too hot. Also, you’d get a lot of cancers from all of the radiation. And then there’s the other side which always faces away from the sun, which is -290° Fahrenheit or -180° Celsius, equally unpleasant.
From the diversity and beauty of the animal kingdom to the various landscapes on Earth the first thought that certainly does not come to my mind is: “This Creator wants the absolute worst for us.”
From left to right: Kirkjufell Mountain located in Iceland. Credit to David Stanfield. Moraine Lake Banff National Park Canada. Credit to Nicole Seidl. Maya Bay Phi Phi Leh Thailand. Credit to Silent Sightseer. All photos taken from pexels.com
One of the means of knowing something is through contrast.
We know when something is unpleasant and thus we know what is pleasant. We know what it is to not to love and not to receive love. We know what it is not to be merciful or to receive mercy. We know what it is not to forgive or to be forgiven.
So in order to truly know Allah’s love, mercy and forgiveness we are shown its opposite.
“If Allah should take men to task for their injustice, He would not leave on the earth one single living creature; but He is deferring them to a term stated; and when their term is come they shall not put it back by a single hour nor put it forward.” (Qur’an 16:61)
This is to be contrasted with the Biblical characterization of the Creator.
“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (Exodus 32:14)
“The Lord regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved. So the Lord said: I will wipe out from the earth the human beings I have created, and not only the human beings, but also the animals and the crawling things and the birds of the air, for I regret that I made them.” (Genesis 6:6-7)
The clear distinction here is that in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) is simply telling us that if he were to give us our just desserts (what we really deserve) the extent of his wrath would essentially be scorched earth.
Where as in the Bible we are presented with a being who thinks to do evil to his creation, and even regrets making them.
Another huge difference between the portrayal of the divine in the two faiths is that in Christianity God is never sated or satiated unless there is pain or suffering. The running of a blade across the throat of an animal satiates God’s wrath.
“And without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)
Where as in Islam a contrite human heart is what is needed before a Loving and Merciful Creator.
“The Day when neither wealth will be of any use nor sons, except to one who will come to Allah with a sound heart.” (Qur’an 26:88-89)
The blueprint for forgiveness was initiated by our Creator let us not forget this!
In Islam Allah forgives the first human being who erred and it was Allah who initiated the reproach between Creator and created!
Allah did not wait for Adam to approach him, in fact Allah inspired and taught him the words to seek forgiveness.
“Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.” (Qur’an 2: 37)
a) Allah taught Adam the very words to seek reconciliation with him.
b) He accepted those words; because they are from him to begin with.
c) Allah accepts repentance.
Allah loves those who repent and purify themselves.
“Surely Allah loves those who always turn to Him in repentance and those who purify themselves.” (Qur’an 2:222)
Seeking forgiveness for our sins is an act of obedience and worship itself!
“Turn to Allah in repentance all together, O believers, so that you may be successful.” (Qur’an 24:31)
“O you who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! You have power over all things.” (Qur’an 66:8)
Allah (swt) has promised that he will forgive your sins.
“And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:110)
“The Forgiver of sin and Accepter of repentance, the Severe in punishment, and Infinite in bounty. There is no god except Him. To Him is the final return.” (Qur’an 40:3)
Your sins are not greater than Allah’s mercy.
Disbelieving in Allah’s mercy and/or willingness to forgive sins is a major sin. A trap of Shaitan.
“He said, “And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except for those astray?” (Qur’an 15:56)
“”O my sons! go and enquire about Joseph and his brother, and never give up hope of Allah’s Soothing Mercy: truly no one despairs of Allah’s Soothing Mercy, except those who ungrateful disbelievers.” (Qur’an 12:87)
“Say, ˹O Prophet, that Allah says,˺ “O My servants who have exceeded the limits against their souls! Do not lose hope in Allah’s mercy, for Allah certainly forgives all sins. He is indeed the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 39:53)
“O believers! Do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Whoever follows Satan’s footsteps, then he surely bids immorality and wickedness. Had it not been for Allah’s grace and mercy upon you, none of you would have ever been purified. But Allah purifies whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 24:21)
Allah (swt) forgives all sins via repentance. This includes shirk as shirk is a sin.
Please see our article here that explains this. Al hamduillah our school is upon the haqq concerning this matter. May Allah (swt) guide the ummah to the truth.
We have no one else to turn to or efface our sins except Allah. Only Allah forgives Sins.
“Those who, upon committing an evil deed or wronging themselves, remember Allah and seek forgiveness for their sins—and who forgives sins except Allah?—and they do not knowingly persist in wrongdoing?” (Qur’an 3:135)
“Once you make a decision, put your trust in Allah. Surely Allah loves those who trust in Him.” (Qur’an 3:159)
Allah (swt) loves those who trust and rely upon him. Are we not trusting and relying upon Allah -alone when we ask him and him alone to forgive us? The answer is yes. Therefore in that condition we are among those who Allah (swt) loves!
How do I know that my repentance is sincere?
“O you who have believed, repent to Allah with sincere repentance.” (Qur’an 66:8)
“And whoever repents and does good has truly turned to Allah properly.” (Qur’an 25:71)
The fact that you desired to repent in and of itself is an act of sincerity. Second that you follow up your incorrect conduct with correct conduct.
Remorse is repentance.
Leaving the sin
Having remorse after committing the sin, which can only happen if our nature is not sinful to begin with.
Resolve to not return to the sin
If you sinned against Allah ask Allah to forgive you.
If you sinned against another person return their rights or seek reconciliation.
If you sinned against yourself, forgive yourself.
How do we know that our repentance is accepted?
“But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:39)
“As for those who repent, mend their ways, and let the truth be known, they are the ones to whom I will turn tofor I am the Accepter of Repentance, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:160)
“But I am truly Most Forgiving to whoever repents, believes, and does good, then persists on guidance.” (Qur’an 20:82)
“As for those who repent, believe, and do good, it is they who will be admitted into Paradise, never being denied any reward.” (Qur’an 19:60)
“Only for those who do wrong. But if they later mend evil with good, then I am certainly All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 27:11)
The act of repentance in and of itself is a good. Than you follow up your repentance by continuing to do good deeds and trusting in Allah (Qur’an 3:159) by doing such is a sign that you have truly repented. It is also a sign that Allah has forgiven you.
Allah actually wants to accept our repentance!
“Allah wants to make clear to you [the lawful from the unlawful] and guide you to the [good] practices of those before you and to accept your repentance. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 4:26)
“Allah wants to accept your repentance, but those who follow their passions want you to digress into a great deviation.” (Qur’an 4:27)
“And it is He who accepts repentance from his servants and pardons misdeeds, and He knows what you do.” (Qur’an 42:25)
When we do a sin repent and start on the course of good we can know that Allah (swt) loves us.
“And do good, for Allah certainly loves the good-doers.” (Qur’an 2:195)
“And Allah loves the good-doers.” (Qur’an 3:134)
Allah loves those who are a doers of good.
Repentance is an act of worship and obedience.
Repentance is an act of good.
Therefore Allah loves us.
The angels keep a record of all our actions. For those who die upon faith and die upon Islam all the good is kept. The minor sins they are turned into good.
“This, Our record, speaks about you in truth. Indeed, We were having transcribed whatever you used to do.” (Qur’an 45:29)
A HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING. ALLAH’S FORGIVENESS IS NOT ARBITRARY.
To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He forgives whoever (liman) He wills, and punishes whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qur’an 3:129)
First of all. If you take this verse in isolation of other verses it means that those people who sincerely repent Allah (swt) may not forgive them. Then those people whom Allah (swt) says he would not forgive it means Allah (swt) would might them. Far above Allah (swt) to ascribe to him a capricious nature.
Second of all. There is no such thing as Allah can forgive your sins but not 100% otherwise it would be vain. Allah is far above this!
What is the benefit of Allah forgiving a servant of some of his sins and then leaving them alone? We accuse Allah (swt) of fooling around, while Allah Almighty is far above this.
You will often note that those verses that have the phrase: “He forgives whoever (liman) He wills, and punishes whoever He wills.” are in connection to asserting Allah’s authority over the claim of Jews or Christians who claim salvation is solely for them. Or, even in the context of Allah (swt) asserting authority over that of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Some examples:
“The Jews and the Christians each say, “We are the children of Allah and His most beloved!” Say, “Why then does He punish you for your sins? No! You are only humans like others of His Own making. He forgives whoever He wills and punishes whoever He wills. To Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and everything in between. And to Him is the final return.” (Qur’an 5:18)
“You ˹O Prophet˺ have no say in the matter. It is up to Allah to turn to them in mercy or punish them, for indeed they are wrongdoers. To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He forgives whoever He wills, and punishes whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:128-129)
Allah (swt) put conditions on receiving forgiveness.
“But indeed, I am the Perpetual Forgiver of whoever (liman) repents and believes and does righteousness and then continues in guidance.” (Qur’an 20:82)
Whoever dies without repenting from shirk, unlawful sexual intercourse, killing a soul without right. Allah will not forgive them.
“And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:68-70)
Anyone who sincerely repents will be like one who did not do any sins. This is correct. However, will that person recover and repent before the Angel of Death surprises him? This is a huge risk!
“Say, “What would my Lord care for you if not for your supplication?” For you have denied, so your denial is going to be adherent.” (Qur’an 25:77)
SINS CAN BE FORGIVEN FOR YOUR AFTERLIFE YET HAVE EFFECTS FELT IN THIS LIFE.
Another point is that there are effects of the sins and transgressions that we have done. For example if we sincerely repent this means that Allah (swt) has forgiven us in the afterlife. However, you will suffer from the effects of your sins in this world. May Allah (swt) forgive us in this life and the afterlife. So let us not take risk!
In other words Allah (swt) may hasten your punishment in this life and forgive you in the afterlife if you are sincere in your repentance.
This does not necessarily apply to every time you sin or every type of sin and Allah knows best. Some of the scholars mention that Allah (swt) says he is Forgiving and Forgiving. Why did he simply not say Forgiving? They say that forgiveness means pardoning you for the effects of this sin in this world and forgiveness means erasing the sin itself!
This is seen in Allah’s name: Al-Afuww -The one who not only forgives sins but also eliminates their negative impact, as if they never occurred.
Two examples:
Example A: Person is forgiven but the effects of sin are felt.
A person commits illicit sexual intercourse. This person is very remorseful and turns in sincere repentance to Allah. Allah (swt) forgives them. No punishment awaits them in the next life. However, the person finds out they have contracted HIV. This will impact the person for the rest of his/her life. Even knowingly being intimate with a person whom is unaware of your HIV status can lead to criminal charges, such as attempted murder.
Example B: Person is forgiven but the effects of sin are not felt.
A person was in a rush and was negligent in their wudhu. Not having a proper wudhu nullifies and invalidates the prayer. The person then realizes this. They do their wudhu with care and consideration and pray with devotion and sincerity. They ask Allah (swt) to forgive them. They are forgiven. No punishment awaits them in the next life nor are there any negative effects felt from the sin.
“As for those who repent, believe, and do good deeds, they are the ones whose evil deeds Allah will change into good deeds. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:70)
“Surely good deeds wipe out evil deeds. That is a reminder for the mindful.” (Qur’an 11:114) -how you know your sins are forgiven.
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” (Qur’an 4:31)
Allah loves those who purify themselves.
“Surely Allah loves those who always turn to Him in repentance and those who purify themselves.” (Qur’an 2:222)
Repentance itself is an act of purification. It is the initial process to cleanse the heart and soul of the sin committed and therefore Allah loves those who initiate this process.
Allah loves those who are just.
“And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:110)
“Surely Allah loves those who uphold justice.” (Qur’an 49:9)
When you sin you act unjustly to your soul -you are condemning yourself to possible damnation. Therefore when you seek forgiveness to Allah (swt) you are doing justice to yourself, to your own soul and as you are upholding justice via your repentance your among those beloved to Allah (swt).
The Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is to seek forgiveness as instructed by Allah (swt).
“And seek Allah’s forgiveness. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 73:20)
“So be patient ˹O Prophet˺, ˹for˺ Allah’s promise is certainly true. Seek forgiveness for your sin. And glorify the praises of your Lord morning and evening.” (Qur’an 40:55)
“We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah’s leave. And if, when they had wronged themselves, they had but come to you and asked forgiveness of Allah, and asked forgiveness of the messenger, they would find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:64)
“If you should love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
The Blessed Messenger (saw) used to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him. That is part of his Sunnah. It is a major part of his Sunnah to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him, have mercy and compassion upon him.
By doing this we to follow and emulate the Blessed Messenger (saw) thus becoming the people mentioned in (Qur’an 3:31). Allah will love us and forgive us -1) for following the sunnah in general. 2) especially for following the sunnah of asking for forgiveness.
Allah responds to our prayers!
This simple fact is above all else. It in and of itself is the cause for the elation of the soul and the hope for the penitent.
When My servants ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about Me: I am truly near. I respond to one’s prayer when they call upon Me. So let them respond ˹with obedience˺ to Me and believe in Me, perhaps they will be guided ˹to the Right Way˺ (Qur’an 2:186)
“Your Lord has proclaimed, “Call upon Me, I will respond to you. Surely those who are too proud to worship Me will enter Hell, fully humbled.” (Qur’an 40:60)
“To the tribe of Thamud We sent their brother Salih. He said, “My people, worship God. You have no God other than Him. He created you out of the earth and made you inhabit it. Ask Him to forgive your sins, and turn towards Him in repentance. My Lord is near, and ready to answer.” (Qur’an 11:61)
Holy Angels That Are Beings of Pure Light Pray Constantly and Continuously for your Forgiveness and Guidance!
“Those (angels) who carry the Throne and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, have faith in Him, and seek forgiveness for the believers, (praying) “Our Lord! You encompass everything in (your) mercy and knowledge. So forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and protect them from the torment of Hellfire. Our Lord! Admit them into the Gardens of Eternity which You have promised them, along with the righteous among their parents, spouses, and descendants. You (alone) are truly the Almighty, All-Wise. And protect them from (the consequences of their) evil deeds. For whoever You protect from the evil of their deeds on that Day will have been shown Your mercy. That is the ultimate triumph.” (Qur’an 40:7-9)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Imagine that Allah (swt) created a group of angels that specifically are tasked with praying for the forgiveness and protection of the believers. Those who follow the way of Allah. Not only are they praying for you specifically, they are praying for your parents , and the wife or husband that you have not even met or married yet! The one who is currently your parent and for the children you have not even had born yet! As well as those who currently are your children!
There is tremendous amount of love and mercy that is directed towards the believers! That is why those who reject all this love and mercy are kafir (ingrates) -(ungrateful) such a people are without question and without doubt deserving of the hellfire because it is the path they pro actively choose.
NOT TO MENTION THE MONTH OF RAMADAN.
This can be a whole entry in and of itself. However, in particular this is to the Muslim reader. You know the amount of mercy and forgiveness and spiritual upliftment that is contained with in the month of Ramadan! It is an entire month that comes every year that is a means of spiritual training and gaining proximity and closeness to Allah (swt).
Imagine if in Ramadan you were to continuously pray to Allah (swt) for forgiveness and protection from the hellfire. Imagine even if you prayed that du’a with sincerity even once and it was granted!
A WARNING TO THE BELIEVERS.
Dear brothers and sisters, respected ummah of Muhammed (saw). All that has gone before is to show you that the deck has not been stacked against us. Quite the opposite. The fact that we are have been commanded to pray five times a day. That those five daily prayers are a continuous means for us to draw night and ask forgiveness from the Supreme Sovereign of this Universe. The gift of the month of Ramadan. Angelic beings of light praying for us and our spouses and children that we ourselves potentially haven’t even met! This is supreme love, supreme grace, supreme care and supreme mercy.
That being said we have to want this mercy and this love and this grace. In light of all that has been said those who end up going to hellfire are those among us who are actively participating in our own self destruction. You actually have to want to go to hellfire. How does one want this? By disobeying Allah (swt), by avoiding the commands of a Sovereign Creator and indulging in that which The Creator has prohibited. Most of all by shunning repentance
Ask Allah to forgive you quickly.
“Allah only accepts the repentance of those who commit evil ignorantly ˹or recklessly˺ then repent soon after Allah will pardon them. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:17)
“And hasten towards forgiveness from your Lord and a Paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth, prepared for those mindful ˹of Allah˺” (Qur’an 3:133)
Delaying repentance is a sign of arrogance and ingratitude. Here you have a Lord that wants to forgive you and you shun this forgiveness. It is an act of disobedience. It is a sign that you are not recalcitrant and that you deem your action or style of living as something of light consequence.
Very sobering verse from the Qur’an.
Why should we not delay repentance?
“However, repentance is not accepted from those who knowingly persist in sin until they start dying, and then cry, “Now I repent!” nor those who die as disbelievers. For them We have prepared a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
Are you guaranteed to live after reading this very sentence? Are you guaranteed to live the next few minutes or even the next hour? So considering that repentance is not accepted by the one who waits to be besieged by the angel of death when is the best time to repent?
Now!
“Indeed, whoever commits misdeeds, and becomes besieged by his iniquities—these are the inmates of the Fire, wherein they will dwell forever.” (Qur’an 2:81)
Any Muslim who sins it is the duty of the believing Muslim to admonish his brother/sister in a good way. Help them to save face. Do not humiliate them. Advise them in a good manner.
However, if a Muslim continues to persist in sin that person is to be shunned. To continue to walk in fellowship with them is walking in fellowship to the one who insults Allah (swt) , shuns his mercy and forgiveness and guidance.
“Cooperate with one another in goodness and righteousness, and do not cooperate in sin and transgression. And be mindful of Allah. Surely Allah is severe in punishment.” (Qur’an 5:2)
Remember that Allah (swt) only accepts from those of us who do our level best to live a righteous a life.
“Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him]” (Qur’an 5:27)
If any person Muslim or not dies as a fasiq (a person committing major sins), does not repent, is unjust Allah will refuse his/her all his deeds and that one will be in hell.
“That is because they followed what angered Allah and disliked [what earns] His pleasure, so He rendered worthless their deeds.” (Qur’an 47:28)
“Those who disbelieved, and prevented (others) from Allah’s way, He (Allah) has rendered their deeds vain.” (Qur’an 47:1)
“And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated –Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:70)
The question has been put forward to you dear brothers and sisters and sincere truth seekers.
“Will, they not turn with repentance to Allah and ask His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 5:74)
“And He is the All-Forgiving, All-Loving (Qur’an 85:14)
“And each one hath a goal toward which he turns; so contend with one another in good works. Wheresoever you may be, Allah will bring you all together. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.” (Qur’an 2:148)
“Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 22:69)
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
﷽
Insh’Allah the following section in the future will be found under the section above: Ahl Al-Qibla/Ahl Al-Khilaf.
Those of you who are used to seeing these people all over the internet and present on every social media platform available may come to the conclusion that their dawah is dominant. However, those of you who have access to the Arabic language, speak, read and write it will see that in the Arabic sphere these people (Wahhabis and Madkhalis) get absolutely pummelled by the Ibadi school. You will almost pity them (Wahhabis & Madkhalis). Though one should pity them and pray for their deliverance from the corruption and misguidance that they are upon.
The success of those who call themselves Salafi, Athari or those upon the Salafi Manhaj lies primarily in their ability into duping the masses to think that what they are upon is the view of the first three generation of Muslims.
They also feign the idea of taking the text by what they claim is the apparent meaning of a particular text. In fact, they apply ta’wil (interpretation) as do their opponents. Their opponents among Sunni Muslims (The Ash’ari & Maturidi) make the colossal mistake by granting a ‘default meaning’ to said words. Then turn around and say that they apply taʾwīl (interpretation). Whereas we (The Ibadi)say that if a word has a range of meanings and the context determines the meaning, then it becomes dishonest to claim the word can only have one possible meaning. The context based upon use of the Arabic language itself, and the culture that the revelation was revealed in.
Understand that not everyone who goes by the title of Salafi, Athari is adversarial or antagonistic to the Ibadi school. Many of them we can cooperate with on many issues of concern to our communities and respective countries that we live in. Cooperation is always a good thing for the Muslim Ummah.
The inconsistency and flawed theology can readily be seen by the inconsistency that it deploys. Examples abound but the following should suffice:
Demanding a default location for Allah (swt). Where neither the Qur’an or Sunnah give a ‘default’ location for Allah (swt). If one was to follow their literalist approach the Qur’an and Sunnah ascribe to Allah (swt) many locations. The Muslims believe that Allah exist without a place.
Using kalaam to speculate that Allah (swt) has two real eyes when we have no firm text on the matter.
The inconsistency in denying a gender for Allah (swt) when the apparent text clearly states: “There is nothing like Him, for He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11) They say the language determines the characteristic without realizing that Allah (swt) is the one that chose the rules for the language to begin with. The Muslims believe Allah has no gender.
