“The Truth is from your Lord.’ Then whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an 18:29)
﷽
We are very disheartened to learn that this is a position held among those who hail from the Deobandi movement. To see them fall short on this particular point of theology is hurtful. This is an important point of theological difference as it can undermine our confidence in some of the most basic and fundamental aspects of our faith.
It is clear though, that this matter has split the ranks of the Ahl Sunnah. This is the declaration of Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki. He is himself a Sunni Muslim and a follower of the Maliki school of jurisprudence. The Shaykh has said that holding such a view or opinion is kufr (disbelief).
This false belief that is certainly so problematic for Muslims theologically that it is challenging to understand how anyone could entertain it, to begin with.
The theological musings of Darul Uloom Deoband have concerning Allah (swt) have to be among the most dangerous of theological speculations that have come from theology.
If we are to speak using emotive we would say that it is perhaps the absolutely most monstrous attributions to Allah (swt)! Not even the Christians ascribe the possibility of lying to Allah (swt)!
This, of course, is not speaking to the laity and the regular adherents of the Deobandi school of thought, the common person. To those valiant brothers in the Tabligh Jamaat that go out in the path of Allah (swt) and call people back to the Deen of Allah (swt). They are, for the most part, ignorant of this position. In fact, the Tablighi Jamaat are one of the greatest dawah force in the Muslim Ummah (imo).
Deobandi scholars in general are known among the Muslim scholars to be people of wara and taqwa and among those who cling to the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
That being said, we absolutely and utterly abhor the theological position that the Deobandi scholars have. Namely, that Allah (swt) can lie. (May our Rabb forgive us and bring us back to our senses.)
So first thing is first. Let us read and listen from their own sources what they say on the matter.
“Falling into the topic which you have mentioned in your question, is extremely dangerous for the Iman of a believer“
Prima Qur’an comment: Yes, it should cause anyone who has an ounce of love for Allah (swt) and understanding of sound doctrine should flee as far away from this speculation as they can!
“The ulama of Deoband have explained this issue to the best of their knowledge according to the Quran and Sunnah. Therefore we need to look at this from an academic perspective rather than an emotional one.”
Prima Qur’an comment: They are correct in that the truth is truth regardless of how we feel about it. Islam is based upon proofs and evidences.
In the article in the link above after affirming that Allah doesn’t lie they then turnaround and affirm the following possibility:
“Thereafter they explained that Allah has the power to do whatever he wants. SO IF HE WANTED TO LIE, NOBODY CAN STOP HIM. No one can take that power away from him. There is a difference between “Allah does lie” and “ALLAH CAN LIE.”
Or the monstrous assertion that it is possible for Allah (swt) to create another like him!
Watch the following video:
@ 2:11 He says, “Let no man go away today and say Shaykh Mumtaz was saying Allah CAN lie, No!”
However, he turns around @ 1:38 and says, “But the OPTION Is there for Allah (swt), because he is Haqq he will never take that OPTION.”
Prima Qur’an comment: So he is saying that he CAN and worse he says that Allah (swt) could create another Allah (swt) but chooses not to! Yikes! (Oh Allah (swt) Rabb of Grace and Abundant Mercy, please forgive us and forgive our brothers and guide them to a course that is more just than this!) Amin!
The following verse of the Qur’an that absolutely grinds to powder and scatters into the four corners of the known existence such absurd theological speculation!
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
So what does Shaykh Mumtaz have in mind should Allah (swt) wish to create another Allah (swt)? Some type of Binitarian belief? Or if He can create another like himself, what’s the limit? Three? Some type of Trinitarian belief?
It is our sincere hope that those from Deoband will refrain from this type of theological speculation. We hope that they recant from this position and make sincere repentance to Allah (swt). Death waits for no one.
By Allah (swt) our hearts have never felt more heavy and filled with sadness than to know that these people hold these positions!
It really does go to show you that Allah (swt) spoke the Haqq (unlike what scholars muse) when He said
“Is not Allah sufficient for His Servant? And yet, they threaten you with those they worship other than Him. And whoever Allah allows to stray-for him there is no guide. And whoever Allah guides-no one can misguide. Is not Allah Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution?” (Qur’an 39:36-37)
Refutation of this problematic doctrine.
The first issue is part of a much larger discussion centered around the following: Allah (swt) can do anything versus Allah (swt) has power over all things. We would recommend you read that article first:
Attributes ascribed to His Self (Sifāt Dhātiyyah).
Attributes ascribed to His Actions (Sifāt Fi’liyyah).
Attributes ascribed to both His Self and His Actions (Sifāt Dhātiyyah Fi’liyyah)
The attribute of The Liar could not be attributed to category 1 because Allah (swt) has described himself as Al Haqq. It is not possible to be The Truth and The Liar simultaneously. Second the attribute of The Liar implies something eternal and external with Allah (swt). If Allah (swt) is The Liar than in relation to what? Third if Allah (swt) is to be described by the attribute of The Liar this means there can be no cohesion or symmetry in the universe. The universe can never make sense nor can it be intelligible in any meaningful way.
The attribute of lying can not be in category 2 as a possible act that Allah (swt) can dispense if he so chooses because of what is discussed in the above article: Allah can do anything versus Allah has power over all things.
Humans may need to lie or deceive due to some need, want, desire, or fear. None of this is applicable to Allah (swt). Alas, Allah (swt) does not have redundant attributes.
Lying is never a praiseworthy trait or quality.
“They think to deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive it not.” (Qur’an 2:9)
“In their hearts is a disease, so Allah has increased their disease, and for them it is a painful punishment because they habitually used to lie.” (Quran 2:10)
“So He penalized them with hypocrisy in their hearts until the Day they will meet Him – because they failed Allah in what they promised Him and because they habitually used to lie.” (Qur’an 9:77)
“And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about Allah or says, ‘It has been inspired to me,’ while nothing has been inspired to him, and one who says, ‘I will reveal something like what Allah revealed.’ And if you could but see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of death while the angels extend their hands, saying, ‘Discharge your souls! Today you will be awarded the punishment of [extreme] humiliation for what you used to say against Allah other than the truth and that you were, toward His verses, being arrogant.’” (Qur’an 6:93)
We sincerely implore the scholars of Deoband – to read these verses and immediately fall into sujud begging the Almighty Allah (swt) for forgiveness!
Dear brothers, this theological position is unbecoming of people who have produced some of the best scholars and students of knowledge in many fields of Islamic sciences!
Is this verse not befitting of them?
“Who is more unjust than one who events a lie about Allah (swt). One who says ‘it has been inspired by me’.” (Qur’an 6:93)
Dark whispering to the subconscious mind that found fertile ground within their minds and souls to plant the most insidious theological speculation.
Surely Allah (swt) is our salvation! May Allah (swt) protect us from the evil insinuations of the one who whispers.
Allah (swt) says:
“Moreover, they have no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
“And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, ‘Do you kill a man merely because he says, “My Lord is Allah” while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is the consequence of his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar.’ ” (Qur’an 40:28)
“However, if they intend to deceive you – then sufficient for you is Allah. It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers. “(Qur’an 8:62)
“However, We have certainly tried those before them, and Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.”(Qur’an 29:3)
“Only they forge the lie who do not believe in Allah’s communications, and these are the liars.” (Qur’an 16:105)
“So who is more unjust than he who invents a lie about Allah? Those will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses will say, “These are the ones who lied against their Lord.” Unquestionably, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers.” (Quran 11:18)
They have no means of knowing whether they are deceived. They can only trust that they are not being deceived, but they have no certainty. This destroys the very foundation of the religion of truth, the science of hadith, and everything else along with it. The big question for anyone who holds the position that Allah (swt) CAN lie is this:
If you believe that Allah (swt) CAN lie on what objective basis, can you determine if anything from Allah (swt) to be true?
We have seem them evade this question. There is no evasion on the last day.
They have certainly erred in their theological speculation about the divine by having the audacity to attribute to Allah (swt) the capacity and capability to lie!
May Allah (swt) protect our minds, our hearts from the whispers of devils, and from the approach of the hellfire and from theological speculation that brings us to the very depths of darkness where there is no light therein.
Their shameful musings about Allah (swt) opened the doors of sophistry, which in turn would call into question the probity of the sources of religious knowledge altogether.
In reality, this theological speculation is an absolute feast for atheists and Christians!
How can we trust anything from Allah (swt)
The truth about Allah (swt), his oneness?
The truth about Rasul Allah (saw) being a Messenger of Allah (swt). That he is the last and final messenger?
The truth about the Qur’an is that it is a revelation from Allah (swt), the last and final message?
Issues of certainty and morality. All of these things become issues of doubt and speculation due to the theological speculation of the scholars of Deoband.
Deobandis have effectively stripped every argument Muslims have against atheists, Christians, or anyone else. Why should an agnostic trade in his/her uncertainty for the uncertainty of Muslims?
They have also put themselves in a precarious situation. It would be very difficult for any other Muslim to take it seriously or even discuss any matter or point of jurisprudence, theology, etc. with a representative of Deoband because there is nothing to be discussed. They can’t even say with all sincerity that they are upon the Haqq.
These people, the Deobandi, believe that it is possible for Allah (swt) to both lie and to be truthful! Because if Allah (swt) is Haqq and Allah (swt) does not change, then why the theological speculation with regard to this?
To say that Allah (swt) has the potential to be both liar and truth sayer not only imputes lies to Allah azzawajala but it would entail a logical contradiction.
This reminds one of the atheists.
The atheist poses the following paradoxical question.
If Allah is Infinite and Unlimited in Power, can He create a rock he cannot lift?
Which is a non-question? It is like asking if Allah (swt) can make a squared circle. It is a no-thing.
Such a rock can’t exist, not because Allah (swt) is not All-Powerful but because He is!
Allah (swt) has Unlimited, Infinite Powers. This theoretical rock would also have to have MORE than infinite and unlimited powers so that Allah (swt) could not move it. There’s no such thing as beyond infinite and unlimited, so the question is flawed.
Infinity +1 There is no such thing, there is simply infinity.
Allah (swt) cannot act contrary to his being. Allah acts consistently within his own essence, his own being.
The reason people fall into this trap is because of very poor training in theology and/or philosophy. They do not have an excellent foundation concerning the divine being. After all don’t they accept power as a basis for Allah (swt) being God? That is the whole point. There are certain qualities that make Allah, God.
Allah cannot, for example Not-Be Allah. Allah (swt) cannot be a sinner or be unholy. Allah (swt) cannot commit shirk.
Allah (swt) cannot be contained by space/time. All these things are inherent to the divine logic that is Allah (swt).
Based on logic there are things that cannot exist if another thing exists.
As Allah (swt) is Infinite and Unlimited in Power, a thing he can not do cannot exist because it violates the very principle of being Infinite and Unlimited in Power.
“He knows what is before them and what will be after them, but they do not encompass in knowledge. And all faces will be humbled before the Ever-Living, The Self Existent. And he will have failed who carries injustice.” (Qur’an 20:110-111)
Allah (swt) is described as the Ever-Living, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for Allah (swt) to die. Allah (swt can’t will himself to die because it goes against what is intrinsic to the divine logic.
Their ridiculous claim is that you deny the power of Allah (swt). So ask them in turn this very simple question that will crush their falsehood.
If Allah (swt) can do anything, can Allah (swt) create a reality where he can’t do everything?
If the answer is no, they just admitted that Allah (swt) can’t do everything.
If they say yes, then it means they admit the possibility of a reality where Allah (swt) is not able to do all things.
Another point that crushes their speculation is the following:
The difference between us and those who hold the view that Allah (swt) CAN lie when it comes to the power of Allah (swt) is this:
They believe Allah (swt) is All-Powerful based upon speculation. Whereas the believers we believe Allah (swt) is All-Powerful based upon certainty.
“To Allah is your return, and He has power over all things.'” (Qur’an 11:4)
The basis for which those who say that Allah (swt) CAN lie is this verse. However, this verse is dependent upon Allah (swt) being Haqq and only Haqq.
The Deobandis have no objective basis on which to rest their argument. Because if both Truth and Lies can come from our Lord on what objective basis do they know that the verse in Qur’an 11:4 is true to begin with? Whereas the believers we believe that Allah (swt) is Al Haqq and thus we have certainty in what Allah (swt) reveals to us. It is not POSSIBLE for Allah (swt) to lie to us.
