“He said: “Allah only accepts from the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:27)
﷽
To be clear what we are saying is that one who commits a major sin nullifies their fast for the day that they commit the sin on. We are not saying that it invalides the entire fast of Ramadan.
Based upon the Qur’an and Sunnah: acts of worship are not merely valid or invalid based on external conditions (shurūṭ). They are real (accepted) or unreal (rejected) based on whether they achieve their intended effect.
Ṣalāh without khushū‘ and without abandoning ḥarām is not ṣalāh. It is mere movement.
Ṣawm without abandoning ḥarām is not ṣawm. It is mere hunger.
Zakāh given from ḥarām wealth is not zakāh. It is mere transfer of property.
Ḥajj without taqwā is not ḥajj. It is mere travel.
“He said: “Allah only accepts from the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:27)
This serves as a sufficient proof that Allah Almighty does not accept any act of worship from a disobedient person; this is the essential point, and there are numerous hadith that support this as well.
Similarily, if you turn to the Qur’an, there are many verses indicating that the deeds of a disobedient person are cast back upon him; the hadith also attest to this.
The Mixture of Righteous and Evil Deeds
Obedience and disobedience cannot occupy the same place in the heart of the diligent worshipper.
“And (there are) others who have acknowledged their sins, they have mixed a deed that was righteous with another that was evil. Perhaps Allâh will turn unto them in forgiveness. Surely, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 9:102)
Understanding the above evidence.
Allah (swt) says that the mixing of a righteous deed with another deed that was evil is acknowledged as a sin. It is like mixing pure water with toxin. The combination of the two is still toxic. The mixture is defined by the toxin, not the water. Allah (swt) doesn’t accept this mixture.
The Meaning of “La‘allakum Tattaqūna”
“O you who believe, fasting is prescribed upon you as it was prescribed upon those who were before you, so that you may become righteous.” (Qur’an 2:183)
la’allakum tattaqūna From the perspective of Arabic grammar la’alla is to achieve the reason for something. It is not to achieve the hope. For example: In English we might say, ‘Maybe I come to you’. The Arabic here is not about aiming for a ‘maybe’.
The grammatical analysis of Qur’an 2:183 is correct from the Ibadi perspective. The particle لَعَلَّ (la‘alla) here expresses purpose and intended outcome, not mere possibility or hope. The verse establishes taqwa as the raison d’être of fasting—the goal to be achieved. Fasting that does not produce taqwa has failed its purpose.
The Arabic here is talking about the reason and what is to be achieved! So the reason for fasting is to achieve taqwa!
In reality this is for all our ibadat. All our worship is to achieve this aim.
This is indicated by the verse:
“O mankind! worship your Lord, the One Who created you and those from before you, so that you may become righteous.” (Qur’an 2:21)
Two Possible Understandings of the Failure of Fasting
Understanding 1: The fast is valid but fruitless. The person fasted correctly. They abstained from food, drink, and marital relations during the prescribed hours. However, the fast did not produce taqwa because they did not couple it with obedience in other matters. The fast “failed its purpose” but was still technically performed.
Understanding 2: The fast was never truly performed. The Ibadi position is stronger and more consistent. If the person did not achieve taqwa, it is not that they fasted and the fast was deficient—rather, they did not truly fast at all. What they did was merely imsāk (abstention), not siyām (fasting). The outward form was present, but the reality was absent.
Why Understanding 2 is More Consistent
If لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ expresses the purpose and intended outcome of fasting, that it is not merely a hoped-for side effect; then the relationship between fasting and taqwa is not accidental but essential. A thing that does not achieve its essential purpose is not truly that thing at all!
This aligns with the following hadith:
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“There are people who fast and get nothing from their fast except hunger, and there are those who pray and get nothing from their prayer but a sleepless night.”
The Blessed Prophet (saw) does not say they did not fast. He says they get nothing from their fast—meaning what they did was not fasting in the true sense. It was hunger without siyām.
And the following hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever does not give up false statements (i.e. telling lies), and evil deeds, and speaking bad words to others, Allah is not in need of his (fasting) leaving his food and drink.”
Here the blessed Prophet (saw) is telling us by way of inspiration that Allah (swt) is saying:
I do not accept this as fasting at all. The person left food and drink, but that leaving was not siyām; because siyām by definition includes the abandonment of prohibitions.
The narration from Ibn Abbas (ra) makes this explicit:
Abu Ubaydah narrated from Jabir ibn Zayd, from Ibn Abbas, from the Prophet (saw), who said: “There is no faith for the one who does not pray, and there is no prayer for the one who does not perform ablution; and there is no fasting except by refraining from what Allah has forbidden.”
لَا صِيَامَ—”there is no fast”—not “there is no reward for the fast.” The fast itself does not exist for the one who has not abandoned prohibitions.
The grammatical point reinforces this.
If لَعَلَّ in the Qur’an expresses purpose (the ‘illah for which fasting was prescribed), then taqwa is not something added to fasting. It is the very thing fasting is meant to produce. A fast that does not produce taqwa is like a medicine that does not cure: it was not taken properly, the individual did not follow the instructions.
