Tag Archives: sunnah

February 16, 2026 · 4:38 am

Dogs are pure in Islam, according to the Qur’an.

“They ask you what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are all things good and pure: and what you have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)

﷽

This is written to show that the practice of the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is that dogs are pure in Islam, and this is the way of many Muslims all over the world until today. It is possible that outsiders of Islam have the perspective that the view that dogs are ritually unclean is due to the fact that one of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence (The Hanafi school) is also the most prevalanet Islamic school. This is also the position of other Islamic schools.

This blog entry will attempt to show the validity of those of us who hold that dogs are pure. By using the primary and secondary sources of Islam. It will also show the inconsistency of the views opposed to this understanding, as well as common objections to this view, usually by citing oral traditions.

Some people who have been brought up and trained their whole lives to hear that dogs are not tahir (clean or pure) are going to have to rethink what they were taught in light of the evidence presented.

Imam Ash-Shawkaani (rahimahullah) states in his masterpiece: “Nayl Al-Awtaar Sharh Muntaqaa Al-Akhbaar” the following:

It has been attributed to the Prophet Muhammed (saw)

“From Abu Hurayrah who said that Rasulullah (alayhis salaam) said, “When a dog licks one of your vessels (e.g. bowl), apply dirt to it and then wash the vessel seven times.”

[Says Shawkaani]: And this narration also proves that the dog is najaasah (impure)…and the Jumhoor (majority) hold this opinion. And ‘Ikrimah and Malik in a report from him ,state ,“Verily it is Taahir (pure)”. And their proof is the statement of Allah ta’alaa,

فَكُلُواْ مِمَّا أَمْسَكْنَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاذْكُرُواْ اسْمَ اللّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ

(Say: lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by Allah eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account.” (Qur’an 5:4)

Another proof is what is established in Abu Dawud from the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar with the words, “Dogs would come freely into the masjid and urinate in the time of the Rasulullah (‘alayhis salaam), and they would not pour water over it (i.e. the urine).”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:174)

[Note that Ibn Hajr states this occurred before doors were put on the masjids and the command to keep them clean was established.This is the opinion of a Shafi’i and not that of the Maalikis] – End quote from Nayl Al-Awtaar.

The Shafi’i Judge and Jurist Qadhi As-Safadi states, “Malik says that dogs are pure and what they lick is not made impure, but that a vessel licked by a dog should be washed to avoid filth.”

The following quotes are statements from Imam Malik as reported in the Mudawwanah of Imam Malik regarding the dog:

“One may eat what it catches in a hunt. How then can we declare Makrooh (hated or disliked) what it drinks (or places its tongue in).” (page 116)

Malik said, “If one desires to make wudhu’ from a vessel wherein a dog has drunk (or put its tongue in), it is OK for him to make wudhu’ from it and pray.” (pg 115)

Malik said, “If a dog puts his tongue in a vessel of milk (labn) there is no harm (la ba’as) if one takes (i.e. eats) from that milk.” (ibid)

Note that there are many other quotes from him within Volume 1 of the Mudawwana regarding the purity of the dog. We have chosen these only as a sample. Source: (Vol. 1 published by Daar Al Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyyah published in 2005 CE)

The Maliki Faqih (jurist consult) of Andalus, Ibn Rushd states in his “Bidayatul-Mujtahid”,

“Malik held the view that the leftovers of a dog should be spilled, and the utensil should be washed, as it is a ritual act of non-rational worship, because the water that it has lapped up is not unclean (najas). He did not require, according to the widely known opinion from him, the spilling of things other than water, which a dog had licked. The reason, as we have said, is the conflict with analogy, according to him. He also believed that, if it is to be understood from the tradition that a dog is unclean, it opposes the apparent meaning of the Book, that is, the words of Allah ta’alaa, “So eat what they catch for you…” meaning thereby that if the dog had been unclean the prey would become unclean by the touch of the dog’s (mouth). He supported this interpretation by the required number of washings, as number is not a condition in the washing of unclean things. He held that this washing was merely an act of worship. He did not rely upon the remaining traditions as they were weak, in his view.”

Source: (pg 27 published by Garnet; also see Al-Hidayah of Imam Al-Ghumaari Vol. 1 page 288 for a detailed discussion of the chains of narration)

This narration is reported by Imam Muslim in his Sahih 89/279 as well as by An-Nasaa’i hadith number 66

Source: Taken from “The Mercy in the Difference of the Four Sunni Schools of Islamic Law” translated by ‘A’ishah Bewley, printed by Dar-al-taqwa. Page 4

May we turn our attention to the hadith again, which seems to bring a lot of misunderstanding in relation to dogs in Islam.

“When a dog licks one of your vessels (e.g. bowl), apply dirt to it and then wash the vessel seven times.”

We would encourage the reader to look at the following information ,and then we would like to comment about this as well.

The hadith above that requires us to wash the utensil licked by a dog seven times is pretty much explained away as follows:

First, if it is done with the intention in the heart to obey the Messenger (saw), then it counts as worship, Furthermore, as Ibn Rush stated, the fact that the washing is a set number of times is a proof that this constitutes a ritual act of worship.

Second, the command for us to perform this action is purely for hygienic reasons and has nothing do with ritual purity. It’s a leap of reasoning to connect the command to ritual purity.

Modern science is testament to the fact that there are certain strains of bacteria in dog saliva which are not part of the human normal flora. If a container licked by a dog is left unwashed (especially in hot climate regions), it provides a fertile breeding ground in which those bacteria will multiply at geometric rates and render the container useless thereafter. Thus, the command to wash the container is purely a medical precaution.

And similar to what was alluded to in Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd, this only applies to containers which contain water. Containers which contain other useful contents are not to be discarded and washed.

Overall, it appears as if Imam Malik had high respect and esteem for dogs. They had a special status with him, unlike any other animal, as the following excerpt from the Mudawanna shows us:

Regarding ablution with the leftovers of animals, chickens, and dogs: [Ibn Al Qasim] said: I asked Malik about the leftovers of donkeys and mules and Malik said: There is no problem with them. I [Sahnun] said: Did you see if he communicated regarding anything other than such? Ibn Al-Qasim said: it and others beside it are equal. Ibn Al-Qasim said: And Malik said: There is no problem with the sweat of the horse, mule, or donkey; Ibn Al-Qasim further added, and Malik retorted: In the container that contains water licked by a dog with which a man makes wudu? Ibn Al Qasim said: Malik Said: If he makes wudu with it and subsequently performs salah, then this is permitted. Ibn Al Qasim said: And [Malik] does not see the dog like other animals. Ibn Al Qasim Said: Malik Said: If those repugnant species of birds and predatory animals drink from the water container, one is not to make wudu with that container. Ibn Al Qasim said: And Malik said: If a dog licks a container which contains milk, then there is no problem with consuming that milk. I [Sahnun] said: Did Malik use to say wash the container seven times when the dog licks inside the container? Ibn Al Qasim Said: Malik Said: This tradition has definitely come to us and I do not know its truth/authenticity. Ibn Al Qasim said: And it is as if (Malik) viewed the dog as if the dog was a member of the household (Ahl Al-Bayt) and that it was not like other predatory beasts, and Malik used to say: the container is not washed of margarine or milk and what the dog licked from that IS to be eaten, and I see it as an enormity to purposefully intend (waste) towards the bounty from the bounty of God and discard what the dog licked.

Here is something that we would like to ask people.

Let us say that, indeed, we did witness a dog lick from a dish that we left on a carpeted area and then this dish was washed 6 or 7 times and with earth as well. How many of you would actually drink this dish afterward?

Not many, which is exactly our point!

People are trying to make the halal (permissible) into the haram (forbidden). Now you want to make the whole of the contents and the dish unusable?

Case in point: The Shaf’i School of jurisprudence.

People who are not aware that Shaf’i critiqued Imam Malik have not read or are unfamiliar with the Shaf’i corpus known as Al-Risala (The Message).

Thus, as history has it,Imam Shaf’i’ and his critique of Imam Malik would not go unanswered.

MALIKI SCHOLAR IBN AL LABBAD’S REFUTATION OF IMAM SHAF’I

The following information is taken from a small tract in which a Sunni Maliki scholar, Ibn Al Labbad, gave full response to Shaf’i. This is where we will take our information from, since it critiques the Shaf’i view on the matter.

The following is titled:

Kitab fihi radd(u) Abi Bakr ibn Muhammed ala Muhammed ibn Idris Al-Shaf’i fi munqadaati qawlihi wa fima qala bihi min al-tahdid fi mas’ail qalaha khalfa fiha al-Kitab wal-sunna (A treatise containing Abu Bakr Muhammed’s refutation of Muhammed Ibn Idris Al-Shaf’i for the latter’s self contradictions and his arbitrariness in setting legal limits in matters regarding which his doctrine violated the Book and the Sunnah).

Al’Shaf’i added, however, that both the vessels and their contents were rendered ritually impure.

This extrapolation drew heavy criticism from Ibn Al-Labbad, who argued that while the Prophet (saw) ruled that vessels from which dogs had drunk had to be washed seven times; he never stated that either the vessels or their contents were ritually impure. This was simply al-Shaf’is invention, according to Ibn al-Labbad, which he concocted on the basis of his own ra’y (reasoning) and then injected into the hadith. That al-Shaf’i’s position was deficient could be easily proved by reference to the Qur’an, where there are verses permitting the eating of game seized by hunting dogs. (Qur’an chapter 5:4)

To make matters worse, Ibn al-Labbad cites Al-Shafi’is argument to the effect that neither the vessels nor their contents were rendered ritually impure if such contents exceeded two qullas in volume, since, according to al-Shaf’i, anything more than two qullas was not subject to ritual impurity.

On this view, he ends up, according to Ibn al-Labbad completely undermining the Prophet’s rule. On the one hand, he holds vessels from which dogs have drunk but which contain more than two qullas not to require ritual washing, while the Prophet (saw) stated explicitly that whenever a dog laps from a vessel it is to be washed seven times. On the other hand, he holds the contents of vessels containing less than two qullas to be ritually impure, while the Prophet himself never designated them as such.