So coming to the doctrine of the Deobandis let us see what Allah (swt) says about Truth.
“The Truth is from your Lord.’ Then whoever wills, let him believe, and whoever wills, let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an 18:29)
Allah (swt) clearly says that Truth is from Him. Otherwise the phrase -“sadaqallahul azeem” -The Truth from Allah the Almighty, it would lose all meaning.
As truth is from Allah (swt) it is not even a POSSIBILITY for non-truth to come from Allah (swt).
Allah (swt) says:
“That is because Allah He is the Truth (Al Haqq) -the Only True God of all that exists, Who has no partners or rival, the ultimate reality, and what they (those who associate) invoke besides Him, it is Batil (falsehood) And verily, Allah He is the Highest, The Most Great.” (Qur’an 22:62)
“Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Surely, falsehood is ever bound to vanish.” (Qur’an 17:81)
“No! We hurl the Truth against Falsehood, and it crushes it. Behold, falsehood does perish! Woe to you for the false things you ascribe.” (Qur’an 21:18)
Oh, Allah (swt) please guide these people. Guide them and us. How can they attribute to Allah (swt) a possible attribute that can vanish or be overcome by other attributes?
Subhan’Allah! What more evidence do the Deobandi need?
May Allah (swt) bring us from darkness into light and may Allah (swt) cause the Muslims to be on guard against this type of theological speculation.
Allah (swt) says that He is Al Haqq. Allah (swt) says that is The Truth. Allah (swt) clearly contrasts himself with batil (falsehood). Allah (swt) cannot contain both batil and haqq and have this as part of his being. Both can never be attributed to Allah (swt)
Allah (swt) says:
“Truly, it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts which are in the breast that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
Allah (swt) says:
“So do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know it.” (Qur’an 2:42)
Mixing truth with falsehood is something that sinful man does. Are we going to really attribute the ability to mix truth with falsehood to the one who shaped and formed us in the womb, who provides for our every need, who is the very Lord of the Throne?!!
Moreover, again we have:
“So to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them. And leave [the company of] those who practice deviation concerning His names. They will be recompensed for what they have been doing.” (Qur’an 7:180)
How could they even conceive as a possibility that one of the best attributes of Allah (swt) could be “The Untruthful” ?!?
This is what Allah (swt) says about those who believe that Allah (swt) has the potential of having sons.
“Where at the heavens might well-nearly be rent into fragments, and the earth be split asunder, and the mountains fall down in ruins!” (Qur’an 19:90)
This is for attributing to Allah (swt) the mere potentiality of having sons can you imagine what Allah (swt) has in store for those who would attribute the mere possibility and potentiality of being “The Lord of Untruthfulness“? May Allah (swt) forgive them and us. May Allah (swt) guide them and us.
Deoband certainly needs to reconsider this. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by simply stating that this is no longer a theological position that they hold to. Their scholars believe that Allah (swt) CAN lie.
They give arguments and ammunition that will unfortunately tickle the imagination of the enemies of the faith.
As shown in the video above even one of their learned people believes that Allah (swt) CAN create another Allah (swt) !!
“Therefore be patient; surely the promise of Allah is true and let not those who have no certainty hold you in light estimation. (Qur’an 30:60)
Dear readers, fellow Muslim brothers and sisters reading this. We strongly advocate for unity and cooperation among all Muslims. We are very strongly against this theological position of Deoband.
We would implore, urge, beg them to reconsider it. If not for the good of this Muslim ummah, for the safety and passage of their own well-being into the next life. To refrain from stating with the tongue theological speculation that can not bring any good. If we human beings are not infallible and a scholar is not infallible, what harm would come to Deoband, and its reputation if they simply admitted to an error here? Everyone in the Muslim Ummah knows there are giants of knowledge among them.
We humbly thank Allah that he saved us from what others have been afflicated with.
“And say: …So, after the truth, what else can there be, save error?” (Qur’an 10:32)
“That is Allah , your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things.” (Qur’an 6:102)
﷽
In many circles of knowledge this question had been debated. The debate centered around the Pen, the Throne, and Water.
The creation of the Throne.
The following narrations are often cited:
Narrated `Imran bin Hussain:
While I was with the Prophet (saw) , some people from Bani Tamim came to him. The Prophet (saw) said, “O Bani Tamim! Accept the good news!” They said, “You have given us the good news; now give us (something).” (After a while) some Yemenites entered, and he said to them, “O the people of Yemen! Accept the good news, as Bani Tamim have refused it. ” They said, “We accept it, for we have come to you to learn the Religion. So we ask you what the beginning of this universe was.” The Prophet (saw) said “There was Allah and nothing else before Him and His Throne was over the water, and He then created the Heavens and the Earth and wrote everything in the Book.” Then a man came to me and said, ‘O `Imran! Follow your she-camel for it has run away!” So I set out seeking it, and behold, it was beyond the mirage! By Allah, I wished that it (my she-camel) had gone but that I had not left (the gathering). “
I went to the Prophet (saw) and tied my she-camel at the gate. The people of Bani Tamim came to the Prophet (saw) who said “O Bani Tamim! Accept the good tidings.” They said twice, ‘You have given us the good tidings, now give us something” Then some Yemenites came to him and he said, “Accept the good tidings, O people of Yemem, for Bani Tamim refused them.” They said, “We accept it, O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! We have come to ask you about this matter (i.e. the start of creations).” He said, “First of all, there was nothing but Allah, and (then He created His Throne). His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the Heavens and the Earth.” Then a man shouted, “O Ibn Husain! Your she-camel has gone away!” So, I went away and could not see the she-camel because of the mirage. By Allah, I wished I had left that she-camel (but not that gathering).
The above hadith supply the following information.
There was nothing.
The throne was over the water
Allah wrote everything in a book.
Created the heavens and the earth.
The Qur’an is cited:
““And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth in six Days and His Throne was on the water, that He might try you, which of you is the best in deeds” (Qur’an 11:7)
When reading the above verse one may get the impression that the Heaven and Earth were created first and then the water and then the Throne. This is not true.
The above verse only list facts:
Heaven was created.
Earth was created.
Water was present.
The throne was on the water.
The above verse does not present an order.
The creation of the pen.
Abdul-Wahid bin Sulaim narrated:
“I arrived in Makkah and met ‘Ata bin Abi Rabah. I said to him: ‘O Abu Muhammed! The people of Al-Basrah speak about Al-Qadar.’ He said: ‘O my son! Do you recite the Quran?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then recite Az-Zukhruf to me.'” He said: ‘So I recited: Ha Mim. By the manifest Book. Verily, We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic that you may be able to understand. And verily, it is in the Mother of Book with Us, indeed exalted, full of wisdom. Then he said: ‘Do you know what Mother of Books is?’ I said: ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said:’It is a book that Allah wrote before He created the Heavens, and before He created the earth. In it, it is (written): Fir’awn is among the inhabitants of the Fire, and in it is: Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!’Ata said: ‘I met Al-Walid the son of ‘Ubadah bin As-Samit the Companion of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and asked him:’What was your father’s admonition when he died?” He said:”He called me and said: ‘O my son ! Have Taqwa of Allah, and know that you will never have Taqwa of Allah until you believe in Allah, and you believe in Al-Qadar- all of it-its good and its bad. If you die upon other than this you shall enter the Fire. Indeed I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. So He said: ‘Write.’ It said : ‘What shall I write?’ He said : ‘Write Al-Qadar, what it is , and what shall be, until the end.'”
The above hadith supply the following information.
The very first of Allah created was the Pen.
None of the information that has been supplied mentions anything about spatiality.
So this leaves us with some points of discussion.
If spatiality is not a creation but something that co-exist with Allah. Then who or what creates spatiality? How do we square this with the belief that Allah creates all things?
If spatiality is a creation and the first thing that was created before spatiality was either the Pen or the Throne. This means that the Pen or the Throne existed prior to spatiality.
If created things such as the Pen or the Throne can exist without spatiality how much more the Lord of the Pen and the Lord of the throne?
أنا متوقف تماما عن البحث عن أول مخلوق، وأقطع بلا أدى الشك أن كل مفتقر لغيره مسبوق بما يفتقره وعليه فالمكان والموقع سابقان على ما زعموا أنه أول مخلوق، وعليه لا شك ولا ريب أن خلق الفضاء سابق على خلق كرسي وقلم ولوح وعرش لأنها أجسام مفتقرة لمواقعها.
فقول الوهابية السلفية لا يمكن الايمان به إلا بتعطيل العقل وكل معتقد باطل أساسه تعطيل العقل.
وإن قالوا بأن تلك الأشياء غنية عن المكان والمواقع فقد أوجبوا على أنفسهم القول أن الله فقير للموقع والمكان بسؤالهم أين الله؟ وباعتقادهم أنهم سيرونه بأعينهم فتكون تلك الأشياء غنية والله فقير فما أبشع من قول باطل.
وإن قالوا بافتقارها للمكان والموقع فقد ألزموا أن المكان مخلوق قبلها.
والله الموفق.
We are fully certain without any doubt that everything in need of something else is necessarily preceded by that which it depends on. Accordingly, space and location must have existed before what they claim to be the first creation. Thus, there is no doubt that the creation of the void (space) preceded the creation of the Throne, the Pen, the Tablet, and the Chair, since these are bodies dependent on their locations.
Therefore, the saying of the Wahhabi Salafis cannot be believed in except by suspending the intellect — and every false belief is founded on disabling the intellect.
And if they say that those things are independent of space and location, then they obligate themselves to say that Allah is in need of location and place by asking, “Where is Allah?” and by believing that they will see Him with their eyes. This would make those created things independent while making Allah needy — and what could be more abominable than such a false claim?
And if they say that those things do indeed require space and location, then they are compelled to accept that space was created before them.
“And know that among you is the Messenger of Allāh. If he were to obey you in much of the matter, you would be in difficulty, but Allāh has made beloved to you the faith and has beautified it in your hearts and has made hateful to you disbelief, wickedness, and disobedience. Those are the guided.” (Qur’an 49:7)
﷽
The noble companion Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di and the deception of Ahl Sunnah. “Be Just!”
In order to defame the noble companion, Hurqus ibn Zuhair (ra), some of the Ahl Sunnah have pulled out all the stops in their attempts at deception and blatant lying.
Allah (swt) has exposed them and laid bare their attempts to defame and besmirch him for no other reason than the fact that he saw through the lies and deception of Muaviya and left with those companions who deserted Ali bin Abu Talib who went against the hukm of Allah (swt).
This article will show you beyond a shadow of a doubt (Allah-willing) that some of the past scholars of Ahl Sunnah have mixed up Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di (ra) with one Abdullah ibn Dhul Khawaisara At Tamimi, Rather or not this was a major blunder on behalf of their scholars or done with evil intentions, will be up to you the reader to decide.
The Core Argument: Mistaken Identity or deliberate obfuscation?
Our central thesis is that Ahl al-Sunnah scholars have mistakenly—or perhaps deliberately—conflated two distinct individuals:
Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr aṣ-Ṣaʿdī (ra): A noble companion who later opposed ʿAlī due to his stance on the arbitration at Ṣiffīn.
ʿAbdullāh ibn Dhī al-Khawāṣira at-Tamīmī: The anonymous “man” in the hadiths who criticized the Blessed Prophet’s (saw) distribution of wealth and was prophesied to be the progenitor of the Khawārij.
We argue that pinning the so-called Kharijite prophecy on Ḥurqūṣ is a defamation stemming from sectarian motives to discredit those who opposed ʿAlī’s later political decisions.
The status of the hypocrites in Islam.
It was narrated from Umar bin al Khattab that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
`The thing I fear most for my Ummah is every hypocrite who speaks with knowledge`
“Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire – and never will you find for them a helper.” (Qur’an 4:145)
The very first exercise. The name of Hurqus ibn Zuhair in the hadith literature.
First thing that you, the truth seeker, should do is bring up this name of Hurqus ibn Zuhair as-Sadi (ra) and bring him to your teachers! Bring him to the people you trust. Rather, you are a Barelvi, Deobandi, Salafi, Ikwani, follower of one of the four madhabs.
Simply bring his name up and ask your learned people: “Show us the hadith with his name, ‘Hurqus ibn Zuhair’, explicitly mentioning where the Blessed Messenger (saw) said he is a Khawarij.” Should be quite a simple exercise!