But the Qur’an makes it very clear : the fasting itself was not real fasting. The person may have gone through the motions, but siyām as Allah defined it never occurred.
The Qur’anic Pattern: Deeds that are “Ḥabiṭa” (Nullified)
This is why the Qur’an speaks of deeds being حَبِطَتْ (nullified, come to nothing):
“Those who disbelieve and avert from the way of Allah. He will waste their deeds.” (Qur’an 47:8)
“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and do not invalidate your deeds.” (Qur’an 47:33)
The Qur’an and Sunnah repeatedly inform us that disobedience nullifies worship, not merely diminishes its reward. The deed is not stored up and then deducted from. No! It is erased. It never reached the stage of acceptance because it was never truly performed as an act of worship.
“Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden whose width is that (of the whole) of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous.” (Qur’an 3:133)
“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)
Examples that would nullify our fasting without doubt:
Watching porn even with no fap.
Deliberately sleeping through an entire prayer time. People literally skip dhur and imagine their fasting is still accepted.
Lying, doing all sorts of evil deeds, fighting with others.
Wasting time in Ramadan.
Wasting time in the month of Ramadan. The month of Ramadan is a barakah. If we do not seize on it by utilizing the time for baraka we literally wasting time.
Allah does not love those who waste.
“O Children of Adam! Dress properly whenever you are at worship. Eat and drink, but do not waste. Surely He does not like the wasteful.” (Qur’an 7:31)
If you are not engaged in something fruitful especially in the month of Ramadan, like reading the Qur’an or reading beneficial books in general. Excercising, doing volunteer work. Assisting those in need rather they be your family, friends or the local community or doing superagatory acts of worship. Then what are you engaged in? Vain and idle talk? Playing video games hours on end? Window shopping with no clear goal or objective.
The phrase: “Passing the time” should be a disliked phrase for us in the blessed month of Ramadan. We should replace ‘passing the time’ with ‘investing with time’ We should be engaging with the time Allah blessed us with. ‘Passing the time’ sounds like one who is in a state of boredom or doing some repetitive taslk in which they find no joy in. ‘Passing the time’ treats time as an obstacle to be endured rather than a blessing to reap. In Ramadan, this is a spiritual failure.
Fasting has not failed to become the spiritual engine of the Muslim Ummah. It is that the Ummah has followed interpretations and misunderstandings that have not allowed the Muslim Ummah to ignite this spiritual engine!
Thus, we particpate in collective movement in Ramadan. We partcipate in collective obstaining from food and drink. But somehow collectively the ummah’s engine is not jump started. The engine is not ignited because the fuel (taqwa) is not being produced.
The Ummah’s engine does not start because we have not connected the fast to its purpose. We have the form. We lack the reality.
If you have enjoyed this article you may like our series on Ramadan here:
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, their reward will be Hell—where they will stay indefinitely.Allah will be displeased with them, condemn them, and will prepare for them a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
﷽
The following article is a translation of the wonderful presentation by the respected Shaykh
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and prayers and peace be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers, our master Muhammed, and upon his family and his righteous, guided companions. To proceed:
Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you.
Introduction: The Allegations Answered Once and For All.
My brothers, in this article we continue responding to a persistent allegation that the Ibadis declare the Companions to be disbelievers, that we excommunicate them from Islam. This accusation is repeated endlessly by those who either misunderstand our creed or deliberately misrepresent it.
As we have said before, this attack against the Ibadis is the result of these people’s ignorance regarding the principle of loyalty and disavowal (al-walāyah wa’l-barā’ah) among the Ibadis. Likewise, these people are trying to conceal what they themselves call the faults of some of the Companions. Namely, the events that occurred during the civil strife (fitnah). These events are what led those scholars to declare disavowal from some of the Companions.
These people are not only ignorant of the principle of loyalty and disavowal, but they are also trying to conceal and avoid discussing these events.
When these people throw this accusation at the Ibadis, they simply say directly: “The Ibadis declare the Companions disbelievers,” without discussing the reasons. There are reasons that led those scholars to declare disavowal regarding those Companions.
What Our Opponents Say: Documenting the Accusation
Let us document exactly what our opponents claim. Listen carefully to their own words:
“Look, regardless of my disagreement with them, they declare ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to be a disbeliever, and they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Yet despite that, they do not openly state it. Rather, you find this in their major books. You find it in their books. They also have an element of taqiyyah (dissimulation). Even so, I do not know whether this expression will be understood properly or not, but I respect in them the absence of sectarianism. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. Yes, we declare Muʿāwiyah a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare Marwān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿUthmān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿAlī and al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn disbelievers, but we still narrate from al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. This is the Ibadi belief.”
Another says:
“Therefore we are not surprised by this stance, for the position of the early Ibadis regarding the Companions—especially the two caliphs—is contrary to the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah. It included criticism, takfīr, and false disavowal from the best of this nation. As for the other two Rightly Guided Caliphs, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān and ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may Allah be pleased with them, the Khawārij, including the Ibadis, remained deeply astray concerning them, attributing to them things from which Allah declared them innocent, and speaking grievously against them.”