Their bidʿah disclaimer when referencing what they claim are attributes of Allah (swt) with their bid’ah disclaimer “in a way that befits his majesty” as if there would be anything un-majestic about Allah (swt) having this or that to begin with!
The inconsistency in telling the people to believe in the attributes of Allah (swt) without asking ‘how’ and then the same people saying that the attributes of Allah (swt), are neither identical to the essence of Allah and yet not other than Allah! A deep dive into kalaam to speculate about the Creator what they have no evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
The inconsistency in affirming Allah as the All-Hearing(Qur’an 42:11) without having to have ears; while simultaneously demanding that if Allah exist it must be in a place.
Allah (swt) himself gave mankind the faculty of reasoning and the ability to understand majaaz (metaphor) when He (swt) says:
so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
But these people would have us to believe that the text is taken by the apparent and Allah (swt) does in some way becomes our hearing, our sight, our hand and our leg!
We have exposed the corruption in their misguided mis-understanding of the primary and secondary sources here:
Since they call us Ibadi as “Khawarij” let us see what Ibn Taymiyya has to say about the so called “Khawarij”.
“No one among the people who follow their desire, the more truthful and more just than the Khawarij. They do not intend to invent lies, indeed they are very famous for truthfulness to the extent that it has been said that the traditions narrated by them are the most authentic of all.”
Source: (Ibn Taymiyya Minhaj Al Sunnah Vol 3. p 3. Dr. Al-Sib’i Al-Sunna Wal Makanatuha Fii Al-Tashrii Al-Islami p. 99-101)
“No one of them has ever been known for lying.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Al Tafsiru Al Kabir Vol. 1, p. 124)
“Their religion is more correct because they do not say lies.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyya Mukhtasar Minhaji Al-Sunna Vol.2, p. 197)
“The Khawarij never says lies, indeed they are more truthful braver and more promise-keeping then the (Shi’ia)” Source: (Ibid Vol. 1 p. 393)
“The Khawarij are truthful, so their accounts are among the most correct ones.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Al Furqan p. 227)
“And what indicates that the Companions did not consider the Khawarij to be disbelievers is that they used to pray behind them. Abdullah ibn Umar -RA- and others[companions] used to pray behind Najda al-Haruri. They also used to engage in debates with them, as the Muslim would debate with a Muslim, as Abdullah ibn Abbas debated with Najda al-Haruri when he was sent to him to ask about certain issues, and his hadith is in Al-Bukhari. Likewise, Nafi’ ibn Al-Azraq debated on famous issues. Nafi’ used to debate on matters in the Quran, as any two Muslims would debate among themselves”
Source: (The Path of the Prophetic Sunnah-In Refutation of the Shiite Qadariyyah Doctrine By Ibn Taymiyya Abu Al Abbas Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim.-Edited by Dr. Muhammed Rashad Salim Volume 5)
This entry will be split into three sections:
Section one: This will be aimed at refuting the lies, deception and outright propaganda that they aim at Ahl al-Haqq wal-l istiqama (The Ibadi school).
Section two: This will be the Ibadi school exposing the bizarre beliefs and strange views of those who call themselves: Salafi, Athari etc..
Section three: Those who may loosely identify as Salafi, Athari etc that have had and do have cordial relations with our school. Because they simply see us as Muslims. Muslims perhaps they disagree with but Muslims none the less. Articles in relation to them will be posted under section three.
THE MORE ONE LEARNS SALAFI AQIDAH THE MORE CHRISTIANITY MAKES SENSE.
SALAFI-SAUDI SHAYKH DR. SAAD AL-HUMID PROFESSOR OF HADITH SCIENCES IN MEDINA FLEES FROM DEBATE WITH SHAYKH SAEED AL QANOUBI: IBADI HADITH MASTER, ON THE CREATION OF THE QUR’AN
MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IBADIS AND SALAFIS/ATHAIRS: IBADIS BELIEVE WE HAVE THE ENTIRE QUR’AN. SALAFIS/ATHARIS BELIEVE WE ONLY HAVE THE QUR’AN ALLAH INTENDED FOR US TO HAVE.
THE CLAIM THAT THE IBADIS CURSE AND REVILE THE COMPANIONS.THIS FALSE ALLEGATION IS TURNED ON IT’S HEAD! THE WAHHABI/MADHKALI/SALAFIYYA RELY UPON THOSE WHO SAY VILE THINGS ABOUT ALI
HADITHS THE SALAFIYYA AND AHL SUNNAH IN GENERAL RELY UPON TO CALL HUGE SWATHES OF THE PROPHET’S COMPANIONS DOGS OF HELLFIRE! (THE IBADIS RIP APART THESE CHAINS)
SECTION THREE: THOSE WHO MAY LOOSELY IDENTIFY AS SALAFI, ATHARI ETC THAT HAVE HAD AND DO HAVE CORDIAL RELATIONS WITH OUR SCHOOL. ARTICLES IN RELATION TO THEM WILL BE POSTED UNDER HERE.
MY EXPERIENCE WITH SALAFIS AND SUFIS (NOT ALWAYS CHALK AND CHEESE)
“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)
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qu’ran 2:42)
﷽
This is a summary given by one of our Sunni brothers concerning this debate.
“I am not an Ibadi, but I say that Brother Omar was unable to provide Ibn Salam’s interpretation regarding seeking Allah’s pleasure with Imam Ali. Thus, the debate concluded that it was Al-Hawari, the Ibadi, who sought Allah’s pleasure with Imam Ali, who proved the Ibadi’s claim to be true.”
“That al-Tabari is satisfied in his book with Ali ibn Abi Talib, whereas the other two shaykhs from the Hanbali school’s perspective did not express satisfaction with him in their books even a single time!”
Before we break down this debate these are some of our thoughts. Of course we are a site in which the participants follow the Ibadi school. Some may accuse us of bias. That is why you yourself (if you have access to the Arabic language) can watch and see for yourself. Likewise, you can judge if this is a faithful translation of the debate. With Allah is success.
Shaykh Muhammed al-Rashidi stated with complete clarity, without any dissimulation, that among our companions, there are some who disavow certain companions, while others are pleased with them. Thus, we, the Ibadi do not hold to a single position on this matter, and there is also the stance of suspension regarding them.
The Wahhabis focus on the issue of certain prominent Ibadi scholars’ disavowal of certain companions related to the arbitration incident and what accompanies it, because they firmly believe this is the killing blow against us. If they examined it, they would find it is deliberate denial of the Messenger (saw) not disagreement with the companions, for infallibility belongs to the Prophet (saw) alone that expels one from the millat. Accordingly everyone is an opponent among the Wahhabis.
They forget that justice does not mean infallibility, and they forget that the companions cursed and fought one another, and that the phrase “and we do not delve into what transpired among them” is ijtihad, not consensus, even if it is called consensus. Here, the saying “Whoever claims consensus is a liar” proves true to a great extent, for partial consensus of some of the ummah is not consensus of the entire ummah, despite the permissibility of accepting and relying upon it as taking a credible view among views. But not at the expense of expelling some from the community of consensus of the Muslims, and one is not declared kafir with certainty for not seeing some opinion as valid ijtihad or interpretation.
And there is kufr short of kufr, as Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) said, which does not expel its holder from the religion. Some say that hating ‘Ali may be a is a sign of hypocrisy, but hating actions differs from hating persons.
Although Ibn Taymiyyah was of the view that hatred of Ali does not harm faith.
Source: (Volume 5 of Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (The Path of Prophetic Sunnah) by Ibn Taymiyyah)
Those among the Ibadi school who show disavowal of Ali cannot be said that they hate the person of ‘Ali but they hated his agreeing to the Arbitration, which led to the fighting. This is a strong excuse with no denial of the Messenger in it, and the Ibadi disavowal cannot be interpreted except according to our principles and rules, for we are an independent Islamic school with our own principles and branches. It is forbidden to expel any Muslim from the fold of Islam except with certainty, just as one enters it with certainty. Shaykh Muhammed ibn ‘Abdullah al-Rashidi excelled in his debate with al-Zahrani, who took it as an opportunity to savage our Ibadi school.
The reason for this debate. Once again the Zionist and the proxies have attacked a Muslim country, Iran. There are certain segments in the Muslim Ummah who shield these Zionist and shield the Muslim rulers that aid the Zionist. Therefore there can be no empathy shown towards Iran and no solidarity shown with the Iranian people. They do not accept this from Sunni Muslims nor from the Ibadi.
Examples:
Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq made the following video:
What he said is absolutely true. However, he did not use that opportunity to attack and assail the Shi’i. Therefore most likely he got a call from those Zionist handlers. Guess what immediately followed? Attacks upon Iran of course.
Or, when Zakir Naik mentioned his support for Iran. Zakir Naik clearly mentioned Iran did things that are not appropriate. However, people came out and attacked Zakir Naik for it.
So the reason for this debate is that it well known that Oman and the Omani people stand with and support Muslims against the Zionist. So in this case this means standing with Iran and with the people of Iran against the Zionist aggressors.
Thus, this man Omar Al-Zahrani came with a mission. That mission is to create division and animosity between the Shi’i and Ibadi. You will see in the debate he brings up fatwa from 12er Shi’i about the Ibadi. He brings up some poem by an Ibadi scholar in praise of Ibn Muljam. All the red herrings that he can. Yet mash’Allah, he was no match for the calm, poise and overwhelming knowledge that Shaykh Muhammed Al Rashidi has.
The status of Ali: Muhammed Al Rashidi of the Ibadi school debates Omar Al-Zahrani of the Salafi school.
Opening statement from the moderator:
My greetings to all of you, all the lovers and followers of the “Facts of Religions” channel. The meeting renews with you, respected gentlemen, and with the esteemed guests who are proficient in the language of dialogue, research, thought, and reflection on religion. Diversity is also required. The goal is for you, respected gentlemen, to receive accurate information from this one and that one. Today’s episode and today’s debate are very important because they have a dimension for us to get to know the Ibadi doctrine. Of course, our brother Omar will be with us; he will represent the Salafi belief or concept.
My greetings to all of you, all the lovers and followers of the “Facts of Religions” channel. I hope for mutual respect between you on the chat: respect for symbols, respect for sanctities, respect for guests. The channel’s goal is an intellectual meeting point, setting corrective and clarifying controls for what has been documented in our books.We welcome Brother Muhammed, who will represent the Ibadi thought through the “Dictionary of Sharia.”
He will also clarify, first as an introductory title. Brother Muhammed, you have five minutes, then we will move on to Brother Omar afterwards. It’s better, Brother Muhammed, if you could give an introductory title in the first minute, then start presenting the initial givens that Brother Omar will document and interact with you on. Go ahead, Brother Muhammed.
Muhammed Al Rashidi of the Ibadi school self introduction and opening statements:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O Allah support our brothers in Palestine, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, and in all corners of the earth, O Lord of the worlds. O Allah, protect our homelands, strengthen our ruler, support him with truth, and support truth with him, O Lord of the worlds. O Allah, make this debate beneficial for the seeker of truth and the listener, and keep it away from division and sectarianism.
Regarding this debate: It was raised a while ago that the Ibadis pray for the mercy of Imam Ali (Yataradaw ‘an). I presented evidence from this book, which is the “Tafsir Kitab Allah al-Aziz” by Imam al-Hawari, who is from the scholars of the third century AH, one of the Ibadi scholars. I extracted a text from it and said that the Ibadis pray for the mercy of Imam Ali, and I proved that. Brother Omar (may Allah bless him) came and took a part from the introduction of this book, where the investigator says that Imam al-Hawari relied on another Tafsir, which is the Tafsir of Imam Yahya ibn Salam al-Qayrawani. This is a wonderful thing. Imam al-Hawari indeed relied on this book; no problem, no issue. But the talk here is… Brother Omar, at the beginning, said that since there is “Taraddi” (praying for mercy) in this book, then this “Taraddi” belongs to Yahya ibn Salam, not to Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, who is one of the Ibadi scholars. He said that the Ibadis took this Tafsir (of Yahya ibn Salam), changed only the title, attributed it to Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, and made it Ibadi.
Of course, he raised other matters that we will discuss all of them, Allah willing, with Brother Omar, and we will discuss them fully, Allah willing. But I will start with a simple matter, Alah willing. I will prove with three pieces of evidence that these “Taraddiyat” (expressions of seeking mercy) found in this book are “Taraddiyat” of Imam Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, not of Yahya ibn Salam.
The first matter: Since we are talking about the “Taraddiyat,” and I presented evidence containing “Taraddi” for Imam Ali in this book, it was expected of Brother Omar to show us the same text from the book of Yahya ibn Salam al-Qayrawani and say that this same “Taraddi” exists there, regardless of the fact that the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam is incomplete (22 surahs). No problem.
But I tell you now, Brother Omar, what if I challenged you or asked you to produce just one “Taraddi” for Imam Ali in the book of Yahya ibn Salam? Just one “Taraddi” in the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam, from the remaining surahs. Ali is mentioned several times; we want just one “Taraddi.”
Now, the “Taraddiyat” are proven in this book. I have prepared dozens of texts, and I have other texts, but ten suffice. I also have a comparison between several texts from the two books. Excellent. So first, I have three pieces of evidence, as I said. I will present two here in this debate or dialogue (better to call it a dialogue). I will keep the third and final evidence for a separate discussion, Allah willing, you will see it. As for now, as we said, I think for every statement there is a challenge, a question, or a request. So we ask Brother Omar, may Allah bless him, to produce for us just one “Taraddi” on Imam Ali from the book of Yahya ibn Salam al-Qayrawani. If he does not produce a “Taraddi” for us, then the “Taraddiyat” were added by Imam Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, and they are Ibadi “Taraddiyat.” May Allah bless you. The remaining time is for you, Brother Omar.
Moderator speaking:
Okay, I don’t know if Dr. Muhammed is present… Okay, let me thank you, Brother Muhammed. I thank you for your punctuality, and I also thank you for the introduction. I hope from all the lovers and followers of the “Facts of Religions” channel and everyone to focus very well on the data being presented now, especially since it will introduce you to the reality of the Ibadi belief or concept. Brother Omar, you have five minutes with us for initial data. Could you make my picture bigger, Dr. Muhammed, please? On the camera. Okay.
Omar Al-Zahrani of the Salafi school self introduction and opening statements:
Peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy and blessings. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O Allah, bless Muhammed and the family of Muhammed and all his companions and wives. Of course, may Allah protect our shyookh, kings, princes in the Gulf countries and in the rest of the Muslim lands.
Of course, as I told you, I will not leave a single word that the guest says without clarifying it. Iran, which you are sitting there… I don’t know why you pray for them, I don’t know if it’s to provoke us or what is your goal? Look at what they say about you in the book “Madinat al-Ma’ajiz” when they talk about the Khawarij. This is the “Mu’assasat al-Ma’arif al-Islamiyyah” in Iran, the ones you pray for. It says: “They are outcasts from Islam by the judgment of all Islamic scholars, ancient and modern. The most important of their sects are the Ibadis, may Allah’s curse be upon them all until the Day of Judgment.” This is not my words; this is the words of Iran. So, may Allah bless you, we try to adhere to the text.
Brother Omar, this phrase you just said, this phrase is attributed to…
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks again.
“…to an Iranian institution for printing. Of course, this investigator says they are outcasts from Islam by the judgment of all Islamic scholars, ancient and modern. The most important of their sects are the Ibadis. I am not saying “May Allah curse you, Muhammed al-Rashidi,” but Iran, the ones you pray for, who bombed our countries and your country, said “May Allah’s curse be upon you until the Day of Judgment.” Got it? Allah forbid, I don’t say such things to you. This is your books that conveyed this to you. Sorry, not your books, their books that you are happy with.”
Okay, the second issue, my dear brothers, may Allah bless you. When he asked me, he said, “I challenge you to prove that this ‘Taraddi’ exists in books…” I will give you from the words of the scholars… What does the investigator, Al-Hajj bin Sa’id Sharif (from Algeria), say? Look, my dear brothers, when he mentioned… even what did he say? “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” He says: “This is from al-Hawari?” I tell you, no. He says: “An addition that is necessary, because what follows is a text of an authentic hadith.” Meaning even the prayer upon the Prophet (saw) was added by the investigator, not al-Hawari. So you tell me this “Taraddi” is from… from al-Hawari? No, my dear brother, this is the words of the investigator. So this issue is very natural.
Okay, my dear brothers, of course, now I will show you the many proofs. Our topic was about al-Hawari’s Tafsir and so on, but I will give you this issue: Basically, this entire book, all of it, is taken from… as I explained, from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. But the strange thing, my dear brothers, the strange thing is that after researching and investigating this book, I discovered that… What’s the idea? That al-Hawari took the complete book of Yahya ibn Salam al-Basri. And when he came to matters that benefit the Ibadi school of thought, or sorry, that harm the Ibadi school of thought (like divine vision, like intercession, etc.), he deleted them. My brothers, this is not my words, this is their books. There is a Master’s thesis… Basically, Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, hardly anyone talked about him, meaning few researches on “The Methodology of Hud al-Hawari in Tafsir.” It says: “And it concluded with the following results: Complete omission of the personality of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari – no one, by Allah, knows who Hud al-Hawari is, nor when he was born, nor when he lived, nor his shyookh. No one knows anything about him.”
Second: “Hud’s Tafsir is an abridgment of the Tafsir of Ibn Salam al-Basri the Sunni.” Okay. “The bias of Hud al-Hawari towards his Ibadi school of thought is evident in doctrinal rulings, practical rulings, and in his omission of narrations that contradict his school of thought.” Meaning, as long as you are taking an issue from our books, you must adhere to it. If you are taking an issue from our books, you must be committed to it, Dr. Muhammed. If possible, just enlarge my picture because the quality for some doesn’t show clearly during my intervention. Just enlarge it, may Allah reward you. Okay, my dear brothers, these are the evidences that confirm that the origin of the book is taken from us, from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam al-Basri. For you to prove otherwise, you must bring… For example, this “Taraddi” (رضي الله عنه) is found in your book, while in the original, this “Taraddi” is not found at all. Even the prayer upon the Prophet (saw) – Hud thought it was too much to pray upon the Prophet (saw). So you tell me this action was… My dear brothers, unfortunately, this man (Hud al-Hawari) did not even know the basics of his religion. It says: “Among the criticisms against Hud is his mixing between the hypocrite and the polytheist in some rulings.” Hud says: “Whoever associates partners (with Allah) and is a hypocrite, We will punish him,” meaning killing. And we know that the hypocrite is not killed. Meaning, even the fundamentals of the Ibadi school of thought are deficient according to Hud al-Hawari.
You tell me that this, by the way, is not only taken from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam al-Basri, but also taken from the Tafsir of Ibn Zaminayn, who is also one of our scholars. It is taken from both books. You tell me there is no “Taraddi” in the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam? It is found in the Tafsir of Ibn Zaminayn, by the way, found in the same narration about Ali (RA). I will give it to you in the next intervention. I have absolutely no problem with this. Okay. Now, my dear brothers, the next intervention will be…
Moderator: Okay, let’s thank you, Brother Omar. We’ll quickly move to Brother Muhammed. I hope all the esteemed viewers focus well on what is being presented now. Go ahead.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
Praise be to Allah, and after: “And say, ‘The truth has come, and falsehood has vanished. Indeed, falsehood is [ever] bound to vanish.'” Brother Omar, what do I care if the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari is correct or incorrect? Now our discussion is about the “Taraddi,” proving the “Taraddi.” Whether it is correct or incorrect, that’s another topic.
The issue of “Taraddi”… You told me about the prayer upon the Prophet. I demanded from you just one “Taraddi”! One “Taraddi”! I have dozens of texts, dozens of texts containing “Taraddi” on Imam Ali. Don’t tell me they added “Salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam” (saw). If they added it, that’s a weak argument. Bring me a text… For example, the investigator himself… I have statements from the investigator himself. He made mistakes in several things. One of the things he said is that this book is an abridgment or called an abridgment. This book cannot be called an abridgment at all; this book is a refinement of the book of Yahya ibn Salam, not an abridgment.
Second, he said that what is criticized in this book is the omission of chains of narration (asanid). Omitting chains of narration is the methodology of the Ibadis, the methodology of the school. You have “Al-Jami'” behind me, the explanation of “Musnad al-Imam al-Rabi'”, without chains of narration. “Musnad al-Imam al-Rabi'” which is the most authentic chain we have, explained without chains of narration. No problem.
I challenged you with one “Taraddi.” You know that the book of Yahya ibn Salam does not contain a single “Taraddi” on Imam Ali, not one! As for this book, it has several “Taraddiyat,” dozens, we can say. No problem. I will show Brother Omar… I will mention something before continuing. He said that Imam al-Hawari added things that benefit his school of thought. Previously, he said the Ibadis only changed the title and kept the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. Why change the statement now?