“Be Just O Messenger of Allah!”
“O Muhammed, fear Allah!”
“O Messenger of Allah! Fear Allah!”
“Be Just”
Now let us analyze these various hadith shall we?
1st Hadith Analyzed.
Narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah
While Allah’s Apostle was distributing the booty at Al-Ja’rana, SOMEBODY said to him “Be just (in your distribution).” The Prophet replied, “Truly I would be miserable if I did not act justly.”
Prima Qur’an Comment: A “somebody” said. An anonymous individual. The Prophet (saw) was told to ‘be just‘.
2nd Hadith Analyzed.
It was narrated that Sharik bin Shihab said:
“I used to wish that I could meet a man among the Companions of the Prophet (saw) and ask him about the Khawarij. Then I met Abu Barzah on the day of ‘Id, with many of his companions. I said to him: ‘Did you hear the Messenger of Allah (saw) mention the Khawarij?’ He said: ‘Yes. I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) with my own ears, and saw him with my own eyes. Some wealth was brought to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and he distributed it to those on his right and on his left, but he did not give anything to those who were behind him. Then A MAN stood behind him and said: “O Muhammed! You have not been just in your division!” He was a man with black patchy (shaved) hair, wearing two white garments. So Allah’s Messenger (saw) became furious and said: “By Allah! You will not find a man after me who is more just than me.” Then he said: “A people will come at the end of time; as if he is one of them, reciting the Qur’an without it passing beyond their throats. They will go through Islam just as the arrow goes through the target. Their distinction will be shaving. They will not cease to appear until the last of them comes with Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. So when you meet them, then kill them, they are the worst of created beings.“
Prima Qur’an Comments: Then “a man” stood behind him. An anonymous individual.
Note: The Blessed Messenger (saw) did mention the word ‘Khawarij’. That is simply the statement of the narrator. Here the narrator does not say that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said: “Dogs of hellfire.”He does not allow the Prophet (saw) to go beyond what Allah (swt) ever did. So the narrator has the Prophet (saw) say, “The worst of created beings.”
They come “at the end of time.“
Also, how ironic that it is claimed that the Prophet (saw) would say, “When you meet them, then kill them,” and that this hadith ends up in a section titled: “The Prohibition of Bloodshed.”
Also, note the lack of adaab. In other narrations, this man simply says, “Be Just.” However, in this narration we have to have the man call out the Blessed Messenger (saw) by name, “O Muhammed, you have not been just.”
Also note that such people appear “at the end of time.”
3rd Hadith Analyzed.
Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
When `Ali was in Yemen, he sent some gold in its ore to the Prophet (saw). The Prophet (saw) distributed it among Al-Aqra’ bin H`Abis Al-Hanzali who belonged to Bani Mujashi, ‘Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, ‘Alqama bin ‘Ulatha Al-`Amiri, who belonged to the Bani Kilab tribe and Zaid AI-Khail at-Ta’i who belonged to Bani Nabhan. So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, “He gives to the chiefs of Najd and leaves us!” The Prophet (saw) said, “I just wanted to attract and unite their hearts (make them firm in Islam).” Then there came A MAN with sunken eyes, bulging forehead, thick beard, fat raised cheeks, and clean-shaven head, and said, “O Muhammed! Be afraid of Allah! ” The Prophet (saw) said, “Who would obey Allah if I disobeyed Him? (Allah). He trusts me over the people of the earth, but you do not trust me?” A man from the people (present then), WHO, I THINK, was Khalid bin Al-Walid, asked for permission to kill him, but the Prophet (saw) prevented him. When THE MAN went away, the Prophet said, “Out of the offspring of this man, there will be people who will recite the Qur’an but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out through the game, and they will kill the Muslims and leave the idolaters. Should I live till they appear, I would kill them as the Killing of the nation of ‘Ad.”
Prima Qur’an comments: Then there came“a man”. Anonymous individual.
Able to recall bulging forehead, thick beard, fat raised cheeks, clean-shaven head, but not the name. Nope! Also, you think that if this man had a deformed hand that looked like a woman’s breast that it would be the most noteworthy description. Nope!
Also, *note* the lack of adaab. In other narrations, this man simply says, “Be Just.” In another narration we have to have the man call out the Blessed Messenger (saw) by name, “O Muhammed, you have not been just.”
In this one: “O Muhammed Be afraid of Allah!“.
Which is it?Be just or be afraid of Allah?
Then, the narrator can’t recall who asked for permission to kill this guy. “I think it was Khalid bin Al-Walid.”
Then, apparently, the Blessed Messenger (saw) says, “Out of the offspring of this man will be a people who will kill the Muslims. Then, apparently the Blessed Messenger (saw) says, “Should I live till they appear, I would kill them as the Killing of the nations of ‘Ad”.
Yet the man is standing right there, so why doesn’t the Blessed Prophet (saw) kill the man then and there? The narrator is content to make the Blessed Prophet (saw) let future generations do the killing.
This is very much unlike Khidr, who slew a boy on the spot for future evils he would commit. Yet, here we have the Prophet (saw) apparently saying he would kill them. Yet, being fine to let this particular individual live and bring about all kinds of fitna!
“And as for the boy, his parents were ˹true˺ believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.” (Qur’an 18:80-81)
4th Hadith Analyzed.
Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
`Ali bin Abi Talib sent a piece of gold not yet taken out of its ore, in a tanned leather container to Allah’s Messenger (saw). Allah’s Messenger (saw) distributed that amongst four Persons: ‘Uyaina bin Badr, Aqra bin H`Abis, Zaid Al-Khail and the fourth was either Alqama or Amir bin at-Tufail. On that, ONE OF HIS COMPANIONS said, “We are more deserving of this (gold) than these (persons).” When that news reached the Prophet (saw) , he said, “Don’t you trust me though I am the truth worthy man of the One in the Heavens, and I receive the news of Heaven (i.e. Divine Inspiration) both in the morning and in the evening?” There got up A MAN with sunken eyes, raised cheek bones, raised forehead, a thick beard, a shaven head and a waist sheet that was tucked up and he said, “O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! Be afraid of Allah.” The Prophet (saw) said, “Woe to you! Am I not of all the people of the earth the most entitled to fear Allah?” Then that man went away. Khalid bin Al-Walid said, “O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! Shall I chop his neck off?” The Prophet (saw) said, “No, for he may offer prayers.” Khalid said, “Numerous are those who offer prayers and say by their tongues (i.e. mouths) what is not in their hearts.” Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies.” Then the Prophet looked at HIM while the latter was going away and said, “From the offspring of this (man there will come out (people) who will recite the Qur’an continuously and elegantly but it will not exceed their throats. They would go out of the religion (i.e. Islam) as an arrow goes through a game’s body.” I THINK HE ALSO SAID, “If I should be present at their time I would kill them as the nations a Thamud were killed.”
Prima Qur’an comments: “One of his companions” was complaining that he was upset about the distribution of the booty. “One of his companions was an anonymous individual.
That man doesn’t get scolded. No prophecy about his descendants being murderous individuals, nada, nothing.
Yet, another “man”, an anonymous individual, also shows his disdain. Then, when Khalid bin Al Walid wants to chop off his head, we get the narrator putting into the mouth of the Blessed Messenger (saw), “I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies.”
Yet, then they have the Blessed Messenger (saw)proceed to tell us knowledge of the unseen about this man’s children. In other words, I can’t tell you about the intentions of this guy who is alive right here in front of us both. However, I can tell you the murderous intentions of his children.
Welcome to the world of the bizarre!
Then, the narrator isn’t sure if the Prophet (saw) said if he wanted to annihilate these people totally or not. “I think he also said.”
Well, you better jog your memory!” You are talking about annihilation here!
5th Hadith Analyzed.
Narrated Abu Sa`id:
While the Prophet (saw) was DISTRIBUTING (SOMETHING, ‘Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira at-Tamimi came and said, “Be just, O Allah’s Messenger (saw)!” The Prophet (saw) said, “Woe to you ! Who would be just if I were not?” `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, “Allow me to cut off his neck ! ” The Prophet (saw) said, Leave him, for he has companions, and if you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers and fasting, in comparison to theirs. Yet they will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game’s body in which case, if the Qudhadh of the arrow is examined, nothing will be found on it, and when its Nasl is examined, nothing will be found on it; and then its Nadiyi is examined, nothing will be found on it. The arrow has been too fast to be smeared by dung and blood. The sign by which these people will be recognized will be A MAN whose one hand (or breast) will be like the breast of a woman (or like a moving piece of flesh). These people will appear when there will be differences among the people (Muslims).”
Abu Sa`id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet (saw) and also testify that `Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet (saw) was brought to `Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person (i.e., `Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi): ‘And among THEM are MEN who accuse you (O Muhammed) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.’ (9.58)
Prima Qur’an Comments: So the Prophet (saw) was disturbing “something.” Ambiguous.
Why would need clarity on what the Prophet (saw) was distributing? It’s not like the narrator is about to quote the Qur’an in the distribution of alms! (reflect dear reader!)
In this narration, the narrator wastes no time. We get a name right from the start: “Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira at-Tamimi.”
This time it’s Umar bin Al Khattab and not Khalid bin Al Walid that wants to kill this man.
This time we do not need to make way for this man’s descendants or for those who come at the end of time. The companions will deal with him in their very lives!
We also get some identifying markers of this individual: whose one hand or breast (we are not quite sure) will be like the breast of a woman or a moving piece of flesh (or a goat, according to Ali Ibn Abu Talib). See: https://sunnah.com/muslim:1066g .
So here we are given some important identifiers from the Blessed Prophet (saw) but we aren’t quite sure what those are. Now as to the verse that narrator quoted.
“And among them are some who criticize you concerning the distribution of charities (ṣadaqāti). If they are given from them, they approve; but if they are not given from them, at once they become angry. If only they had been satisfied with what Allah and His Messenger gave them and said, “Sufficient for us is Allah ; Allah will give us of His bounty, and His Messenger; indeed, we are desirous toward Allah” (Qur’an 9:58-59)
In fact those verses were revealed about some of the Ansar that were upset with the distribution of booty from Hunain.
No future prophecy about some diabolical group of people that has yet to arrive.
Narrated Anas Bin Malik:
When it was the day (of the battle) of Hunain, the tributes of Hawazin and Ghatafan and others, along with their animals and offspring (and wives) came to fight against the Prophet (saw) The Prophet (saw) had with him, ten thousand men and some of the Tulaqa. The companions fled, leaving the Prophet (saw) alone. The Prophet then made two calls which were clearly distinguished from each other. He turned right and said, “O the group of Ansar!” They said, “Labbaik, O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! Rejoice, for we are with you!” Then he turned left and said, “O the group of Ansar!” They said, “Labbaik! O Allah’s Messenger (saw)! Rejoice, for we are with you!” The Prophet (saw) at that time, was riding on a white mule; then he dismounted and said, “I am Allah’s Slave and His Apostle.” The infidels then were defeated, and on that day the Prophet (saw) gained a large amount of booty which he distributed amongst the Muhajirin and the Tulaqa and did not give anything to the Ansar.The Ansar said, “When there is a difficulty, we are called, but the booty is given to other than us.“ The news reached the Prophet (saw) and he gathered them in a leather tent and said, “What is this news reaching me from you, O the group of Ansar?” They kept silent, He added,” O the group of Ansar! Won’t you be happy that the people take the worldly things and you take Allah’s Messenger (saw) to your homes reserving him for yourself?” They said, “Yes.” Then the Prophet said, “If the people took their way through a valley, and the Ansar took their way through a mountain pass, surely, I would take the Ansar’s mountain pass.” Hisham said, “O Abu Hamza (i.e. Anas)! Did you witness that? ” He replied, “And how could I be absent from him?”
Notice that no one seems to have a problem with the Ansar saying they felt they were not being treated with justice. They are not called dogs of the hellfire.
So, either Abu Said Al Khudri was absolutely wrong with regard to the Asbab-al-Nuzul (The Occasion of Revelation) of those verses, or worse, a latter redactor put those words in the mouth of Abu Said Al Khudri. Either way, it doesn’t look good!