And another:
“They called themselves the people of truth and uprightness, but they are the people of falsehood and misguidance. Hatred toward Ahl al-Sunnah. Let me add even more: they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and ʿUthmān disbelievers and also al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, of course. As for Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, he exited Islam through its widest gates.”
As you have heard, these people claim that the Ibadis declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say that the Ibadis do not openly state this and that they practice a kind of taqiyyah. They say this is our creed.
The Reality: No Taqiyyah, No Doctrine of Takfīr
The reality is that this is not our creed, nor is there any taqiyyah. Rather, it is their ignorance. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension (wuqūf) among the Ibadis.
One of these opponents commented on an interview with one of our shaykhs. The interviewer asked the shaykh about Sayyidunā Abū Bakr and Sayyidunā ʿUmar, then afterwards about Sayyidunā ʿUthmān. They claim that he stuttered. The reality is that the shaykh did not stutter. Rather, he was avoiding reopening the fitnah and the events that occurred among the Companions. He did not want to stir up these matters, so he avoided them. Yet they claim he hesitated and faltered.
The shaykh did not hesitate or stutter. He answered. The problem is not with the shaykh the problem is with them. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. Anyone who understands this doctrine would know that the shaykh did answer the question.
The shaykh did not want to bring out what is found in their own books regarding the events that occurred among the Companions. He was avoiding this issue.
The shaykh said according to the meaning of his words that there were those who had one opinion and others who had another opinion. This is the reality. The issue returns to the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. There are people with one opinion and others with another. That is the answer. The shaykh cannot specify which of those opinions is correct because the matter returns to our doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
They want the shaykh simply to say: “Disbeliever” or “not a disbeliever.” But the matter is not that simple. This black-and-white approach belongs to them. The shaykh is not obligated to adopt their methodology, nor are the Ibadis obligated to adopt their methodology in these issues. We Ibadis have our own methodology and doctrine: the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
Now, these people claim that we declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say we do not openly state it and that we practice taqiyyah. Then they say this is the creed of the Ibadis.
The reality is that there is neither taqiyyah nor a doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers. Declaring the Companions disbelievers is not a doctrine among the Ibadis. We do not have a chapter in our creed titled: “The Ibadi doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers.” This is their ignorance.
If we focus on their words and these responses and clips they produced, we find them constantly repeating the term takfīr, the term kufr. They say: “They declared disbelief,”“acts of disbelief,”“so-and-so is a disbeliever.”
One of them even distorted the shaykh’s words in that interview, lied, and played with expressions. Anyone who watches the interview and his commentary will find that he distorted the shaykh’s words and attributed to him statements he never made. The shaykh never uttered the term takfīr. Yet this man attributes to the Ibadis things they never said.
Did Ibadis invent using the term Kufr to apply to some of the companions actions??
Let us establish this. Let us speak and cite from the books that our opponents use themselves. We will not use Ibadi sources.
The Messenger is addressing whom in the above hadith? He is addressing the Companions.
If it is inconceivable that the companions would engage in acts that could be deemed kufr the Blessed Prophet (saw) would not have given them advise that would be redundant.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) also said:
al-Nabiyya ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam qāla: “Sibābu al-muslimi fusūq, wa qitāluhu kufr.”
“Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.” < Sunni translation.
“Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is ingratitude.” < Ibadi translation.
This is another ḥadīth proving the usage of the term kufr for actions committed by Muslims against other Muslims.
What Sunni Scholars Say About this Kufr
Now let us see what these people’s own scholars say regarding these ḥadīths and the term kufr.
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn, one of the most revered contemporary Sunni scholars, says in his commentary on Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn, volume 4, page 70:
“Then the author may Allah have mercy on him mentioned the hadith of Jarīr ibn ʿAbdillāh al-Bajalī (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him during the Farewell Pilgrimage: “Make the people listen” meaning: silence them so that they may hear what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is saying.” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
“Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned: “Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking the necks of one another.” The word “striking” (yaḍribu) here is in the nominative case (marfūʿ), and it is not permissible to place it in the jussive case (majzūm) as though it were the answer to the prohibition; rather, it is in the nominative because it is a circumstantial clause (ḥāl). Meaning: do not revert to disbelief after me in the state of some of you striking the necks of others. And in this there is evidence that the fighting of believers against one another is disbelief (kufr).” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
“And this hadith is supported by his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness (fusūq), and fighting him is disbelief (kufr).” However, it is a disbelief that does not expel one from the religion (millah). And the evidence that it does not expel one from the religion is the statement of Allah the Most High: “And if two parties of the believers fight one another, then make peace between them” up to His statement: “The believers are but brothers, so make peace between your brothers.” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
“And in this there is evidence that the fighting of believers against one another is disbelief (kufr)” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn.
And notice he says:
“However, it is a disbelief that does not expel one from the religion (millah).” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn.
So what exactly is your problem with some statements in some Ibadi sources? That such and such copmanions did actions that amount to kufr. This is for certain you will never find in any Ibadi sources where we have said that Ali, Uthman or Muaviya are mushrik or polytheist. Then this would be a problem.