At first blush, it might appear that ibn Al-Labbad is donning the Shaf’i-inspired robe of Zahirism in order to slam the door to logical inference in Al-Shaf’is face. But this turns out not to be altogether true. Ibn al-Labbad is not saying al-Shaf’i is wrong for attempting to understand the underlying implications of the Prophet’s command but merely that the results of this attempt were flawed.

For while it may be reasonable to assume a connection between the command to wash vessels and the status of their contents, the Prophet made it clear, according to Ibn al-Labbad, that dogs drinking from vessels constitute a sui generis category. As proof, he cites instances as the Bedouin who urinated in the mosque and the infant who relieved himself on the Prophet’s lap. In neither case did the Prophet order a seven-fold washing. This, according to Ibn al-Labbad, clearly indicated that urine and other ritually impure substances constituted one category. Meanwhile, vessels from which dogs have lapped constitute another. The two issues, in other words, were simply unrelated, and Al-Shaf’i was misguided in extending the logic of ritual impurity to vessels from which dogs had lapped and their contents.

Once again, however, Ibn al-Labbad case would not end there. Al Shaf’i had extended the ruling on dogs drinking from vessels to pigs, arguing that ‘if pigs were not worse than dogs, they were certainly no better than them.’ This, argued Ibn Al Labbad was pure ra’y, for the validity of which Al-Shaf’i had provided no textual proof. Similarly, regarding the use of earth for the first or last cleansing of vessels, Al Shafi’i held that if one was unable to find earth (turab), one could use something that functions like earth,

e.g., potash or the like. Yet, when it came to tayammun, al Shaf’i flatly disallowed these things, insisting instead on the use of pure earth (turab). All of this went to show, according to Ibn Al-Labbad, just how inconsistent and arbitrary Al-Shafi could be. In the end none of this was based upon information related on the authority of the Prophet (saw).

Source: (“Setting the Record Straight: Ibn al-Labbād’s Refutation of al-Shāfiʿī” (published in the Journal of Islamic Studies), Sherman A. Jackson analyzes the critiques leveled by the 10th-century Maliki jurist Muhammad b. Idrīs al-Labbād (d. 333/944) against Imam al-Shāfiʿī)

This is an intra-Sunni critique. A scholar of the Maliki School of jurisprudence giving a rebuttal to the founding jurist of one of Sunni Islam’s most prominent schools of jurisprudence.

Now let us take a look at the contradictory hadith reports concerning dogs in various situations and see if we can make sense of all of this.

The Hadith should be understood in light of the Qur’an and the practice of the Sunnah that was orally transmitted and practiced by the masses of Muslims across all cities and regions.

So first let us take a look at what the Qur’an itself says concerning dogs.

There are three places where the Qur’an mentions dogs.

“This is of the signs of Allah. He whom Allah guides, he is on the right way; and whom He leaves in error, you will not find for him a friend to guide aright. And you might think them awake while they were asleep, and We turned them about to the right and to the left with their dog outstretching its paws at the entrance. If you did look at them, you would turn back from them in flight, and you would be filled with awe because of them. And thus did We rouse them that they might question each other. A speaker from among them said: How long have you tarried? They said: We have tarried for a day or a part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. Now send one of you with this silver (coin) of yours to the city, then let him see what food is purest, and bring you provision from it, and let him behave with gentleness, and not make your case known to anyone. For if they prevail against you, they would stone you to death or force you back to their religion, and then you would never succeed. And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them, that they might know that Allah’s promise is true and that the Hour — there is no doubt about it. When they disputed among themselves about their affair and said: Erect an edifice over them. Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed in their affair said: We shall certainly build a place of worship over them.(Some) say: (They were) three, the fourth of them their dog; and (others) say: Five, the sixth of them their dog, making conjectures about the unseen. And (others) say: Seven, and the eighth of them their dog. Say: My Lord best knows their number — none knows them but a few. So contend not in their matter but with an outward contention, and question not any of them concerning them. And say not of anything: I will do that tomorrow, Unless Allah please. And remember your Lord when you forget and say: Maybe my Lord will guide me to a nearer course to the right than this. And they remained in their cave three hundred years, and they add nine. Say: Allah knows best how long they remained. His is the unseen of the heavens and the earth. How clear His sight and His hearing! There is no guardian for them beside Him, and He associates none in His judgment.” (Qur’an 18:9-26)

The question from reading this is why would a dog be worthy of mention in the last revelation given to humanity if it is such an unclean and impure animal? These are the questions that need to be answered.

However, here is a passage from the Qur’an that compares the behavior of dogs to some people who reject faith.

“Thus, If it had been Our Will, We should have elevated him Our Signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our Signs, so relate the story, perchance they may reflect.”(Qur’an 7:176)

Can you see this verse giving explicit command to attack dogs? No! It simply says that ‘IF’ you were to attack him, this dog is going to behave in the same way even if you let him be. This is the only thing that we could see in the Qur’an portraying the dog in a negative light. Yet the similitude is more directed at mankind than it is making any statement about dogs.

THE AHADITH AND DOGS

Allah forgave a prostitute her sins because she gave water to a dying dog.

Allah’s Messenger (saw) is reported to have said, “A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tied it with her head-cover. She drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3321)

Of course, this means that the woman was sincere in repenting for her sins and this action, coupled with her repenting of her sins, became a source of mercy for her.

Question: If dogs are so vile and evil, why was a prostitute forgiven by Allah because of showing this act of mercy and kindness to the animal?

TheBlessed Prophet is reported to have said, ‘A man felt very thirsty while he was on the way, there he came across a well, He went down the well, quenched his thirst and came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. He said to himself, “This dog is suffering from thirst as I did.” So, he went down the well again and filled his shoe with water and watered it. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him. The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals? He replied: Yes, there is a reward for serving any living being.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2466)

Question: If dogs are so vile and evil, why would Allah thank a man for the act of kindness that he showed this particular animal?

The Blessed Prophet (saw) is reported to have said, “A man saw a dog eating mud because of the severity of thirst. So, that man took a shoe and filled it with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him enter Paradise.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:173)

And narrated Hamza bin ‘Abdullah: My father said. “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, the dogs used to urinate and pass through the mosque (come and go), nevertheless they used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog.)”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:174)

KEEPING DOGS AS PETS

The Blessed Prophet is reported to have said, “Angels do not enter a house which has either a dog or a picture in it.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3322)

Narrated Salim’s father: “Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, “We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3227)

Prima Qur’an Comment: This is not a command not to keep dogs but simply that they should have seperate areas from where people reside.

Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Whoever acquires a dog other than a sheepdog or hunting dog, will have two qirats deducted from the reward of his good actions every day.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/54/13)

It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allah ibn Umar said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Whoever keeps a dog, except a dog for herding livestock or a dog that is trained for hunting; two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1574a)

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (saw) said,“Whoever keeps a dog, except a dog for herding, hunting or farming, one qiraat will be deducted from his reward each day.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1575a)

In a hadeeth narrated by Ibn ‘Umar, The Prophet (saw) said, “Whoever keeps a dog which is neither a watch dog nor a hunting dog, will get a daily deduction of two Qiraat from his good deeds.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5480)

Prima Qur’an Comment: The above hadith mentions that the dog should have a utility. Thus, it has been argued by some scholars that seeing eye dogs that help blind people are utility dogs. Dogs that guard the home and property from would-be attackers and thieves are utility dogs. Animals can also generate soothing effects that relieve high blood pressure in people.

IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO KEEP A DOG TO GUARD HOUSES?

Al-Nawawi said: “There is a difference of opinion about whether it is permissible to keep dogs for purposes other than three, such as guarding houses and roads. The most correct view is that it is permissible by analogy with these three and based on the reason that it is to be understood from the hadith, which is based upon necessity. ”

Source: (Sharh Muslim, 10/236)

Prima Qur’an Comments:

If we look at all the hadith evidence above, something becomes very obvious and that there is not an explicit prohibition on keeping a dog as a pet.

There are reports that talk about one or two good deeds being removed from a person who keeps a dog other than for the purpose of (hunting, sheepdog, guard dog, guards live stock, guarding family).

So, for example, a person may get a poodle and claim that it is for guarding the family and this may be an unlikely scenario. However, dogs also make noise when there is intrusion, and they serve their purpose to guard human lives.

The former United States of America (under the Zionist occupation) has one of the highest percentages of gun ownership out of any populace on earth. Think of how many people have access to guns in the family. Many people may agree that it is more safe to have a dog securing the parameters of the house, protecting and guarding the family than it is to own a gun.

Again, there is no prohibition against owning a dog in one’s home. Simply saying that rewards are moved for keeping a dog for an intention other than serving some use is also not a prohibition.

Even if a person said it was their intention to keep a dog simply for the purpose of entertainment, the traditionalist may consider that person to be negligent.

Today, in the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, West Africa, Oman and places where the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is practiced and maintained with vigilance, we find that people keep dogs as pets.

Blind people also need dogs as a part of their life to help protect and guide them. The issue of angels not entering houses is because the presence of a dog is not because the dog is impure. The dog is pure in the ‘law’ of Islam. If the angels did not enter because the dog was not pure, then the angels would not enter houses and mosques (masjids) because of the presence of toilets.

You can also find a hadith that has been narrated that includes the phrase (except the angel of death) which should raise an eyebrow. Most likely, if angels never entered an abode where a dog was present, this would mean the angel of death and thus a person could be guaranteed eternal life on the basis of keeping a dog as a pet!

So you will find the above hadith to include the exception (except the angel of death).

Those who are still opposed to dogs, namely the Shaf’i and Hanafi schools of jurisprudence, are really going to have to rethink their positions in today’s world that we live in. What works for the Shaf’i in Somalia and for the Hanafi in India and Pakistan is not going to work in New York City, London or Minneapolis, where a man or woman may get into a cab with his or her seeing eye dog.

Not only that, but angels ‘not entering the house’ should be pondered over due to the fact that many people live in apartment complexes, so what would actually constitute a house? Could an angel be in your apartment while your neighbor has a loud barking dog? These questions have to be answered to keep people from doing extreme things or taking issues out of context.

The hadith about Angel Gabriel not entering the house where Prophet Muhammed (saw) was because he had a female dog under his bed with puppies needs to be taken into context with all the other information that is given.

DIDN’T THE BLESSED PROPHET MUHAMMED (SAW) ORDER DOGS TO BE KILLED?

“Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Whoever acquires a dog other than a sheepdog or hunting dog will have two qirats deducted from the reward of his good actions every day.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/54/13)

Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered dogs to be killed.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/malik/54/14)

Without going into the various hadeeth that talk about the killing of dogs, the two statements above alone will suffice.

Why?

They suffice because Imam Malik, the ‘founder’ of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, related both ahadith, but he understood the practice. He did not take ahadith (lone narrator reports) in isolation as do many Muslims today.

He is taking the whole of the practice as it was orally mass transmitted and practiced by the people of his city in Madinah.

The reports about killing dogs seem to be in the context of a mass outbreak of some virus, rabies, scabies, ring worm and Allah knows best!

If you have actually seen a dog with a severe case of the mange or scabies, it is a very sad sight to behold.

The point is that the Muwatta of Imam Malik (quoted above) and the views he holds and transmits from the people of Madinah and those before him is that dogs are not to be killed.

We hope Muslims will better understand Islam. This is why we ask Muslims that it is imperative for them to take the Qur’an and the mass transmitted practice over the Hadith.

The vast majority of Muslims, YouTube Preachers, and even those who have taken ‘alim courses are not very well grounded in Islamic jurisprudence. Also, when it comes to Hadith transmission, it was never meant to be understood in isolation as it is being done today.

One of Imam Malik’s major shaykhs, Rab’a Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman, nicked named Rabi’a al-Ra’y, stated: “I will take a thousand from a thousand before I will take one from one, because that one from one can strip the practice out of your hands.”

If the Muslims insist on taking hadith (one from one) in isolation over the practice (mass transmitted tradition), then we will continue to be a source of embarrassment and rage.

We leave you with the following story in which an old blind man was denied entry on a bus because of the ignorance of us Muslims.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-38745910

If you enjoyed the above article you may be interested in reading the following:

https://primaquran.com/2020/09/12/dastardly-bowl-licking-dogs-and-the-thought-process-of-some-muslim/

May Allah (swt) continue to guide us to that which is beloved to Allah (swt)!

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah! May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah!

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, contextualization, dogs, fiqh, hadith, hanafi, Ibadi, Islam, jurisprudence, jurispruence, maliki, quran, religion, shafii, sunnah

February 13, 2026 · 7:00 pm

Are Ibadis intolerant of other schools? A picture is worth a thousand words.

“And hold firmly together to the rope of Allah and do not be divided. Remember Allah’s favour upon you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts, so you—by His grace—became brothers. And you were at the brink of a fiery pit and He saved you from it. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so that you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.” (Qur’an 3:103)

﷽

As they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Like any school of Islam of course we believe that our school is upon haqq. Yet our scholars study and take from the works of the great scholars across all schools. That is because we firmly believe on this verse:

“He gives wisdom to whom He chooses, and whoever is given wisdom is blessed abundantly. But only insightful people bear this in mind.” (Qur’an 2:269)

We want more cooperation and harmony among the Muslim Ummah. We want Muslims to work together to solve the challenges confronting this Ummah.

ونحن لا نطالب العباد

فوق شهادتيهم اعتقاداً

فمن اتى بالجملتين قلنا

إخواننا وبالحقوق قمنا

إلا إذا ما نقضوا المقالا

أو أحدثوا في دينهم ضلالا

قمنا نبين الصواب لهم

ونحسبن ذاك من حقهم

And we do not obligate over servants[of Allah] over their shahada any belief. Whoever came with the two testimonies we say our brothers and we treat them with their rights, unless they break the religion; or they created in their religion an error. Than we will show the truth to them, and we will consider this their right.

Source: (From the poem كشف الحقيقة لمن جهل الطريقة for Imam Noor Al-Deen Al-Salemi) -May Allah have abundant mercy on him.

Sheikh Ahmad bin Hamad Al-Khalili أحمد بن حمد الخليلي‎‎

A special prayer meet was organised at Markazu Saquafathi Sunniyya for Sultan Qaboos Bin Said. Grand Mufti of India مفتي جمهورية الهند led the prayer and he requested all believers in India to pray for Sultan Qaboos Bin Said at Mosques and Madrasas.

Under the leadership of Umar bin Abdul-Aziz the Ibadi school sent a group of six great scholars, J’afer bin A’Simak, Abu AlHur Ali bin AlHusain Al’Anbri, AlHattat bin Kateb, AlHabab bin Kulaib, Abu Suyan Qanber AlBasri, and Salim bin Thakwan among other unnamed scholars,(May Allah have his mercy upon them all)

Non-Ibadi historians mentioned these delegates to Umar bin Abdul-Aziz though they said with their usual insinuation: “The Khawarij sent him a delegation”. However, they did not mention what happened between them and the Caliph Umar and his acceptance of all their suggestions about spreading justice and purging the country of the Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali from the pulpit. The Ibadi delegation said to Umar, “Muslims are cursing from pulpits in mosques, so this evil tradition must be changed”. Thus, Umar replaced it with the words of Allah:

“Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that you remember”, (Qur’an 16: 90)

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

You may also be interested in reading the following:

https://primaquran.com/2024/04/29/do-only-ibadis-go-to-heaven/

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as art, coexist, family, hadith, Ibadi, ibadi-tolerance, intra-muslim-dialogue, Islam, music, muslim, nature, quran, sunnah, tolerance, travel

January 3, 2026 · 6:22 am

The appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children according to the Bible.

“Oh My Lord Advance me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.” (Proverbs 3:5-6)

﷽

One thing that one will not fail to notice when reading the Bible is that in some areas God seems very focused on precision.

“The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits thick.” (Revelation 21:15–17)

Likewise, the Book of Ezekiel contains an extended and highly detailed description of temple measurements:

“In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the fall of the city—on that very day the hand of the Lord was on me and he took me there. In visions of God he took me to the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, on whose south side were some buildings that looked like a city.

He took me there, and I saw a man whose appearance was like bronze; he was standing in the gateway with a linen cord and a measuring rod in his hand. The man said to me, ‘Son of man, look carefully and listen closely and pay attention to everything I am going to show you, for that is why you have been brought here. Tell the people of Israel everything you see.’

I saw a wall completely surrounding the temple area. The length of the measuring rod in the man’s hand was six long cubits, each of which was a cubit and a handbreadth. He measured the wall; it was one measuring rod thick and one rod high. Then he went to the east gate. He climbed its steps and measured the threshold of the gate; it was one rod deep.

The alcoves for the guards were one rod long and one rod wide, and the projecting walls between the alcoves were five cubits thick. And the threshold of the gate next to the portico facing the temple was one rod deep. Then he measured the portico of the gateway; it was eight cubits deep and its jambs were two cubits thick. The portico of the gateway faced the temple.

Inside the east gate were three alcoves on each side; the three had the same measurements, and the faces of the projecting walls on each side had the same measurements. Then he measured the width of the entrance of the gateway; it was ten cubits and its length was thirteen cubits.

In front of each alcove was a wall one cubit high, and the alcoves were six cubits square. Then he measured the gateway from the top of the rear wall of one alcove to the top of the opposite one; the distance was twenty-five cubits from one parapet opening to the opposite one.

He measured along the faces of the projecting walls all around the inside of the gateway—sixty cubits. The measurement was up to the portico facing the courtyard. The distance from the entrance of the gateway to the far end of its portico was fifty cubits.

The alcoves and the projecting walls inside the gateway were surmounted by narrow parapet openings all around, as was the portico; the openings all around faced inward. The faces of the projecting walls were decorated with palm trees.

Then he brought me into the outer court. There I saw some rooms and a pavement that had been constructed all around the court; there were thirty rooms along the pavement. It abutted the sides of the gateways and was as wide as they were long; this was the lower pavement.

Then he measured the distance from the inside of the lower gateway to the outside of the inner court; it was a hundred cubits on the east side as well as on the north.

Then he measured the length and width of the north gate, leading into the outer court. Its alcoves—three on each side—its projecting walls and its portico had the same measurements as those of the first gateway. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide.

Its openings, its portico and its palm tree decorations had the same measurements as those of the gate facing east. Seven steps led up to it, with its portico opposite them. There was a gate to the inner court facing the north gate, just as there was on the east. He measured from one gate to the opposite one; it was a hundred cubits.

Then he led me to the south side and I saw the south gate. He measured its jambs and its portico, and they had the same measurements as the others. The gateway and its portico had narrow openings all around, like the openings of the others. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide.

Seven steps led up to it, with its portico opposite them; it had palm tree decorations on the faces of the projecting walls on each side. The inner court also had a gate facing south, and he measured from this gate to the outer gate on the south side; it was a hundred cubits.

Then he brought me into the inner court through the south gate, and he measured the south gate; it had the same measurements as the others. Its alcoves, its projecting walls and its portico had the same measurements as the others. The gateway and its portico had openings all around. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide.

(The porticoes of the gateways around the inner court were twenty-five cubits wide and five cubits deep.) Its portico faced the outer court; palm trees decorated its jambs, and eight steps led up to it.

Then he brought me to the inner court on the east side, and he measured the gateway; it had the same measurements as the others. Its alcoves, its projecting walls and its portico had the same measurements as the others. The gateway and its portico had openings all around. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide.

Its portico faced the outer court; palm trees decorated the jambs on either side, and eight steps led up to it. Then he brought me to the north gate and measured it. It had the same measurements as the others, as did its alcoves, its projecting walls and its portico, and it had openings all around. It was fifty cubits long and twenty-five cubits wide.

Its portico faced the outer court; palm trees decorated the jambs on either side, and eight steps led up to it. A room with a doorway was by the portico in each of the inner gateways, where the burnt offerings were washed. In the portico of the gateway were two tables on each side, on which the burnt offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings were slaughtered.

By the outside wall of the portico of the gateway, near the steps at the entrance of the north gateway were two tables, and on the other side of the steps were two tables. So there were four tables on one side of the gateway and four on the other—eight tables in all—on which the sacrifices were slaughtered.

There were also four tables of dressed stone for the burnt offerings, each a cubit and a half long, a cubit and a half wide and a cubit high. On them were placed the utensils for slaughtering the burnt offerings and the other sacrifices. And double-pronged hooks, each a handbreadth long, were attached to the wall all around. The tables were for the flesh of the offerings.” (Ezekiel 40:1–44)

So, the above text presents us with a God who seems to be very concerned with precision when it comes to temple measurements.