Second, you said that Imam al-Hawari abbreviated some things, not that he added anything. Your statement is with me. Do you deny any word? Let’s show the clip. No problem, everything is there. These are three contradictions, three statements you made about the book of Imam al-Hawari. I demand from you only one text, one text where Imam Yahya ibn Salam al-Qayrawani prays for mercy on Imam Ali.
This is excellent. We will show pages if possible. There’s still time. Excellent. Let’s show some pages. Brother Omar said… or open a page from the pages. I’ll share it. Open a page from the pages where he compares the Tafsir of al-Hawari and the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. Actually, if I complete that page… Let’s open a page. Does the page appear? Does it appear? It appears, it appears. Yes, go ahead. Excellent, excellent, excellent. This page: Right side is the Tafsir of Imam Yahya ibn Salam, left side is the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari. He said: “And some said, ‘It does not afflict her in the east nor in the west.'” This is in both books, in the Tafsir of Surat An-Nur. If we go down a little in the book of Imam al-Hawari, he prays for mercy on Imam Ali. As for Yahya ibn Salam, the book of Yahya ibn Salam did not pray for mercy on Imam Ali. I have dozens of texts like this, comparing the same texts from the two Tafsirs. Imam Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari prays for mercy on Imam Ali, while Yahya ibn Salam does not pray for mercy on Imam Ali.
This is the first evidence that the Tafsir… that Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari is the one who added these “Taraddiyat.” Of course, there are other errors in your statement besides this huge contradiction: Imam al-Hawari added jurisprudential things, added doctrinal things from “Musnad al-Imam al-Rabi'”. I have surprises for you as well. He added doctrinal things. I have texts I will show later. There are 30 seconds left. The remaining time is for you. Give me only one text where Imam al-Hawari or Imam Yahya ibn Salam prays for mercy on Imam Ali, just one text. You have now shown the viewer that Yahya ibn Salam does not pray for mercy on Imam Ali. This is clear. Go ahead, Brother Omar.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks
Okay, could you enlarge me, Dr. Muhammed, so I can show the sources? Yes. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Enlarge me, Doctor, may Allah bless you. Okay, my dear brothers, I think my statement is clear. Did I say that al-Hawari only took the Tafsir from Yahya ibn Salam? In the previous intervention, I told you he also took it from Ibn Zaminayn, the Sunni. The evidence for my statement is from “The Methodology of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari in Tafsir.” It says: “Hud al-Hawari followed, to some extent, the process of abridgment.”
The problem is your scholars say “abridgment,” and you tell me “refinement”! No, it’s not refinement, it’s abridgment. “However, he is criticized for not distinguishing between his opinions and the opinions of Ibn Salam, as Ibn Abi Zaminayn did.”
So, where did he take it from? He took it from two: from Ibn Salam and from Ibn Abi Zaminayn. You demand a “Taraddi” from me. This, my dear brothers, in “Uṣūl al-Sunnah” by Ibn Abi Zaminayn, it says about Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA). There! I have brought you your request. This request is fulfilled. Thank you. Okay, my dear brothers, now we come to the second issue. You are really bringing scandals, may Allah bless you. When you say, “We take our religion without a chain of transmission (sanad), we explain it without a chain.” May Allah bless you, this is a good thing, honestly. I don’t know why there’s a comment in the stream… The problem is, to say “We take our religion without a chain and explain without a chain” – this is not something, my dear brother, you should be proud of. On the contrary, it goes against you. Okay.
Moderator:
“The network weakness is from you, Brother Omar. The network weakness is from you. Just for your information.”
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Okay, no problem. Let’s go back to show the source, my dear brothers. Okay, sorry, so this is in “The Methodology of Hud al-Hawari.” It says: “Hud al-Hawari followed, to some extent, the process of abridgment. However, he is criticiz
ed for not distinguishing between his opinions and the opinions of Ibn Salam, as Ibn Abi Zaminayn did.” Let’s go back to the books of Ibn Abi Zaminayn. He says about Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA). So this is the “Taraddi” now. May Allah bless you. Okay, my dear brothers, now we come, Allah willing, to the second issue with which he challenged me. He said, “You see, we take it without Tafsir, etc.” Brother, this is against you, not for you. Allah is sufficient. Your request I answered. It didn’t come with anything else. Okay, he says, “No, you must retract because Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari added some words.” I know he added two or three words, a line or two. This does not count as an addition to the book. It is indeed an abridgment.
Evidence, my dear brothers, come, let’s make a simple comparison. Okay, this is, my dear brothers, the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam al-Basri the Sunni. He says regarding Surat An-Nahl: “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. ‘The command of Allah is coming, so do not impatiently seek to hasten it.’ Al-Hasan said: ‘This is a response from Allah.'” Let’s go back to the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. He said: “Al-Hasan said: ‘This is a response from Allah to the saying of the polytheists to the Prophet: Bring us the punishment of Allah.'” The exact same thing! Where is the addition? You tell me, “By Allah, he added two words, added two letters”! This does not change the meaning. It’s very natural.
My dear brothers, if I go and take Al-Bukhari and at the end add two words, “Peace be upon you,” does that mean I have added to the interpretation? Absolutely not! Impossible. This is considered an addition by me, two or three words I wrote. It’s a normal matter. Okay, my dear brothers, now we come to the important issue which we will also clarify, because our topic today is about two things: al-Hawari’s Tafsir and the “Dictionary of Sharia.”
The “Dictionary of Sharia,” my dear brothers, Brother Muhammed al-Rashidi presented this source on his account. He said, “We have in the book ‘Dictionary of Sharia’ there is ‘Taraddi’ on Imam Ali. He interpreted it as ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him.'” I went back to the introduction of the investigation and discovered a catastrophe, by Almighty Allah! It says: “The words of Taraddi, Tarahhum, Tasliyah, and Taslim were proven in the text as they appeared in the manuscripts, and no intervention was made in them, neither modification nor alteration. Likewise, the author of the dictionary used to prove these words as he found them in their sources. This does not necessarily mean the author’s belief in that Taraddi or Tarahhum, because he was transmitting the text as it appeared in the source.” Meaning, just by him transmitting “Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu,” it does not necessitate that he believes in this Taraddi.
What is the evidence for your statement, Omar? What is the evidence that this man does not believe in this Taraddi? Get ready for the shock, by Almighty Allah! Don’t be shocked! This, my dear brothers, is the same book, “Dictionary of Sharia,” but a few pages later. It says: “We declare allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar ibn al-Khattab.” (It was supposed to say Uthman and Ali) – No Uthman, no Ali! And Abu Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Salman al-Farisi, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi (who abandoned Ali ibn Abi Talib) – they are present. But Ali ibn Abi Talib is not present!
They declare allegiance to him? Take the great calamity: “And we declare disavowal (al-bara’ah) from those from whom our prominent Imams declared disavowal in the biographies, without needing to disclose or specify.” Who are these you disavow? Let’s go down below and see who you disavow. It says: “And we declare the correctness (taswib) of the people of Nahrawan” (those who fought Ali). “And disavowal (al-bara’ah) from those who killed them.” Who killed them? Ali ibn Abi Talib killed them! So you disavow Ali ibn Abi Talib! From the same book you brought! Not me, you brought this book!
Do you want a clearer declaration that he indeed disavows Ali? Take the catastrophe, brothers. The same book, “Dictionary of Sharia,” Volume 8, by al-Sa’di. It says: “And after the Prophet, we disavow the people of the Qibla (Muslims) who are… Uthman ibn Affan, they disavow him, and Ali ibn Abi Talib, they disavow him, and Talhah, al-Zubayr, Mu’awiyah, Amr ibn al-As, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and all who were satisfied with the arbitration of the two arbitrators and abandoned the judgment of Allah.”
Abu Abdullah Muhammed ibn Mahbub (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “We agree with them on this disavowal of those named.” We disavow Ali, we disavow Uthman.And Abu Sa’id al-Kudami prays for mercy on this man… He says: “We agree with them on the disavowal… we disavow Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Talhah, al-Zubayr, Mu’awiyah, Amr, and Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and all who were satisfied…”
The sources, Brother Omar! The sources! The same book, brothers, that Brother Muhammed al-Rashidi brought. Not a new book. The same book he brought, “Dictionary of Sharia”! It says: “And after the Prophet, we disavow the people of the Qibla who are Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Talhah, al-Zubayr, Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, Amr ibn al-As, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and all who were satisfied with the arbitration of the two arbitrators…” …Disavowal. Okay.
So, my dear brothers, those who agreed to this… Abu Sa’id… Then you come and hold onto an issue saying, “By Allah, he prayed for mercy on him, he said ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him.'” Where is the love here? Where is this love?
Moderator:
Okay, thank you, Brother Omar. Thank you for this data, really. Brother Muhammed is indeed worthy of interacting with it for clarification and correction. Go ahead.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
First, I hope we adhere to the time, first of all. Secondly, we haven’t finished with the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam and the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari. You haven’t denied your contradiction in the statements you made about the book of Yahya ibn… Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari. First.
Second… You did not bring a single “Taraddi” from the book of Yahya ibn Salam! Excellent! Second or third… You talked about Ibn Abi Zaminayn. Excellent! I now challenge you as well to bring one “Taraddi” from the abridgment of Ibn Abi Zaminayn of the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. Don’t give me from the book “Al-Sunnah”! Bring it to me from the Tafsir. Didn’t he abridge the Tafsir? Come on, here’s the shock! Look at the shock!
I will say it while I open the pages… Ibn Abi Zaminayn, in his introduction, says that he abridged much of what was in Yahya ibn Salam’s book and omitted many chains of narration and many reports. In the first preface. Excellent! So, you are dependent on the Ibadis for this as well. Now, if you want the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam, it’s incomplete (22 surahs). If you want to refer back, you cannot refer to Ibn Abi Zaminayn’s book because it is very incomplete, and that’s a criticism against it.
As for the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, I repeat to you: You say “my scholars say it’s an abridgment.” He is not my scholar! That’s the investigator of the book! Don’t say “your scholars,” he is the investigator of the book, and he made a mistake in this. I say it once more: This book is a refinement. I think you understand – I trust your academic ability – the difference between refinement and abridgment. Excellent! You yourself said he added things! So how can it be an abridgment if he added? Wonderful!
Likewise, will you say that your scholars who abridged, refined, or relied on other books… will you say they stole? Will you say they removed a title and took a book? Can you say this, or only because he is Ibadi? Excellent!
Now, I challenged you with two or three Tafsirs. The first Tafsir contains “Taraddiyat.” The second evidence that Yahya ibn Salam did not pray for mercy on Imam Ali is the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn. The Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn did not pray for mercy on Imam Ali, and he transmitted from reliable books in his abridgment. So, the two books did not pray for mercy: neither the book of Yahya ibn Salam nor Ibn Abi Zaminayn. The one who prayed for mercy is the Ibadi, Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari.
This is evidence that Hud is the one who added the “Taraddiyat” in his Tafsir. Among the things he added are statements in jurisprudence: statements of Abu Ubaydah Muslim ibn Abi Karimah, statements of Jabir ibn Zayd, statements of “our companions,” “our school of thought.” These are additions! They do not exist in the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. Doctrinal statements: I have prepared seven doctrinal issues, on Al-Istiwa’ (The Rising on the Throne), etc. All are Ibadi interpretations. So, how can you say they only took the title? “They only took the title or changed the title and took it” – how is this, Ibadis?
Your Tafsir is incomplete. I challenge us to compare. I tell you, open Surat Al-Fatihah and compare now! Between this Tafsir… The audio is present, your voice is there. You say, “I am ready to compare.” We open the book from the beginning and compare word for word. How? And the things that Yahya… that Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari added…
Alright, I tell you, open Surat Al-Fatihah so we can compare. It’s not present in Surat Al-Fatihah. You rely on the Ibadi Tafsir to refer back to the book of Yahya ibn Salam. Even the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn is not sufficient for you! Not sufficient for you to complete! I have brought many texts. Okay, let’s open this text… another text… containing a comparison. Open this text for me…
Moderator:
You have about two minutes…
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
Yes, may Allah bless you. We have this text, the two Tafsirs. This Tafsir (right) is Yahya ibn Salam’s. He mentioned Hamzah and Ali, but did not pray for mercy on them. Look at the Ibadi Tafsir: “Hamzah ibn Abdul-Muttalib and Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with them all.” This is the Ibadi Tafsir! Okay. Open the other text…. This is another text.
We haven’t even finished with the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, and you move to another topic, the “Dictionary of Sharia.” Look at this text: “From Al-Harith, from Ali, that he asked the Messenger of Allah…” This is in Yahya ibn Salam’s Tafsir. Look at the book of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari: He said about “Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, that he asked the Messenger of Allah…” Okay, now you say the investigator added this. Where is the evidence? Don’t just tell me so.
This is a refinement by… to Hud al-Hawari. Go ahead, but I emphasize an issue now. I challenged you regarding two of his Tafsirs: to produce just one “Taraddi” from two Tafsirs, not one! One “Taraddi” on Imam Ali! I brought dozens!
Moderator:
Okay, thank you, Brother Muhammed. We’ll move on.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Okay, if possible, could you share with me, Dr. Muhammed? I don’t know what the problem is with the sources I presented. Share this text with me, may Allah bless you, and enlarge my picture, please. Dr. Muhammed, share, may Allah bless you. Yes.
My dear brothers, as I explained to you, this text and these additions… Are they from al-Hawari? I tell you, no! Rather, this is from the scribes (nussakh). In the “Tafsir Kitab Allah al-Aziz,” it says: “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,” – the prayer upon the Prophet… he says: “An addition that was necessary.” He added it!
So you tell me it’s “Taraddi”? Which “Taraddi”? Naturally, the scribes added it, and you have that he prayed for mercy on Ali. I know. But did al-Hawari say it? The answer is no. Evidence: the text I gave you just now.
If possible, Dr. Muhammed, also share with me in the book “Dictionary of Sharia.” My dear brothers, “Dictionary of Sharia” which we proved… Dr. Muhammed, share with me, may Allah bless you. Yes, this is the “Dictionary of Sharia” we showed earlier. This is “Dictionary of Sharia.” What does it say? “Ali, may Allah be pleased with him.” Then what does the investigator say? “The words of Taraddi, Tarahhum… were proven in the text as they appeared in the manuscripts, and no intervention was made in them, neither modification nor alteration. Likewise, the author of the dictionary used to prove these words… and this does not necessarily mean the author’s belief.” Meaning, this does not necessarily mean the author believes in this Taraddi and Tarahhum. I know that “Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu” is written, correct.
But remember the name of the book. What is the name of the book? “Dictionary of Sharia.” Correct. My dear brothers, the same book “Dictionary of Sharia”… Look, my dear brothers, the same “Dictionary of Sharia”… What does it say? Dr. Muhammed, share, please… the text, may Allah bless you. Yes, this is “Dictionary of Sharia.” It says: “We declare allegiance (nuwalli) to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, and Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him.” Where is the name of Uthman? Deleted. The name of Ali? Not there! “And Abu Ubaydah, Abu Dharr, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Salman al-Farisi, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, and Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi, the Khariji who removed Ali ibn Abi Talib from governance at Nahrawan, who said: ‘We don’t want you as a ruler.'” He said: “We declare allegiance to these.” “And we declare disavowal (al-bara’ah) from those from whom our Imams declared disavowal among the famous…”
Who are those you disavow? He tells you: “And we declare the correctness (taswib) of the people of Nahrawan and disavowal (al-bara’ah) from those who fought them.” Question: Who fought the people of Nahrawan? Ali ibn Abi Talib!
So the first “Taraddi” is something… it has no value, no benefit whatsoever, because basically he concealed “Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu.” Does he believe in this? Does he believe in this “Taraddi”? I tell you, no! He does not believe in this “Taraddi”!
Dr. Muhammed, share with me. I assure you, he does not believe in this “Taraddi.” Why, my dear brothers? Because the same book, “Dictionary of Sharia”… first thing, it had “Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu” written. But it says: “And after the Prophet, we disavow the people of the Qibla who are… Uthman ibn Affan – we disavow him. Ali ibn Abi Talib – Ali ibn Abi Talib, the one you go to the Shia for and we love Imam Ali! We love Imam Ali! But Ali ibn Abi Talib – we disavow him! And Talhah, al-Zubayr, Mu’awiyah, Amr ibn al-As, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and all who were satisfied with the arbitration of the two arbitrators, abandoned Allah’s judgment, and their followers and supporters, and those who ally with them – upon their disbelief.”
Disbelievers! O disbelievers! And their injustice! From the people of innovation and followers of whims. Who agreed to this statement? Abu Abdullah Muhammed ibn Mahbub (may Allah have mercy on you). “We agree with them on this, and the disavowal of those named.” Abu Sa’id al-Kudami, your friend, the one you love very much, says: “We agree with them on the disavowal of those named, calling them disbelievers.” Who? Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib – our brothers, our own selves! Ali ibn Abi Talib! My dear brothers, what… They disavowed him! We disavow you, Ali ibn Abi Talib!
And I explained to you the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn, this is present. In “Uṣūl al-Sunnah” by Ibn Abi Zaminayn, this “Taraddi” is present. So I tell you, if you have a million “Taraddiyat” now, a thousand “Taraddiyat”… let’s say you have 10 million “Taraddiyat” in the book, does this mean you believe in them? I tell you, no! You deleted the name of Ali! You prayed for mercy on Ali in “Dictionary of Sharia,” and in the same “Dictionary of Sharia” you said: “We disavow Ali!” And Abu Sa’id al-Kudami says: “Whoever allies with them, upon their disbelief – disbelievers!”
My dear brother, by Allah, “disbelievers”! This is the problem. I don’t know, the sources earlier apparently didn’t appear, sorry, because I’m presenting them again, just to confirm the information which is “Madinat al-Ma’ajiz.” When you prayed for Iran, sorry, by Allah, I don’t know what this situation is, but it must be resolved. “Madinat al-Ma’ajiz” by the “Mu’assasat al-Ma’arif al-Islamiyyah.” When it mentioned the Khawarij, it said: “They are outcasts from Islam.” They declare you disbelievers! And the “Qadhafat al-Kham” (Iranian officials) that you are happy with! It says: “By the judgment of all Islamic scholars, you are outcasts from Islam, and the most important of their sects are the Ibadis.” They declare you disbelievers! Who is this? Iran! Iran declared you disbelievers! “May Allah’s curse be upon them all until the Day of Judgment!” Not my words, by Allah, not my words. On the contrary, I absolve you of such words. I went to Oman and saw respectable Ibadis, by Allah, they are good people. But Iran itself says: “May Allah’s curse be upon you until the Day of Judgment!”
Yes. This is their statement, their own statement! Go ahead, Brother…
Moderator:
Brother Omar Khalil, I thank you, and I don’t know why you are focused on the Iran part. I don’t know. The man mentioned it briefly at the beginning. But certainly, you have dimensions to it. Brother Muhammed is very capable of interacting with this aspect. Brother Muhammed, because I think Brother Omar is somewhat focused on it. Go ahead, Brother Muhammed.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
No problem, my teacher. But this is not the topic of the debate now. The topic of the debate now is… three rounds?…I agree.
Moderator:
Wait, wait, Brother Muhammed. I agree with you. But it is on the periphery. Since you started it, and he insisted on stopping at this point, you could clarify and correct for the viewers on the periphery, not for him, and then we finish this aspect and move to the title of the episode.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
No problem, we will clarify. But first, let’s finish what we started, and we will clarify quickly: The Ibadis do not declare their opponent as disbelievers, nor do they pass judgment on their opponent based on what their opponent has within them. Let’s finish this. There are evidences and other matters by which they judge their opponents… Shia, Sunnis… we consider all of them our brothers and do not enter into these matters.
But now, this Tafsir… I told you, or if you zoom in on this… I challenged you with two Tafsirs: the first is the original, and the second is taken from the original (Yahya ibn Salam) and abridged by Ibn Abi Zaminayn. The absence of “Taraddi” in the book of Ibn Abi Zaminayn is evidence that Yahya ibn Salam did not pray for mercy on Imam Ali, or that this “Taraddi” was not present in his book.
Your statement that the Ibadis lack chains of narration and so on is a methodological issue. Ibn Taymiyyah, your shaykh, says the Khawarij do not lie. Even if we differ with him about the name Khawarij, he says the Khawarij do not lie. So what need do we have for chains of narration if the Khawarij do not lie? If you want to verify the hadiths of the Khawarij, the hadiths of the Ibadis, you have something called “mutaba’at” and “shawahid” (follow-ups and supporting evidence). Refer to the book “Musnad al-Imam al-Rabi'”. We have an explanation called “Sharh Sahih al-Rabi'”. Imam al-Salimi explained it. In every hadith, he mentions the “mutaba’at”, “shawahid”, and other such matters. Our methodology is that we do not mention these chains of narration. Omitting chains of narration is not a flaw; rather, it is the methodology of the Ibadis. This is a feature.