However, you know what has happened to soften these Sunni positions in some English translations? They translate it as: “This indicates that believers fighting one constitutes some disbelief.”
Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
In Al-Thamar al-Mustatāb fī Fiqh al-Sunnah wa al-Kitāb, page 53, al-Albānī says:
“And on the Day of Resurrection he will be with Qārūn, Firʿawn, Hāmān, and Ubayy ibn Khalaf) (Muslim, Aḥmad, al-Ṭabarānī, al-Ḥākim in his Ṣaḥīḥ) And its chain of narration is good (ḥasan)”- Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
“But his disbelief is not of the type that Allah cannot forgive and admit him to Paradise; rather, that is possible. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Five prayers Allah has prescribed upon the servants. Whoever comes with them, not wasting any of them out of disdain for their right, then he has a covenant with Allah that He will admit him to Paradise. And whoever does not come with them, then he has no covenant with Allah — if He wills He punishes him, and if He wills He admits him to Paradise.” (Mālik, Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasāʾī, Muslim, al-Majmūʿ, Aḥmad, with an authentic chain).” -Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
“And know that many hadiths have come in which disbelief (kufr) is attributed to one who commits one of the major sins; indeed in some of them it is [called] disbelief and that he is a disbeliever. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.” And he said: “No man claims a father other than his own while knowing it, except that he has committed disbelief.” And: “Two things in people are disbelief in them: attacking lineage and wailing over the dead.” And: “Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking the necks of one another.” And: “Whichever slave flees from his masters has committed disbelief until he returns to them.” And: “Whoever says to his brother, ‘O disbeliever,’ it returns upon one of them. If it is as he said, then so; otherwise it returns upon him.” And all of these hadiths are in the Ṣaḥīḥ. So when we know that disbelief has degrees, and that some of it does not cause its doer to remain forever in the Fire, then there is no need at that point for reinterpretation from one whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) named.” -Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
“Know that many ḥadīths have come attributing kufr to those who commit major sins … among them: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr’… and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ All these ḥadīths are authentic. So if we know that kufr has levels (darajāt), and that some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell, then there is no need for reinterpretation.” –Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
“He will be punished in the Fire if Allah does not forgive him his sins; and for this reason some said: he is a believer through his faith, a sinner through his grave sin, or a believer deficient in faith. And those among Ahl al-Sunnah and the Muʿtazilah who do not call him a believer say: the name of wickedness (fusūq) negates the name of faith, because of His saying: “How evil is the name of wickedness after faith” [al-Ḥujurāt: 11], and His saying: “Is one who is a believer like one who is a sinner?” [al-Sajdah: 18]. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.” –Ibn Taymiyyah
“And upon this principle, some people have with them a branch of disbelief, and they also have faith. And upon this came reports from the Prophet (saw) in naming many sins as disbelief, even though the one doing them may have with him more than a speck of faith, so he will not remain forever in the Fire. Such as his saying: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief,” and his saying: “Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking the necks of one another.” And this is widely transmitted from the Prophet (saw) in the Ṣaḥīḥ through numerous chains. For he commanded during the Farewell Pilgrimage that it be proclaimed among the people. So he named those who strike the necks of one another without right as disbelievers, and he named this act disbelief. And despite this, Allah the Most High said: “And if two parties of the believers fight one another, then make peace between them” up to His saying: “The believers are but brothers” [al-Ḥujurāt: 9-10]. So He clarified that these did not exit from faith entirely, but there is in them what is disbelief namely this trait as some of the Companions said: disbelief below disbelief. Likewise his saying: “Whoever says to his brother, ‘O disbeliever,’ then it returns upon one of them.” For he called him his brother at the time of the saying, and he informed that one of them has incurred it. So if one of them had exited from Islam entirely, he would not be his brother; rather, there is in him disbelief.” –Ibn Taymiyyah
“If hatred is for worldly reasons only, then this is lesser disbelief and does not reach major disbelief. Hence the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’”
Then on page 852 he says:
“The fact that some Companions fought other companions involves entering into traits of disbelief. Therefore he (saw) said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers.’” – Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh
ولهذا قال النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام: لا ترجعوا بعدي كفاراً يضرب بعضكم أعناق بعض. وكون بعض الصحابة قاتل بعضاً آخر هذا فيه دخول في خصال الكفار، لهذا قال: لا ترجعوا بعدي…
He then says this disbelief may be lesser or greater disbelief depending on the nature of the hatred.