God is more than capable of giving specic ages or age ranges in the Bible.

“This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more.” (Numbers 8:24-25)

“And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.” “And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.” (Leveticus 27:3-7)

The pattern is clear: When God wanted a specific age requirement, He gave one. Explicitly. Repeatedly. With numerical precision.

However, if one were looking for a straightforward answer on the appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children, the Bible does not give a specific age. In terms of exact precision, you will not find an explicit numerical answer. You will, however, find clues related to physical maturity.

“Myriads, like the plants of the field I have made you, and you have increased and grown, and you have come with perfect beauty, breasts fashioned and your hair grown, but you were naked and bare. And I passed by you and saw you, and behold your time was the time of love, and I spread My skirt over you, and I covered your nakedness, and I swore to you and came into a covenant with you, says the Lord, and you were Mine.” (Ezekiel 16:7–8, Chabad.org translation)

Another translation states:

“I let you grow like the plants of the field; and you continued to grow up until you attained to womanhood, until your breasts became firm and your hair sprouted. You were still naked and bare when I passed by you [again] and saw that your time for love had arrived. So I spread My robe over you and covered your nakedness, and I entered into a covenant with you by oath—declares the Sovereign GOD; thus you became Mine.” (Ezekiel 16:7–8, Sefaria.org translation)

In the above passage, God is speaking metaphorically about a covenant or betrothal with the nation of Israel. The passage notes the development of breasts and hair. The hair here is understood to refer to pubic hair. Only after these signs of puberty does the text state that “your time for love had arrived.” Thus, the signs of puberty are associated with suitability for betrothal.

Another passage states:

“We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken for?” (Song of Solomon 8:8)

The word “little” in Hebrew is qatan.

Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6996.htm)

Possible meanings include: least, lesser, little one, smallest, younger, quantity, or thing.

For example:

“Taking her by the hand he said to her, ‘Talitha cumi,’ which means, ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise.’” (Mark 5:41)

Much of the discussion around age is based upon social constructs.

Much of the discussion around age is based upon social constructs and legal conventions that vary from society to society.

In the United States, a person can be 18 years old and legally go to war, fight, and kill another human being. However, that same person cannot legally drink alcohol until the age of 21.

In the United States, federal law generally permits employment beginning at age 14. This implies that lawmakers believe individuals at that age can understand certain contractual obligations and work responsibilities.

In some jurisdictions within the United States, minors may leave home under certain conditions without parental permission.

In countries such as Australia and Singapore, the age of consent is generally 16, meaning that individuals above that age may legally engage in consensual sexual relations with another person aged 16 or older.

In the United States, minors may travel abroad at certain ages, though younger individuals often require written parental permission.

Many American states also impose curfew laws, making it unlawful for minors under 18 to remain outside late at night on school evenings.

Likewise, some states permit minors as young as 10, 12, or 13 to face criminal charges in adult court under particular circumstances.

Christians who criticize Islam often do so on the basis that one of the wives of the Blessed Prophet (saw) was allegedly prepubescent. Yet many of these arguments revolve around age as an abstract number rather than the question of physical maturity itself. If the criterion is puberty, then the argument changes entirely.

Thus, according to this line of reasoning, their argument against Islam collapses.

May Allah guide them out of darkness and into light.

You may also wish to read the following

The following article is about really crummy and scuzzy laws that Christians claim Jesus gave us.

The Old Testament’s Framework for Child Rape: A Property Crime Against the Father, Remedied by Bride-Price and Forced Child Marriage.

The appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children according to Quran only

The Age of Aisha and the Highly Detailed Qur’an?

Shafi’i Muhaddith (Salah al-Din al-idlibi) questions age of Aisha in Bukhari

May Allah forgive the Ummah.

May Allah guide the Ummah.

The Hafs Qur’an Only Religion and their confusion in regards to Allah’s judgement.

“And if you differ in any matter among yourselves, then refer it back to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (Qur’an 4:59)

“Say: “O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.” It is the revelation that comes to you from your Lord that increases most of them in their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow you not over (these) people without faith.” (Qur’an 5:68)

﷽

We are not going to leave Islam for the Religion for the federation of shallow and vacuous sects that are collectively known as the “Hafs Qur’an only religion.” A federation of competing sects that say we ignore what Allah (swt) says.

They themselves cannot even agree on what the prayer is. They supposedly believe that Allah (swt) is clear. They supposedly believe that Allah (swt) wanted us to pray…..something….somehow…. That simply is not clarity.

Allah (swt) clearly told us to accept “all the revelation” that has come to us.

“So do you believe in part of Scripture and disbelieve in part?” (Qur’an 2:85)

In reality, these Qur’an rejectors (for that is what they are) do exactly this. They accept certain parts of the Qur’an and reject others. In fact, we do not think it is right to even call them “Qur’an Only” because the truth is, they are Qur’an partially, which renders them disbelievers.

“Whosoever judges not according to what Allah has sent down—they are the ungodly.” (Qur’an 5:47)

“Whoso judges not according to what Allah has sent down—they are the ungrateful.” (Qur’an 5:44)

“Whoso judges not according to what Allah has sent down—they are the evildoers.” (Qur’an 5:45)

Very powerful verses. Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has sent down are ungodly, ungrateful and evildoers. An apt description for the Qur’an rejectors. And what exactly is it that Allah has sent down?

Well, Allah (swt) has also sent down the following verses:

“And if you differ in any matter among yourselves, then refer it back to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (Qur’an 4:59)

Allah has also sent down the following:

“It is not for any believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have the choice in the affair. Whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has gone astray into manifest error.” (Qur’an 33:36)

“When they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them, lo, a party of them swerve aside; but if they are in the right, they will come to him submissively. What, is there sickness in their hearts, or are they in doubt, or do they fear that Allah and his Messenger may be unjust towards them ? Nay, but those—they are the wrongdoers”. (Qur’an 24:48-50)

“All that the believers say, when they are called to Allah and His Messenger, to judge between them, is that they say, `We hear, and we obey’; those—they are the successful.” (Qur’an 24:51)

Allah AND his Messenger have decreed a matter. Allah AND his Messenger. Why the redundant language? Why not simply say Allah alone?

So do those who follow the Qur’an only religion (Qur’an rejectors) accept these verses or not? In reality, they do not. They believe that the sovereign Creator of the universe uses redundant language! May Allah (swt) guide them!

They clearly do not judge by what Allah (swt) has sent down because in what Allah (swt) has sent down is the Qur’an, which says that we are to submit to the judgement of Allah and his Messenger.

So let us unpack this. When we take the Qur’an as a whole. We can see that there is:

The judgement of Allah (swt).

“So judge between them according to what Allah has sent down, and do not follow their caprices.” (Qur’an 5:48)

The judgement of the Messenger of Allah (swt). “If they come to you, judge you between them, or turn away from them; if you turn away from them, they will hurt you nothing; and if you judge, judge justly between them; Allah loves the just”. (Qur’an 5:42)

Both are sources of judgement.

However, the judgement of Muhammed (saw) can be over-ruled by the judgement of Allah (swt). We made this abundantly clear in our article here:

How we know the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is divine guidance.

The judgement of the Blessed Prophet (saw) cannot overrule the judgement of Allah (swt).

Out of all judgements, the judgement of Allah (swt) is the best and Allah (swt) has made that clear here:

“Is it the judgement of the times of ignorance they are seeking? Yet who is fairer in judgement than Allah, for a people having conviction?” (Qur’an 5:50)

Who is fairer in judgement than Allah? Again, it is not that others cannot judge, it’s just that Allah’s judgement is the best judgement and no one argues against that.

Just like the Qur’an nowhere, and we repeat nowhere says that we are to reject all the hadith, it simply tells us that there is no better hadith than that of Allah, and no one can argue against that.

Allah (swt) has made it clear that when he has given his judgement on a matter, that is what we are to go by. Allah (swt) has made that clear here:

“Surely We have sent down to you the Book with the truth, so that you may judge between the people by what Allah has shown you. So be not an advocate for the traitors”. (Qur’an 4:105)

Which is exactly the Prima-Qur’an position. Not to not take anything above the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the filter.

So what about what Allah (swt) has not shown therein?

Well, unlike what the Qur’an only religion teaches, we believe that Allah (swt) is very clear about this. Allah (swt) says:

“But no, by you Lord! They will not believe till they make you the judge regarding the disagreement between them and then find in themselves no impediment touching your verdict, but surrender in full submission”. (Qur’an 4:65)

The above verses clearly explain the sacred duty of litigants in a disagreement or dispute to take recourse to the Messenger of Allah (swt) and no other person. It also places upon the litigant the solemn duty of complete submission to his judgement.

What is interesting is that the followers of the “Qur’an only religion”, also known as Qur’an rejectors, are to take their own interpretations of the scripture as guidance and yet reject the guidance of the Messenger of Allah!

“O two companions of the prison! Are many different deities better, or Allah, the One, the Irresistible? You do not worship besides Him, except names which you and your ancestors have forged, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The Judgement is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none except Him. That is the standard religion. But most of humanity does not know.” (Qur’an 12:39-40)

So is Allah (swt) saying that no one can judge but Allah?

It would be very weird to give human beings laws about punishing adulterers and fornicators, protecting the rights of orphans, property, bringing forth witnesses and testimony and having no court system, no laws and no judges.

“Consume not your goods between you in vanity; neither proffer it to the judges, that you may sinfully consume a portion of other men’s goods, and that wittingly.” (Qur’an 2:188)

So, is Allah (swt) saying that no one can judge but Allah?

It is very clear that when Allah and his Messenger have given clear-cut rulings we are not to contravene them at all.

It would be very curious to give human beings laws about punishing adulterers and fornicators, protecting the rights of orphans, property, bringing forth witnesses and testimony and having no court system, no laws and no judges.

“Consume not your goods between you in vanity; neither proffer it to the judges, that you may sinfully consume a portion of other men’s goods, and that wittingly.” (Qur’an 2:188)

“And if there should be a group among you who has believed in that with which I have been sent and a group that has not believed, then be patient until Allah judges between us. And He is the best of judges.” (Qur’an 7:87)

Allah (swt) has clearly mentioned other judges than him. First and foremost are the verses that have already mentioned the Blessed Prophet (saw) also being a judge.