A look at some Tafsir in regards to these verses:
“And among them are some who criticize you concerning the distribution of charities (ṣadaqāti). If they are given from them, they approve; but if they are not given from them, at once they become angry. If only they had been satisfied with what Allah and His Messenger gave them and said, “Sufficient for us is Allah ; Allah will give us of His bounty, and His Messenger; indeed, we are desirous toward Allah” (Qur’an 9:58-59)
Prima Qur’an Comments: In the commentary of Ibn Abbas (ra) we have:
“And of the hypocrites: Abu’l-Ahwas and his host. They claimed that he did not divide them fairly.”
In the commentary of Tafsir al-Jalalayn we have:
“Some of them defame you concerning the apportioning of voluntary alms-giving; if they are given a share of them they are content but if they are given none then they are enraged.”
In the commentary of Ibn Kathir we have:
“We were told that a Bedouin man, who had recently embraced Islam, came to the Prophet, when he was dividing some gold and silver.”
So the tafsir are all over the place!
Ibn Abbas tafsir has Abu’l-Ahwas and his host.
Jalalayn has them and they, unnamed and unspecified.
Ibn Kathir has a a Bedouin man, whohad recently embraced Islam,
Asbāb al-Nuzūl Error: We correctly point out that the claim that Qur’an 9:58-59 was revealed about this specific Tamīmī man contradicts the well-established occasion of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl) documented by Anas ibn Mālik, which attributes it to the Ansār after Ḥunayn. This is a strong point against the reliability of that specific chain or narrator’s addition in Bukhārī 6933 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6933
Very important point that Ibn Kathir is the one who starts the obfuscation.
And also from Ibn Kathir: “This statement of Qatadah is similar to the Hadith that the Two Shaykhs narrated from Abu Sa’id about the story of Dhul-Khuwaysirah, whose name was Hurqus.” Hurqus protested against the Prophet’s division of the war spoils.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
Ibn Kathir mixes up Dhul-Khuwaysirah with Hurqus. This is where the confusion comes in from Ahl Sunnah. It has never been explained to anyone we have encountered among Ahl Sunnah hadith specialist why Ibn Kathir makes this connection?
Why does he say: “It is similar to the hadith that the two shaykhs narrated from Abu Sai’d about Dhul-Khuwaysirah?”
Which hadith? Did Ibn Kathir have access to transmissions from Bukhari and Muslim that are no longer in circulation? Certainly raises some questions!
Also, a very important point! We have not seen any mention of Hurqus in any of these hadith!
“There stood up ‘Umar b. Khattab, and said: Should I not strike his neck? Upon this he said: No. Then he turned away, and Khalid the Sword of Allah stood up against him, and said: Prophet of Allah. shall I not strike off his neck? He said, No, and then said: A people would rise from his progeny who would recite the Book of Allah glibly and fluently. ‘Umar said: I THINK he (the Holy Prophet) also said this: If I find them I would certainly kill them like Thamud.”
When trying to reconcile obvious discrepancies, we get this innovative approach. We get both Umar bin Al Khattab and Khalid bin Al Walid both wanting to cut off the culprit’s neck! However, we are still not sure if the Prophet (saw) will kill such people in the future. “I think” he (the Holy Prophet) also said this...…
Narrated Jabir b. Abdullah
A PERSON came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) at Jirana on his way back from Hunain, and there was in the clothes of Bilal some silver. The Messenger of Allah (saw) took a handful out of that and bestowed it upon the people. HE (THE PERSON who had met the Prophet at Ji’rana) said to him:
Muhammed, do justice. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Woe be upon you, who would do justice if I do not do justice, and you would be miserable and a loser if I do not do justice. Upon this Umar b. Khattab said: Permit me to kill this hypocrite. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) said: May there be protection of Allah! People would say that I kill my companions. This man and his companions would recite the Qur’an but it would not go beyond their throat, and they swerve from it just as the arrow goes through the prey.
Prima Qur’an Commentary: “A person“. An anonymous individual.
In this instance it was silver from Bilal and not gold from Ali.
Umar ibn Al Khattab says, “Permit me to kill this hypocrite.” Upon which the Prophet (saw) is reported to have said: “People would say that I kill my companions.”
Why would that be an issue?
If a companion has done something deserving of death?
Who does the Prophet (saw) report to other than Allah (swt)?
Also, it didn’t seem to be an issue in the following hadith:
“On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Messenger of Allah (saw) gave protection to the People except for four men and two women, and he named them. Ibn Abi Sarh was one of them. He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn Abi Sarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Messenger of Allah (saw). He said: Messenger of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his head and looked at him three times, denying him every time. After the third time he received his oath. He then turned to his Companions and said: Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We do not know, Messenger of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us a hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye.”
Remember that Umar ibn Al Khattab (ra) supposedly called this man a hypocrite and wanted permission to cut off his head (if we are to combine the reports). Ibn Kathir apparently says this person is Hurqus (ra). How could Umar ibn Al Khattab (ra) use Hurqus (ra) — (who is a supposed hypocrite) as a leader of armies and fighting battles on behalf of the Muslims? This makes no sense!
Tabari next says (paragraph 2538 Vol. 13, pp. 119–120):
“When Muslim warriors invaded al-Hurmuzan’s territory and set up their camp close to where he was in al-Ahwaz, he realized that he lacked manpower to overcome them. So he begged for peace, whereupon they wrote about that proposal to Utbah, asking him for directives in this matter. Al-Hurmuzan sent a letter to Utbah who, while accepting the proposed peace treaty, answered that al-Hurmuzan was to remain in control of all of al-Ahwaz and Mihrijan Qadhaq with the exception of Nahr Tira and Manadhir and that area of Suq al-Ahwas that the Muslims had already conquered. What we had liberated from Persian rule would not be returned to them. Sulma b. al-Qayn placed a garrison in Manadhir under the command of Ghalib, and Harmala placed one in Nahr Tira under the command of Kulayb. They had formerly commanded the forces of al-Basra.
(paragraph 2541) Umar Ibn Al Khattab sends “Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sadione of the Prophet’s Companions as reinforcement.” and “So, when they crossed over the bridge to the other side, fighting broke out while they were still on that part directly facing Suq al-Ahwas. In the end al-Hurmuzan was beaten. He set out in the direction of Ramhurmuz took a village called al-Shaghar on the dam of Arbuk and finally alighted at Ramhurmuz. Hurqus conquered Suq al-Ahwaz and took up residence there. Then he entered the mountain region, and the administration of the whole region from Suq al-Ahwaz all the way to Tustar became well organized. He imposed the jizah, wrote the news about the conquest to Umar Ibn Al Khattab and sent fifth parts of the booty acquired in the different areas, dispatching a delegation to carry this to him.”
Tabari quotes a poem by “al-Aswad b. Sari” (paragraph 2542): “We wrested from al-Hurmuzan a whole area so rich in provisions in every district. It’s dry land and water supply well in balance, when excellent groves come to early fruition. This land has a turbulent stream into which pored tributaries from both sides, always overflowing.” Then In paragraph 2543, Tabari says: “When al-Hurmuzan had arrived in Ramhurmuz and the province of al_ahwaz had become full of the Muslims settling in it, even right in front of him, he sent a peace agreement and sent messages to Hurqus and Jaz asking for this.” Hurmuzan was defeated again in Ramhormoz.
Sources: (The History of al-Tabari Vol. 13 page 140)
Prima Qur’an Commentary:
Ask yourself the question dear reader. How on earth is Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) going to send a munafiq with the flag of Islam to go to conquered lands? Umar ibn Al Khattab (ra), who was a caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate sent an army under Hurqus ibn Zuhayr al-Sa’di (ra) who defeated Hormuzan in 638 at Hormizd-Ardashir!
The Historical Ḥurqūṣ: A Valued Commander, Not a Reviled Outcast A most powerful evidence. The historical record from al-Tabari is unequivocal:
Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) personally appointed Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr (ra) as a commander of a Muslim army during the conquest of Persia.
Ḥurqūṣ (ra) was successful, leading troops to victory at Suq al-Ahwaz and imposing jizyah. He sent the khums (one-fifth of the booty) back to ‘Umar in Medina.
This is not the action of a caliph towards a man he believed to be the “progenitor of the dogs of hellfire.” ‘Umar, who in the hadiths wanted to behead the critic, would never later entrust a entire army and the spread of Islam to that same man.
This historical fact completely dismantles the narrative of conflation. It is logically impossible for the Ḥurqūṣ (ra) who was a trusted general under ‘Umar (ra) to be the same individual as the one ‘Umar (ra) wanted to kill for hypocrisy in front of the Blessed Prophet upon him be peace).
Sunni website goes all out in castigating the sahaba Hurqus b Zuhair al-Sa’di (ra)
Now go and look at this Sunni website and see how they try and defame the sahabah Hurqus (ra). First they bring up this name: Dhu’th-Thudayyah, which is not the companion Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di
Dhuth-Thudayyah’s full name was Hurqoos ibn Zuhayr al-Bajali. He was one of the Khawaarij (Khaarijites) who rebelled against Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), spread mischief in the land and shed blood that it was forbidden to shed. ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) fought them at the battle of an-Nahrawand and killed them; none of them escaped except a few.
The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) urged the believers to fight them. The first of them was Dhu’l-Khuwaysirah at-Tameemi, who told the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): Be fair! And Dhu’th-Thudayyah was the last of them.
He was a very dark black man, who had a foul odour and a deformed arm; there was only an upper arm, with no forearm, and at the end of his upper arm there was something like a nipple on which there were some white hairs.
They (the Khawaarij) are the ones concerning whom the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Among the progeny of this man will be people who will recite the Qur’an, but it will not go any further than their throats. They will pass through Islam as an arrow passes through the prey. They will kill the people of Islam and leave the idol-worshippers alone. If I live to see them, then I will certainly kill them like ‘Aad (i.e., as ‘Aad were destroyed).”.
Dhu’th-Thudayyah was the sign of these people; he was the sign of fitnah (turmoil) and a symbol of mischief and evil.
When ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and the believers who were with him fought them, he asked them to look for this man among the slain, and they found him. ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and those who were with him rejoiced greatly at that, and ‘Ali prostrated to Allah in gratitude.
al-Bukhaari (3610) and Muslim (1064) narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Whilst we were with the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and he was sharing out some wealth, Dhu’l-Khuwaysirah, a man from Banu Tameem, came to him and said: O Messenger of Allah, be fair! The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Woe to you! Who will be fair if I am not fair? You will be doomed and lost if I am not fair.” ‘Umar said: O Messenger of Allah, give me permission to strike his neck. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Let him be, for he has companions, in comparison to whose prayer one of you would regard his prayer as insignificant, and he would regard his fasting as insignificant in comparison to their fasting. They recite the Qur’an but it does not go any further than their collarbones. They will pass out of the faith as an arrow passes out of the prey. Their sign will be a black man, one of whose upper arms will be like a woman’s breast, or like a piece of quivering flesh. They will emerge when there is division among the people.
Abu Sa’eed said: I bear witness that I heard this hadeeth from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and I bear witness that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib fought them when I was with him. He ordered that man be sought, and he was found and brought; I looked at him and saw that he was just as the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had described him.
According to another report narrated by them (al-Bukhaari and Muslim): “Among the progeny of this man will be people who will recite the Qur’an, but it will not go any further than their throats. They will pass through Islam as an arrow passes through the prey. They will kill the people of Islam and leave the idol-worshippers alone. If I live to see them, then I will certainly kill them like ‘Aad (i.e., as ‘Aad were destroyed).
It was narrated that Naafi‘ ibn Maslamah al-Akhnasi said: Dhu’th-Thudayyah was a man from (the clan of) ‘Arnah from (the tribe of) Bajeelah. He was a very dark black man who had a foul odour. He was well-known among the troops, and before that he used to accompany us.
Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah, 7/289
Ibn al-Atheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Dhu’th-Thudayyah – thudayyah is the diminutive of thadiy (breast nipple) And may be taken as meaning a piece of a breast.
An-Nihaayah, 1/592
Muslim (1066) narrated from ‘Ubaydah as-Salmaani, from ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that he mentioned the Khawaarij and said: and said: Among them is a man with a defective arm, or a small arm. I would tell you what Allah promised on the lips of Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) to those who kill them. I said: Did you hear that from Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? He said: Yes, by the Lord of the Ka‘bah; yes, by the Lord of the Ka‘bah; yes, by the Lord of the Ka‘bah.