«ولا شك أنه قد يكون الباعث على ذلك البغض والكره، لأن القتال يكون معه ما في النفس، لكن مع تقاتل الصحابة فإن بعضهم لم يسب بعضاً يعني بلسانه، والنفس قد يوجد فيها ما لا يسلم من البشر. فإذا الكفر هنا قد يكون كفراً أصغر وقد يكون كفراً أكبر بحسب نوع البغض…»
“And there is no doubt that the motive for that may be hatred and aversion, because fighting is accompanied by what is in the soul. However, despite the fighting among the Companions, some of them did not insult others. Meaning with their tongues. Though the soul may contain what no human being is free from. Thus, the disbelief here may be a lesser disbelief or may be a greater disbelief, according to the nature of their hatred.” -Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh
In his book: Al-Ruwāt al-Thiqāt al-Mutakallam Fīhim bimā Lā Yūjib Raddahum on page 23 he says:
“In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate”
“This is a beneficial chapter from the words of the Imām, the Ḥāfiẓ, the critic Abū ʿAbdillāh Muḥammed Ibn al-Dhahabī may Allah have mercy on him. He said: I have written in my work al-Mīzān a large number of reliable narrators whom al-Bukhārī, Muslim, or others used as evidence, because the name of one of them had been recorded in the works of criticism (al-jarḥ). I did not include them due to any weakness in them according to me, but rather so that this may be known. And a reliable narrator concerning whom there is a statement from one who is not to be given any weight would still pass by me. And if we were to open this door upon ourselves, a number of the Companions, the Successors, and the Imāms would enter into it. For some of the Companions declared others disbelievers based on interpretation and Allah is pleased with all of them and forgives them for they are not infallible. And their disagreement and fighting did not diminish them in our eyes at all. And it was because of the Khawārij’s declaring them disbelievers that their narrations declined; indeed the speech of the Khawārij and the Shīʿah concerning them became [a mark against them].” –Al-Dhahabī
“If we opened this door for ourselves, many Companions, Followers, and imams would enter into it. Some Companions declared others disbelievers based on interpretation.”
Al-Dhahabī affirms takfīr occurring among the Companions themselves based on interpretive ijtihād, not because the target of takfīr had actually left Islam.
Prima Qur’an comments: In fact in a recent back and forth on Twitter (X) the Sunni (traditional) beat a hasty retreat when it was asked point blank of them:
What did Dhahabi mean by the companions called each other kafir? فَبَعْضُ الصَّحَابَةِ كَفَّرَ بَعْضُهُمْ بِتَأْوِيلٍ مَا
So if Dhahabi means when the companions called each other kafir that it did not entail expulsion from the millat of Islam you have to wonder what your real problem is with us? This is what is meant when you find this in Ibadi books. No one believes Ali or Uthman left Islam.
Imam al-Nawawī
Imam al-Nawawī said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim:
Chapter: Clarification of the statement of the Prophet (saw): “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief”
64 Muḥammed ibn Bakkār ibn al-Rayyān and ʿAwn ibn Sallām narrated to us, both saying: Muḥammed ibn Ṭalḥah narrated to us. And Muḥammed ibn al-Muthannā narrated to us: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī narrated to us: Sufyān narrated to us. And Muḥammed ibn al-Muthannā narrated to us: Muḥammed ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us: Shuʿbah narrated to us. All of them from Zubayd, from Abū Wāʾil, from ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.” Zubayd said: So I said to Abū Wāʾil: Did you hear it from ʿAbdullāh narrating it from the Messenger of Allah, (saw)? He said: Yes. And in the hadith of Shuʿbah there is not the statement of Zubayd to Abū Wāʾil. Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah and Ibn al-Muthannā narrated to us, from Muḥammed ibn Jaʿfar, from Shuʿbah, from Manṣūr. And Ibn Numayr narrated to us: ʿAffān narrated to us: Shuʿbah narrated to us, from al-Aʿmash, both of them from Abū Wāʾil, from ʿAbdullāh, from the Prophet, (saw) the like of it.
Imam al-Nawawī puts his Ash’ari (Murji’ah) spin. However, some important points come through.
Chapter: Clarification of the statement of the Prophet (saw) : “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.”
“Insult (sabb) in the language means reviling and speaking about a person’s honor in a way that faults him. And wickedness (fisq) in the language means going out. And what is meant by it in the religious law is going out from obedience. As for the meaning of the hadith, insulting a Muslim without right is forbidden by the consensus of the Ummah, and the one who does it is a sinner (fāsiq), as the Prophet (saw) himinformed.”-Imam al-Nawawī
“As for fighting him without right, it does not make one a disbeliever with a disbelief that takes him out of the religion according to the people of truth, as we have presented in many places, unless he considers it lawful. So when this is established, several statements have been said regarding the interpretation of the hadith.” -Imam al-Nawawī
“The first: that it is concerning the one who considers it lawful. The second: that what is meant is the disbelief of ingratitude and the denial of the blessing and the brotherhood of Islam, not the disbelief of outright rejection. The third: that it leads to disbelief through its ill omen. The fourth: that it is like the deed of the disbelievers. And Allah knows best. Then, the apparent meaning of “fighting him” is the well-known combat. The Qāḍī said: It is possible that what is meant is disputing and defending. And Allah knows best.” –Imam al-Nawawī
Prima Qur’an: We will comment on Imam al-Nawawī puts his Ash’ari (Murji’ah) spin.
The interpretation of the Murji’ah/Ash’ari is:
If you kill a fellow a Muslim but you don’t believe that it is lawful to do so then it is not kufr.
We wonder if the companions who killed each other thought that what they were doing was lawful or unlawful?