Allah (swt) has clearly mentioned the steps that believers are to take when having disagreements.

“And if you differ in any matter among yourselves, then refer it back to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day.” (Qur’an 4:59)

“And whatever you are at variance on, the judgement thereof belongs to Allah. That then is Allah, my Lord; in Him I have put my trust, and in Him I turn penitent.” (Qur’an 42:10)

Just like those who have misrepresented the position of the Ibadi school in the following verses:

“Moreover, if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Qur’an 49:9)

You can read more about that here:

Pro Alid YouTube channel throws Ibn Abbas under the bus!

So it is not that we do not believe in arbitration but that we do not concede to arbitration on a matter in which Allah (swt) has already made the law clear

. We seek the judgement and the guidance and the arbitration of the Blessed Messenger, the Prophet Muhammed (saw). We do this because it is the judgement of Allah (swt) that we do so on any matters in which Allah (swt) has not shown us.

It is not that no one on Earth has the ability to heal, but Allah is the best of healers.

It is not that no one on Earth can assist, but that Allah is the best of helpers.

It is not that no one on this earth can give love, but Allah is the best of those who give love.

It is not that no one on this earth can give mercy, but Allah is the best of those who give mercy.

It is not that we cannot take hadith, but that the hadith of Allah is the best.

It is not that we cannot take from other sources that claim to be revelation, but Allah is regulator muhayminun over them.

It is not that we cannot take judgement from other than Allah, but that when Allah has made his judgement clear, we do not take other than it.

It is not that we cannot take judgement from other than Allah, it’s just that Allah’s is the best and final judgement.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

The Qur’an Only Religion is intellectually bankrupt

“O you who have believed, fear Allah, and speak words of appropriate justice.” (Qur’an 33:70)

﷽

We find the “Hafs Qur’an Only” Religion to be intellectually bankrupt.

Beyond the idea of saying that ‘I bear witness that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah’ upon entering Islam, or saying Salawat upon the Blessed Messenger (saw) to be acts of shirk—or association of partners with Allah (swt), they really have little more to offer in theology.

We find no attempt at all to discuss theological issues about the attributes of Allah in any meaningful way.

No discussion on issues like free will and determinism, no discussion on whether we see Allah in the hereafter, rather souls remain in hell or are released, rather Allah is divinely simplistic in being or unity, rather the Qur’an is created or uncreated, rather than who or what creates actions, nor any meaningful definition of the sifat of Allah (swt).

Just rail against Hadith. It is all they can bring to the table as to the rest….good luck!

As regards the Quraniyoon.

We can’t think of a greater diabolical system for the systematic dismantling of Islam.

We are talking about communal worship and communal bonding and the masjid as a place of khutbah calling for social justice. Erased.

At what point is this platform not a sting or intelligence operation to dismantle islam as a political and ideological source that challenges western hegemony?

Look how fragmented Protestant churches are.

But imagine now, we don’t even have a church. Just private study circles that splinter into another private study circle. You are left with your translation of the Qur’an and your own individual speculations.

The claim they make is that the Qur’an is sufficient and clear, yet we keep seeing YouTube videos of them popping up wanting to explain Allah’s kitab and in the process refute other Qur’an only views.

The Arabic language itself becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth and not the Qur’an.

Allah doesn’t need a book, he can give direct gnosis.

What is the degree of fluency that you need before you start telling people what Allah is and is not saying based upon your personal speculation?

Look at all other faith traditions; Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, etc….

Why is it they all have structure, ritual and suddenly these people want to come along and dismantle it?

The success of that movement = handing over the so-called third world over to complete dominion of the West.

At the end of the day, this movement turns the Qur’an into a simple self-help book. You could find it in the same section as a book with the title ‘a road to a better you.’

In fact, one of them mentioned recently that you don’t even need the Qur’an! The Qur’an is just a shortcut!

Nor have we seen among those who follow the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion any meaningful attempt to engage in theological issues.

Yet the only thing that the adherents of the “Hafs Qur’an Only Religion” can offer is constant railing against Hadith literature.

We have a feeling that many of these people (at least those we met) are well-educated but don’t really have insight and wisdom. It is possible that many of them were exposed to the very heavy-handed tactics of traditional Muslims. It would make anyone want to run away from it all.

The fact that many of the adherents of the “Hafs Qur’an Only Religion” rely heavily upon orientalist writings is very telling.

When we announced what our intentions were for this blog, a Quraniyoon follower approached us. She was (is) a level-headed woman. Her husband is of Pakistani origin. They raise money for charitable causes… and work with NGOs.

Her husband was quite excited to learn that we put emphasis upon the Qur’an.

Yet, he was unable to answer questions about the textual history of Islam, that the concept of the number (19) MIGHT work for certain qir’aat of the Qur’an, but not for others.

That we can’t even speak about “over it are 19” until we have established that the basmallah is indeed a verse over every surah of the Qur’an.

How do we do that?!!

Submission.org has appealed to extra-Qur’anic material to prove their claims.

We respected their identity, but we parted ways, telling the husband (who got easily irritated) that we did not believe in their ‘Hafs Qur’an only Religion.’

We turned down funding from this couple because we will not promote a cause that we don’t believe in nor do we find to be intellectually viable at all.

We have found that many among the ‘Hafs Qur’an only Religion’, for the most part, are as easily agitated, turned up, and unfocused as are many traditionalist Muslims.

So yes, the ‘Hafs Qur’an Only Religion’ may be a rallying cry for Muslims who have had it up to their neck with ‘traditionalists’.

Yet it is important for those Western Muslims, those in Turkey, Kuwait, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Egypt, or anywhere else who are enamored with the ‘Hafs Qur’an Only Religion’ to understand just how intellectually bankrupt the position is. It’s just almost like they have these small support groups which become echo chambers for their ideas. All we ever see is railing against the hadith.

A movement that cannot interact with the compilation and transmission of the Qur’an in any meaningful way, nor a movement that interacts with the theological questions that have gripped the Muslim ummah is not a movement or position we would want to invest my trust in.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, hadith, hafs-quran-only-religion, Islam, private-interpretations, quran, quran-only-movement, quran-only-religion, quraniyoon, religion, sunnah

October 23, 2025 · 4:39 am

Is showing love and reverence to the Blessed Prophet considered worship?

“Allah and His angels send blessings to the Prophet: O you that believe! Send blessings on him, and salute him with all respect.” (Qur’an 33:56)

﷽

What an honour it is that Allah, exalted and glorified above all else, has singled out his beloved Messenger (saw) to be singled out for praise and blessings. The one who’s very name means the praiseworthy!

This article is written to refute the extremist view of the (Hafs Qur’an only Religion) as well as others that believe that we as Muslims when we say: “ashadu an la ilaha illalah wa ashadu an muhammadur rasoolullah” (I bear witness that there is no God except God and I bear witness that Muhammed is the Messenger of God.) is a form of shirk!

For those who do not know, shirk is the most heinous sin in Islam. It is the association of partners with God.

Here are links to a website that espouses a view that is both extreme and unwarranted.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230930040405/https://submission.org/Making_Salawat.html

*Note* For some reason the link was not working. However, was able to retrieve it via the archives.

Muslims have handed down the tradition that when we enter into Islam we bear witness of foremost importance that there is only one God worthy of worship. We also bare witness that we accept as God’s Messenger, the one who brought his message.

Tawassul and Istigatha according to the Ibadi school.

“In which their prayer will be, “Glory be to You, O Allah!” and their greeting will be, “Peace!” and their closing prayer will be, “All praise (l-ḥamdu) is for Allah—Lord of all worlds!”
(Qur’an 10:10)

Note that in the above verse it says that all the hamd (praise) is for Allah. Yet, Allah (swt) himself says the following:

“And from [part of] the night, pray with it as additional [worship] for you; it is expected that your Lord will resurrect you to a praised (maḥmūdan) station.” (Qur’an 17:79)

“And those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in what has been sent down upon Muhammed – and it is the truth from their Lord – He will remove from them their misdeeds and amend their condition.” (Qur’an 47:2)

“And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmed, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic.” (Qur’an 61:6)

Muhammed and Ahmed both derive from the Arabic root meaning “praise” (hamd). Muhammed means “the praised one,” while Ahmed means “the more/most praiseworthy”.

Root word: Both names come from the Arabic root word “ḥ-m-d,” which means “praise”. This root is found in phrases like “Al-hamdu lillah” (praise be to God).

Mahmud, Muhammed and Ahmed. All mean one worthy of praise, praiseworthy.

So we should not be concerned with followers of the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion come along and say that Muslims who say Tashahhud or Shahada are associating partners with Allah.

Mentioning another along Allah (swt) in our prayers or testification of faith is far from worshipping that person.

There are many places in the Qur’an where Allah is mentioned alongside the Noble Messenger (saw). There are also many places in the Qur’an where Allah is mentioned alongside his blessed angels.

“O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains of interest if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of war from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.” (Qur’an 2:278-279)

It would have been easy enough just to say ‘a war from Allah’.

“Indeed, those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers – upon them will be the curse of Allah and of the angels and the people, all together.” (Qur’an 2:161)

Again, it would have been enough to say the ‘curse of Allah’.

“Those – their repayment will be that upon them is the curse of Allah and the angels and the people, all together.” (Qur’an 3:87)

Again, it would have been sufficient to say ‘the curse of Allah’.

Those who annoy Allah and the Prophet, Allah curses them in this life and in the hereafter.” (Qur’an 33:57)

Annoying the Blessed Prophet (saw) is deserving of a curse just as if one were to annoy Allah (swt).

“He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah; but those who turn away – We have not sent you over them as a guardian.” (Qur’an 4:80)

Here the Qur’an has compared obeying the Messenger to obeying Allah himself. Assuredly, this is more than sufficient proof testifying that the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is the Messenger of Allah is not idol worship. Such a notion is truly absurd, to say the least.

What did Rasul Allah (saw) think when Angel Gabriel (as) said:

”Indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.” (Qur’an 21:92)

Was Gabriel (as) making ‘shirk’ when he said that?

Here is something else for people who hold such a view to think about.