But what are we talking about? The “Taraddiyat.”
Regarding the “Dictionary of Sharia,” the text you showed in the introduction says that these “Taraddiyat” exist in the original book and were not added by scribes or investigators. Excellent. It says the author may not believe in them, but he takes them from their sources.
Okay, let me ask you a question, Brother Omar. What are the sources used by the author of the “Dictionary of Sharia”? Did you go to the introduction of the first volume and research which books he relies on? Most of the books he relies on are Ibadi books. All or most of the books he relies on are Ibadi books: “Bayan al-Shar'” and others. So the “Taraddiyat” are inevitably Ibadi “Taraddiyat,” whether he said them or not, whether he believed in them or not.
The other issue: “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara'” (Loyalty and Disavowal) with us Ibadis applies to a specific person. Therefore, they used to mention “so-and-so scholar” is the one who disavows. It applies to that specific person, not to all of us. The disavowal is excellent. Even if the group that was with him agrees, no problem. But the evidence that reached them about disavowing Imam Ali applies to them. We may consider them mistaken.
Excellent. We may consider them mistaken.
But now… I challenged you with two Tafsirs… Excellent. And I proved to you that the “Taraddi” in the “Dictionary of Sharia” is an Ibadi “Taraddi,” whether al-Sa’di believed in it or not. It is an Ibadi “Taraddi.” Now, I want you to produce just one text, one text of “Taraddi” either in the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam or in the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn. It is difficult for you to produce one text. I produce dozens of texts from this book that you criticize. This book that you say the Ibadis took its title… I bring you dozens of texts. But prove to me just one text, one text from the book of Yahya ibn Salam or from the book of Ibn Abi Zaminayn, no more. Excellent.
I will show some texts… Excellent… Alright… You can’t see these texts?
For example, here is a text on aqeedah. Go to “Al-Istiwa’.” Look at this text… Take this. Pay attention. Yes. Did Yahya ibn Salam interpret it? Or did Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari interpret it? Alright. He said: “The Most Merciful rose over the Throne (istawa).” Is the text clear? He said: “Istawaa… His command and power prevailed over His creation.” Excellent. If you search for this text in the book of Yahya ibn Salam… Although, look in which surah? Look in which surah? In Surat Ta-Ha. If you search for it in Yahya ibn Salam’s book, you will not find it. This is an addition by Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari. Where did Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari bring it from? Go ahead…
Where did al-Muhakkam al-Hawari bring it from? He brought it from “Al-Jami’ al-Sahih” of Imam al-Rabi’ ibn Habib, from the third century AH. Look at this from al-Rabi’: “His command and power prevailed over His creation.” This exact text does not exist with Yahya ibn Salam. But it exists here with al-Muhakkam al-Hawari.
Okay, so the issue of the “Taraddiyat,” Brother Omar, once again, I tell you that the “Taraddiyat” were added by Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari. Even “Salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam” and “Alayhi wa alihi salam” which were added by the investigator or scribes. “Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu” is from the original book! There’s a mark, I don’t know if you noticed it or not.
Can you bring me… I’ll go with you… Can you bring me one “Taraddi” in Yahya ibn Salam’s book and say the scribes added it? Can you? One “Taraddi”! I demanded “Taraddiyat” from two Tafsirs. We Ibadis, when we enter debates… I have read three Tafsirs. I don’t say this unless I know that the only Tafsir that prays for mercy on Imam Ali among these three is this Tafsir.Yes? Excellent! Yes?
So, I demand… mostly in this battle, you bring one “Taraddi” from a Tafsir. If it’s not there, say it’s not there, and we’re done with this. Meaning, you are demanding one “Taraddi”? I demand one “Taraddi.” Why? Because he says the “Taraddiyat” in this book were taken from Yahya ibn Salam. Of course, before, he said “they took them from Yahya ibn Salam”…
Now he says… …because no one knows, professor. Go ahead. Okay, thank you.
Moderator:
Thank you. Brother Omar is also capable of interacting with these issues. Go ahead, Brother Omar.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Okay, if possible, could you share with me, may Allah bless you, this text that I requested? Share, Dr. Muhammed. Share.
Yes, my dear brothers, “Uṣūl al-Sunnah” by Ibn Abi Zaminayn. He says about Ali ibn Abi Talib, “Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu.” He took it from… Ibn Abi Zaminayn took it, as he says… from the people of the methodology… they studied the methodology of Hud… “Ali ibn Abi Talib, Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu.” By the way, I brought you your request. I don’t know why you repeat it. Maybe you’ve run out of answers, by Allah, I don’t know. My dear brothers, the problem is in the next clip, he will respond to Dr. Asim. Listen…
“Shaykh al-Hadrami, author of ‘Al-Kawkab al-Duri,’ is not Ibadi because he prays for mercy on Imam Ali. Therefore, the author of the ‘Qamus’ (Dictionary) is also not Ibadi. Do not forget…
Yes, meaning he now used the author of the “Dictionary of Sharia” as evidence. Now, when we shocked him that the author of the “Dictionary of Sharia” actually disavows Ali, disavows Uthman, and disavows the companions, and says “disbelievers” and whatnot… By Allah, he definitely took it from an Ibadi book. By Allah, I don’t know from which Ibadi book he took it. But he took it from you. This is the response, my dear brother! This is not a response! This is not a response! He did not take it from you; rather, he found it in some Sunni source and took it and placed it there. Evidence is that he says “We disavow them”! Of course, my dear brothers, he continues to throw words. I am paying attention, by Allah, to every word. He said: “Ha, by Allah, we don’t declare them disbelievers as they declare us disbelievers.” Look at the screen, my dear brothers. Dr. Muhammed, share with me, may Allah bless you.
Okay, my dear brothers, the book “Lubab al-Athar” by Sayyid Muhanna ibn Khalfan. It says: “Issue: About Shaykh Ahmad ibn Madad, may Allah have mercy on him. What do you say about all the other schools of thought besides the Ibadi? What do you say about them? Is it permissible to declare them mistaken and misguided? Is it permissible to curse them (Yal’anuhum)? Does the ablution of the one who does that break or not?” He said: “Yes, that is permissible. Curse them (Tal’anuhum)! And the ablution of the one who does that does not break, because he has spoken the truth.” The truth is that they are cursed! Accursed! You, O Sunnis, according to this man’s tongue! The correct and the truth is that all our opponents from other schools are, with us, perishing, innovators in religion, heretics, ungrateful disbelievers, hypocrites, oppressors. The Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger testify to that.
Whoever dies on other than the Ibadi religion is in the Fire, in Hell. With this we testify and declare our religion. Whoever doubts the Ibadi religion and claims the truth is in other than the Ibadi religion is, with us, an ungrateful disbeliever, a sinner, a hypocrite, a misguided innovator, an innovator in religion. You don’t declare us disbelievers? By Allah, I wish you would declare us disbelievers rather than saying all this to us!
Also, in the book “Qawa’id al-Islam,” it says about disavowal (al-bara’ah) from whoever leaves the school of the people of truth. Not just takfir now… Take this calamity: Whoever leaves the school of the people of truth for the school of those in opposition, and allies with their Imams and disavows the Imams of the Muslims, it is obligatory upon the Muslims to hate him, be hostile to him, and remove his allegiance until he repents and returns to the Muslims. If he leaves the school of the Muslims, opposes them, criticizes their school, and finds fault with it, then his killing is permissible, his assassination by any means to cause his destruction and death.
Got it, dear teacher? Beware once again! Someone tells me, “You Salafis are takfiris, you Wahhabis are takfiris, you are blood-shedders”! No, I tell you this statement. It shouldn’t appear these days. I know this statement shouldn’t appear. But don’t accuse us of a disease that you yourselves suffer from. If you see this as a disease, then it is a life-ending matter.
It’s a camera, just a question, if you please. Why shouldn’t it appear now? What is the reason? My dear brother, I tell you, now we are in a time of tolerance. What are they doing?
Moderator:
Sorry, transparency and clarity, Brother Omar.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
No, no, I will tell you. Listen to me. Listen to me. What do they do? They go to old books from a certain period, a certain time when some boundaries (hudud) were not suspended, and they apply its rulings. They say, “Look, you have a book from 1000 years ago that says ‘kill’ so-and-so.” It’s not that we kill. Rather, this matter is referred to the ruler (Wali al-Amr), who considers it. There are conditions and prerequisites for seeking repentance (istitabah). They don’t read that. They just see the word “kill” – “Attack the Sunni! Kill the Sunni! Beat the Sunni!” The Sunni commands all this, and we are innocent and good, we don’t do anything. Meanwhile, the opposite is these books of theirs that are hidden in the bellies, no one sees them. And I tell you, we don’t show them. By Almighty Allah, I know the Ibadis are good people, there is goodness and blessing in them. I personally went to Oman, by Allah, I found the immigrant treated better than the citizen, with all manners and respect. But these books… I tell you, hide these books, it’s better.
Moderator:
Thank you, Brother Omar. Faithful transmission is required from you and Brother Muhammed. Faithful transmission. Brother Muhammed, go ahead. May Allah bless you, Brother Omar and Brother Muhammed.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
Brother Omar has left the topic of the debate several times now, several times, and goes far away from the challenge. You tell me the book “Al-Sunnah” by Ibn Abi Zaminayn. He abridged the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam in the book “Al-Sunnah” or in the Tafsir? Why can’t you bring one text from the Tafsir? One text of “Taraddi” from the Tafsir? You say, “Where did he take it from Yahya?” From the book “Al-Sunnah”? How? From the book “Al-Sunnah”? He abridged the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam in another Tafsir. Why don’t you bring one text? We are done with this topic.
Let’s repeat it. You have this book, “Dictionary of Sharia,” “Al-Hawi” its wide ways. The introductions that Brother Omar went to… he went to the introduction of the volume, but he did not go to this book, which is the introduction to all the volumes. Here on page 376, you have the sources of the “Dictionary of Sharia.” He took these “Taraddiyat” and others from Ibadi books. You find that Ibadi books constitute more than 90%.
So how can you say that “Taraddi” was taken from a Sunni book? You have said this several times without evidence. You said this “Taraddi” they took from a Sunni book. To this moment, Brother Omar has no evidence that these “Taraddiyat” in the two books are taken from Sunni books.
Now, the topic of the debate is this. I can now say, for example, Ibn Taymiyyah says the companions are disbelievers! Ibn Taymiyyah says the companions are disbelievers based on the Prophet’s hadith: “Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.” Yes, he said it is a restricted designation, no problem. But he labeled them with the name “disbelievers,” did he not? He said they are disbelievers!
If I want to go away from these texts, I can bring you your takfir of the companions. The people of Nahrawan are not companions? I can bring you this. I can bring you those who besieged Uthman ibn Affan – they are not companions? I can bring you those who fought Imam Ali at the Battle of the Camel and others – they are not companions? I can bring you these texts, and we can discuss this. But what is our topic now? Our topic is this Tafsir and this book. I hope we don’t leave them, we don’t go out from them.
Brother Omar has not been able to prove that the “Taraddiyat” in the two books are Sunni “Taraddiyat” or that they took them from such. Alright, I have other texts once again. I do not leave the topic of research. Every time you leave, I bring you back to the same topic.
Look at these texts that Imam al-Hawari added to his Tafsir. For example, this text… So you don’t say he abridged. You said “abridged.” Pay attention, you said “abridged.” If he abridged and didn’t add anything, why are these texts here? For example, “The general statement of our jurists, Abu Ubaydah, etc.” This text… Search for it in the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. Will you find it?
This other text… “And Abu Ubaydah said” – Abu Ubaydah here means Abu Ubaydah Muslim ibn Abi Karimah. Can you bring these texts from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam? You cannot. Why? An addition by Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, whom you say the Ibadis only took the title of his book? If they only took the title and the Tafsir itself, then the Tafsir would be identical to the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam, wouldn’t it? The two Tafsirs would be presumed to be identical if they only changed the title, as you said. You said they changed the title. You said the “Taraddiyat” are not of Hud al-Muhakkam al-Hawari. Okay, the viewers are waiting for one text… The book “Al-Sunnah”… Did Ibn Abi Zaminayn abridge in the book “Al-Sunnah”? He didn’t abridge it in the Tafsir, or he didn’t abridge it in the book “Al-Sunnah”? He abridged it in another Tafsir. Produce for us from that Tafsir, and produce for us from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam one “Taraddi”! Difficult, very difficult. I now say to you, and I demand the same thing, I say to you, I have not left this topic. You haven’t been able to produce a single text of “Taraddi” from a complete Tafsir! There is no single text of “Taraddi”!
Alright, let’s say the investigator added it. Didn’t the investigator add it? Or didn’t the scribes add it? How is it that this Tafsir has dozens of texts of “Taraddi”? And they are from the original book? Yes. Alright. Yes, okay.
Moderator:
Thank you, thank you, Brother Muhammed. In the next intervention for Brother Omar, then Brother Muhammed, the time will be three minutes. There will be obligations: each guest will ask one question. We are responsible for obligating the guest to answer the question. Thank you, Brother Muhammed. We move to Brother Omar. We have shared your screen. We see what you are also presenting. Brother Omar, go ahead.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Okay, my dear brothers, by Almighty Allah, I don’t know why the guest attacks me and says, “Why did you say it is an abridgment?” My dear brothers, a question: Did my mother, Um Omar al-Zahrani, say this Tafsir is an abridgment? No! Your scholars say that the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari is an abridgment! They said! He is biased! I challenge you! Challenge your scholars! Challenge your investigators, dear teacher, who said it is an abridgment!
“Mukhtasar” (abridged) – Meem, Kha, Ta, Sad, Ra – “Mukhtasar”! When I say it, by Allah, you have the right to tell me, “Omar, give me a page!” The cover page! The cover page!
Okay, and the cover page… It’s a complete Master’s thesis. Dr. Muhammed, share with me, please. This, my dear brothers, is “The Methodology of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari in Tafsir.” The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria – because al-Hawari is there in Algeria, he’s not Omani.
It’s a complete Master’s thesis. Subhanallah, I read it in one day, finished all of it. This says it is an abridgment, and the investigator himself, the author of the book, says it’s an abridgment. So you… I don’t know why you attack me and get upset at me.
As for Ibn Taymiyyah declaring the companions disbelievers, etc… Where did Ibn Taymiyyah declare the companions disbelievers? Dr. Muhammed, share with me, may Allah bless you. My dear brothers, in the book “Majmu’ al-Fatawa” by Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about what happened between the companions: Ali, Mu’awiyah, Talhah, and Aisha. Are they accountable for it or not? He answered: “It is proven by authentic texts that Uthman, Ali, Talhah, al-Zubayr, and ‘Aisha are among the people of Paradise.” May Allah bless you. That’s enough for me. “People of Paradise” means Muslims, their Islam is proven. Thank you.
On the other hand, what do we have, my dear brothers? What is the catastrophe we have on the other hand? Dr. Muhammed, sorry, share with me… Sorry to bother you… In the book “Dictionary of Sharia” which he used as evidence… What is the problem? I am not bringing another book. He brought it in his clip. He was shocked that the author of the book says: “We disavow after the Prophet the people of the Qibla who are the people of the Qibla. Uthman ibn Affan – we disavow them, we don’t want them. Ali ibn Abi Talib – we disavow him.” It’s not “Imam Ali” or anything. On the contrary, basically, I am sorry for the sermon you gave that day, the sermon of Imam Ali… You disavow him in your books! “And after the Prophet, we disavow the people of the Qibla: Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Talhah, al-Zubayr, Mu’awiyah, Amr ibn al-As, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and all who were satisfied with the arbitration of the two arbitrators, their followers, their supporters, and those who ally with them – upon their disbelief and their injustice.”
Oppressors! He tells you Ali ibn Abi Talib is an oppressor, from the people of innovation and followers of whims. And al-Kudami… By Allah, I challenge you to even say that al-Kudami is described as you described the Imam, or as they described the Imam. I challenge you, of course, I don’t say this, but by necessity, you say that al-Kudami is the disbeliever, the one who disavowed… you cannot say that. But what did al-Kudami say about the companions? He said: “Calling them disbelievers.” He said it clearly: “Calling them disbelievers.”
As for the issue… By Allah, since you brought it up, here you are. I obligate you by your own tongue. You said, “By Allah, we have… the one who explained ‘Musnad al-Rabi” is al-Salimi.” Look at what al-Salimi says in “Jawabat al-Imam al-Salimi.” The issue is well-known. You brought it to say he explains the ‘Musnad al-Rabi”. And about Ali ibn Abi Talib, look at what he says: “The issue is well-known among those who agree and those who disagree. However, those who disagree often make excuses for Ali while acknowledging the reality.”
We say, as we say, “We disavow Ali,” even though the reality is that Ali was wrong. Because his Imam, Abdullah ibn Wahb (who removed Ali), said to Ali: “Go away, we don’t want you.” This was after they removed Ali from the Imamate themselves. So the people of Nahrawan who fought Ali, who waged war against Ali, are the ones in the right (muhaqqun). And those who fought them are the ones in the wrong (mubtilun). Whoever understands this, it is obligatory upon them… and those who fought them means Ali, who fought the people of Nahrawan, is in the wrong. And he is not accused of otherwise. Likewise, disavowal of those who fought them is obligatory.
Who is al-Salimi? The al-Salimi you brought? Not me, by Allah, I didn’t bring him. The al-Salimi you brought! Moreover, al-Salimi says later… he tries to soften the expression a little. He says: “It is not from our religion to insult, nor from our school of thought to criticize. We have seen among the specific group (the Ibadis) and the general public (the Sunnis) that we have not seen anyone criticize those who passed, or insult, or curse. People are safe from that.”
Fine. Even if you don’t curse him… If he believes in the allegiance (walayah) of the people of Nahrawan and the disavowal (bara’ah) of those who fought them, fulfilling an obligation from Allah’s religion, without insult, obscenity, or condemnation… except for what occurred with Ibn al-Nadhar in his ‘Lamyyah’ poem. His intention (may Allah forgive him) was to show the truth, but anger for the sake of Allah led him to utter a curse. He started cursing and insulting Ali in his poem. May Allah forgive him. He cursed Ali ibn Abi Talib. May Allah forgive him. He said “May Allah curse him” in the poem. What was appropriate for the school of thought was to clarify who is right and who is wrong. You just say Ali was wrong, but don’t go and curse him. He went to extremes in his statement. What did he say in the poem? “That Ali is in the lowest depth (of Hell).” Ali ibn Abi Talib is in the lowest depth, Ali ibn Abi Talib is in Hell. This is from Ibn al-Nadhar.
I challenge you yourself to denounce Ibn al-Nadhar. But what does al-Salimi say? “May Allah forgive him.” “Allah forgive him, he cursed Ali…” “May Allah curse him”? “He insulted Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah forgive him.” He said Ali is in the Hellfire, in the lowest depth. “May Allah forgive him.” This is your al-Salimi that you brought!
Not me, “May Allah forgive him”…
Moderator:
Yes, yes. Okay, Brother Omar, I thank you. Brother Muhammed, we will start from now. You will take five minutes. In the last five minutes, you will ask Brother Omar a question, and he is obligated to answer it, and vice versa. Brother Muhammed, go ahead.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
Excellent. But, my teacher, we are Muslims according to their conditions. We stipulated not to leave the topic. Brother Omar, every statement he makes leaves the topic. Every round, he leaves the topic of the Tafsir of Imam al-Hawari and the “Dictionary of Sharia.” Almost every statement he makes leaves them. Excellent. So I hope Brother Omar adheres to the hadith of the Prophet (saw). And you, Brother Muhammed, also remind him. Excellent.
Let’s come back to the Tafsir again, Brother Omar. You say the scholars, our scholars, say it’s an abridgment. You yourself read the introduction. Let’s open the clip if… Go ahead. This…Open this.Aha…Is the clip appearing? The reader assumes, like yourself… Yes. That his statement is just audio. Yes, go ahead.
Moderator:
No, we can’t play a video. I can share a screenshot, a picture. Brother Muhammed, you can play the audio. You can let me hear the audio. You can play the audio without showing anything. No problem, we hear the audio if you want.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
No problem, no problem. I will state what Brother Omar says and he denies it. We will open this. He says that Brother Omar, after reading the introduction, says he discovered the texts are similar between the two Tafsirs after comparison. I tell you now: By comparison, I say the investigator is wrong.