If it was unlawful then they participated in the unlawful in masse.
Second. It is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Hence, kufr ni’ama. Welcome to the Ibadi view! Though we do not subscribe to the Murji’ah/Ash’ari misunderstanding and misguidance.
Third. It leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences.
Fourth. It resembles the actions of disbelievers.
Summary of Sunni Scholarly Consensus on the above matter.
Scholar
Affirmation
Ibn Taymiyyah
Kufr has levels; “kufr less than kufr” exists; a person can have a branch of kufr while still having faith.
Al-Dhahabī
Some Companions declared other Companions disbelievers based on interpretation (ta’wīl).
Al-ʿUthaymīn
Believers fighting one another is kufr—but they remain believers.
Al-Albānī
Kufr has levels (darajāt); some forms do not eternally condemn to Hell.
Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh
Lesser disbelief exists and does not reach major disbelief.
al-Nawawī
Meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah
The Sunni Understanding of Qur’anic Reconciliation vindicates the Ibadis
Now we do not share thier misunderstanding of the verse. We are simplly based upon their understanding it vindicates our perspective.
Now we return to the Qur’anic verse that seals this matter.
The Sunnis translate the verse as:
“And if two groups of the believers fight each other…” (Qur’an 49:9)
Allah did not say: “If two groups, one of which has left Islam…” He said: “of the believers.”
Therefore:
Statement
Implication
Allah calls fighting groups believers
They have not left the millah of Islam.
The Prophet calls fighting a Muslim kufr
The act is kufr in the lesser sense.
Conclusion
Kufr in the ḥadīth and in Ibadi usage does not mean expulsion from Islam.
This understanding of kufr that we Ibadis have did not come out of thin air. Rather, this term is established and has a basis in the explicit words of the Blessed Prophet (saw) and the explicit text of the Qur’an.
The Prophet said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr.” And he also said: “Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”
The question is: did the Companions strike one another’s necks? No rational person can deny that this happened during the fitnah.
The Ibadi Doctrinal Framework: Walāyah, Barā’ah, and Wuqūf
Now that we have established the legitimacy of the term kufr in its lesser sense, let us explain the actual Ibadi doctrine. The framework our opponents either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent.
The issues related to the stance on historical events (the Great Fitnah) are among the most intricate topics in Ibadi theology, and they have witnessed significant methodological development while preserving their theoretical foundations.
First: The Three Doctrinal Concepts
These concepts represent a “system of analogy” that defines a Muslim’s relationship with others based on behavior and actions:
Walāyah (Loyalty): This is love for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for every Muslim whose outward conduct is in accordance with Allah’s commands. It is of two types: general walāyah (for all believers) and specific walāyah (for those known for their righteousness).
Barā’ah (Disavowal): This is hatred for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for anyone who openly commits a major sin, persists in a wrong, or introduces something into the religion that contradicts its fundamental principles (from the perspective of the school of thought). It is not a “curse” or “insult,” but rather a severing of religious allegiance from the action or innovation.
Wuqūf (Suspension): This refers to refraining from judging someone’s loyalty or innocence due to unclear evidence, conflicting reports, or because the person was unaware of the events and not legally obligated to pass judgment on them.
A Detailed Overview of Positions Throughout the Ages
Stage 1: The Prophetic Period.
Prevailing Position: Innocence of the events and those responsible for them. Early Ibadis did not hold the Companions (as a whole) responsible for the fitnah in a way that condemned them.
Estimated Percentage: Let us guestimate and say 95% innocence. The overwhelming majority of early Ibadi scholars maintained that the Companions (as a whole) were not to be held blameworthy for the civil strife.
Even if we granted a theoretical 5% Allowance for disavowal
The remaining 5% allows for the possibility that some Companions, as human beings, may have committed acts prior to the fitnah that deserved punishment under the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is not a blanket condemnation of any Companion, nor is it specific to the events of the fitnah. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that Companions like all humans were not infallible (ma’sūm) and could commit individual sins for which the Qur’an and Sunnah prescribe accountability. This is not unique to Ibadis; Sunni scholars also acknowledge that Companions were not infallible and could commit sins, though they are generally considered righteous overall.
Examples: What is mentioned in the letters of Imam Jābir ibn Zayd (although his letters are characterized by piety) and what biographers have reported about the position of the people of Nahrawān towards ʿUthmān (due to the issue of protected areas and positions) and towards ʿAlī (due to the arbitration).
Logic: The position was directly political and doctrinal. Early Ibadis considered certain actions during the fitnah to be innovations, but they did not translate that into condemning the Companions as individuals. Rather, their barā’ah (disavowal) was directed at the actions and innovations, not at the persons as polytheist or as having left the millah of Islam.
Stage 2: Establishing and Remaining Silent (5th–13th centuries AH)
Prevailing Stance: Expressions of “remaining silent” began to appear explicitly.
Estimated Ratio: Let us guestimate a 50% disavowal (in educational texts) and 50% wuqūf (in practical application).