“You alone do we worship; You alone do we ask for help.” (Qur’an 1:5)

So are we to understand that if one were to ask the doctor to cure our children, we are now associating partners with Allah?

If one were to hold a belief that if they were to pursue a university degree that it would somehow help their lot in life that this would be tantamount to an association of partners with Allah?

What is important for the person to realize is that the Creator is in control of all affairs. The Creator is Sovereign. If one were to believe that the doctor himself can cure their child, then yes, this is an association of partners with Allah. If one were to believe that the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) can guide us independent of Allah, then yes, that is in error. If one were to believe that their university degree will, in and of itself, guarantee them a livelihood, then yes, this necessitates a dangerous position. If one believes that a knife can cut them independently of the power of Allah (swt), then yes, that is in error.

Adherents of the Qur’an only Religion do not think deeply about these things because their religion is theologically bankrupt.

However, if we believe that Allah has endowed the doctor with the ability to cure our child, and that Allah has blessed the Noble Muhammed (saw) with the ability to guide, and that our degree could increase our chances of getting employment by Allah’s grace, then this is the proper focus.

The focus, of course, should always be Allah (swt).

It is said that this world that we live in is also known as Darul Asbaab– a world of means.

Asbaab can mean ’cause’, ‘reason’.

So we live in a world of cause and effect.

When a Muslim does something kind to another Muslim, one will usually say to the other ‘JazakAllahu Khayran‘ (thanks be to God who gave the provision). If you were ignorant of this, you might say to a Muslim, ‘Thank you, brother’. The Muslim may respond, “Al hamdulilllah wa ShukrAllah” (All the praise be to Allah and Thanks to Allah). Notice that the praise and the thanks are deflected away from the person and directed to Allah.

However, if someone says ‘you’re welcome‘, it is not haram (forbidden) nor are they committing blasphemy. No one would assume that if a person said ‘you’re welcome‘ that they are making a claim to divinity.

The reason one says jazakAllahu Khayran to a person is that there is a recognition that Allah (swt) is giving you provision through this person.

Examples in the Qur’an of people making sujud -prostration to other than Allah.

“So he raised his parents upon the throne, and they bowed to him in prostration. And he said, “O my father, this is the explanation of my vision of before. My Lord has made it a reality. And he was certainly good to me when he took me out of prison and brought you here from bedouin life after Satan had induced estrangement between me and my brothers. Indeed, my Lord is Subtle in what He wills. Indeed, it is He who is the Knowing, the Wise.” (Qur’an 12:100)

“When Joseph said to his father: O my father. Lo. I saw in a dream eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them prostrating themselves unto me.” (Qur’an 12:4)

Allah (swt) himself orders the prostration of all the angels and jinn to Adam.

“And when We said to the angels, “Prostrate to Adam,” and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He said, “Should I prostrate to one You created from clay?” (Qur’an 17:61)

Say, “Indeed, my prayer, my rites of sacrifice, my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the worlds.” (Qur’an 6:162)

After the Death of the Noble and Blessed Prophet (saw) Abu Bakr (ra) said this very eye opening statement:

Narrated `Aisha:

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.’ ” (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.”)

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:1241)

Let us look at this statement:

“Abu Bakr said, “Amma ba’du, whoever amongst you worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, Allah is alive and will never die.”

Subhan’Allah! That means that the love and devotion that the companions had for the Blessed and Noble Prophet (saw)…..bordered on….understand? It bordered on…but it did not exceed! It did not cross that threshold!

May Allah open the Eyes and Hearts of the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, blessed-muhammed, hadith, Islam, quran, quraniyoon, religion, shirk, sunnah, the-hafs-quran-only-religion, the-praise-worthy, the-praised-one

October 22, 2025 · 11:25 pm

Dr. Jeffery Lang: An Argument Advanced by Quraniyoon Refuted

“And woe, that day, to those that reject the truth! Then in what hadith, after this, will they believe?” (Qur’an 77:49-50)

﷽

“And woe, that day, to those that reject the truth! Then in what hadith, after this, will they believe?” (Qur’an 77:49-50)

This is certainly their pre-eminent verse. It is a mega verse verse among all the Quranist.

Many people who believe in the ‘Hafs Qur’an Only Religion’ will often advance this particular verse of the Qur’an to advance their position.

Here is an interesting argument put forward by Dr. Jeffery Lang, one of the greatest Muslim minds of our age.

“It is doubtful that hadith in these passages refers to the narratives relating to the deeds and utterances of the Prophet. In the first place, it came to have this restricted meaning in Islamic scholarship well after his lifetime. Secondly, it is inconceivable that while the Prophet was alive his enemies preferred his hadith to the Qur’an or were promoting them in an effort to undermine his mission. Instead, hadith must carry here one of its more common connotations, such as speech, chitchat, conversation, prattle, gossip, tales, report, or account.”

Source: (pg. 174 “Losing My Religion: A Call for Help-Jeffery Lang”)

There are two points to be gleaned from this.

a) In the first place, it came to have this restricted meaning in Islamic scholarship well after his lifetime.

This is true, and Dr. Jeffery Lang has an irrefutable point here.

b). Secondly, it is inconceivable that while the Prophet was alive his enemies preferred his hadith to the Qur’an or were promoting them in an effort to undermine his mission.

This is also an excellent point! Why on earth would the enemies of the Blessed Messenger (saw) use his hadith over the Qur’an? In fact, why would they use his oral narrations at all?

So let us break this verse down:

“And woe, that day, to the rejectors of truth!” -This statement is talking about those who are rejecting the Qur’an. It is directed towards an immediate target audience, towards a future impending doom.

That is why the adherents of the Quran Only Religion are at a loss to try to use this statement as a reference to those who use hadith. You can shut them down every single time.

Jeffery Lang (May Allah have abundant mercy on him).

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, hadith, hafs-quran-only, Islam, professor-jeffery-lang, quran, quraniyoon, religion, sunnah

October 21, 2025 · 2:13 am

Critique of the argument that Muhammed wrote the Qur’an.

“Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and the One whom Cherishes, Who created” (Qur’an 96:1)

﷽

We have seen this issue raised by Christians repeatedly. We have also remembered Dr. Anis Shorrosh using it in his debate with Dr. Jamal Badawi. Debate: (Qur’an word of God or word of Muhammed?)

It is one of the reasons why we choose the Yusuf Ali translation above.

One could ask: what was God thinking?

You are approaching a man that is obviously illiterate, and you’re asking him to read, again and again….and yet again.

However, the narrative shows that the term ‘Iqra‘ can mean read (as from a book) or recite, or repeat (as in a repetition).

What we find fascinating is that the account of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and his receiving of the revelation are not found in the Qur’an. Rather, it is found in secondary sources. We think this is very profound.

In the Bible, we would read the historical bits, get some revelation as well as the thoughts of the narrators all mixed in together.

The very fact that the Qur’an does not have a detailed narrative of how the Blessed Messenger (saw) received the revelation speaks well for the Prophet (saw), the Qur’an, and the veracity of Islam.

In fact, it is one of the most remarkable things for us. Because we never hear in the Bible what that was like. What is that moment like when you encounter the divine? What is it like to know that you are being appointed as a Prophet of God? What is your mental state? How does that feel?

That has to be indescribable beyond words! Powerful!

In the Bible, we are just given the impression that one day the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to write, so he picked up his pen and off he went. Not really inspiring. Rather lackluster for a divine encounter.

“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammed], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.” (Qur’an 10:94)

Question: If Muhammed (saw) were in the habit of reading and writing, he wouldn’t need to ask the people of the book anything. He could simply go to their text for verification.

Now, this is, of course, assuming that they had their text with them.

However, the interesting thing about this passage is asking the Blessed Messenger (saw) to verify the truth outside the Qur’an or at the very least corroborate with what the divine directive was, by checking outside references.

No doubt those who follow the ‘Qur’an Only Religion’ would like to dismiss the dominant narrative for two reasons.

Our colleague was in an exchange with Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, @ our Beacon http://www.galaxydastak.com refuting the points he made that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was the one who wrote the Qur’an. Needless to say, he was banned from the forum for ‘not participating in the project’.

He was initially invited there by a friend and former teacher, Hamza Abdulmalik from IPCI. He believes his former teacher was testing the waters before he decided to leave Islam for the “Qur’an Only Religion“.

The two reasons that ‘Qur’an Only Religion’ would want to reject the dominant narrative are these:

The very first word ‘iqra‘ suggests that the Qur’an is composed in a language that has depth, nuances, clarity, and ambiguity. This takes the wind out of one of their sails. Namely, that the Qur’an is clear; which usually means “Agree with our interpretation.”
The very first word ‘iqra’ also suggests that the Qur’an would be transmitted through both written and oral means. The idea that the Qur’an would be transmitted orally is problematic to those who castigate oral transmission in its entirety.

Understand that point 2. above is their sole reason for making the claim that the Blessed Prophet (saw) wrote the Qur’an. It is because they do not like the idea of the Qur’an being preserved through oral transmission.

This might cause other uncomfortable thoughts like: “What else may be preserved through oral transmission?“

The “Qur’an Only Religion” does not like the historical narrative that has been passed down to us about how the Blessed Messenger (saw) received the revelation.

Let us see if their perspective holds true.

“Read in the name of your Lord Who created. He created man from a clot. Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,” (Qur’an 96:1-3)

If the Blessed Messenger (saw) is being asked to ‘read‘ rather than recite/repeat, where is this text at?

In other words, whoever is telling Muhammed (saw) to read, what exactly is he being asked to read? Is it a divine template? Is this an ethereal revelation that is appearing like a holographic image?

Wouldn’t it make sense to say, ‘write‘?

So let us deal with the next point.

“Who taught (to write) with the pen. Taught man what he knew not.” (Qur’an 96:4-5)

So the “Qur’an Only Religion” will say, “How can Muhammed be taught by the PEN if he cannot write?“

However, this assumes two things.

That this verse does not generally address the gift of literacy, which is a blessing from Allah (swt).
That Muhammed (saw) is the one being addressed here. After all, the verse does say, taught man (plural)…
. To suggest that the above verse is imperative. Meaning that Allah (swt) has taught every person to read that would be incorrect. Vast swathes of humanity still cannot read. The proliferation of literacy is a modern phenomenon.