Muslim (1066) and Abu Dawood (4768) narrated that Salamah ibn Kuhayl said: Zayd ibn Wahb al-Juhani told me that he was
He was in the army that was with ‘Ali and went out to fight the Khawaarij. ‘Ali said: O people, I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “There will appear some people among my ummah who will recite the Qur’an and your recitation will not compare to theirs, and your prayer will not compare to theirs, and your fasting will not compare to theirs. They will recite the Qur’an and you will think that it is to their credit but in fact it will count against them. Their prayer will not go any deeper than their collar bones and they will pass out of Islam as an arrow passes out of the prey. If the army that attacks them knew what has been decreed for them on the lips of their Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), they would have relied on their deeds. The sign of that is that among them there is a man who has an upper arm but no forearm, and on his upper arm there is something like a nipple with white hairs on it. Would you go to Mu’aawiyah and the people of Syria, and leave these people in charge of your families and wealth in your absence? By Allah, I hope that they are the same people, for they have shed blood unlawfully and attacked the people’s cattle. March in the name of Allah.
Salamah ibn Kuhayl said: Zayd ibn Wahb described to me the stops (made by the army) until he said: then we crossed a bridge, and when we met (the Khawaarij), who were being led that day by ‘Abd-Allah ibn Wahb al-Raasibi, he (‘Abd-Allah) said to (his men): Throw your spears and draw your swords from their sheaths, for I am afraid that they may urge you to negotiate as they did on the day of Haroora’. So they threw their spears and unsheathed their swords, and (the companions of ‘Ali) fought back with their spears, and they (the Khawaarij) were killed and piled up one on top of another, but only two of the people (i.e., the companions of ‘Ali) were killed that day. ‘Ali said: Search among them for the one with the deformed hand. But they did not find him. Then ‘Ali himself went to some people who had been killed and were lying on top of one another. They took them out and found him among those who were closest to the ground (at the bottom of the pile). He said takbeer and said: Allah spoke the truth and His Messenger conveyed it. ‘Ubaydah al-Salmaani stood up and said: O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, by Allah besides Whom there is no other god, did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? He said: Yes, by Allah besides Whom there is no other god – until he asked him to swear three times and he did so.
Then Abu Dawood narrated that Abu’l-Wadee’ said: It is as if I can see him, an Abyssinian wearing a shirt, one of his hands like a woman’s nipple with hairs on it like the hairs on the tail of a jerboa.
Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.
Ahmad (850) narrated that Taariq ibn Ziyaad said: We went out with ‘Ali to fight the Khawaarij, and he killed them then he said: Look, for the Prophet of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that there would emerge people who would speak of the truth but it would not go past their throats; they will pass out of the truth as the arrow passes out of the prey. The sign is that one of them will be a black man with a deformed arm, with some black hairs on his arm. If it is him, then you have killed the worst of people, and if it is not him, then you have killed the best of people. And we wept, then he said: Look. So we looked and we found the deformed man, and we fell down in prostration and ‘Ali fell down in prostration with us.
This hadeeth has several isnaads; see al-Irwa’, 2/231
Al-Haafiz (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It was narrated that Abu Maryam said: Indeed that deformed man was with us in the mosque, and he was a poor man. I gave him a burnous of mine to wear and I saw him attending meals with ‘Ali. He had on his arm something like the breast of a woman, with a nipple on its end like the nipple of a breast, with something on it like the whiskers of a cat. Both reports were narrated by Abu Dawood.
At-Tabari narrated it at length via Abu Maryam. In it, it says: Before that, ‘Ali used to tell us that some people would appear and the sign would be a man with a deformed arm. I heard that from him many times until I saw him – meaning the deformed man – not wanting to eat with ‘Ali because he often heard that from him. And in it, it says: Then he instructed his companions to look for the deformed man, so they looked for him but they could not find him until a man came and told him: We have found him beneath two slain men in a ditch.
According to the report of Aflah: ‘Ali said: Which of you recognizes this man? One of the people said: We recognize him; this is Hurqoos.
According to the report of ‘Aasim ibn Shamkh, Abu Sa‘eed said: Ten of the Companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) told me that ‘Ali said: Look for the sign that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) spoke of, for I have never told lies and I will never tell lies. He (that man) was brought, and ‘Ali praised and thanked Allah when he recognised the sign. In the report of Abu Bakr, the freed slave of the Ansaar, from ‘Ali, there were seven nipples around it. In that report it states that the people were upset after the killing of the people of the river, but ‘Ali said: I do not think but he was one of them. They found him on the bank of the river, beneath the slain. ‘Ali said: Allah and His Messenger spoke the truth. The people rejoiced when they saw his body, and what they had been feeling disappeared.
End quote from Fath al-Baari, 12/298
For more information on the sect of the Khawaarij (Kharijites), please see the answer to question no. 182237. And Allah knows best.
Prima Qur’an Comments.
Our argument is devastatingly simple and to the point: Show usthe hadith where the Blessed Prophet (saw) says, “Hurqus ibn Zuhayr is a Khariji.” They cannot, because it doesn’t exist. The named figure in the hadith is ‘Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi.
They get confused between Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di and Dhu’l-Khuwaysirah. This seems to have its origin with Ibn Kathir, who himself does not supply the narrations he claims are from Bukhari and Muslim. Also, don’t you find it odd that when mentioning the bad qualities of an individual you start off with:
“He was a very dark black man, who had a foul odour and a deformed arm; there was only an upper arm, with no forearm, and at the end of his upper arm there was something like a nipple on which there were some white hairs.”
“He was a very dark black man who had a foul odour.“
This is jarring. Not a good look at all, Ahl Sunnah not a good look at all!
Remember the hadith quoted above? We will produce it here again:
Narrated Abu Sa`id:
While the Prophet (saw) was DISTRIBUTING (SOMETHING,`Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira at-Tamimi came and said, “Be just, O Allah’s Messenger (saw)!” The Prophet (saw) said, “Woe to you ! Who would be just if I were not?” `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, “Allow me to cut off his neck ! ” The Prophet (saw) said, Leave him, for he has companions, and if you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers and fasting, in comparison to theirs. Yet they will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game’s body in which case, if the Qudhadh of the arrow is examined, nothing will be found on it, and when its Nasl is examined, nothing will be found on it; and then its Nadiyi is examined, nothing will be found on it. The arrow has been too fast to be smeared by dung and blood. The sign by which these people will be recognized will be A MAN whose one hand (or breast) will be like the breast of a woman (or like a moving piece of flesh). These people will appear when there will be differences among the people (Muslims).” Abu Sa`id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet (saw) and also testify that `Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet (saw) was brought to `Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person (i.e., `Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi): ‘And among THEM are MEN who accuse you (O Muhammed) in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.’ (9.58)
`Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi IS NOT Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di. Hurqus b. Zuhair al-Sa’di (ra) is a righteous companion. He fought hard to with the banner of Islam in his hand. He left the camp of Ali at Siffin when he saw that Ali settled for the arbitration. He is a noble man who the detractors of truth want to defame!
The Case for Ḥurqūṣ:
Companionship: He was a recognized companion (ṣaḥābī), and this status commands respect.
Sincere Motive: His opposition to ʿAlī at Nahrawān was, from his perspective, based on a rigorous understanding of the Qur’an and what it called for at that time: “No judgment but Allah’s” (لَا حُكْمَ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ).
Not the “First Kharijite”: Mainstream Sunni historiography distinguishes between the early Muḥakkima (those who cried “lā ḥukma” at Ṣiffīn) and what they consider the later, more extreme Khawārij
A Call for Nuance:
Contextualizing Ḥurqūṣ’s Actions: His opposition to ʿAlī should be understood within the complex political and theological chaos of the First Fitna. He was not a “dog of hellfire” but a sincere, Muslim who with a group that left ‘Ali’s camp because they believed his acceptance of arbitration was a sin against the rule of Allah. Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr (ra) was among them when ‘Ali waged war against them at the Battle of Nahrawan.
Later Sunni historiography, written from a polemical standpoint against the Muḥakkima, had a motive to tarnish the origins of this movement. What better way to do that than to retroactively link Ḥurqūṣ to the prophetic prophecies about the ‘dogs of hellfire’?
By conflating him with the anonymous/Dhul-Khuwaysirah figure, they could:
Demonize the Muḥakkima : Frame them not as sincere Muslims, but as the literal fulfillment of a prophecy about a people born from a hypocrite.
Justify their Extermination: If they are the “dogs of hellfire,” then fighting them is not just a political necessity but a religious duty.
Protect the Narrative: It discredits any potential valid criticism from the Muḥakkima’s early stance by associating it entirely with a condemned group.
Conclusion: A Successful Vindication insh’Allah Our defense of Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr (ra) is compelling and, based on the evidence we’ve presented, largely successful. A just (‘ādil) conclusion must acknowledge:
Two Distinct Figures: The evidence strongly suggests that ‘Abdullah bin Dhil-Khawaisira at-Tamimi (the supposed critic in the booty distribution narrations) and Ḥurqūṣ ibn Zuhayr aṣ-Ṣa’di (the companion, general of ‘Umar, and later seceder at Ṣiffīn) were two different people.
Historical Conflation: A conflation of these two figures occurred in later Islamic historiography and continues to be perpetuated by modern scholars and websites (like IslamQA.info) without critical examination of the primary sources.
Motive for Conflation: This conflation served a sectarian and polemical purpose: to retroactively tarnish the early Muḥakkima movement by linking one of its prominent figures directly to a damning prophecy.
The Status of Ḥurqūṣ: He should be remembered as a Companion of the Blesed Prophet (saw) who was among the first teeth of Islam, was a trusted general of Caliph ‘Umar (ra).
Is acknowledged in the books of those who call themselves people of the Sunnah that the people of Nahrwan the following:
“ He said: and who are these?By Allah they are the first teeth, the companions of Muhammed, Ahl Al Barani wa Sawari, which are the Ahl Suffa.”
Source: (Al-Kitab Al-Musannaf Fi Al-Ahadith Wal A’thar (The classified book in Hadiths and Narrations) By Imam Al-Hafiz: Abu Bakr Abdullah Bin Muhammed Bin Abi Shaibah Al-Kufi Al-Absi Volume 7)
Our call to “Be Just!” We have provided a powerful corrective to a historical injustice embedded within the tradition, demanding a return to the primary texts and a more nuanced understanding of the companions and the tragic conflicts that divided them.
You may also be interested in reading our article here:
“For the truth stands out clearly from falsehood.” (Qur’an 2:256)
﷽
Let us see which of you reading this are quick-witted to spot the problem. Given what we know about human reproduction, what is the obvious error in sending brother after brother to impregnate a woman that fails to get pregnant?
Source: (Matthew 22:23-32)
“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5)
“Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.” (Genesis 38:8-10)
“That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” (Matthew 22:23-28)
You can replace the seven brothers with ten brothers or even 25 brothers if you like.
At what point does one realize that these men are not firing blanks but that this woman is infertile!
The woman has some type of medical condition that is preventing her from getting pregnant. Now if someone wants to raise an objection, stating that in Genesis 38:8-10 Onan was spilling his semen on the ground (coitus interruptus) and that perhaps all the brothers were doing that, it doesn’t help the case either.
Did not have the foresight to realize that people would do this, evading their responsibility?
If the story of Onan was known, the men would realize that God would strike them dead. Thus, the ever looming wrath of God.
Surely the women are not so gullible as to not know whether a man is ejaculating in them or not.
This law was before modern medicine in which we know that both a man and a woman may have issues of fertility. Given the low esteem that women are generally afforded in the Bible, it is not at all surprising to see the power of pro-creation as something that man is responsible for.
If Jesus was God, he would be aware that both men and women have a part to play in human reproduction.
In the majority Christian view, Jesus shares the essence (being) of the Father and the Holy Spirit, which means that He (Jesus) gave those laws to Moses, proving further that he cannot be God and that the sacred text of the Jews and Christians are not free from egregious errors.
Another point to take note of:
The text has Jesus (as) say:
“Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:29-30)
It looks like Jesus is in error for not knowing the scriptures!
However, the scriptures say:
“And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:1-2)
Jesus claims people will not marry nor be given in marriage being like the angels. Yet the angels themselves took human women as wives.
Now, watch out for the curveball they (some Christians will throw you) because they will say, “Oh, the text says,” Sons of God” not angels. But angels are the sons of God.
You can see where they are used interchangeably here:
“One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.” (Job 1:6 New International Version)
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” (Job 1:6 King James Version)
Lastly, if they persist that sons of God refer to men, then this shows you it is an appellation referring to mortal human beings without any divine connotation.