A well-known saying: Imam Abū Saʿīd al-Kadāmī (one of the leading scholars of the 4th century AH) said: “We do not disavow ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib or ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān unless we have definitive proof that necessitates it, and silence is safer.”
Logic: The principle of “scholarly integrity” began to emerge, whereby statements of disavowal were transmitted as part of the heritage, but remaining silent was practiced out of respect for the status of these Companions.
Contemporary Phase (14th century AH – Present Day)
Prevailing Stance: Remaining silent and accepting (the principle of good faith).
Estimated Percentage: Let us guestimate 90% wuqūf and acceptance, 10% disavowal (historical transmission only).
Statements of Scholars:
Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn al-Sālimī: Despite his adherence to the fundamentals, he opened the door to wuqūf for those who were unaware of the fitnah, saying: “You may abstain from judgment regarding the people of the qiblah, for Allah will not question you about what they did.”
His Eminence Shaykh Aḥmad bin Ḥamad al-Khalīlī (Grand Mufti of Oman): He always emphasizes the unity of the Ummah and purity of heart. In his lessons and writings, he prays for mercy upon all the Companions and affirms that historical differences should not divide Muslims today.
The Principle of Purity of Heart: This is the principle adopted by the Ibadi school today, meaning that the contemporary Muslim is not obligated to investigate the bloodshed of the Companions, and it is safer for him to meet Allah with a pure heart towards everyone.
Why Do Classical Texts Continue to Contain Statements of Disavowal?
The continued presence of these statements in books does not necessarily mean they are being implemented today. Rather, it stems from methodological reasons:
Scholarly Integrity: Ibadi scholars consider the books of the early scholars an inheritance that should not be censored or deleted. Instead, it should be transmitted as is, with explanations within its historical context.
Preserving Historical Memory: Transmitting these statements aims to explain why the Ibadis differed from others initially (the political and legal reasons for the revival), not to incite hatred.
Distinguishing Between “Statement” and “Religious Practice”: The statement of disavowal exists “intellectually” in the books as an interpretation by earlier scholars, but wuqūf and acceptance are what are practiced “religiously” and as acts of worship today.
Should One Take a Doctrinal Stance Regarding the People of Nahrawān?
This is a fundamental question within the school of thought, and the answer can be summarized as follows:
The Ibadi position on their predecessors: The Ibadis believe that the people of Nahrawān were “people of righteousness” and that their disavowal of ʿUthmān and ʿAlī was based on a legitimate interpretation of Islamic law, which they considered justified in their time, to protect the core of the faith (as they perceived it).
Are you obligated to disavow them as they did? No. The principle among the Ibadis is: “There is no blame on one who remains neutral.” A contemporary Muslim who refrains from judging ʿUthmān and ʿAlī, while simultaneously respecting the people of Nahrawān as scholars and predecessors, is not considered an “innovator” or “outside the school.”
Conclusion of the Doctrinal Section
There is no religious obligation within the Ibadi school that compels you to disavow any of the Companions today. The required doctrinal stance is loyalty to the believers and hatred of oppressors in general. However, regarding specific historical events, the best and safest course is to remain neutral. (Wuqūf)
Accordingly, the Ibadi approach today is one of unity, not division, whereby the Companions (including ʿUthmān and ʿAlī) are treated with respect as a general virtue, while the interpretations of the early scholars who took strong stances are also respected, and this is considered part of the history of scholarly interpretation that does not preclude present-day harmony.
The early Muhakkima who fought at Nahrawān were responding to their historical moment with their ijtihād. There is no obligation for a Muslim 1,300 years later to inherit the same specific judgments, especially when the evidentiary record is disputed among Muslims.
Kufr in the Ibadi School Does Not Expel from the Millah
Let us state this as clearly as possible:
Kufr in the Ibadi school is not something that takes one out of the millah of Islam.
This is the fundamental distinction that our opponents either cannot grasp or deliberately conceal.
When early Ibadi scholars used the term kufr regarding certain actions during the fitnah, they did not mean:
That the person had left the millah of Islam.
That their shahādah was invalidated.
That they were forever condemned to Hell.
Rather, they meant precisely what Ibn Taymiyyah meant when he wrote “a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith” and “kufr less than kufr.” They meant what al-Albānī meant when he wrote “kufr has levels.”
They meant that the action—fighting a fellow Muslim unjustly, or introducing innovation into the religion—is an act of kufr in the lesser sense: a grave violation that necessitates barā’ah (disavowal) but not the complete negation of faith.
Even in how we understand the word كفر or kufr in Arabic. This ensures us that we have a creed that is based upon the Qur’an, the primary source of Islam, the revelation Allah sent to his Blessed Prophet (saw). Allah (swt) never defined كفر as exit from the religion of Islam. This is concept is theologically superimposed upon the word. The proof of this is evident. In light of the clear text from the Prophetic Sunnah, Sunni scholars have provided an array of understandings and levels concering the word.
Why the Accusation of Taqiyyah for the Ibadi Is False
Our opponents also claim that we, the Ibadis practice taqiyyah—that we conceal our “true” belief that the Companions are disbelievers.