“In honored sheets, exalted and purified, In the hands of scribes noble, virtuous.” (Qur’an 80:13-16)

It would have been a perfect occasion to say, “I will teach you the use of the pen, or I will teach you that which you know not.”

In fact, we never get an example of the Blessed Messenger (saw) reading the Qur’an to anyone. However, we do have examples of him reciting it.

“A messenger from Allah, reciting pure pages.” (Qur’an 98:2)

“Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur’an) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and promulgate it; but when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital’ (Qur’an 75: 16-19).

Why not ‘move not thy eyes‘ concerning the Qur’an?

Why not ‘move not thy pen‘ concerning the Qur’an?

It is interesting to note here that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was told to not be hasty in his recitation; nothing about ‘move not thy pen‘ concerning the Qur’an.

Now we are going to use a translation of the Qur’an that we think is one of the worst possible. Interestingly enough, this translation gets as close as is grammatically possible to supporting the proposition that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote the Qur’an.

So we are going to use a translation that actually favours our interlocutors (Qu’ran only Religion) in this regard.

“Neither did you (O Muhammed SAW) read any book before it (this Quran), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.” (Qur’an 29:48) – Muhsin Khan translation.

We would encourage the readers to see how this verse is translated from disparate translations from translators with disparate theological backgrounds etc…

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/29/48/default.htm

The reason we chose the ‘Muhsin Khan’ translation above; is because it can give the impression that Muhammed (saw) didn’t read any book before the Qur’an; meaning he can now! Nor has he (saw) written any book (until now!!)…

So let us put our focus on the second part of this verse…

“In that case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.”

Let us say that for the sake of argument we take the understanding of those who claim the Blessed Prophet (saw) wrote the Qur’an. Meaning that, suddenly, Muhammed (saw) is now able to read and write.

How does that alleviate the doubt of unbelievers?

It seems the argument being made is that “Haha, you can’t doubt that the Qur’an is a product of Muhammed because he can read and write, and therefore wrote it!

Erm…….. (stares off blankly into space)….. are we missing something here?

What argument is that? Seriously?

We would encourage anyone to carefully read how “Qur’an Only Religion” will posture in regard to the above verse. They half quote it.

Let us look at some of their other claims.

“Moreover, they say, “Legends of the former peoples which he has written, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.” (Qur’an 25:5)

We actually found this argument to be very desperate. The fact that (unbelievers) alleged that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote down the Qur’an is now proof that he actually did write the Qur’an?

This is a specious argument for anyone who is intellectually honest.

“We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.” (Qur’an 16:103)

“Moreover, the Unbelievers would almost trip you up with their eyes when they hear the Message; and they say: “Surely he is possessed!” (Qur’an 68:51)

Let’s stop for a moment on this above claim. The claim that ‘he is possessed.’

This is a very fascinating and insightful claim against our Blessed Prophet (saw). The unbelievers ascribed to the Qur’an a supra natural origin. They were just not ready to say that it came from Allah. However, the fact that even they ascribed to it a supra natural origin is quite powerful.

Let us follow the fuzzy logic given to us by these people who claim that the Blessed Messenger (saw) could read and write the Qur’an.

So here it is:

Just because the (unbelievers) charged Muhammed (saw) with writing the Qur’an, does it also follow that a man taught him the Qur’an?

Just because the (unbelievers) charged Muhammed (saw) that he was possessed means that it is true?

So those people who make such claims would do well to remember it was non-Muslims who charged that the Prophet Muhammed (saw) wrote the Qur’an.

The first claim that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote the Qur’an came from (unbelievers). That is the company that followers of the ‘Quran Only‘ religion are in; not the company we would like to be in.

Another text they would use.

“And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), And then severed his life-artery.” (Qur’an 69:44-46)

There is certainly a lot to be desired in this translation.

Invented is taqawwala -this should have been translated as spoken

That word is nowhere being used for writing.

See the following: http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qwl#(69:44:2)

sayings is l-aqawili

So this should read: “And if he had spoken some sayings over Us, We surely should have...”

seized him –la-akhadhna-can be translated as to take or to seize or to call to account.

his right hand-bil-yamini-can be translated as hand or oath.

So this should read: “And if he had spoken some sayings over Us, We surely should have seized him with power and might.”

Alternatively, it could read: “And if he had spoken some sayings over Us, We surely would have called him to account for his oath.”

The first part is how we understand the second part. If someone is speaking and saying it would make sense to say, ‘we seize him by his tongue.’

That is why that argument put forward by the ‘Hafs Qur’an Only Religion’ is easily dismissed. When someone is speaking lies, why is the attention directed towards the hand?

So let us take their understanding and translate it the way they want to: “We surely should have seized him by his right hand.”

Why doesn’t the text before it say:

“So if he had written false sayings concerning Us.”

None of them dare to translate as written.

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/69/44/

“Had he uttered any other teachings.”-Rashad Khilafa

“Also, had he attributed anything falsely to Us.”-The Monotheist Group.

In fact, the only person trying to be sly among the Quraniyoon in their translation is Shabir Ahmed

“So if he had ascribed his sayings unto Us.” -Shabir Ahmed

Why handle the Qur’an in such a false manner? Why the deception? What is the agenda here?

Was the Qur’an only revealed to those who were literate? Even today, there are vast areas of the world where people cannot read and write. What of the situation in the past? What was the situation of slaves, farmers, and people from other trades?

How was a textual Qur’an distributed to all of these people? If that is the case, why is there a dearth of written Qur’anic material from the early period?

“However, if they turn away, you are responsible only for conveying the message clearly.” (Qur’an 16:82)

If the Blessed Messenger (saw) was writing the Qur’an and the Qur’an is clear, there would be no need for him to explain anything to anyone. He would simply tell them to refer to the book itself! Better yet to their own written copies, parchments, etc. I think we know better.

We think the idea that the Blessed Messenger (saw) wrote the Qur’an is both intellectually lazy and the result of wanting to skirt around the issue of the preservation through oral transmission of the Qur’an.

We think that issues are nuanced, and sometimes a little more academically challenging than we are ready to admit. Some answers are simply not microwavable.

Something else we want to point out. Was it possible that the Blessed Messenger (saw) learned to recognize and understand some words in the Arabic script over time? Of course!

When our colleague was the Executive Docent Officer at the Singapore Sultan Mosque and leading the ATMT (Awareness Through Mosque Tour) program, they used to have fun showing copies of the Qur’an to curious non-Muslims.

They would open a page of the Qur’an that had many usages of the word ‘Allah‘ in Arabic. They would point out the word. They would then ask them to find that word anywhere on the two pages. They did without fail! They asked them to read that word, and they said, ‘Allah’!

For example, they have highlighted the word ‘Allah’ in the Arabic text below. See if you can find at least 3 other examples of it.

This was a great interactive experience for our colleague and them. Our point here is that it’s possible that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was able to recognize words (after all they are simply symbols) and say or repeat what they mean.

“Neither did you (O Muhammed SAW) read any book before it (this Quran), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. If that was the case, indeed, the followers of falsehood might have doubted.” (Qur’an 29:48)

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, hadith, Ibadi, Islam, muhammed, quran, quran-authorhsip, quran-origins, religion, revelation, sunnah

October 19, 2025 · 9:32 am

Nothing left out of this book? The Manipulation of the Qur’an by the Quraniyoon.

“And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah or denies His verses? Indeed, the wrongdoers will not succeed.” (Qur’an 6:21)

﷽

Now one thing you will immediately notice when dealing with the hafs Qur’an only religion is that most of them do not even speak Arabic. Most of them try and appeal to converts (who have very poor or weak Arabic). They have a reason for doing this, because they prey upon the fact that you do not understand the Arabic and thus, are able to manipulate what the text says.

A prime example is their manipulation of this verse:

“We did not leave anything out of this book.” (Qur’an 6:38)

Now, as this website is directed primarily to an English-speaking audience, let us ask you this.

You may wish to see the various ways it has been translated here: https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/6/38/#gsc.tab=0

You will note that ‘The Monotheist Group’ -a quranist translation has rendered the Arabic as:

“And there is not a creature on the earth, nor a bird that flies with its wings, except they belong to nations like you belong. We did not leave anything out of the record; then to their Lord they will be gathered.” (Qur’an 6:38)

The verse in full actually states:

“All the creatures on earth, and all the birds that fly with wings, are communities like you. We did not leave anything out of this book. To their Lord, all these creatures will be summoned.” (Qur’an 6:38)

Is there a difference between saying:

“We did not leave anything out of this book.” and

“We did not leave anything out of the book.”

If one were to say ‘the book‘, then this is vague. What book are we actually referring to? If we say ‘this book‘, then we are referring to a book that is actually with me.

The Arabic word used here is l-kitabi. L-kitabi need not necessarily be a reference to the Qur’an at all.

It is the same word that is used in the following verses:

“And there followed them successors who inherited the book, taking the commodities of this lower life and saying, “It will be forgiven for us.” And if an offer like it comes to them, they will take it. Was not the covenant of the book taken from them that they would not say about Allah except the truth, and they studied what was in it? And the home of the Hereafter is better for those who fear Allah, so will you not use reason?” (Qur’an 7:169)

It is very obvious that l-kitabi is not a reference to the Qur’an in the above text.

“And We conveyed to the Children of Israel in the book that, “You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach haughtiness.” (Qur’an 17:4)

It is very obvious that l-kitabi is not a reference to the Qur’an in the above text as it was sent down to the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw).

“And do not argue with the People of the book except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our Allah and your Allah is one; and we are Muslims to Him.” (Qur’an 29:46)

It is very obvious that l-kitabi is not a reference to the Qur’an in the above verse.

“Have you not considered those who practice hypocrisy, saying to their brothers who have disbelieved among the People of the Book, “If you are expelled, we will surely leave with you, and we will not obey, in regard to you, anyone – ever; and if you are fought, we will surely aid you.” But Allah testifies that they are liars.” (Qu’ran 59:11)

Can you imagine Allah (swt) calling (ahli Qur’an) people of the Qur’an liars? Obviously, l-kitabi above is not a reference to the Qur’an.

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the book and the polytheist will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6)

Can you imagine Allah (swt) saying those who disbelieve among the (ahli Qur’an) will be with the polytheists in hell forever? It is obvious that l-kitabi above is not a reference to the Qur’an.