The Bible’s treatment of fertility is anthropologically conditioned and not scientifically precise.
From a modern scientific perspective, if multiple brothers fail to impregnate the same woman, it is statistically improbable that all men are infertile (assuming they are fertile with other women). The most logical conclusion is that the woman has a fertility issue. This highlights an ancient misunderstanding of reproduction, where infertility was often attributed solely to the woman. However, the levirate law implicitly places the burden on the man’s lineage to continue, ignoring potential female factors.
“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.”(Qur’an 3:44)
﷽
“This is the Book in which there is no doubt, a guide for the righteous. Those who believe in the unseen, and perform the prayers, and give from what We have provided for them. And those who believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you, and are certain of the Hereafter.” (Qur’an 2:3-4)
The Qur’an is a book of which there is no doubt. It is for those who believe in the unseen. It is for those who are certain in the life to come. It is for those who believe in what was revealed before the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Those who are skeptical of those points will quite naturally arrive at different conclusions. So that is of no consequence for the believer.
“As for those who persist in disbelief, it is the same whether you warn them or not—they will never believe. Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and their sight is covered. They will suffer a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 2:6-7)
Now, historians and orientalists cannot speak of the supra natural as these are matters of belief. They are beyond their point of historical investigation. However, we are always thrilled when we find historians and Orientalists corroborating the testimony of narratives in the Qur’an by finding manuscripts or parchments of information that, though not ad verbatim, closely mimic what Allah (swt) has revealed before. This is the understanding of the believer.
Do we find some information from various cultures that preceded the coming of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that seems to corroborate the beliefs of Islam? Yes! That is not scary! That is exciting!
Recall what Allah (swt) himself informed us of:
“We surely sent a messenger to every community, saying, “Worship Allah and shun false gods.” But some of them were guided by Allah, while others were destined to stray. So travel throughout the land and see the fate of the deniers!” (Qur’an 16:36)
Remember we are not responsible for the conclusions or perceptions of others.
If we look at the above graph. We can see that in block B the apparent (the dhahir) is that there are parchments, manuscripts, scrolls, oral traditions, inscriptions etc. that come before the Qur’an. However, when we look at block B, the haqiqah (the reality) is that Allah’s knowledge of what really happened precedes the information in B.Because of that reality, what is in C (The Qur’an) actually precedes the information in B. This is precisely why this hobbyhorse of orientalist and those who use the historical critical method is of absolutely no consequence for the believing Muslim.
We Muslims have been the first critics of our own sources. The clash of historical narratives between the Ibadi, Sunni and Shi’a is proof positive of this. The grading of the ahadith and the mention of variants in the transmission of the Qur’an have not come from people who lost faith, agnostics or atheists. They came from us, as believers. Subhan’Allah!
These other Johnny Come Lately types, HCM, etc., welcome to the party!
History and Miracles.
We don’t believe that miracles are historical. This does not mean that we do not believe that miracles did not happen. We just don’t believe that history can capture them.
Case in point. An Indian king, Cheraman Perumal, was reported to have seen the moon split. History can report such data, but it does not necessarily confirm nor interpret the data.
This particular entry is directed towards Christians. It is rather shameful that they have taken the approach that they have in these matters. Given that they too claim to believe in the unseen. They claim to believe in a Creator that can narrate past events that present people were not privy to.
“Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”But she pointed to the babe. They said: “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?” He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I will be and has enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He) has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)”! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.”(Qur’an 19:27-34)
“When Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission, and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, “This is not but obvious magic.”(Qur’an 5:110)
“And a messenger to the Children of Israel, who will say, ‘Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah. And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead – by permission of Allah. And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.” (Qur’an 3:49)
Prima Qur’an comments:
In this article, we will give a response to those Christians who use as a polemic against Muslims the claim that the Qur’an contains apocryphal material in it and therefore cannot be a revelation from Allah (swt).
Now, of course, they will claim that there are more than the three verses of the Qur’an we quoted above as being from apocryphal material. However, we have chosen to focus on these three, as they are most often used by Christian polemicists in debates with Muslims.
Now, personally, we find this particular line of Christian attack against Islam amusing. However, they have to eventually come up with something, right?
Now let’s look at and listen carefully to what these Christians are actually disputing with us about.
*Note*
They are not raising the issue of “healing the blind.“
They are not raising issues against “curing people affected by leprosy.”
They are not raising issues against “give life to the dead.”
They are not disputing these points because they are miracles attributed to Christ Jesus that they find in their accepted canonical text. We will come to the term canonical in a moment.
What they are disputing is:
Jesus speaking as an infant
Jesus creating birds out of clay
Why do they dispute about these miracles?
Because they are not in what they accept to be their canonical text.
So what do the terms apocryphal and canonical mean?
Canonical in relation to Christian scriptures means:
“A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a set of texts (or “books”) which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture. … Believers consider canonical books as inspired by God or as expressive of the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people.”
Apocryphal in relation to Christian scriptures means:
“Biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture; or writings or reports not considered genuine.”
So, if a Christian were to come to us and say that these statements in the Qur’an are found in apocryphal sources, the first thing you have to keep in mind that what they are actually saying isthat it is apocryphal according to their particular sect of Christianity!
The reason that is important is as follows: As we write this to you on 11/4/2024, Christendom has still not settled the issue of what is and is not apocryphal for the whole of Christianity.
Glaring examples are the following:
Depending on how you want to word it, you could say that the Protestants have 7 fewer books in their version of the Old Testament. Or you could say that the Roman Catholics have 7 extra books in their Old Testament that they accept to be inspired and not apocryphal.
Yet the Orthodox Church has additional Old Testament texts (or if you want to be neutral, the Protestants and Catholics have less). The same can be said for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
The same goes for the New Testament.
What is canonical is an issue that is still not settled among them.
The Chaldean Syrian Church does not accept the following as canon:
In fact, many Protestant Christians have declared Mark 16:8-20, & John 7:53–8:11 to not be canonical.
You have to wonder about the Protestant Christian theologians like John Calvin, Martin Luther, and others who most likely held such passages to be canonical. Yet there are Christians who do not agree with the idea that such passages are non-canonical. These Christians very much believe that Mark 16:8-20, &John 7:53–8:11 are inspired scripture.
So what is the point that is being made?
The point is that when a Christian says to us that those verses in the Qur’an are allegedly taken from apocryphal sources, it is important to understand that:
That though it may be apocryphal for that particular Christian, we can’t say for certain that it was apocryphal for the other Christians.
To keep in mind that what is and is not apocryphal has been and continues to be an internal dispute among Christians.
If the Christian is to counter by saying, “Can you name for me any Christian denomination today that accepts such and such text as canonical?”
The answer to that is: “No we can’t.” Many Christian sects and denominations over time have long perished. Most often the information we do have about them comes from their opponents.
What is also interesting, and we hope Muslims reading this bear in mind, is that no Christian committed to a consistent world view in which the supra-natural happens can tell us that:
Jesus did not speak as an infant.
Jesus did not create birds out of clay.
This assertion is also supported by the text they accept as canon. Namely, the following:
“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book: But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).
Prima Qur’an comments:
Now this writer, apparently inspired by Allah, felt that it was necessary to inform his readers that Jesus did many other miracles that are not contained within this book.
“There are many more things that Jesus did. If all of them were written down, I suppose that not even the world itself would have space for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)
Prima Qur’an comments: Though we can all agree this statement is hyperbole, yet it is obvious that the writer knew that there was much more information about Jesus that could be shared.
Now, a possible Christian objection to our understanding of John 20:30-31 is that ‘the many other miracles that are not present in this book‘ could only be a reference to the miracles listed in Matthew, Mark, Luke that are not in the Gospel according to John.
The response to this is that it is simply an assumption.
It could be that:
It could be a reference only to the miracles present in Matthew, Mark, Luke that are not in the Gospel, according to John.
It could be a reference to miracles that are not present in any of those Gospel accounts.
It could be a reference to miracles present in Matthew, Mark, Luke as well as those not present in any Gospel accounts.
Christians could well ask: “Why wouldn’t these accounts of Jesus speaking as an infant or making birds out of clay make it into any of the Four Gospels commonly accepted among all of Christendom?”
Well, we have a clue about that from a text we have already mentioned.
“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).
Prima Qura’n comments: This Gospel writer is telling us that he is informed about other miracles, but the seven particular miracles that he has selected is so that we may believe that Jesus is:
The Christ
The Son of God
Having eternal life through his name.
So, in the example of this Gospel writer, we have the reasons plainly stated why some miracles were chosen over others. Whereas for the other Gospels it’s hard to discern why they may have left out certain miracles.
For example, John’s Gospel includes the story of Lazarus rising from the dead. I’m puzzled why such an awesome event is not recorded by the other Gospels. Or Jesus turning water into wine is only included in the Gospel, according to John.
Equally puzzling is the following awesome account, which is not recorded by any ancient documents outside of Matthew itself.
“And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, ‘Truly this was the Son of God’” (Matthew. 27:51-54).
There are no extra-biblical sources that mention this awesome event. Surely witnessing such an event would have been worthy of mention somewhere. In fact, this particular text created controversy even among conservative Christians when New Testament scholar and associate professor of theology Michael Licona raised questions about this text.
You can read about where Christians have done some damage control concerning this at the following:
So, again, going back to the Christian inquiry into why some awesome and miraculous events are recorded by some sources and not others, we can only surmise as to the motives behind this.
Why is it Jesus speaking as an infant is recorded in some sources and not others?
Why is Jesus making birds out of clay recorded in some sources and not others?
Why is it that the Gospel of Mark is now considered not to have a resurrection narrative, but other sources have it?
Why is it that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead from some sources and not others?
Why is it that Jesus turned water into wine from some sources and not others?
Why is that only the Gospel of Matthew has this narrative about the mass resurrections of people appearing to many in the city?
Another interesting point to note is that, in the case of the Christian tradition that many of us will encounter today, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants of many types, we have 30 years of the life of Christ Jesus that is completely missing altogether!
“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.” (Luke 3:23)
So imagine all the people who needed to be healed, those who needed salvation, and what does the current Christian canon tell us about the early life of Jesus? Its silence about the early life of Jesus is awkward, to say the least.
It is honestly both shocking and disappointing that Christians would use these types of arguments against the Qur’an. It absolutely reeks of atheism, smacks of radical skepticism, and is stepped in a worldview bereft of the supra-natural.
For us, as Muslims, we are informed about what happened concerning Jesus through divine revelation. As Allah (swt) says to the Blessed Messenger (saw):
“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” (Qur’an 3:44)
Also, notice that when the Christians make their particular claim about the Qur’an, they more often than not do put up the sources which they claim the Qur’an takes the following from:
Speaking as an infant.
Creating birds out of clay.
We also find it interesting that Muslims don’t ask them for their sources.
The Christian polemicist usually has two sources in mind for this:
Those sources are: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas & The Proevangelian of James
“This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there were also many other little children playing with him.
“And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, your child is at the brook, and he has taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds and has polluted the Sabbath day. 4 And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Why are you doing these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. 5 And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.”
Source: (Infancy Gospel of Thomas Chapter 2:1-5)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
This narrative speaks about Jesus creating 12 birds. The emphasis on the number 12 is there twice. This must relate to the 12 disciples. Whereas in the Qur’an we find no mention of this.
“Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah.” (Qur’an 3:49)
There is no mention of Jesus doing this act on the Sabbath Day. There is no mention of Jesus creating 12 birds. It is interesting to note that the Qur’andoes not name the number of Jesus’ disciples. Christians have not addressed this.
It would be interesting to know where the writer(s) of the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’ got their information from. The earliest possible date of authorship is 80 A. D to 250 A. D. This is also roughly the time that the date of authorship is ascribed to ‘The Epistle to Titus‘, which is considered canonical by Christians today. These scholars date the epistle from the 80 A. D up to the end of the 250 A. D.