This is false for several reasons:
There is no concealment. We are explaining our doctrine openly in this very article, citing our sources and demonstrating our distinctions.
Wuqūf is not taqiyyah.Taqiyyah is concealing one’s true belief out of fear of harm. Wuqūf is a principled theological position: suspending judgment when evidence is unclear or when the matter does not affect one’s own religious obligation.
The accusation is ironic. Our opponents accuse us of taqiyyah while ignoring that we openly state: “We do not declare the Companions disbelievers in the sense of expulsion from Islam.” What are we supposedly concealing?
The burden of proof is on them. They claim we secretly believe something. But they provide no evidence—only misinterpretation of early texts that they refuse to read in light of their own understanding of Qur’an (49:9) and the distinction between lesser and major kufr.
The Rhetorical Question Our Opponents Cannot Answer
Let us conclude with a question for those who accuse the Ibadis of excommunicating the Companions:
According to their own undersatnding of Qur’an 49:9, when two groups of believers fight each other, are they still believers or not?
They cannot say “no” without contradicting the Qur’an.
And according to your own ḥadīth in Bukhārī and Muslim, fighting a Muslim is kufr. So how do you reconcile the Qur’an calling fighting believers ‘believers’ and the ḥadīth calling fighting ‘kufr’?
The only possible reconciliation is that kufr here does not mean apostasy. It means a lesser kufr, a grave sin, an act of major transgression but not expulsion from the millah of Islam.
That is exactly what we Ibadis have been saying all along.
This is not meant as a ‘gotcha’ for the Sunnis, but a call for sincere reflection, bridge-building, and moving forward as an Ummah
Final Summary
Accusation
Reality
“Ibadis declare Companions to be disbelievers (apostates).”
Ibadis use kufr in the lesser sense (kufr ni’ma), as affirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Albānī, al-ʿUthaymīn, and others.
“Ibadis declare companions to be mushrik (polytheist).”
Ibadis have not declared a single companion to be a mushrik.
“Ibadis practice taqiyyah to hide their true beliefs.”
There is no concealment. Wuqūf (suspension) is a principled theological position, not taqiyyah.
“Ibadis invented the term kufr for Muslims.”
The term comes from how Allah defined it in the Qur’an.
“Ibadis are Khawārij who excommunicate Muslims.”
Ibadis distinguish themselves from extremist Khawārij precisely by affirming that kufr does not always entail expulsion from the millah.
“Contemporary Ibadis still declare the Companions disbelievers.”
The contemporary Ibadi position is overwhelmingly wuqūf and acceptance, with scholars praying for mercy upon all Companions.
Conclusion and Call for Fairness
We Ibadis do not ask anyone to agree with our historical interpretations. We do not ask anyone to adopt our doctrine of barā’ah. What we ask for is fairness. That we be judged by what we actually believe, not by the distorted caricature our opponents present.
We ask that our accusers to read their own understasnding of Qur’an (49:9) and the authentic ḥadīth.
The inconsistency applied to the Ibadi school is real.
Sunni, Imami, and Zaydi traditions all maintain elaborate taxonomies of kufr.
Kufr al-ʿamal — disbelief of deed (action contradicting faith without denying it)
Kufr al-inkār — disbelief of denial
Kufr al-juhūd — disbelief of stubborn rejection after knowing
Kufr al-nifāq — disbelief of hypocrisy
Kufr bi’l-iʿrāḍ / al-irād — disbelief of turning away
Kufr al-niʿmah — disbelief of ingratitude for blessing
Kufr al-ʿinād — disbelief of obstinacy
Kufr al-takdhīb — disbelief of denial/contradiction
These categories are not fringe. They are taught in Sunni ʿaqīdah manuals, Imami kalām texts, and Zaydi uṣūl works. Even Ibn Taymiyyah’s Kitāb al-Īmān which we cited above is built on exactly this distinction. Al-Albānī’s “kufr has levels” is the same principle. Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh’s “lesser and greater kufr” is the same.
So the inconsistency is this:
When these same scholars encounter the term kufr applied to ʿAlī, ʿUthmān, or Muʿāwiyah in an Ibadi text, they immediately read it as kufr al-juhūd or kufr al-inkār and then declare the Ibadis to be Khawārij who excommunicate the Companions. But when their own scholars apply kufr to Muslims who fight each other, or to one who insults a Muslim, or to one who abandons prayer out of laziness, they read it as kufr al-niʿmah or kufr dūna kufr the lesser kufr. That which does not expel one form the millah kind.
The word is identical. The subject is different. The interpretive charity is applied inconsistently.
This is not a minor rhetorical point. It exposes that the accusation “Ibadis declare the Companions disbelievers” rests on a selective reading. The accusers are not applying their own taxonomy to Ibadi texts. If they did, they would have to ask: which kufr do the Ibadis mean? And the answer, as the article documents and as we have confirmed, is kufr al-niʿmah — ingratitude for blessing — not expulsion from the millah.
We ask that they stop accusing us of taqiyyah when we are explaining our doctrine openly.
If they insist that our definition of kufr means apostasy, they bear the burden of proof is upon the accuser—not us.
“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)
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)