The logical contradiction.

“We did not leave anything out of this book.” (Qur’an 6:38)

In order for this verse to be true in the way that those who follow the Qur’an only religion would have us to believe, this verse would have to be the last verse revealed in the Qur’an. If any other verses come after it, this entails a logical and absolutely devastating blow to their position.

The Qur’an was not sent down all at once.

“And those who disbelieve say: Why is not the Quran revealed to him all at once? Thus, that We may strengthen your heart thereby. And We have revealed it to you gradually, in stages.” (Qur’an 25:32)

Also, if they don’t know the last verse of the Qur’an to be revealed that is also a logical and devastating blow to the way they understand the verse. Because it means that what was revealed first and last has been left out of the Qur’an! This is important for their argument.

Allah (swt) has clearly told us that he has not included everything in the Qur’an.

“And messengers, We have mentioned unto you before, and messengers, We have not mentioned unto you; and Allah spoke directly to Moses.” (Qur’an 4:164)

So how exactly do we understand this verse in a way that is consistent with not only logic but with the Qur’an itself?

“And the book will be placed open, and you will see the criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, “Oh, woe to us! What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has enumerated it?” And they will find what they did present before them. And your Lord does injustice to no one.” (Qur’an 18:49)

Are we really to understand this to mean: “So as for he who is given the Qur’an in his right hand, he will say, “Here, read my Qur’an!” No. That is ridiculous.

It is very obvious that l-kitabi (this book) above is not a referee to the Qur’an at all. Rather, it is a reference to the book that contains each and every single act that we have done. The Qur’an, for example, obviously does not contain each and every evil small or great that humans have done.

So as for he who is given his book in his right hand, he will say, “Here, read my book! (Qur’an 69:19)

“But as for he who is given his book behind his back.” (Qur’an 84:10)

Are we really to understand this as “But as for he who is given his Qur’an behind his back?”

It is best if we understand (Qur’an 6:38) in light of a verse that will help bring clarity to the confusion of those who follow the myriad of sects of the Qur’an Only Religion.

It is crystal clear that the above text is a reference to the book of deeds. The verse is talking about disbelievers on the day of judgement.

If only they were guided to reflect upon the following verse:

“There is no creature on earth whose sustenance is not undertaken by Allah. He knows where it lives and where it rests. Everything is in a Book that is clear.” (Qur’an 11:6)

It should be more than obvious that both the verses above refer to some celestial register where the minutia of all things are kept, and not to the Qur’an.

Prima Qur’an Conclusion:

The verse (Qur’an 6:38) itself does not indicate if it is talking about the Qur’an or not.

There is no way out of this airtight argument from an intra-Qura’n perspective. Accept that the verses mentioned above are talking about the book of deeds that is with Allah (swt).

The followers of the Qur’an Only Religion don’t want to accept this because it completely nukes one of their central talking points. It takes a talking point away from them that they use to scam the masses.

Dear readers, those people who follow the Qur’an only religion more often than not have very poor and weak knowledge of the Arabic language. Many of them can barely speak it, if at all. You do not see them offering to recite to you the Qur’an in Arabic, with proper recitation. The level of understanding of Arabic among them is quite atrocious. This is not to be mean; however, to be brutally honest. This is why they rely upon such very weak arguments to present their case.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as allah, hadith, hafs-quran-only-religion, Islam, manipulation, quran, quraniyoon, religion, sunnah

October 18, 2025 · 4:08 am

Engaging with the Pseudo-Islamic:

“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.

Pseudo meaning: pretentious, bogus, sham, phoney, imitation, mock, artificial.

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 transmitted the 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:

Why we don’t follow the Qur’an Only Religion.

Why we don’t follow the “Qur’an Only” religion.

Not All of Allah’s Revelation is in the Qur’an.

Not All of Allah’s Revelation is in the Qur’an.

Is the Qur’an a detailed explanation of all things? (Prima Qur’an policy on comments from this group)

Is the Qur’an a detailed explanation of everything?

Which Qur’an do the followers of the Qur’an Only Religion believe in?

Which Qur’an does the Qur’an only religion believe in?

How the followers of the Qur’an Only Religion become Mushriks.

How the Quraniyoon become Mushriks

Does the Qur’an Only Religion claim that Al Fatiha is not part of the Qur’an?

Does the Qur’an Only religion claim that Al Fatiha is not part of the Qur’an?

How we know the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is divine guidance.

How we know the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is divine guidance.

Qur’an Only Sect Kala Kato Burns Four Children Alive and Continues a Campaign of Terror.

Qur’an Only sect Kala Kato burns four children alive and continues a campaign of terror.

Who can understand the mutashabih verses? Analysis of Qur’an 3:7

Who can understand the mutashabih verses? Analysis of Quran 3:7

Questions for the Qur’an Only Religion that can’t be swept under a rug.

Questions for the Qur’an Only religion That Can’t Be Swept Under A Rug.

Self Proclaimed Prophet: Rashad Khalafa Father of the number 19 theory.

The self proclaimed Quranist prophet: Rashad Khalifa

Over it are 19: Critique of the number 19 pattern used by Quraniyoon.

Over it are 19?

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

Orientalist Dr. Harold Motzki takes ‘Qur’an-Only’ Religion to task

Prohibition against writing hadith? Refuting the claims of the Quraniyoon.

The Prohibition against writing hadith?

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].

Does the Quran itself instruct us to reject all hadith?

Qur’an only religion and their confusion in regard to Qur’an 4:157

The Qur’an Only Religion and their confusion on Qur’an 4:157.

The appropriate age for a female to marry and bear children according to the Qur’an alone.

Contrary to what the Quraniyoon may tell you, a woman can get married as young as 12 years old according to the Qur’an.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/the-appropriate-age-for-a-female-to-marry-and-bear-children/

The Age of Aisha (ra) and the Highly Detailed Qur’an?

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-age-of-aisha-and-the-highly-detailed-quran/embed/#?secret=UmvkmjuH0v#?secret=oTvtda14Ml

The Qur’an Only and Uzair

The Qur’an Only movement and Uzair

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 ‘Galaxy Dastak‘. 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:

Critique of the argument that Muhammed wrote the Qur’an.

Is Showing Love and Reference for the Noble Prophet Idol Worship? Refutation of the Qur’an Only Religion.

Is showing love and reverence to the Blessed Prophet considered worship?

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.

Dr. Jeffery Lang: An Argument Advanced by Quraniyoon Refuted

Handling the words of the Blessed Prophet. The difference between Ad litteram and Ad sensum transmission.

The Blessed Sandals. Handling the words attributed to the Prophet Muhammed (saw).

Use and abuse of the word hikma by Quranist.

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.

Use & Abuse of the word Hikma by the Quran Only religion.

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?

You can read about that here:

https://primaquran.com/2017/01/14/hating-a-hadith-just-for-the-sake-of-hating-a-hadith/embed/#?secret=J77YHpdtAE#?secret=p95SLnQHAH

Is the Qur’an clear?

An introduction to this topic. A brief discussion about the Mutazlite Shafi’i theologian Shaykh Abd Al Jabbar.

Is the Qur’an clear?

Hafs Qur’an Only religion is intellectually bankrupt.

The Qur’an Only Religion is intellectually bankrupt

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.

Salaat in the Qur’an is NOT Ritual Prayer? Examining the claim of some so called Quranist.

The Qur’an only religion and their confusion in regards to Allah’s judgement.

The Hafs Qur’an Only Religion and their confusion in regards to Allah’s judgement.

Nothing left out of this book: The manipulation of the Qur’an Only Religion.

Nothing left out of this book? The Manipulation of the Qur’an by the Quraniyoon.

Sam Gerrans Hafs Qur’an Only Advocate: The Qur’an Teaches That The Earth Is Flat.

“The Qur’an teaches that the Earth is flat” -Sam Gerrans (Qur’an Only Advocate)

The Detailed Qur’an and the Sabeans

The Detailed Qur’an and the Sabeans

SECTION ON AHMADIYYA B OR THE QADIANI MOVEMENT.

Ahmadiyya B is not be confused with Ahmadiyya A (The Lahori Jama’at)

ANWAR SADAT (MUSLIM CANDADIAN PREACHER) FITTING ANSWER TO A QADIANI (AHMADI B) QUESTION.

https://primaquran.com/2024/01/27/anwar-sadats-answer-to-a-qadiani-ahmadi-question/embed/#?secret=zyVFLY5eNv#?secret=r1M3SchX8N

CONVERSATION WITH A MEMBER OF THE QADIANI SECT (AHMADI B)

https://primaquran.com/2016/12/09/conversations-with-a-member-of-the-ahmadi-sect/embed/#?secret=1uOCadqRpx#?secret=EdbGYVLkrx

REFUTATION OF MIRZA GHULAM AHMAD & THE GREATEST COVER UP IN CHURCH HISTORY?

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/refutation-of-mirza-ghulam-ahmad-the-greatest-cover-up-in-church-history/embed/#?secret=CZIvpHAEfk#?secret=PF5U3i75Ym

	primaquran on Did Imam Al-Shafi’i say…
	Ibn Lugha on Did Imam Al-Shafi’i say…
	primaquran on Dismantling the Trinity: Jesus…
	T on Dismantling the Trinity: Jesus…
	primaquran on Dismantling the Trinity: Jesus…

Tag Archives: sunnah

Dogs are pure in Islam, according to the Qur’an.

Are Ibadis intolerant of other schools? A picture is worth a thousand words.

The Hafs Qur’an Only Religion and their confusion in regards to Allah’s judgement.

The Qur’an Only Religion is intellectually bankrupt

Is showing love and reverence to the Blessed Prophet considered worship?

Dr. Jeffery Lang: An Argument Advanced by Quraniyoon Refuted

Critique of the argument that Muhammed wrote the Qur’an.

Nothing left out of this book? The Manipulation of the Qur’an by the Quraniyoon.

Engaging with the Pseudo-Islamic:

﷽

Follow Prima Quran

Recent Comments

Most Read

Recent Posts

Web Site Hits

Hadith about Oman

Tag Archives: sunnah

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

﷽

Share this:

Follow Prima Quran

Recent Comments

Most Read

Recent Posts

Web Site Hits