By comparison, can you prove to me that the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari is an abridgment? This is one of the things you were mistaken about. You said it’s an abridgment once, and that he didn’t add anything. Then in the debate, you said he added what benefits him, what benefits the Ibadi school of thought. You said this in front of people. Third, you said the “Taraddiyat” are not his.
In this statement of yours, Brother Omar, you said the “Taraddiyat” are not his. How do you prove they are not his? You have two methods, one method: to bring these “Taraddiyat” from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. Can you bring these “Taraddiyat” from the texts that contain prayers for mercy on Imam Ali from the book of Yahya ibn Salam?
You will move to another topic. I know this. And you will not be able to bring texts that pray for mercy on Imam Ali from the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn either. Excellent.
How much time is left? Excellent.
What I want to raise, as I told you, Brother Omar… Even the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn is an incomplete Tafsir. You have two incomplete Tafsirs. If you want to go back to the original texts of Yahya ibn Salam’s book, you are dependent on the Ibadis. You need the Ibadis. The person who transmitted the most texts of Yahya ibn Salam are the Ibadis. This Tafsir is not less than others… The Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn is much more incomplete. This is what he said in the preface.
I will show the preface..I think…They don’t lie…
No, Take it out, take it out from my display, or the viewer will go back to it later. No problem. If it doesn’t appear on my screen… He said this in the preface, on page 117. He says in the preface: “I found a lot of repetition in it” – meaning what? The book of Yahya ibn Salam – “and hadiths that the science of Tafsir can do without. So the book became lengthy.” Then in the next line: “So I abridged its repetitions and some of its hadiths.” If you look at the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn, it’s a very severe abridgment. There’s no… I mean, there’s no… Even the “Taraddiyat” are not present. Excellent.
Now, what we obligate you with, Brother Omar… We obligate you to either bring a text… We want to finish this issue so we can move to other things you raised. Either you bring a text with “Taraddi” from the two Tafsirs. I gave you two, not one. I made it very easy for you. One text from two Tafsirs! Okay, or admit and say it does not exist. Yahya ibn Salam did not pray for mercy. This is what we want. Go ahead…
Moderator:
Doctor…Okay, Brother Muhammed. Sorry, Brother Omar, this is one. The formulation of your question again, in a sentence, Brother Muhammed.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
I say to Brother Omar: Are there “Taraddiyat” in the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam and in the book of Ibn Abi Zaminayn? The two Tafsirs, don’t bring the book “Al-Sunnah”. The two Tafsirs. Are there “Taraddiyat” in them? If there are, then show us one “Taraddi” from the two Tafsirs. Just one from the two Tafsirs. I show you dozens of texts. I want one from the two Tafsirs. Just one. Go ahead.
Moderator:
Thank you, Brother Muhammed. Brother Omar, you have five minutes to answer the question, and you continue. At the end of your intervention, you will ask your question. Go ahead.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
I’m ready, Dr. Muhammed. But could you share with me and be there? If you don’t mind, just share this text for me… Yes, Dr. Muhammed. Sorry, I apologize. Could you just read this word for me? “Ali ibn Abi Talib”… what? It’s very far away. Enlarge the picture on your end. The words…”Ali ibn Abi Talib”… what? It’s not clear.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
This is not the Tafsir. It’s a book.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
La ilaha illa Allah. “Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu” also. O Ali, “Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu” for Ibn Abi Zaminayn. In “Al-Sunnah”? In Shia? In Tafsir? This is not my question. You asked for the “Taraddi.” I brought you the “Taraddi” from the same scholar. I didn’t change my word. From Ibn Abi Zaminayn. You tell me “in another book”. Since when am I committed to one book just so you can obligate me with something I am not committed to?
My teacher, now, Professor Muhammed, this is my time. Did you see? The first one who started changing the conditions is you! Then he accuses me of not adhering to the condition. We agreed not to interrupt during the time. He started interrupting me. Then, by Almighty Allah, it’s a catastrophe. He says, “We have Imam al-Salimi, he explained such and such.” Yes, Imam al-Salimi is good. Why, when I respond to him from Imam al-Salimi, he says “this is leaving the topic”? By Allah, this is not leaving the topic. I obligate you with the scholar you brought yourself. Do you understand, good people? So it’s not reasonable that I respond 1000 times, then he comes back and asks me the same question: “Ali, Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu” in the book “Uṣūl al-Sunnah” by Ibn Abi Zaminayn. You tell me, “I want from the Tafsir.” Sorry, respect… It’s not up to you. It exists in this book. Why do you obligate me? Because we don’t commit to it? It exists in this book.
The second issue: You will say we have additions. I know there are additions. I tell you there are additions. 9%? 95% of al-Hawari’s Tafsir is taken from the book of Yahya ibn Salam. You tell me there are additions. I know there are additions. I myself read earlier for you. I told you there are changes, omissions of some verses, some interpretations that do not benefit his school of thought, as I said from the beginning. So it’s not reasonable that I say something and he repeats it. Catastrophe, by Almighty Allah, catastrophe. Okay, and every time I give him something, he doesn’t respond to it.
Dr. Muhammed, you are present, Allah willing, or not? Look at the agreement, Dr. Muhammed, before we started the stream. Didn’t the guest himself say we will talk about the “Taraddi” on Imam Ali? Didn’t he say this, Dr. Muhammed? Sorry… Dr. Muhammed… Dr. Muhammed is the channel owner.
Moderator:
Yes, he pointed out, yes, he pointed this out, may Allah
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Excellent! Did you see, my dear brothers? The one he accuses of fleeing and leaving the topic… we agreed on this. So now, when I talk and give him from other books, I have the right, by the way, to use any book as evidence. Nevertheless, I commit to bringing from the books you bring. The topic of “Taraddi” you requested… I swear by Allah that in the introduction, and with the clear admission just now… he said “we talk about ‘Taraddi’ on Imam Ali.” When we talk about “Taraddi”, he says “this is not our topic, you left the topic”. I did not leave the topic. I am speaking directly about the topic, which is “Taraddi”! Got it? When is it considered leaving the topic? Okay, my dear brothers, may Allah bless you. Look at the screen. I will talk about the topic which is “Taraddi on Imam Ali”.
Moderator:
Yes, but Brother Omar, I will add time for you, don’t worry. But the topic of “Taraddi” was an integral part of the main title, not the primary title. Correct? Go ahead.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Excellent, and that’s what I brought. I brought the “Taraddi” and explained the words of the scholars. The problem is the words of the investigators… he doesn’t accept them. I bring him from… where should I bring from? Should my mother speak? Should my father speak? He starts explaining. Not reasonable, my dear brother. I bring him from his own investigators, he doesn’t accept. Master’s theses, he doesn’t accept. Who should I bring to explain to him? He says “this is refinement, this is not refinement”. No one from your side said it’s refinement. You said it’s refinement. Your investigators, what do they say? The investigators say it’s an abridgment. The researchers, Masters, a Master’s thesis on his biography, they say abridgment. So what should I do for you? Is there a problem? I give him from books, he doesn’t accept. He says the investigator made a mistake. I challenge you to show me one mistake the investigator made. You are the first one mistaken about him. If it wasn’t for this, by the way, I read the biography of this investigator from the beginning. The poor man died, his back was bent from how much he sat to compile for you. I saw the manuscripts myself. His eyes were exhausted. This poor man came to verify your books for you. At the end of it, you coldly say “the investigator made mistakes”. No, the investigator did not make a mistake. If it wasn’t for this investigator, al-Sharifi, you wouldn’t have al-Hawari’s Tafsir! He said, “By Allah, I found it after 1100 years, I don’t know where it was thrown away, in the ‘Kabt’? We found scattered manuscripts, brought them together, compiled the book.” This is what he says, by Allah, in the introduction. All this is present.
Okay, now, my dear brothers, on the topic of “Taraddi on Imam Ali”… Dr. Muhammed, share with me, may Allah bless you. Dr. Muhammed, share, please.
Okay, my dear brothers, may Allah reward you. Look at the screen. He says in “Al-Siyar wal-Jawabat” for the scholars and Imams of Oman, Volume 2: “We said to them: Likewise, Allah commanded Ali to fight them, so it is not permissible for him to abandon that nor to consider it forbidden to kill them until they fulfill the command of Allah.” This is evidence of the disbelief and misguidance of Ali, and the correctness and justice of the people of Nahrawan. “Then Ali (Allah scattered his command) was killed by Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam out of anger for Allah, and that was permissible for him because he killed him.” Allah! “Those who command justice from the people. May Allah have mercy on Abd al-Rahman” – not Abd al-Rahman, son of my uncle, no – “May Allah have mercy on Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam. Yes, may Allah have mercy on Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam, the killer of Ali!” Did you see? Did you see this? This is what you have! “May Allah have mercy on Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam who killed Ali.” So, clarify for us…
Moderator:
Thank you, Brother Omar. Where is your question? Your question?
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
This is my question. The author of the “Dictionary of Sharia”: does he disavow Ali ibn Abi Talib or not? A clear question. I want a clear answer.
Moderator:
Thank you, Brother Muhammed. Go ahead.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
My dear teacher, first, I think you remember that what I requested from him was a “Taraddi” from the two Tafsirs. You, Professor Muhammed, did not obligate him for this. Sorry. I requested a “Taraddi” from the two Tafsirs. I did not request from the book “Al-Sunnah”. Why did I request from the two Tafsirs? To prove that this book, Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, is the one who prayed for mercy. You bring me from the book “Al-Sunnah”? He abridged it in the Tafsir, not in “Al-Sunnah”!
I say to you, this “Taraddi” here… this “Taraddi” here is the original, not the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. This is the first thing.
Secondly, you contradict yourself. You say al-Muhakkam added additions, then you say it is an abridgment. How can it be an abridgment if he adds things? Addition is called refinement! Addition, arrangement, and comments are called refinement. You are contradicting yourself now.
Leave this. You have not been able to bring a single “Taraddi” from the two Tafsirs. I hope you obligate this. You say I am the first person who opposed the conditions. Brother Omar, you leave the topic every time. How am I the first person to oppose the conditions? Likewise, you go to other books to lead us to other topics. I will answer the issue of the “Dictionary of Sharia.” I already answered you originally that “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara'” among the Ibadis applies to a specific person. It applies to a specific person. This is known to every Ibadi. If I disavow Imam Ali, this binds me alone. It does not bind the others. It does not bind you. It binds me alone. But if so-and-so, likewise Imam Ali, that binds him alone. This is all about “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara'” with us. Except, its allegiance and disavowal are realities with us… it has categories. That’s a completely different topic.
Therefore, our topic is this Tafsir. These are things you must study the books of the Ibadis and study “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara'” and other things before entering these topics, so you are aware of this. Don’t bring me texts, understand?
Now, this Tafsir… I tell you, this Tafsir and this book relied in its “Taraddi” on Ibadi books. You say it relied on Sunni books. We want… No problem. It relied on Sunni books. We want evidence that it relied on Sunni books. This you say… or that the “Taraddi” in it is a “Taraddi” of Yahya ibn Salam. No problem. Let’s say it’s a “Taraddi” of Yahya ibn Salam. But where is the evidence that it is a “Taraddi” of Yahya ibn Salam?
You say 95% of the Tafsir is taken from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. I tell you that only 22 surahs of Yahya ibn Salam’s Tafsir exist today! How are you going to prove this? You say things like this without being able to prove them, Brother Omar. I tell you: open Surat Al-Fatihah today in Yahya ibn Salam’s book so we can compare. You cannot. Why? Because it’s not there. That’s one.
The other issue: the texts he added – how can 95% be from Yahya ibn Salam’s book? The aqeedah, fiqh, and other additions, and the Tafsirs from al-Rabi’, etc. – where are these from? They are not from Yahya ibn Salam. So I hope you stay on topic with these two books.
Likewise, I mentioned Imam al-Salimi in response to you on the point about chains of transmission and the point that the investigator says this is a flaw in the Tafsir, but in reality, it is a feature for the Ibadis. Beyond this, now… I remain on the same challenge because you haven’t answered it. Truthfully. We want one “Taraddi” from the two Tafsirs. I have other questions, other matters. But we want this. We want clarification. We want a statement that the “Taraddiyat” are original in this book. You bring me the book “Al-Sunnah” by Ibn Abi Zaminayn. What does the book “Al-Sunnah” have to do with it? Sorry, he abridged the Tafsir in another book called “Al-Tafsir”. Let’s open the Tafsir of Ibn Zaminayn. No problem. Or bring it out here, it would be clearer.
This is “Tafsir al-Quran al-Aziz”. I don’t know if it’s clear or not. “Tafsir al-Quran al-Aziz” by Ibn Abi Zaminayn. This book. Excellent. Bring out a “Taraddi” from it now. Two Tafsirs! I tell you two Tafsirs. You cannot bring me a single “Taraddi”. What does this mean? It means that the “Taraddi” was original in the book of Yahya ibn Salam. This is the challenge, my teacher.
Moderator:
Is this your question? And you built the challenge upon it. Brother Omar (he misspoke and meant brother Muhammed) wants a “Taraddi” from the two books he relies on.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
My teacher, okay, if possible, enlarge me, may Allah bless you. My dear brothers, I tell you now: For example, this product exists in this supermarket. You go to another supermarket… Why? I tell you, the “Taraddi” exists in the book “Uṣūl al-Sunnah” by Ibn Abi Zaminayn – the same scholar, but in a different book! By Almighty Allah, it’s a catastrophe, my dear brother. It exists in that book! It’s a disaster, by Almighty Allah. How many times do we return and explain this? It exists in this book. No problem. It exists in any book. It exists in the book “Uṣūl al-Sunnah” by Ibn Abi Zaminayn. You tell me, “It doesn’t exist in the Tafsir.” That’s my least concern. Okay, let it exist in “Uṣūl al-Sunnah”. Your problem is you obligate us with an issue we don’t want. It doesn’t matter to me if it exists in “Uṣūl al-Sunnah” or in the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn. In the end, it’s the same scholar himself, the same man, Ibn Abi Zaminayn. So this is exactly my point.
Okay, my dear brothers, let’s go back once again. My dear brothers, when he says the Tafsir of al-Hawari is an abridgment… Omar, do you get this statement from your pocket or from a book? You are reading, I tell you, by Allah, from a book! He says: “Today, and after more than years of investigation, comparison, and induction, I can say without hesitation that Shaykh Hud al-Hawari relied heavily, if not completely, on the Tafsir of Ibn Salam al-Basri.” He relied completely, fully, totally!
My dear brothers, I’ll spoil it from the beginning, by Almighty Allah. I came to give you this research: a person named Hud al-Hawari – you want it in Arabic – there is no person named Hud al-Hawari! Evidence for my statement… Enlarge me, please. In this source I presented, the book “The Methodology of Hud al-Hawari”, it says: “The second branch: His birth and death. The Ibadi sources, nor others, have not determined the century in which the Shaykh was born, nor the year of his death. It is not known when he was born, when he died, who he is. No one knows him.” Additionally, his travels and sheikhs: “His travels – where did he travel? And who are his shyookh? Did he leave his country in travels seeking knowledge? Who are his sheikhs whom he sat with and took from? The Ibadi sources have completely omitted talking about the travels of Hud al-Hawari and his sheikhs, except for his father. So his only sheikh was his father! They don’t have a dirham! Even the commentator Hud himself did not tell us about his academic life.”
Because no one knows! How did they get this book of Tafsir? Al-Sharifi from Algeria came. He said: “I found with us a manuscript from 1100 years ago. I took it, compiled it, wrote it.” A person named Hud al-Hawari – who is he? We don’t know. Then we find the investigator asserting that there is no trace of any mention of his shyookh in the Tafsir. He says: “I tried hard to find a reference to some of his shyookh within his Tafsir, but I did not come across any of them.” Talking about the travels of Hud and his shyookh is mere guesswork. This is the reality, brothers. No one knows him. He even says: “The Tafsir of Hud remained for more than 11 centuries, 1100 years, forgotten, obscure. It did not exist until scattered manuscripts appeared in some private libraries.” He found a manuscript in a library. “Come on, this is Tafsir.” Meanwhile, the Tafsir of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah… look where it exists! Look how they took it, researched it, and revised it! This is the issue.
Okay, my dear brothers, let’s go back to the topic of “Taraddi” which we agreed on from the beginning: “Taraddi” on Imam Ali. Basically, the whole issue revolves around “Taraddi” on Ali ibn Abi Talib. Okay, “Al-Jawahir al-Muntaqa” by the scholar Abu al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim al-Baraddi. It says: “But Ali insisted on arbitration, so they left him and he left them. They disavowed him (bari’u minhu) and he disavowed them (tabarra’a minhum). Ali fought them – Ali fought the people of Nahrawan, meaning he fought them while they were ‘Hujjatullah’ (Allah’s proof).” Meaning the truth was with them, the truth was with those whom Ali fought. Oh, peace!
And in the book of Abu Sufyan Mahbub (may Allah be pleased with you): “I asked Abu Sufyan about the statement of the Muslims regarding Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam. He said: ‘I have not heard anyone praise him nor criticize him, and nothing has reached me about him.’ I said: ‘Perhaps that is due to treachery…’ He said: ‘No, I have come across a biography attributed to Shaykh Abi al-Hasan al-Bisyawi.'” Not “al-Basyawi” – some say “al-Bisyawi” is a mistake, it’s “al-Bisyawi” with kasra. Do you know any of his students? Students of Ibn Barakah. Who is Ibn Barakah? Abdullah ibn Muhammed ibn Barakah, a scholar from the major scholars of the Ibadis, al-Zahrani. Yes. “In it, he mentions the Imams of the Muslims and their shyookh, and those who were people of ‘Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’. He explicitly states in it the disavowal (al-bara’ah) of Ali, disavows Ali, and the allegiance (walayah) to Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam, and being pleased with him, and praying for mercy on him (tarahhum).” Meaning “May Allah have mercy on Ibn Muljam, and may Allah be pleased with him”, and disavows Ali ibn Abi Talib. So, when we shocked him with the book “Dictionary of Sharia” (which I didn’t bring, he brought it), he said “this applies to him, not to us.” You used it as evidence, and now you say it applies to him? Oh, peace…
Moderator:
Yes, where is your question, Brother Omar?
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
This is the question, the second time. I want a clear answer, yes or no. Does Imam al-Salimi and the author of the “Dictionary of Sharia”, al-Sa’di – answer yes or no – do they pray for mercy on Imam Ali or do they disavow him, as individuals? I want this answer: yes, they pray for mercy, or no, they disavow? Clear.
Moderator:
Thank you, Brother Omar. Brother Muhammed, go ahead.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
Professor Muhammed, remind me of the title of the debate, if you please. Remind me of the title of the debate, Professor Muhammed. I think the “Taraddiyat” we are requesting in this debate are related to…
Moderator:
I said, kind sir, I said and pointed out, I said that “Taraddi” was an integral part of the main title, not the primary title.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
Thank you, may Allah reward you. This is a clear, good admission that Brother Omar leaves the topics and goes to other books, and this is not the topic of the debate. My topic is to prove that the “Taraddiyat” in these two books are original “Taraddiyat” for the authors of the two books. This is my topic today. I came for this.
You go and talk about “bara’ah” (disavowal) and such. What do I care? Prove to me that the authors of these two books do not pray for mercy. That’s it. Excellent. You go and talk about the book “Al-Sunnah”. I ask you: what is the origin of this book? Is it not the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam? Yahya ibn Salam. If you want to say that this “Taraddi” text is originally from Yahya ibn Salam, how do you say that? You go and bring this text from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. Very simple. Very simple. I bring texts from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam and from the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari. He prays for mercy. Let’s open the text again, please.
Let’s open the text again. This text you opened and used as evidence. This… Go ahead… Excellent. This text in the two Tafsirs. Yahya ibn Salam… Look at the scientific matter. Look at the scientific comparison like this. You compare. You have two books. The same text. The text exists in the book of Yahya ibn Salam. It exists in the “Tafsir Kitab Allah al-Aziz” of al-Muhakkam al-Hawari, Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari. He prays for mercy. Yahya ibn Salam did not pray for mercy. This is the comparison. We came for these two books, for these two books. This text is clear in Surat An-Nur. Search for them. I have many other texts.
You mention the book “Al-Sunnah”. Is the origin of the book “Al-Sunnah” the book of Yahya ibn Salam? No. The Tafsir! May Allah bless you. The Tafsir book! Bring me a text from the two Tafsirs. You mention Ibn Barakah and Imam al-Salimi, and this is not the debate. Stay on the topic of the debate. You have run out of arguments. You have nothing to say about these two books that we came to debate about, these two books.
I can, by the way, answer all the questions, everything you raised with texts. I can answer you starting from the topic of “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara'”. No problem. Do you want us to stay on the topic of “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara'” today, open the books of the Ibadis on “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara'”, and explain the conditions of “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara'” to understand these texts? No problem. Even if it leads to another discussion, I have no problem. But what is the title of the debate, Professor Muhammed? Please remind us.