Source: (Raymond E Brown An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 662)
“And when Jesus was five years old, there fell a great rain upon the earth, and the boy Jesus walked up and down through it. And there was a terrible rain, and He collected it into a fish-pond, and ordered it by His word to become clear. And immediately it became so. Again He took of the clay which was of that fish-pond, and made of it to the number of twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus did this among the boys of the Jews. And the boys of the Jews went away and said to Joseph His father: Behold, thy son was playing along with us, and he took clay and made sparrows, which it was not lawful to do on the Sabbath; and he has broken it. And Joseph went away to the boy Jesus, and said to Him: Why have you done this, which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath? And Jesus opened His hands, and ordered the sparrows, saying: Go up into the air and fly; nobody shall kill you. And they flew, and began to cry out, and praise God Almighty. And the Jews seeing what had happened, wondered, and went away and told the miracles which Jesus had done.”
Source: (Infancy Gospel of James Chapter 4)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
This story is very similar to the one in the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’. What becomes apparent is that both of these sources are relying upon some oral tradition–one in which does not have a chain of transmission.
Now here is what is interesting about the Protoevangelion Jacobi or Infancy Gospel of James. One of the Christian polemicists that used this type of attack upon the Qur’anwas himself put in a difficult position in relation to this text.
@19:20 Erhman asks: “What other documents are found in P72 as this is a document that resonates with you?”
James responds, “There are some non-canonical documents in P72 …
Erhman replies, “Right, so I am just wondering about you resonating with this document”. Do you think that the scribe thought what he was copying was scripture?“
James, “Well, I don’t think you can simply jump to the conclusion that, because scribes included books in a single codex that they believed that everything within that codex was necessarily scripture.” There are sorts of works that were considered to be beneficial to people that were included in codices that were not necessarily canonical.”
Erhman, “Yeah, I just think that it was odd that that particular manuscript was one that you resonated with because it’s the earliest attestation that we have of the protoevangelium jacobi.” (The Infancy Gospel of James) ..
Prima Qur’an Comments:
In other words, you can’t know for certain if the scribe who was copying this text (obviously from an even earlier source) was transcribing what he thought was divine writing! Especially in light of the fact that it is in the same genre of manuscripts that are generally described as “the most significant” papyrus of the New Testament to be discovered so far.
“Now, when the Lord Jesus had completed seven years from His birth, on a certain day He was occupied with boys of His own age. For they were playing among clay, from which they were making images of asses, oxen, birds, and other animals; and each one boasting of his skill, was praising his own work. Then the Lord Jesus said to the boys: The images that I have made I will order to walk. The boys asked Him whether then he was the son of the Creator, and the Lord Jesus made them walk. And they immediately began to leap; and then, when He had given them leave, they again stood still. And He had made figures of birds and sparrows, which flew when He told them to fly, and stood still when He told them to stand, and ate and drank when He handed them food and drink. After the boys had gone away and told this to their parents, their fathers said to them: My sons, take care not to keep company with him again, for he is a wizard: flee from him, therefore, and avoid him, and do not play with him again after this.”
Source: (The Arabic Infancy Gospel of Jesus)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
This text has Jesus not only making birdsbut apparently donkeys, oxen, and other (undisclosed) animals out of clay. There is an inquiry about him being the son of the Creator. There is no mention of the sabbath or any mention of the animals being of any number.
It’s thought that this Gospel has its origins in Syriac sources in the 5th or 6th century.
“We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when he was lying in His cradle, said to Mary His mother: “I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom you have brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to you; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.”
Source: (The Arabic Infancy Gospel of Jesus).
Prima Qur’an Comments:
There is no mention of Mary carrying Jesus as a baby. There is no mention of the people asking Mary where this baby came from. This text has Jesus addressing his mother, the Qur’an has him addressing the people. The text above is filled with Christian doctrine: Jesus is the Son of God, he has a ‘Father’ and he was sent for the salvation of the world.
None of this is found in the account of the Qur’an.
Conclusion:
The attacks that Christian polemicists have leveled towards the Qur’anare the kind one would expect from radical skepticism, and a worldview bereft of the supra-natural.
We can see that these sources the Christians point to have important details and radically different theological statements that we do not find at all within the Qur’an.
More telling is that Christians do not even quote these sources, or give the details of the accounts. Many of the people they speak to will not go and double-check the sources for themselves.
The fact that some Christians find these sources apocryphal is of no concern to us as Muslims. We as Muslims do not rely upon them or accept them as revelation either. Our acceptance of what is stated in the Qur’an comes from our faith in it as divine revelation and in what Allah (swt) himself has stated:
“That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed.” (Qur’an 3:44)
Just as our faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Word of Allah, and the Son of Mary are not dependent upon any book of the New Testament (even if the whole of Christendom) accepts it as canonical.
Christians themselves cannot totally rule out the possibility of Jesus having spoken as an infant or having given life to the clay birds based upon the following evidence:
“And Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name” (John 20:30-31).
As well as the fact that the Gospel writers themselves have admitted to leaving out particular miracles that did not suit their desired goals.
“The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.”(Qur’an 2:147)
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
May Allah (swt) guide the truth seekers!
If you enjoyed this article you may enjoy the following:
“And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them.” (Qur’an 4:159)
﷽
The misunderstanding of the verse is used as evidence for them to believe in some ‘Second Coming’ of Jesus (as).
You may look at all the various ways the verse has been translated into English here:
In this article we will focus on the justifications and proofs as they are given by the respected Mufti Zameel Ur Rahman. That is because what he statesis the majority view on the matter.
MUFTI ZAMEEL UR RAHMANS UNDERSTANDING OF QUR’AN 4:159
Let us examine what Mufti Zameel Ur Rahman has put forward:
“These verses then state that the Jews will believe in him before he dies. That is, before ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) dies (after he defeats the Dajjāl), the Jews that are remaining on the earth will all believe in him as the Messiah/Masīḥ about whom they were foretold. This is the dominant interpretation of the concluding verse that reads: “There will be none from the people of the scripture [i.e. Jews] but will believe in him before his death.” This has been recorded authentically from Abū Hurayrah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) (see below).”
“Al-Ṭabarī transmits through two chains from Sufyān al-Thawrī from Abū Ḥaṣīn from Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said “before his death” means “before the death of ‘Īsā ibn Maryam”. (Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, Maktabah Hajr, 7:664) This is an authentic chain.”
“He also narrates with an authentic chain to the Tābi‘ī, Abū Mālik Ghazwān al-Ghifārī (ca. 25 – 100 H), that he said of this verse: “That is, upon the descent of ‘Īsā ibn Maryam – none from the people of the scripture will remain but will believe in him.” (ibid. 7:665) He also transmits with an authentic chain to the eminent Tābi‘ī, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (21 – 110 H), that he said: “Before the death of ‘Īsā. By Allāh! He is now alive in the presence of Allāh; but when he comes down, they will all believe in him.” (ibid.)”
“This is also transmitted from the mufassir of the Tābi‘īn, Qatādah ibn Di‘āmah. Al-Ṭabarī also transmits authentically from ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd ibn Aslam (d. 182), a mufassir from the Tab‘ Tābi‘īn, that he said of this verse: “When ‘Īsā ibn Maryam descends and then kills the Dajjāl, no Jew will remain on the earth but will believe in him.” (ibid. 7:666)”
“Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī explains that this is the most correct explanation. (ibid. 7:672) He explains that thus the meaning of the verse is: “[There is none from the people of the book] but will believe in ‘Īsā before the death of ‘Īsā – and that is about a specific [group] of the people of the book; those intended are the people of one particular time from them, not people of all times, who came after ‘Īsā; and that this will occur after his descent.” (ibid. 7:674)”
“Similarly, Ibn Kathīr says after mentioning this interpretation: “This opinion is the truth,” (Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr, Maktabah Awlād al-Shaykh, 4:342), and further states: “There is no doubt that what Ibn Jarīr said [giving preference to this interpretation] is what is correct, as that is what was intended from the context of the verses.” (ibid. 4:344) As Ibn Kathīr mentions, it is clear from the context that this is what is meant. The verses are talking about the Jews’ claim to have executed ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām). Allāh says they did not kill or execute him but Allāh raised him up to Himself. Furthermore, not one of them will remain but will believe in ‘Īsā before his actual death. Hence, these verses clearly demonstrate that ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) was not killed, but was taken up alive into the sky, and further indicate that he will return and the Jews who remain (after he kills the Dajjāl) will believe in him.”
Notice that Mufti says,
“These verses then state that the Jews will believe in him before he dies. That is, before ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) dies (after he defeats the Dajjāl).”
However, that is not what the verse says, and he knows this! If he was simply reading the traditions into the commentary, that is one thing, but forcing them into the text is altogether dishonest!
“This is the dominant interpretation.” Well, Mufti, on what basis do you say this is the ‘dominant interpretation’ ? Can you tell us the total amount of tafsir literature you studied on this matter to conclude this? Also, if this is the ‘dominant interpretation’, it is by your own admission not necessarily the only one!
Truth vs. Popularity: The truth is not a matter of democratic opinion but of sound evidence from the Quran itself.
Next, Mufti seems to quote from a disparate number of tafsir commentaries (albeit selectively). So let’s keep count, shall we?
Tafsir #1, Ibn Kathir
Tafsir #2, Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari
Tafsir #3, Qatada ibn Di’amah
Looking at the Tafsir of Qatada Ibn Di’amah.
Qatada Ibn Dia’ama has two traditions — disconnected from unknown sources about (Qur’an 4:157-158)
“And it was related to us that the prophet of God, Jesus son of Mary, said to his disciples: ‘Who of you will have my likeness [shibh/shabah] cast upon him and thereby be killed? One of the disciples said, ‘I, Oh prophet of God!’ ‘Thus that man was killed and God protected [mana’a] His prophet as HE RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF.
Concerning his statement: “AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM AND THEY DID NOT CRUCIFY HIM, BUT IT APPEARED SO TO THEM. Qatada said: ‘The likeness of Jesus was cast upon one of his disciples, and he was killed. Jesus had appeared before them and said: “Whoever of you will have my likeness cast upon him will have paradise.” And one said: “Upon me!”
Prima Qur’an comments:
Qatada Ibn Dia’ama has two traditions from disconnected unknown sources.
This information is from Israʼiliyyat material.
There is a 700 year gap in the chain of transmission!
Also notice how there is no attempt to identify or name the substitute.
Looking at the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari
Al-Tabari cites eleven traditions all going back to Wahb ibn Munabbih concerning (Qur’an 4:157-158)
Here is the verdict of Al-Tabari:
“Or the affair was according to what ‘Abd al-Samad related (that is the second tradition) from Wahb ibn Munabbih, that is, that the people who were with ‘Isa in the house scattered from the house before the Jews came upon him. ‘Isa remained, and his LIKENESS was cast upon one of his companions, who still remained with him in the house. And ‘Isa was RAISED UP, and one who was changed in the LIKENESS of ‘Isa was killed. And his companions through that the one CRUCIFIEDwas ‘Isa, because of what they saw happens to the one who was made to look like him. And the truth of the matter was hidden from them, because his being RAISED UP and the changing of the one who was killed into his LIKENESS happened after the SCATTERING of his friends. and [because] they [had] heard ‘Isa that night announce his death, and mourn because he thought that death was approaching him. And they related what happened as true, but the affair with God was really quite different from what they related. And those disciples who related this do not deserve to be called liars.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, vol 9, p 374)
Remember that Al-Tabari is getting his information from Wahb ibn Munabbih, so maybe we spend just a little bit of time on him.
Remember that Mufti Zameel ur Rahman had the following to say about Mufti Abu Layth on the matter:
“Recently, an individual has been promoting the misguided belief that the Prophet ‘Īsā (‘alayhissalām) will not return, claiming that this is an idea that has mistakenly been imported into Islām and the teachings of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) from Christianity.”
Well, let us see if Mufti Zameer ur Rahman would be humble enough to apologize to Mufti Abu Layth concerning Wahb ibn Munabbih:
“It is not known clearly if he converted to Islam from Judaism or that his father is a convert from Judaism. There are various reports.” “He was known for reporting Isra’ilyyat material. -well known.” “He required a reputation from trustworthy to audacious liar.”
Source: (Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Khallikān (d. 1282 CE) and his work Wafayāt al-aʿyān wa-anbāʾ abnāʾ al-zamān (وفيات الأعيان وأنباء أبناء الزمان,) The Obituaries of Eminent Men and the History of the Contemporaries p. 673)
Ibn Khallikān was a renowned Shafi’i jurist, judge (qāḍī), and historian of the 13th century. He is celebrated for his scholarly rigor and intellectual integrity.