Professor Muhammed?
These two Tafsirs, the topic of the debate, and the “Taraddi” within them. You say the topic of the debate is “Taraddi”. Yes, in “Taraddi”. But in these two books! Prove to us that the “Taraddi” is not from the original books! It’s a difficult topic. It seems very difficult. I think Professor Muhammed disconnected…
Moderator:
Okay. Now, Brother Muhammed, from my point of view, if the books you have confirm this “Taraddi”, you have confirmed this matter, sir.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
I indeed confirmed it. I presented texts of “Taraddi” from this book and from this book. Brother Omar says the “Taraddiyat” in these two books – his argument is that they are not from the original book or the author does not believe in them. That’s what he said. Excellent. That’s what he said. I came to this debate for this topic.
Yes. Can he prove that the “Taraddiyat” are not Ibadi “Taraddiyat”? Starting with the Tafsir. I was generous and gave him two Tafsirs. Yes. Tafsir, Tafsir.
Moderator:
Yes, your message is taken. Okay, I always say something, and the “Facts of Religions” channel says… Brother Muhammed, Brother Omar knows this: the data being presented now… the respected viewers who have a right on the program and a right on you… let them choose. The debate is clear, and the presentation is clear. But between this and that, there must be a dialectic component. I won’t start it now. Sorry, Brother Omar will take an intervention, and Brother Muhammad will take an intervention. Then there will be a dialectic segment. This segment is vital for the viewer. Afterwards, we will leave the judgment to the Lord of the Worlds. Go ahead, Brother Omar.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Dr. Muhammed, before I take my turn, a question. The thing that Brother Muhammad al-Rashidi wants from me: to give him one “Taraddi” from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. If I bring it, have I answered the question? Correct?
Moderator:
Professor, I will allow you to interact with… I will stop the timer now. A procedural point. Because what he must answer, he must answer. Go ahead, interact with him.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
My teacher, to be clear, to be clear: What does Brother Omar say? He says the “Taraddiyat” in this book are “Taraddiyat” of Yahya ibn Salam, not “Taraddiyat” of Hud al-Muhakkam al-Hawari. Excellent? Excellent! Now, bring us a text from here and from here so we can compare. Or to say this, for your statement to be complete, the book must be complete. But I obligate you to only what exists in Yahya ibn Salam’s book, 22 surahs.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
The question is clear. If I bring a “Taraddi” on Ali ibn Abi Talib from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam, then I have answered your question.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
Yahya ibn Salam’s Tafsir or Ibn Abi Zamin’s.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Excellent. If I bring it, I have answered your question. You won’t repeat the question. Okay, Dr. Muhammed… Another thing… Just before this, another thing. But I answered you now. My dear brothers… Tafsir…Yahya ibn Salam. From the very first debate, I challenged. Yahya ibn Salam. Part 1, page 241. “And Abu Al-Ash’ath narrated to me from Abu Ishaq al-Hamdani, he said: I heard Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him…” Spare me! From where? From the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam! I wanted to drag you, drag you, drag you, so I could know that I will answer you in the end. Did you see, my dear brothers? I fled the topic? No, I returned to the topic. I brought your request precisely. “Ali ibn Abi Talib, Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu” – from the same book! By Allah, are we being fair or not? By Allah, fair.
Okay, my dear brothers, now that I have answered his question, I have the right to use my rocket launcher now. My dear brothers, Dr. Muhammed, share with me, may Allah bless you, so we can read these texts. Okay.
My dear brothers, in the book “Sharh Kitab al-Nil wa Shifa’ al-Alil” by Muhammed ibn Yusuf al-Tayyish (an Algerian scholar, but Ibadi). “According to the effect, no one is appointed to the Imamate except one for whom the Muslim scholars have concluded and whose Imamate was valid. Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (his Imamate was valid) due to the correctness of his conduct, but the Muslims did not appoint him because they did not put him forward, it is said. What is well-known is that they did not appoint him because he did not disavow Uthman.” Disavowal of Uthman! Beautiful!
“Al-Siyar wal-Jawabat” – we read it earlier. “Al-‘Uqud al-Fiddiyyah fi Usul al-Ibadi” by al-Harithi. It says: “The answer: In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi, who removed Ali, and Zayd ibn Hisn (or Husayn), and those with them from the Muslims, to Ali ibn Abi Talib: Peace be upon whoever follows the guidance. We praise Allah besides whom there is no deity. To proceed: Your letter has reached us, mentioning that the two arbitrators discarded the Book of Allah and judged by other than what Allah revealed. We have known, praise be to Allah, that their matter was contrary to the truth from the beginning. By appointing them as arbitrators, you committed a greater crime than both of them, O Ali! You, when you appointed them, your crime is greater. If you are truthful, then enter into what the Muslims have entered in obedience to Allah and His Messenger… And who? …Not your Imamate. The Imam of the Muslims is Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi.” He became the Imam of the Muslims. He removed Ali and put himself in place. “We have pledged allegiance to him after we removed you, O you who are removed (ya makhlu’), because you deserved to be removed by us. It is not possible for us to do otherwise. You must be removed. And peace be upon you.”
Al-Qutb Muhammed ibn Yusuf al-Jaza’iri, the Ibadi, one of the verifying scholars, said: “If you say, ‘Why do they not accept his repentance and return him as an Imam?’ I say: He insisted on arbitration, appeased Mu’awiyah, commanded what is false, refused to repent, repented but broke his promise as mentioned, continued breaking the promise, deserved removal, rather he removed himself, so it was permissible to appoint someone else.”
As for the claim of repentance… They say Ali repented. He claimed repentance after the appointment of Abdullah ibn Wahb. Meaning he claimed repentance after they appointed Abdullah ibn Wahb. So it’s too late.
These books… Okay. Also, we read the “Dictionary of Sharia”: “And after the Prophet, we disavow the people of the Qibla: Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib – we disavow him, Ali ibn Abi Talib…” Why? Because they are upon disbelief and injustice, from the people of innovation and followers of whims. And al-Kudami, what does he say? “We agree with them on the disavowal of those named, calling them disbelievers.” Disbelievers! Who is the disbeliever? Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Talhah, al-Zubayr, Mu’awiyah, Amr ibn al-As, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, and all who were satisfied with the arbitration of the two arbitrators and abandoned the judgment of Allah.
The issue is over. So, your takfir of us – we brought it. Your call to kill us – naturally, from your Ibadi books. I’m not saying this represents every Ibadi, no. It exists in your books. I criticize it.
Moderator:
What do you mean “your call to kill us,” Brother Omar?
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
It’s a problem. He threw the word. I didn’t start it with him. He threw it. He said, “We don’t label you as you label us, declaring us disbelievers, etc.” Declare us disbelievers or not, O good people? The answer is they declared us disbelievers. Okay. Evidence for this statement is that they declared us disbelievers. Let’s look at the screen. Okay, if possible, share, Dr. Muhammed. Okay. The book “Lubab al-Athar”: “Issue: About Shaykh Ahmad ibn Madad. What do you say about all the other schools of thought, everyone other than the Ibadi school? What do you say about them? Is it permissible to declare them mistaken and misguided? Is it permissible to curse them (Yal’anuhum)? And ablution does not break for the one who does that…”
Moderator:
Sorry, sorry, the phrase says… “Yal’anuhum”? It says… Go back, the phrase again. It doesn’t say “Yal’anuhum”, my teacher. Where did you get “Yal’anuhum” from?Wait, wait. Amanat al-naql (Faithful transmission). “Yal’anuhum” – what does it mean? The correct is “Yal’anuhum” (they curse them).
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
I don’t know, what is the phrase?
Moderator:
A moment. Ask me “curse”. Tell me, where is the curse? Mistake and misguidance… and now see the catastrophe. Okay, I say there is no curse.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Yes, “It is permissible. For he has spoken the truth, the correct, and the honest. Because all our opponents from other schools are, with us, perishing.” Come on, not cursed? Perishing! “Innovators in religion, heretics, ungrateful disbelievers, hypocrites, oppressors. The Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and the consensus of the Muslims testify to that.” Okay. “Whoever dies on other than the Ibadi religion…” Where is he? Disneyland? No, he is in the Fire, certainly. With this we testify, not just statements… with this we testify and declare our religion. “Whoever doubts the Ibadi religion, if you doubt the Ibadis are wrong, and claims the truth is in other than the Ibadi religion, is, with us, an ungrateful disbeliever, a sinner, a hypocrite, a misguided innovator, an innovator in religion – doomed.”
Moderator:
We will stop here. Stop here. Thank you, Brother Omar. We will move quickly to Brother Muhammed, who is worthy of interacting with this data.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
May Allah reward you and thank you very much for this beautiful debate. But Brother Omar, where did you get that “Taraddi” from, may Allah bless you? Could you open the PDF of the book on the same page for us? I have read both books, read the Tafsirs, Brother Omar. I did not find a single “Taraddi”. Where did you bring this “Taraddi” from? This book… on the same page that Brother Omar opened, he mentioned “Ali ibn Abi Talib”. The PDF, I don’t know if it’s clear or not… Excellent. It exists. He did not pray for mercy on him. Here, on the same page, in the same hadith that Brother Omar showed… Where did you get that “Taraddi” from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam? It’s okay. If you want to show now, in my time, the PDF and hack the book, no problem, I have no problem. Hack the PDF and show us this “Taraddi”. I know the two books. I know the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam and the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn. There are no “Taraddiyat” in them. This “Taraddi” is new to me. I have not seen it before. Excellent.
The issues raised by Brother Omar, once again, I tell you, the debate is about these two books. Don’t drag me to another topic. The debate is about these two books. Any escape from these two books is considered weakness, considered an admission by you that they prayed for mercy on Imam Ali. We’re done. We’re done.
You talk about takfir… First, I did not say “you declare us disbelievers and we do not declare you disbelievers”. I did not say that. I said the Ibadis do not pass judgment on their opponent based on what their opponent has within them. Excellent. When you mentioned the statements of the Shia, I told you that the Ibadis… and that they declared us disbelievers… we do not declare them disbelievers except if those reasons occur. If those reasons occur, we declare them disbelievers. No problem. Excellent. But if those reasons do not occur… not just because they declared us disbelievers, we declare them disbelievers.
Likewise, unlike you, because you declare us disbelievers, we declare you disbelievers if those reasons occur. No problem. We declare you disbelievers. What is takfir? Is not takfir from Allah’s religion, Glorified and Exalted be He, if disbelief occurs? Is it not in Allah’s religion? No problem. So, we agree on this. We do not declare our opponent a disbeliever simply because our opponent declares us a disbeliever. Once again, Brother Omar, where did you bring that “Taraddi” from? Honestly, I see this “Taraddi” for the first time. If you could, Brother Muhammed, stress this, so we can see this “Taraddi” in a PDF book, for example. Because this PDF I have does not have it, this website also does not have it, and Al-Shamilah does not have it.
Moderator:
Since the viewers have a right on you, and the channel has a right, there will be a dialectic segment now between you and the professor. Please, go ahead.
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
Excellent.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
Okay, my dear brothers, as I showed you in the editions… I tell you with all honesty, there are editions that pray for mercy on Ali, and there are editions that do not pray for mercy on Ali. So, I came now… No, please, I now obligate you in the same way… What did he do? No, no… The dialectic, go ahead. Yes.
Look, my dear brothers… So as in the Tafsir of al-Hawari… Look, brothers, look how… There are words in the editions where it says “The Messenger of Allah” and stops. In other editions, it says “Salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam”. So now, how do you prove to us that this is the words of the investigator or the words of the author of the book? The prayer upon the Prophet – is it the words of the investigator or the words of al-Hawari?
Muhammed Al Rashidi speaks:
Excellent. I talked about the prayer upon the Prophet, not the “Taraddi” on Imam Ali.
Omar Al-Zahrani speaks:
The prayer upon the Prophet is greater! The prayer upon the Prophet is greater!
PRIMA QUR’AN COMMMENTS:
Dear readers at this point in the debate there is lots of interruptions and the exchange is free flowing. We will try and break this down differently here.
Omar Al Zahrani: The debate about what? Just answer me this: “Salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam” – this addition is from whom?
Omar Al Zahrani: This addition is from whom? I will show you what you presented. I will show you what you presented on the debate account. I know what you presented. This prayer, this prayer is an addition by whom? You presented… The prayer is an addition by whom? We talked…
Omar Al Zahrani: Just answer. Explain to me. Why am I telling you? What do I have to do with the prayer? Because editions differ. You have editions that do not include the prayer, and you have editions that do include the prayer.
Omar Al Zahrani: So why, when you came to me… why, when you came to the “Taraddi”, are there editions that pray for mercy? Are there editions that pray for mercy? We showed, we showed. Go ahead. I gave you this text earlier.
Omar Al Zahrani: Go ahead, go ahead. Show it to us. Let’s see it.
Omar Al Zahrani: I gave you this text. Go ahead.
Omar Al Zahrani: This is the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam: “Ali ibn Abi Talib, Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu”?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, no, no. It’s the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, not the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam.
Omar Al Zahrani: Now we’re back. Now we’re back. Yes, see how he couldn’t…
Omar Al Zahrani: Now it became… Now it became the Tafsir of…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, no. The prayer upon the Prophet – where did you bring it from? The prayer upon the Prophet – where did you bring it from? It’s not from the Tafsir…
Omar Al Zahrani: This is my question to you. I asked you. You brought it. Go ahead with it.
Omar Al Zahrani: May Allah bless you.
Omar Al Zahrani: This is my question. You turned the question back on me?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, no, I didn’t turn the question back on you. You… the prayer upon the Prophet…
Omar Al Zahrani: My teacher, may Allah bless you. The prayer upon the Prophet: the investigator says he added it.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Wonderful. But from which book?
Omar Al Zahrani: How should I know? You have to ask the investigator. Not me.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: The investigator’s addition.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: From which book? Which book did you present where there is an investigator’s addition?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Al-Hawari. Excellent. Then give us a text in the book of al-Hawari indicating that there are texts or editions that did not mention… You don’t bring me Yahya ibn Salam. This is the statement, Professor. He said “The Messenger of Allah”. He, the one who added it, he says to you in the margin: “An addition that is necessary,” he added it.
Omar Al Zahrani: Wonderful, excellent. I am with you on this. Now you say there are editions that include it and editions that don’t. I say to you: show me an edition of the “Tafsir Kitab Allah al-Aziz” that says “An addition that is necessary” – who added it? Understand? Not the author of the book. He says to you: “An addition that is necessary.”
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No problem, I’m with you. I talked about the “Taraddi”.
Omar Al Zahrani: Excellent. This statement – is it from the investigator or from the author of the book?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: What do I care, Brother Omar? What do I care?
Omar Al Zahrani: And what do I care? Okay, and what do I care? No, the debate is about what? The debate is about what? I use this to tell you that the existing “Taraddi” – you don’t know who prayed for mercy? This is the idea. The prayer upon the Prophet, I don’t know. The “Taraddi” – for whom?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, by Allah, I know. You can’t use an analogy. The “Taraddi” belongs to al-Muhakkam al-Hawari. Your evidence? My evidence is that Imam al-Muhakkam al-Hawari added the “Taraddi”. No, it exists. Subhanallah. I tell him: prove that Hud added it. He says evidence that Hud added it… He transfers evidence, the least evidence… The “Taraddi” does not exist in the book of Yahya ibn Salam, nor does it exist in the book of Ibn Abi Zaminayn. These two Tafsirs do not contain it. So, he added it.
Omar Al Zahrani: Does not exist? How did he add it? Do you have evidence?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Evidence is that the investigator tells you… why did I use this phrase? The prayer on the Prophet…
Omar Al Zahrani: Excellent. The investigator said they added the prayer. Did the investigator say they added the “Taraddi”? I tell you: if they added the prayer, what makes you think they didn’t add the “Taraddi”?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, now you are relying on the statement of the investigator, aren’t you?
Omar Al Zahrani: Correct.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: You accepted the investigator’s statement originally?
Omar Al Zahrani: No, you rely on it, not me. You rely on it. Correct?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: From your books. Very natural, I mean. No, I ask you, Brother Omar. You rely on it, don’t you?
Omar Al Zahrani: Yes.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Excellent. Give me a statement from the investigator where he says the scribes added the “Taraddi”. Go ahead. What’s this? You have to answer that, not me. How do you know this addition is from the scribes or not?
Omar Al Zahrani: You are returning the question to me? This is my question! The prayer… you don’t know who added it.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Brother Omar, organizing the speech is better for the listener.
Omar Al Zahrani: Organization happens with time. Subhanallah. Ask… I say my statement and stay silent. My first questions I asked: Did al-Salimi disavow Ali?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, the debate is about what?
Omar Al Zahrani: You said “Taraddi” on Ali in the Kuwalis, and Dr. Muhammed admitted that this is a sub-title. From these two Tafsirs. Excellent. Sub-title, may Allah bless you. Among the branches: Did al-Salimi disavow Ali? “Taraddi” in these two books? Agreed. The second book, “Dictionary of Sharia”. Did the author of the book disavow Ali? These two? No. These two? No. Dr. Muhammed, share how… Dr. Muhammed, share, may Allah bless you, in the book “Dictionary of Sharia”. Or he meant “Taraddi”… “Taraddi”… both of them. “Dictionary of Sharia” when he said: “And after the Prophet, we disavow the people of the Qibla: Uthman and Ali…” Does he disavow or not?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: My teacher, the “Taraddi”… he says “disavowed” or not?
Omar Al Zahrani: Excellent. I will answer you, but you be quiet for a little while.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: I will be quiet for a little while.
Omar Al Zahrani: This book transmitted from other books. Excellent. This book, “Dictionary of Sharia”, transmitted from other books. These books it transmitted from are listed in the introduction. Excellent. All of them are Ibadi books. I say to you that the “Taraddiyat” in the two books are “Taraddiyat” of our companions.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Agreed.
Omar Al Zahrani: When he said “And after the Prophet, we disavow Ali”… our companions…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Agreed, by Allah, agreed. I am conceding to you. I am talking to you about the “Dictionary of Sharia”.
Omar Al Zahrani: This is the topic of the debate. Dr. Muhammed, don’t remove the share. Dr. Muhammed, understand his question: Did al-Sa’di, the author of the “Dictionary of Sharia”, say “we disavow Ali”? Yes, he transmitted that.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: He said “we disavow Ali”.
Omar Al Zahrani: He transmitted that. Yes.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Transmitted from whom?
Omar Al Zahrani: Transmitted from our companions. Yes.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Our companions disavowed Ali?
Omar Al Zahrani: Some of our companions, yes, disavowed Ali.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Wait, wait. When I say “I disavow Ali”, how can I have transmitted from someone else?
Omar Al Zahrani: How does he say… man, the introduction, please. The introduction! You read the introduction, didn’t you? The introduction says… This is transmission, not a confession. Correct?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: You say yes.
Omar Al Zahrani: This is transmission, not an explicit confession from him. I tell you he transmitted. I tell you he transmitted, I don’t tell you he confessed.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: The disavowal… Does the author of the “Dictionary of Sharia” disavow Ali or not?
Omar Al Zahrani: I tell you: does he pray for mercy or does he not pray for mercy? I tell you, the “Taraddi” is useless! It’s the reason! He prays for mercy, okay? That’s it. He does not believe in it. How, man? “And we disavow Ali”!
Muhammed Al Rashidi: You first said… Let’s understand. Dr. Muhammed, share. My dear brothers, “Dictionary of Sharia” by al-Sa’di: “We declare allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar…”
Omar Al Zahrani: Where is Ali? Do they declare allegiance to Ali?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, but…
Omar Al Zahrani: A clear question: “We declare allegiance” – why did he not mention Ali ibn Abi Talib?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: What did I tell you? I told you, my brother, my answer is clear, explicit, very clear, very comfortable. I told you: transmitted from our companions. He transmitted. “We declare allegiance” – he sat and said “We declare allegiance to the Messenger of Allah, we declare allegiance to Abu Bakr…”
Omar Al Zahrani: Go to the introduction of this volume you have. Go to its introduction and see…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Yes.
Omar Al Zahrani: Man, he says “We declare allegiance” (Nadinu), he doesn’t say “We declare allegiance” (Nadinu).
Muhammed Al Rashidi: By Almighty Allah, it’s correct. By Allah, your guardian, you, the first day, look at this text. You don’t know, by Almighty Allah, that this is his belief? Evidence…
Omar Al Zahrani: He said…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: By Allah, I swear by Almighty Allah that this is the belief of al-Sa’di! He is not transmitting from anyone. This is his belief with which he worships Allah.
Omar Al Zahrani: No, no, you said “I saw it for the first time.” Don’t change the subject. You said “I saw it for the first time.” I tell you that the “Taraddiyat”…
Omar Al Zahrani: The existing “Taraddiyat”… Professor, let’s finish this topic. Let’s stay on this topic. I will bring you, I promise I will bring you… Does he say “We declare allegiance” to Ali? He prays for mercy on him? Yes.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, he does not pray for mercy on him. This is not his belief at all. This is his belief! Man, if you open… Professor, my brother…
Omar Al Zahrani: Muhammed, I want to open a text.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Man, professor, respected, when he said “and disavowal from those who killed him”…
Omar Al Zahrani: Who?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Please, a minute, open this. You said he does not believe in it. He does not believe in the “Taraddi”? You are trying to confuse people, meaning.
Omar Al Zahrani: You are entering his intention! You say “he does not pray for mercy.” I say the investigator. The investigator is the one who says…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: That he does not believe in it. Yes, he said he does not believe in that “Taraddi”. Yes, he does not believe in the “Taraddi”. Come on, I’ll make you a Shaykh who says… the investigator, come on.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Let’s open the text. A minute.
Omar Al Zahrani: This text is in front of me. A minute.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Open it. Let’s read together. Please.
Omar Al Zahrani: In the name of Allah.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Come on.
Omar Al Zahrani: From “Dictionary of Sharia”. Look at what it says.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, a minute.
Omar Al Zahrani: “He does not believe in these ‘Taraddiyat’.” The text.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Please, if you would, open the text for us and see. They complete it to the end. I am with you. And of course, Brother Omar, I did not leave the topic of addition…
Omar Al Zahrani: The “Taraddi” addition.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: The problem is that this question I answered…
Omar Al Zahrani: A moment, just…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: If you would, open the text in the introduction.
Omar Al Zahrani: I will bring you the introduction. This is Dr. Muhammed. Share with me, please.
Omar Al Zahrani: Okay, this is “Dictionary of Sharia”.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, just read.
Omar Al Zahrani: The “Taraddi” on Ali: “He interpreted it as ‘Ali, Radhiya Allahu ‘anhu’.” Wait, wait, wait. I brought this from the very first intervention. I brought it from the first intervention.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Complete, complete.
Omar Al Zahrani: What does it say in the introduction?
Omar Al Zahrani: “The words of Taraddi and Tarahhum were proven in the text as they appeared in the manuscripts.” Beautiful.
Omar Al Zahrani: “And no intervention was made in them, neither modification nor alteration.” Amen.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Excellent.
Omar Al Zahrani: “Likewise, the author of the dictionary used to prove these words as he found them in their sources.” Agreed. “And this does not necessarily mean the author’s belief…”
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Complete.
Omar Al Zahrani: “…in that Taraddi or Tarahhum, because he was transmitting it as it appeared in its source.” Excellent. This is exactly what I said!
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Excellent. Now, how do we know the belief of al-Sa’di personally?
Omar Al Zahrani: By going back to his official statements.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Dr. Muhammed, share with me when he said: “We declare the correctness (taswib) of the people of Nahrawan and disavowal (al-bara’ah) from those who killed them” – who killed them? Who is meant by the one who killed them?
Omar Al Zahrani: The statement is mine.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Okay, so for me, who killed them?
Omar Al Zahrani: Okay, let’s talk about “Taraddi” first, since you raised the topic…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: La ilaha illa Allah. No, man, answer me: “and disavowal from those who killed them” – what is it? What is it? The debate is about “Taraddi”, isn’t it?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: By Allah, Muhammed al-Rashidi, by Almighty Allah, I tell you it. You mean, honestly, your clips, you just want to reach “Explorer” with them. This is your belief! This is your correct belief, the one that contains the disavowal of Ali.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Who is the person who killed the people of Nahrawan? What is his name?
Omar Al Zahrani: I, Brother Omar… First, first, from “Dictionary of Sharia”. Before I go, you read in this introduction that “as it appeared in their sources” – what appeared in their sources? The books of the Ibadis are the source of this book, “Dictionary of Sharia”. Above 91 volumes! Excellent.
Omar Al Zahrani: 91 volumes are these Ibadi books. So, whatever the case, this “Taraddi” is an Ibadi “Taraddi”.
Omar Al Zahrani: First, second: The “Taraddi” in the book of Yahya ibn Salam and the book of Hud al-Muhakkam al-Hawari – we haven’t finished this, Brother Omar!
Omar Al Zahrani: Wonderful, wonderful! You just brought a “Taraddi” that doesn’t even exist in the manuscripts!
Omar Al Zahrani: Don’t try to go. Don’t try to go. Don’t try to go. We are still talking about “We declare the correctness of the people of Nahrawan”. Dr. Muhammed, share with me. “And disavowal from those who killed them” – who killed the people of Nahrawan?
Omar Al Zahrani: Go ahead.
Omar Al Zahrani: Who killed the people of Nahrawan?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: This text is in a book! Professor, man, man! “And disavowal from those who killed them” – who killed the people of Nahrawan?
Omar Al Zahrani: Brother Omar, Brother Omar…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Have mercy on my mother, answer me! Who killed the people of Nahrawan?
Omar Al Zahrani: The “Taraddi” you brought from this book… Where is it?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: See, professor…
Omar Al Zahrani: Bring the mobile closer. Bring the mobile a little closer. Bring the mobile a little closer to the camera, Brother Muhammad. What is this display you are showing?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Go ahead. A minute. This might be unclear. I will send it to the laptop. No problem. The text that Brother Omar brought in…
Omar Al Zahrani: Man, don’t try to go right or left. By Allah, I won’t leave you until you tell me: “disavowal from those who killed them” – who killed them?
Omar Al Zahrani: Who killed the people of Nahrawan?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Professor Muhammed, he asked me now.
Omar Al Zahrani: Who killed the people of Nahrawan?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Let me, Brother Muhammed, asked me, didn’t he? Let him ask.
[Moderator]: Yes. Let’s, Brother Omar. I apologize. Let me just… Let the brother present what he has so the viewer can see what he is using as evidence.
Omar Al Zahrani: Dr. Muhammed, you said there is an obligation to answer the question. Where is my question? This is my question: Ali ibn Abi Talib, when he said “We declare disavowal from those who killed them” – who killed them, Professor?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: And I also said the dialectic segment…
Omar Al Zahrani: He doesn’t want to answer! You didn’t obligate him!
Muhammed Al Rashidi: I obligated you. I brought you the answer. He is now turning it around. He is now saying “Where is the answer?”
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Where is the answer to “We declare disavowal from those who killed them”? Man, I told you there are editions that exist and editions that don’t, just like with al-Hawari you have editions that exist and editions that don’t.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: This statement of yours is not correct. Show me. Show me. Your statement is not correct.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Dr. Muhammed, share with me. Share the PDF page.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Dr. Muhammed, share, please. “From those who disavowed…” “From those who killed them” – who killed them? Who is the subject? Who?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: By Allah, you will not leave this topic yourself. The same book, “Dictionary of Sharia”, which you brought: “disavowal from those who killed them” – who killed them?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Now, Brother Omar, who killed the people of Nahrawan?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: By Allah, if you try…
(Interruption)
Moderator: I apologize with your permission. Each guest will take two minutes because the dialectic segment is not disciplined. Theoretically, between question and answer, we wait about 10-15 seconds. Brother Muhammed, start your two minutes.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Professor, now… my killer?…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: You said… you said to him… you didn’t answer my questions or my challenges, Brother Omar.
Moderator: Excellent, meaning he hasn’t answered.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: You brought a Taraddi from a website. I don’t know which website you brought it from. Open a PDF for us. I want to prove my theory or the truth that I believe: that the Taraddiyat exist only in this book. Open a PDF in front of the people. Let the people see it. Bring out that text containing the Taraddi. You said there are editions that contain the Taraddi and editions that don’t. Isn’t that right? Bring out the edition that contains the Taraddi. Here is a PDF. Go ahead. This is simple, very simple. I am clear, simple, and very lenient with you. Go ahead.
Omar Al Zahrani: Thank you for your leniency. I, my dear brothers, am very clear. When I ask…
Moderator: Okay, my dear brothers. Dr. Muhammed, share, please. Two minutes, my dear brothers.
Omar Al Zahrani: When he said “We declare the correctness of the people of Nahrawan and disavowal from those who killed them” – who, my dear brothers, killed the people of Nahrawan? Who is this who crushed the people of Nahrawan? Who is this who destroyed the people of Nahrawan? He is the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib!
Omar Al Zahrani: What are they doing? They declare him correct (yusawwibunahu)! Who fought Ali? In which book? In the same book he brought, the one he wants to debate about! It says: “We declare the correctness of the people of Nahrawan.” Moreover, the author of the book himself says: “We disavow after the Prophet the people of the Qibla: Uthman ibn Affan and Ali.” He says “disavowal is our belief.” And Ali ibn Abi Talib… And al-Kudami says: “We agree with them on the disavowal, calling them disbelievers.” Why? Because they are disbelievers! “And their followers, supporters, and those who ally with them, upon their disbelief and their injustice, from the people of innovation and followers of whims, according to the saying of Allah Almighty: ‘And who is more unjust than one who follows his own desire?’” What is this? Disbelief! Disbelievers! From the same book you brought!
Omar Al Zahrani: I give him from other books – problem. I give him from the same books he brought, he doesn’t respond! I give him from other books, he says “this is not our topic”! By Allah, this is not the state. This is not the state, brothers.
Omar Al Zahrani: Is my time now?
Moderator: Your time now. Go ahead.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: May Allah reward you, Brother Omar. I demanded one text from you, and I repeat: one text. Open a PDF – simple. Open a PDF in front of the people so they see that the book of Yahya ibn Salam contains a Taraddi. Okay. The only copy that contains the Taraddi that you opened… an electronic copy. Give him a PDF copy. Give him a PDF copy. They add a lot to those electronic copies. You know this. Excellent. Give us an authenticated PDF copy that says Yahya ibn Salam prayed for mercy on Imam Ali. I brought a book with dozens of texts that pray for mercy on Imam Ali, from a scholar of the third century, Imam al-Hawari.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Because I also demanded from the people, and the texts… Open the text that Brother Omar opened exactly. Give me a little time… Excellent…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: You open it.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: A minute, just a few minutes…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: A few minutes…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: This is the blue one…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Yes, yes.
Muhammead Al Rashidi: The same text that Brother Omar brought from a PDF copy. Excellent. Yes.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: This…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: The same text…
Moderator: Two minutes…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Go ahead. The same text. I presented it to you. A gift from me. Go ahead.
Omar Al Zahrani: Thank you. Thank you for the gift. May Allah bless you.
Omar Al Zahrani: Okay, Dr. Muhammed, enlarge me, may Allah bless you.
Omar Al Zahrani: My dear brothers, let’s go back to the same text, Allah willing. Look, brothers. By Allah, I will treat it the same way. Isn’t it an electronic copy, my dear brothers? The PDF he has, doesn’t he have a book? This book was a PDF, an electronic print. Okay. I tell you that the Taraddi was added by those who wrote it, those who placed it in this book. They added the Taraddi. You tell me, “What is the evidence?” I say, like his evidence – he has no evidence. He just throws words: “Perhaps it is like this and that.” Okay. Let’s go back once again, my dear brothers.
Omar Al Zahrani: My dear brothers, I requested from him a very simple request. As he says, “simple, simple, easy, very easy.” He doesn’t need anything. He just answers us.
Omar Al Zahrani: When he said “We declare the correctness of the people of Nahrawan and disavowal from those who killed them” – who killed the people of Nahrawan? Just a simple word…
Omar Al Zahrani: Just “disavowal from those who killed them”… who is the one who killed them? “We declare disavowal from those whom our famous Imams disavowed in the biographies without disclosure or specification… We declare the correctness of the people of Nahrawan and disavowal from those who killed them.” The problem is, I ask him “who killed them?” because I want him to say the name. He can say the name. But here, in the declaration, it says “We disavow Ali ibn Abi Talib.” We disavow Ali ibn Abi Talib. So why all this trouble?
Omar Al Zahrani: By Almighty Allah, it’s a disaster!
Omar Al Zahrani: Then he tells me, “This is an electronic copy.” I agree. It’s an electronic copy. Suppose there is no other. Okay. The book you have basically – what is the evidence that the one who wrote this Taraddi is al-Hawari? Perhaps the scribes wrote it. Perhaps the printer of the book wrote it. Perhaps the investigator wrote it. You haven’t proven anything. It’s all “perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.” Meanwhile, when I came to the most important issue and told you, “Here is a Taraddi on Ali, and the author of the book does not believe in it.” What is the evidence? The evidence is that he said “We disavow Ali.” He said “We disavow Ali, we disavow Ali, and we declare the correctness of the people of Nahrawan, and we disavow those who killed them.” So the issue is easy.
Omar Al Zahrani: I will repeat. Just tell me: who are the ones you declared correct? Who are those who killed the people of Nahrawan?
Omar Al Zahrani: Brother Omar, Brother Muhammed…
Moderator: Professor, Professor Muhammed, may Allah bless you. Is it possible in debates to present such unreal evidence? Because this is the first time I know…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Are you accusing me of something? What are you saying, sir?
Moderator: I’m saying, is it possible in debates to present unreal evidence?
Moderator: Let me just comment on this point. Is it permissible to present unreal evidence? Why? So that the respected viewer, who has a right on you and us, after reviewing, is certain that the person is a liar or the person is deceptive. We always leave the judgment to the viewer and leave the first and final judgment to the Lord of the Worlds. Not to me, not to you. Go ahead, Brother Muhammed.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Brother, you are a man. I love you for the sake of Allah. May Allah bless you. Now…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: We leave the judgment to the viewer, as Professor Muhammed said, may Allah bless you.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Open any book, any electronic copy, I mean any PDF copy of the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam, and see if it contains Taraddi. Any copy, even printed. Does it contain Taraddi or not? If it does not exist, then the origin of the Taraddi is from this book that I came today to prove. You come to me with “disavowal”! I came to prove the Taraddi in this book. Moreover, I answered you, Brother Omar. I answered you. I told you that this book transmits from our companions, and indeed, some of our companions disavow. I don’t hide anything from you. There are indeed some of our companions who disavow Imam Ali. But that judgment is for them, not for all Ibadis. They themselves… I am with you, very clear. He mentioned the names of scholars. But I tell you, the Taraddi in it – for whom? Is the Taraddi for the Ibadis or not? And the Taraddi here – is it from Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari or not? This is the topic of the debate. The judgment is for the viewer.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: These two books… Allah bears witness that I did not leave these two books. I did not leave these two books.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Dr. Muhammed, two minutes have passed. Okay.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Look, my dear brothers, the issue is that I specified certain scholars. He says, “Yes, we have others, and we have others.” No. I specified specific ones. I said al-Salimi, al-Sa’di. Do they disavow or not?
(Interruption)
Muhammed Al Rashidi: The beloved al-Salimi and al-Sa’di – do they disavow or not disavow?
Omar Al Zahrani: Al-Salimi and al-Sa’di…
Moderator: Aha…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: I think the debate is about these two books, Brother Omar.
Omar Al Zahrani: La ilaha illa… Who is al-Sa’di? The author of which book? Not “Dictionary of Sharia”?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, I…
Omar Al Zahrani: Surely from the two books, better.
Omar Al Zahrani: Answer me clearly: Does he believe in disavowal or not?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: He transmitted.
Omar Al Zahrani: No, he said “Nadinu” (we declare as religion). What does “Nadinu” mean?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: “Nadinu” is that which Imam al-Sa’di transmitted. Where did he transmit it from? He doesn’t say… Belief, belief… No, no, no. Evidence is that he said at the end of the book… I read the book, by the way…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: At the very end, he said “Nadinu” with… meaning he is mentioning what he worships Allah with. He said this statement in the introduction…
Omar Al Zahrani: Ma sha’ Allah.
Omar Al Zahrani: Sorry, sorry, on the last page… Dr. Muhammed, share with me, may Allah bless you. Look, brothers… Okay, this said: “We declare as religion (Nadinu) upholding family ties, honoring parents, what the right hand possesses, the rights of the neighbor, we declare as religion all of Allah’s rights, we declare as religion all avoidance of major sins…” This is “Nadinu” – belief of whom? This is al-Sa’di!
Omar Al Zahrani: You tell me it’s someone else. I tell you, the evidence you don’t have. “By allegiance”… I answered you, I told you that this book relies on other books. Here, al-Sa’di is not speaking in his own tongue.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Not correct. He says “Nadinu” – he believes. No, he believes with his own tongue, by his own self. He said this statement. At the very end of it…
Omar Al Zahrani: Not correct. By Allah, not correct. I challenge you to show me one… Wait, wait. I challenge you to show me from whom he transmitted this statement…
Omar Al Zahrani: Go ahead. No, no, just a moment. Just a moment, I’ll tell you… “The one in which he said ‘Nadinu‘”…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, just a moment. He says to you…
Omar Al Zahrani: From the book “Dictionary of Sharia”… You read the book, and in it “Nadinu” – from Ali? “Nadinu” – from the disavowal of Ali ibn…
Omar Al Zahrani: The fifth, the fifth, the fifth…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Excellent, excellent.
Omar Al Zahrani: Excellent. I will bring you from where he transmitted it…
Moderator: Okay, until he brings the source, let me just remind the respected viewer… My greetings to you all, all lovers and followers of the “Facts of Religions” channel. The channel transmits the written to visual and audio. The guests who are part of the program’s family participate in this work. It is counted for them, which is transmitting the written to visual and audio, whether you disagree with them or agree with them.
Moderator: Okay, Dr. Muhammed, why doesn’t the guest… Could you share with me, please, this text?
Omar Al Zahrani: Look, my dear brothers, he says now, “By Allah, we love Imam Ali and pray for mercy on Imam Ali, etc.” But do you know, my dear brothers, who called them liars? I don’t call them liars. Look who calls them liars…
Omar Al Zahrani: In the book “Ali wal-Khawarij”… Yes, go ahead.
Omar Al Zahrani: Go ahead.
Omar Al Zahrani: Open.
Omar Al Zahrani: Yes.
Omar Al Zahrani: Page 376.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Which book?
Omar Al Zahrani: “Dictionary of Sharia”… What does it say? What does it say?
Omar Al Zahrani: Go ahead, the books it relied on.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: I know it relied on books. I tell you, “Nadinu” – this statement, “Nadinu” – whose statement is it? Whose statement?
Omar Al Zahrani: It says here that he used to write them…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: He wrote them from whom?
Omar Al Zahrani: He wrote them from our scholars who did…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: From whom? Name for me. Name for me who said “Nadinu” with disavowal from Ali. Name him.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Name him.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Name the Ibadi scholar who prays for mercy… who disavows Imam Ali.
Omar Al Zahrani: No, the one from whom he transmitted that text.
Omar Al Zahrani: He transmitted that… Yes, he disavows Ali. What is the fifth…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: I know he transmitted from him the disavowal of Ali. Who is this scholar? What is his name?
Omar Al Zahrani: Okay, Dr. Muhammed, share with me… Yes, this is the book “Ali wal-Khawarij” by Sayyid Ja’far Murtada al-‘Amili. Remember his name, ‘Adil. He says: “It has become apparent that the Ibadis and others, when they showed some flexibility towards Ali (AS), they were not truthful in what they showed.” This is a Shi’i. He says: “As it has become apparent from some of their writings published in this era.” He says you use Taqiyya! From Ja’far Murtada al-‘Amili! Imagine! Of course, Ja’far Murtada al-‘Amili died recently, around 2019. Imagine who praised and commended this man? Imagine! Who is Ja’far Murtada? Who praised him when he died? It was Khamenei! Imam Khamenei offered condolences on the death of Sayyid Ja’far Murtada al-‘Amili and said: “This venerable scholar provided great service to the Islamic world and filled an important cultural gap with his solid writings.” What are his solid writings? That he goes and lies about the Ibadis! What is the devil… I quote lines from Professor Muhammed al-Rashidi: “The devil hopes for a meteor’s flame, but these are the Qadhafat al-Kham!” You see what the Qadhafat al-Kham are? Indeed, he lied about the Ibadis!
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Allah…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: I repeat to you, Brother Omar… I repeat to you, Brother Omar: The judgment of the Ibadis on their opponent is not like the judgment of their opponent upon them. We are done with this. Even if you repeat it dozens of times.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Here, Imam al-Sa’di is mentioned… that he transmitted in the first volumes of this book from several books… The first is “Bayan al-Shar’”, the second is “Jami’ ibn Barakah”, “Jami’ ibn Ja’far”… It is known that he transmitted “Nadinu” with disavowal – this statement “Nadinu” with disavowal – from whom did he disavow Ali? Wonderful. He transmitted in these volumes from these scholars. We’re done.
Omar Al Zahrani: No, who specifically disavowed Ali? Name him.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: How can I name him? He transmitted from these four…
Omar Al Zahrani: Meaning, Ibn Barakah disavows Ali?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: I tell you he transmitted from these four. He does not explicitly say…
Omar Al Zahrani: You couldn’t. You couldn’t say. I tell you, basically, this is the statement of al-Sa’di. You can’t say it because you know what will happen to you. Since you, masha’Allah, have a good relationship with the Shia, if you say the scholar’s name, you will harm yourself. You know what? You can’t say it. So, I prove to you very much, dear one, that the Taraddi exists in this book… And I prove to you that the Taraddiyat exist in this book. What do I have to do with the Shia? I have already declared to you that there are scholars among us who disavow Ali. What is their name? What is their name? Al-Kudami disavows Ali! How? Now I… Now I’m not… I mean, close…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: No, what are you saying? You say “we have”, you don’t want to name them. Al-Kudami disavows Ali.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Isn’t it my time?
Omar Al Zahrani: Brother Omar…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Al-Kudami disavows Ali… He is taking your time and spoke now…
Moderator: Leave him. Let him take his time, Brother Omar.
Omar Al Zahrani: Brother Omar, I have declared to you with my tongue. You say he will ruin his relationship with the Shia. I declared it to you with my tongue.
Omar Al Zahrani: I said there are scholars who disavow. That binds them.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: What business is it of yours? What business is it of yours?
Omar Al Zahrani: My question, my question, my question! What business is it of yours? What business is it of yours with the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam? What business is it of yours? It’s a debate, now it’s a debate about “What business is it of yours?”
Muhammed Al Rashidi: You said the Taraddi is not from the original book.
Omar Al Zahrani: What business is it of yours? What business is it of yours? Done…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: You can’t name them…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: You can’t name them. So once again, don’t come and attack the Sunni shyookh when they say the Ibadis declared disbelief. I know…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Disbelief… The Ibadis do not declare disbelief… The Ibadis do not declare Ali a disbeliever. Not all of them disbelieve Ali, or some of them disbelieve Ali. Not all of them. This is not the statement. I informed you that whoever disbelieves Ali, it applies to him alone. You cannot say “the Ibadis disbelieve Ali.”
Omar Al Zahrani: Excellent. Al-Kudami – did he say it or not?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: So your statement is wrong. The Ibadis do not disbelieve…
Omar Al Zahrani: I ask you, does al-Kudami say it or not? Answer me.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: By Allah, you can’t say. By Allah, you can’t say. I ask you a clear question: Al-Kudami – he is like Imam Ahmad to them. Do you know Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal? This al-Kudami of theirs, you can’t say anything about him? Not correct. Not correct. This statement…
Moderator: So, for the sake of us understanding and the viewer understanding, is your actual belief, Dr….? You answer the opposite, Brother Omar. Just like that, without interruption. Just two minutes. Two minutes. Is your belief effective, Brother Muhammed?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: I have explained several times, in the same debate and in several rounds, I said that “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’” applies to a specific person. I said this and repeated it several times. We cannot say that the belief of the Ibadis is the disavowal of Imam Ali, or the belief of the Ibadis is the allegiance to Imam Ali, or the belief of the Ibadis is to stop (tawaqqquf) regarding Imam Ali. Each person is bound by his own self. This is our school of thought. This is our school of thought. We know our school of thought. The books on “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara‘” exist. Do you want to open a book explaining “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara‘” now in front of you? “Qawa’id al-Wala’ wal-Bara‘”. Even books used by our children on “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara‘”. I will explain to you the topic of “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara‘” among the Ibadis. No problem. You are now talking about the takfir of Imam Ali. This topic is related to “Al-Wala’ wal-Bara‘”. But now, I am surprised by this matter, honestly. Our topic is proving the Taraddiyat of this book and proving the Taraddiyat of this book. You have moved to many topics. I am still with these two books and have not…
Moderator: But you concealed concepts. You denied this claim so that the viewer who will review the episode has a document. You deny it, and that’s it.
Muhammed Al Rashidi: May Allah bless you. I said, “Yes, I said that the ‘Taraddiyat‘ – prayers for mercy on Imam Ali – firstly, exist in our books in abundance. I can open several books from this library for you that contain many prayers for mercy on Imam Ali.” Imam Abu Muslim al-Bahlani al-Rawahi praises him in his verses. Our Imams, many of them praise him, and others, especially our Maghrebi scholars. Many, I think even most, if not all… So what I say is that the topic of today’s debate, may Allah bless you, is about these two books. We agreed on these two books. I say, so as not to prolong… I say, so as not to prolong it for you, that the Taraddiyat in the Tafsir of Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari, “Tafsir Kitab Allah al-Aziz”, are originally from Hud ibn Muhakkam al-Hawari. The evidence is that they are not present in the book of Yahya ibn Salam (first), and not present in the abridgment of Yahya ibn Salam, which is the abridgment of Ibn Abi Zaminayn (second). These two books, the original and the branch, do not contain them. But they are present in this Ibadi book, which is Hud al-Muhakkam al-Hawari. Likewise, in this book, “Dictionary of Sharia”. Brother Omar says the investigator says that this Taraddi in this book may not be the belief of the author, but he may transmit from other books. Okay, what are the other books, Brother Omar? The other books, in the introduction, he tells you they are Ibadi books. So, this Taraddi is, in any case, an Ibadi Taraddi. So, the Ibadis pray for mercy on Imam Ali. That’s it. These two books… I…
Muhammed Al Rashidi: Dr. Muhammed, I just want the last intervention… I need…
Moderator: Yes, yes, yes.
Moderator: Yes, just a second. Just a second. A point of view. Thank you for the confirmation. Brother Omar, now you have the opportunity to refute what Brother Muhammed has just said and say the opposite, through the books. And we leave the judgment to the viewer. Go ahead.
Omar Al Zahrani: Meaning it will be the last intervention. Okay, because he started, I will conclude. Enlarge me, please. May Allah bless you.
Moderator: No, just…
Omar Al Zahrani: Last intervention. Okay, so I know if I should go or not. Okay.
Moderator: Yes, go ahead. Enlarge me, enlarge me, please.
Omar Al Zahrani: Okay, my dear brothers, may Allah bless you. Enlarge my picture, Doctor. The picture itself. Yes.
Omar Al Zahrani: Okay, brothers, may Allah bless you. To summarize the issue. We talked about al-Hawari’s Tafsir. This Tafsir is an abridgment – not by my statement, but by the statement of his scholars and his investigators: that it is an abridged book. You will tell me, “There are additions, some matters.” Yes, I tell you, yes, there are some additions, but you cannot find a single page except that it is taken from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam. This is a proven issue.
Omar Al Zahrani: Okay, the Tafsir… Sorry, the book “Dictionary of Sharia” by al-Sa’di. Does this book contain Taraddi? I tell you, yes, it contains Taraddi. Okay, does the author of the book believe in this Taraddi? The answer is no. Evidence: The author of the book himself said “We declare as religion (Nadinu) the disavowal of Ali”, “We declare as religion the correctness of the people of Nahrawan”, “We declare as religion the disavowal of those who killed the people of Nahrawan.” So this is the belief of al-Sa’di, the one you brought.
Omar Al Zahrani: That’s regarding the two books. We’re done with this.
Omar Al Zahrani: Regarding your beliefs… Why can’t you declare? You say “What business is it of mine with their names?” or “What business is it of mine with their names?” No, declare their names! He can’t. Al-Kudami said this. The scholars of the Ibadis said this, that they disavow. Evidence, my dear brothers, look at the screen. Dr. Muhammed, share with me now…
Omar Al Zahrani: We’ll give it all. Okay, brothers, okay. In the book “Manhaj al-Talibin”: “So whoever did not change nor alter, and denounced the evil when it appeared from them…” Look who did not change: Abu Bakr and Umar. It was supposed to be Uthman and Ali. Not there. “And Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Ammar ibn Yasir – those who denounced evil when it appeared. And Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi (the one who removed him) and his companions, the people of Nahrawan and his companions, the people of Nahrawan, and those martyred with them. These are the ones who did not change nor alter the religion.” Meaning their opposite is Ali ibn Abi Talib, he changed and altered.
Omar Al Zahrani: “Dictionary of Sharia”, we read it 1000 times: “We declare allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar ibn al-Khattab.” No Ali, no Uthman. Rather, we find the opposite. “We declare the correctness of the people of Nahrawan. We declare correct the people of Nahrawan. We disavow those who killed them” – who is Ali ibn Abi Talib – “we disavow him.” And here, in bold letters, it says: “And after the Prophet, we disavow the people of the Qibla: Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib – we disavow him, Talhah, al-Zubayr, Mu’awiyah…”
Omar Al Zahrani: “Jawabat al-Imam al-Salimi”: “The issue is well-known among those who agree and those who disagree. However, those who disagree often make excuses for Ali while acknowledging the reality. So his Imam, Abdullah ibn Wahb (who removed Ali), was only after Ali himself removed himself from the Imamate. So the people of Nahrawan are the ones in the right (muhaqqun), and those who fought them are the ones in the wrong (mubtilun). Whoever understands this, it is obligatory upon him… and he is not accused, with no disagreement among the Muslims. Likewise, disavowal of those who fought them is obligatory upon him” – meaning you must disavow Ali. He also says: “It is not from our religion to insult, nor from our school of thought to criticize. We have seen among the specific and the general that we have not seen anyone criticize those who passed, or insult, or curse. People are safe from that. Except for what occurred with Ibn al-Nadhar in his ‘Lamyyah’. His intention (may Allah forgive him) was to show the truth, but anger for the sake of Allah led him to utter a curse. He started cursing and insulting Ali in his poem. What was appropriate for the school of thought was only to clarify who is right and who is wrong. He went to extremes in his statement: ‘That Ali is in the lowest depth (of Hell).’ That Ali is in the lowest depth – meaning Ali ibn Abi Talib is in Hell. Allah forbid!”
Omar Al Zahrani: “Al-‘Uqud al-Fiddiyyah”: The answer, of course, when he said: “By appointing them as arbitrators, you committed a greater crime than both of them, O Ali. If you are truthful, then enter into what the Muslims have entered. Come and pledge allegiance to Abdullah ibn Wahb. We have pledged allegiance to him after we removed you, because you deserved to be removed by us. You are removed (makhlu’), O Ali, you do not deserve to be the Caliph.” Al-Qutb Muhammed ibn Yusuf al-Jaza’iri, the Ibadi, one of the verifying scholars, said: “If you say, ‘Why do they not accept his repentance and return him as an Imam?’ I say: He insisted on arbitration, appeased Mu’awiyah, commanded what is false, refused to repent, repented but broke his promise as mentioned, continued breaking the promise, deserved removal, rather he removed himself, so it was permissible to appoint someone else.” As for the claim of repentance – Ali claimed repentance – meaning Ali did not repent. He claimed repentance only after the appointment of Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi.
Omar Al Zahrani: “Al-Siyar wal-Jawabat” for the scholars and Imams of Oman: “We said to them: Likewise, Allah commanded Ali to fight them, so it is not permissible for him to abandon that nor to consider it forbidden to kill them until they fulfill the command of Allah. This is evidence of the disbelief and misguidance of Ali, and the correctness and justice of the people of Nahrawan.” Then Ali removed the two arbitrators, he was not satisfied with their judgment. Allah scattered his command. Ali was killed by Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam out of anger for Allah, and that was permissible – the blood was permissible originally because he killed him. So, “May Allah have mercy on Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam,” the one who killed Ali.
Omar Al Zahrani: And in “Al-Jawahir al-Muntaqa”: “But Ali insisted on arbitration, so they left him and he left them. They disavowed him and he disavowed them. He fought them…” Meaning the truth was with them, the truth was with those whom Ali fought, not with Ali.
Omar Al Zahrani: Abu Sufyan Mahbub (may Allah be pleased with you)… “I asked Abu Sufyan about the statement of the Muslims…” until he says: “I have come across a biography attributed to Shaykh Abi al-Hasan al-Bisyawi. In it, he mentions the Imams of the Muslims and their sheikhs, and those who were people of ‘Al-Wala’ wal-Bara‘. He explicitly states in it the disavowal (al-bara’ah) of Ali… and the allegiance (walayah) to Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam, and being pleased with him, and praying for mercy on him (tarahhum) – on Ibn Muljam, the one who killed Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
Omar Al Zahrani: So, Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah are the people of truth and righteousness. And peace be upon you and the mercy and blessings of Allah.
Moderator: Wait, wait, Brother Omar. Wait, Brother Omar, please. So that the conclusion is musk, and you are striving and capable of it. Brother Muhammed, there is a phrase: the test (ikhtibar) through the certificate (shahada). If we ask a question, we leave its results to the respected viewer, who has a right on you. This is the channel’s goal: the viewer.
Moderator: Who bears witness for you that the Ibadi creed is the correct creed, the true creed? Who is the witness for this, sir?
Muhammed Al Rashidi: The Messenger of Allah , may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace, bears witness, and Allah Almighty bears witness to that. Okay. And the sources of deriving the Sharia are known: the Quran and Sunnah. The researcher can research the Quran and Sunnah. I always say the phrase: “Whoever reads the entire Holy Quran and ponders over it will not end up except as an Ibadi.” Excellent. But I draw attention to a point: I say that the people of piety (Ahl al-Taqwa) may be from any school of thought. Excellent. They may be from any school of thought: pious, pure, knowledgeable, a worshipper. No problem. I see this. So, who bears witness? Allah and His Messenger bear witness to that. May Allah bless you.
Moderator: Thank you very much, Brother Muhammed. You said the testimony for the Ibadi, the Ibadi belief, is Allah, the Messenger, the Book, or the Sunnah. Brother Omar, who bears witness for you that the Salafi belief is the true and correct belief?
Omar Al Zahrani: Bears witness to this: Firstly, Allah and His Messenger. And the Shia and the Ibadis. Why? Because, by Almighty Allah, you will hardly find a single book in the world, neither from the Shia nor from the Ibadis, except that it takes from the Sunnah. Some take from the Sunnah. I even went to some of their books of biography. All of it: “So-and-so narrated, and Al-Tabarani narrated, and Al-Haythami narrated, and Ibn Hajar narrated, and he cited such and such.” Meanwhile, do you find in the books of the Sunnah – with rare exception – they say “and Al-Tabarsi narrated”? Impossible! We don’t need Al-Tabarsi, nor al-Kudami. Not to belittle them, but I say we don’t need them. Praise be to Allah, our scholars are present. My dear brothers, have you ever found in our books of creed we say, “By Allah, So-and-so said…” meaning we adhere to his statement? The answer is no. You find the Shia using the statement of Umar as evidence. The Ibadis take, for example, the statement of Sunni scholars…
Moderator: So, Omar, the witness that the Salafi creed is the truth is Allah and His Messenger…
Omar Al Zahrani: …And the Shia and the Ibadis.
Moderator (Closing): Thank you. My greetings to all of you, all the lovers and followers of the “Facts of Religions” channel. A very important debate with good data. I hope you review it well. Brother Muhammed, thank you, you honored and enlightened us on the “Facts of Religions” channel. Brother Omar, thank you, you honored and enlightened us on the “Facts of Religions” channel. All the respected viewers, lovers and followers of the channel, we hope from Allah Almighty that we have contributed to presenting visual and audible material that you can benefit from later. My greetings to all of you. Peace be upon you.
Prima Qur’an scores the debate.
Muhammed Al Rashidi (Ibadi)
Strengths:
Stayed on topic: Throughout the debate, Muhammed repeatedly tried to return the discussion to the two agreed-upon books: al-Hawari’s Tafsir and Yahya ibn Salam’s Tafsir. He consistently refused to be dragged into other issues.
Clear, repeated challenge: He asked Omar a simple, direct, and verifiable question dozens of times: “Bring me just one text of ‘Taraddi’ (prayer for mercy) for Imam Ali from the Tafsir of Yahya ibn Salam or from the Tafsir of Ibn Abi Zaminayn.”
Procedural victory: Omar never produced this text. The one time Omar claimed to have found it (page 241 of Yahya ibn Salam’s Tafsir), Muhammed immediately pointed out that the text Omar showed was actually from al-Hawari’s Tafsir, not Yahya ibn Salam’s. Omar conceded this (“Now we’re back. Yes, see how he couldn’t…”).
Cautious on takfir: Muhammed explained the Ibadi doctrine of Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’ (loyalty and disavowal) as applying to specific individuals, not entire groups.
Weaknesses:
Defensive on al-Sa’di: When Omar quoted the “Dictionary of Sharia” showing al-Sa’di disavowing Ali and declaring the people of Nahrawan correct, Muhammed’s response (“he transmitted from our companions”) was technically correct but appeared evasive to a neutral viewer.
Admitted some Ibadis disavow Ali: This was an honest admission but weakened his position that the Ibadis as a whole pray for mercy on Ali.
Verdict:Won the debate on technical grounds. He successfully defended his original claim (that the Taraddiyat in al-Hawari’s Tafsir are Ibadi additions) by forcing Omar to fail the simple challenge. He remained focused and disciplined.
Omar Al Zahrani (Salafi)
Strengths:
Strong command of sources: Omar demonstrated extensive knowledge of Ibadi texts (al-Salimi, al-Kudami, al-Sa’di, Ibn al-Nadhar, al-Tayyish, al-Harithi) and effectively quoted them to show that some classical Ibadi scholars held hostile views toward Ali.
Effective use of the “Dictionary of Sharia”: He successfully showed that the same book Muhammed relied upon for Taraddi also contains explicit disavowal (bara’ah) of Ali and support for the people of Nahrawan. This was a powerful rhetorical point.
Exposed potential contradictions: He highlighted that Muhammed could not definitively prove whether the phrase “Salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam” (PBUH) was added by the author or by later scribes, using this as an analogy for the Taraddi.
Weaknesses (Significant):
Repeatedly left the core topic: Instead of answering Muhammed’s simple challenge (produce one Taraddi from Yahya ibn Salam’s Tafsir), Omar continually shifted to new topics: Iran, the “Dictionary of Sharia,” the people of Nahrawan, Ibn Muljam, al-Salimi’s poems, Shia sources, and takfir.
Failed the core challenge: Despite dozens of opportunities, Omar never produced the requested text from Yahya ibn Salam’s Tafsir. When he thought he had, he was immediately corrected by Muhammed.
Emotional and accusatory tone: Omar frequently accused Muhammed of lying, hiding beliefs, and using taqiyya. He also made several personal comments and invoked Iran repeatedly, which was outside the agreed scope.
Cinematic turn: His closing segment quoting multiple Ibadi books (al-Siyar wal-Jawabat, al-‘Uqud al-Fiddiyyah, al-Jawahir al-Muntaqa) was rhetorically powerful but largely irrelevant to the original question about the two Tafsirs.
Verdict:Lost the debate on focus and procedural grounds. While he demonstrated broader knowledge and landed some strong rhetorical blows, he failed the central challenge and spent most of the debate introducing new topics rather than answering the specific question.
Who tried to derail the debate and bring in issues outside the context?
Omar Al Zahrani overwhelmingly. He introduced:
Iran and its statements about Ibadis.
The “Dictionary of Sharia” (not one of the two agreed Tafsirs).
The people of Nahrawan and Ali’s battle against them.
Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam (killer of Ali).
Imam al-Salimi’s poems and Ibn al-Nadhar’s “Lamyyah.”
Muhammed Al Rashidi occasionally responded to these topics but consistently tried to return to the core topic.
Who stayed focused on the debate?
Muhammad Al Rashidi stayed significantly more focused. His repeated refrain was: “The debate is about these two books. Don’t drag me to another topic. We haven’t finished with al-Hawari’s Tafsir.”
Omar even admitted this when he said: “You said ‘Taraddi’ on Ali in the Kuwalis, and Dr. Muhammed admitted that this is a sub-title. From these two Tafsirs. Excellent. Sub-title, may Allah bless you.” This was an inadvertent acknowledgment that Muhammed had consistently tried to stay on the topic.
Final Observation
The moderator, Dr. Muhammed (channel host), recognized the dynamic and eventually decided to leave the judgment to the viewer. He stopped trying to enforce the original scope and allowed the debate to become a broader theological exchange. You decide if this was a wise decision.
The two participants were effectively debating different questions:
Muhammed wanted to debate: “Did the Ibadis add the ‘Taraddi’ to al-Hawari’s Tafsir?”
Omar wanted to debate: “Do the Ibadis secretly disbelieve in Ali and support his killer?”
Because they were never debating the same question, a decisive knockout was impossible. However, on the agreed-upon original topic, Muhammed clearly prevailed, and Omar avoided the core challenge.
With Allah is the final argument. (Qur’an 6:149)
You might be interested in the following articles:
Prima Quran 