Ibn Ishaq used his work for the beginnings of Christianity but did not take from him as a source for the Prophet (saw) biography!
Ibn Khaldun didn’t have a high opinion, mentioning that he frequently told flat lies.
Source: (“Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits,” xx.part 1, p. 461; De Slane, Ibn Ḥallikan, iii. 673, note 2 | Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Roi et autres bibliothèques.
For the English readers: (Notices and Extracts from the Manuscripts of the King’s Library and Other Libraries. The Citation (xx.part 1, p. 461): This refers to Volume 20, Part 1, page 461. The article claims that on this page, there is a discussion about Wahb ibn Munabbih that references Ibn Khaldun’s low opinion of him.
Companions and scholars like Abdullah ibn Mas’ud warned people not to learn Tafsir from the ‘Ahl Kittab’ and his argument was that they may use it to interpolate their own biblical beliefs, teachings and history replacing the Islamic belief and preaching.
Source: (Dr. Muhammed Husayn al-Dhahabi and his monumental work Al-Tafsīr wa al-Mufassirūn (التفسير والمفسرون, Quranic Exegesis and Its Exegetes Volume 1)
Why Dr. Dhahabi’s scholarship is important.
al-Dhahabi provides a powerful, mainstream Sunni scholarly critique of the very sources that underpin the traditional narrative about Jesus’ death. The reference serves several key argumentative purposes:
Historical Validation of the Problem: Al-Dhahabi meticulously documents how these foreign narratives entered Islamic scholarship. This was primarily through early converts from Judaism and Christianity (like Ka’b al-Aḥbār, Wahb ibn Munabbih, and Abdullah ibn Salam) who, while well-intentioned, began to fill in the gaps in Quranic stories with details from their own traditions. This gives historical credence to the warning from the Companion Abdullah ibn Mas’ud that the article also references.
al-Dhahabi, argues that the classical commentaries on verses like 4:157-159 are contaminated with unreliable material. Al-Dhahabi’s work is essentially a scholarly condemnation of the uncritical acceptance of Isrā’īliyyāt.
So let us take a look again at what Al-Tabari believed:
“Or the affair was according to what ‘Abd al-Samad related (that is the second tradition) from Wahb ibn Munabbih, that is, that the people who were with ‘Isa in the house scattered from the house before the Jews came upon him. ‘Isa remained, and his LIKENESS was cast upon one of his companions, who still remained with him in the house. And ‘Isa was RAISED UP, and one who was changed in the LIKENESS of ‘Isa was killed. And his companions through that the one CRUCIFIED was ‘Isa, because of what they saw happens to the one who was made to look like him.And the truth of the matter was hidden from them, because his being RAISED UP and the changing of the one who was killed into his LIKENESS happened after the SCATTERING of his friends. and [because] they [had] heard ‘Isa that night announce his death, and mourn because he thought that death was approaching him. And they related what happened as true, but the affair with God was really quite different from what they related. And those disciples who related this do not deserve to be called liars.”
Source: (Al-Tabari, vol 9, p 374)
Prima Qur’an comments:
So, basically, in this narrative, Allah (swt) didn’t fool the non-believers, but he actually fooled the believing disciples of Jesus into believing that He (Jesus) was killed—when he wasn’t?!? Also, the 12 disciples couldn’t use logic, deduction and simple basic math and say, (Well, you know Jesus is gone and so is ….such and such disciple) Hey, maybe Jesus didn’t die?! Maybe so-and-so took his place! Notice the obfuscation especially with the quote from Qatada Ibn Dia’ama? We don’t get to know who this legendary disciple is? Who is this masked man? Oh well, you can hear them saying, ‘it doesn’t matter his reward is with his Lord’.
Looking at the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir
So what is the view of Ibn Kathir concerning Qur’an 4:157-158?
“They disobeyed Jesus and tried to harm him in every possible way, until God led His prophet away from them-Jesus and Mary traveled extensively to avoid such persecution. Ultimately, the Jews notified the King of Syria that there was a man in the holy house was was charming and subverting the people. The king wrote to his deputy in Jerusalem to be on guard against this. Moreover, the deputy was instructed to crucify the culprit (Jesus) and place thorns on his head to stop him from harming the flock. The deputy obeyed the order and led a group of Jews to where Jesus was staying with his twelve or thirteen followers. When Jesus was aware that they were after him, he asked for a volunteer to take his place. One stepped forward and was taken by the Jews and crucified, while Jesus was himself raised through the roof of the house. The Jews then announced that they had crucified Jesus and boasted about it. In their ignorance and lack of intellect ,a number of Christians accepted this claim. The fact that the other disciples had seen Jesus raised was ignored. Everyone else though that the Jews had crucified Jesus.”
Source: (Ibn Kathir, ‘Umdat al-tafsir, ed Ahmad Muhammed Shakir, 5 vols located in: vol 4 pp.28-34)
Prima Qur’an comments :
So notice how Ibn Kathir’s commentary is totally different from Al-Tabari on very key points. Again, obfuscation is a common theme. We don’t know if Jesus had 12 or 13 disciples. The brave unsung hero disciple who just jumped at the chance to be killed (we have no idea who he is). However, unlike Al-Tabari, who was ready to accept on face value the claim of Jesus’ disciples — although they were apparently fooled by Allah (swt), Ibn Kathir isn’t ready to pen that on the disciples. Instead, he simply offers that the Christians were ignorant and lacked intellect, so they accepted that Jesus died. The fact that ‘other disciples’ saw what went down was just simply ignored.
Summary of the Tafsir Sources:
The three tafsir sources that Mufti Zameer ur Rahman are all ultimately reliant upon anonymous, disconnected chains and sources that are traceable to the very sources (Ahl Kitab) that Ibn Masud warned us about!
How can Mufti Zameer ur Rahman (and anyone else who holds his position) claim with confidence that they know what (Qur’an 4:157-159) is talking about? This so-called ‘unified tradition’ holds disparate and conflicting perspectives that are frankly all over the place.
The testimony of Ibn Masud (ra)
Al-Barqānī informed me, saying: Abū Bakr al-Ismāʿīlī narrated to us, saying: I heard Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥāfiẓ, and he was asked about tafsīr (Qur’an exegesis): From where should a person begin it? He replied: From the Book of Allah, the Exalted. If that is difficult for him, then he should rely upon the transmitted reports (al-athar). If that is difficult for him, then he should resort to reasoning (al-naẓar). Then he said: It is necessary that above all of this he gives precedence to the Book of Allah. Then he said: I heard Abū al-ʿAbbās Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq al-Thaqafī say: I heard ʿAbdān ibn Aḥmad say: I heard ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak say: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd used to say: ‘Transmit the Qur’an (faithfully), and do not follow the People of the Book, for indeed they relate to you the most false of narrations, and they burden you with their falsehoods.”
Source: ( Imam Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi Work: Al-Jāmi‘ li-Akhlāq al-Rāwī wa Ādāb al-Sāmi‘ (الجامع لأخلاق الراوي وآداب السامع) – A Compendium of the Ethics of the Narrator and the Etiquette of the Listener. Volume 1, Page 289 )
Chapter: The Qurra from among the Companions of the Prophet (saws)
Narrated Masriq:
`Abdullah bin `Amr mentioned `Abdullah bin Masud and said, “I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, ‘Take (learn) the Qur’an from four: `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu`adh and Ubai bin Ka`b.’ “
“Waki’ narrated to us, from Sufyan, from Abu Hasin, from Abu Wa’il, from Abdullah (ibn Mas’ud), who said:
‘When the People of the Book narrate to you, do not believe them nor disbelieve them. Rather, say: “We believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you.”‘”
Source: (Al-Musannaf by Ibn Abi Shaybah, Dar al-Taj, Riyadh (1st ed., 1409 AH), Volume 6, Page 101, Hadith Number 29990.)
The testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Messenger (saw) said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.’ “
Conclusion: In the Ibadi school we will take the firm testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw). We will take the advice of one of the best people to learn the Qur’an from, Ibn Masud (ra). What we will not do is take the testimony of a person who is narrating Israʼiliyyat with a 700-year gap in the chain of transmission. What we will do is disobey the Blessed Prophet (saw) by taking this material from the people of the book as if they inform us about our religion!
You find that the Sunni and the Shi’i get themselves into a huge exegetical mess over this. They somehow imagine that Qur’an4:157 is speaking about something the Romans are claimed to have done to Jesus!
Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness)The Ibadi school and Quran 4:159
How does the Ibadi school understand Qur’an 4:159?
“And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them.” (Qur’an 4:159)
The death mentioned here could refer either to the death of Jesus (as) or to the death of each and every Jew. The text lends itself to both meanings.
It is important to note that from the (Qur’an 4:153-to 4:159) the entire theme is directed towards Jews.
None among the Jews that Jesus preached to but that it is a prerequisite for them to believe in him before their death.
Jesus is a witness against those who witnessed his preaching and rejected him.
If the people died believing in Jesus, then he would be a witness for them, not against them.
This is confirmed by: “I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when you caused me to die, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. (Qur’an 5:117)
Who else would he be a witness against?
What is so special about those particular Jews who are alive when Jesus (as) supposedly returns is that they get to witness and see Jesus (as) whereas the Jews who have lived for the last 2000 years simply died upon batil (falsehood)?
If we believe in the interpretation that Mufti Zameer ur Rahman gives (and those like him) they need to answer the following questions:
Why would Jesus be a witness against them if they all died believing in him?
Wouldn’t Jesus be a witness against those who did not believe in him?
If you interpret it, none must believe in him, but before their death, surely thousands of Jews and Christians died without believing Jesus was a prophet.
How can this apply to Christians if they already believe in him?
How do you answer that if it meant to believe in him as a prophet before his alleged return, then he wouldn’t need to be a witness against them anyway.
Prove grammatically that Qur’an 4:159 is a break in theme from 4:153 onwards and refers to some future eschatological event.
Prove grammatically and thematically that the verse in question includes Christians.
Further Proofs:
“And when Allah will say: O Jesus son of Mary! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah, he will say: Glory be to You, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, You would indeed have known it; You know what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in your mind, surely you are the great Knower of the unseen things. I did not say anything to them except what you commanded me with: That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die (Arabic: Tawafaytani), you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.” (Qur’an 5:116-117)
There are several things to take from the above passage:
1) This dialogue takes place on the Day of Judgment, where Prophet Jesus suggests that he has no knowledge of what has happened since his demise on Earth and after his ministry ended. “I was a witness over them as long as I was among them.”
2) From the discussion, it is clear that Prophet Jesus only came to Earth once, acting as a witness over his people. If indeed there was a ‘second coming‘ before the Day of Judgment, he would have full knowledge of what had happened since his first departure. After all, he abolished the Jizya and forced the Christians to convert to Islam. This conversation with Allah (swt) would make little to no sense.
3) Imagine if the ahadiths that are put in the mouth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) were true for a moment. So now Jesus (as) comes back and everyone becomes a Muslim. The Dajjal is defeated. Jesus (as) gets married. Then Allah (swt) causes Jesus (as) to die.
Then we have Jesus (as) saying after he dies to Allah (swt): “I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die, you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.”
A rather bizarre understanding, it seems.
Especially if we take the following text into consideration: “And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159)
It is clear to all whom Allah has lifted the veils that Qur’an 5:116-117 is talking about Jesus (as) earthly life and ministry.
The very presence of Jesus creates a bizarre redundant time paradox if we are to believe the Sunni position.
Think about it.
Look at the verse again: Imagine that Allah is saying this to Jesus, who came down from the skies, fought the Dajjal, got married and died.
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
If Jesus is alive in the heavens, why is he not aware of this already?
Why is he not aware that Allah has already cleared him of falsehood by the Qur’an?
Even if he wasn’t aware after 2000 plus years, then surely he would have access to the Qur’an when he came back to Earth? Would he not be aware of the text that had already cleared him? Can you imagine Jesus (as) attending the tarweeh prayers in Ramadan and hearing Qur’an 5:116-117 being recited?
Whereas if we understand the text (Qur’an 3:55) as a revelation from Allah [swt] to his Prophet Jesus (as) it at the time of his death, it comes across as very comforting and reassuring. That Allah [swt] is the cause of your death, and you will return to your lord as the statement: “Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.” That he [Jesus] will be cleared of false accusations. That his followers will be superior over the detractors on the day of judgment.
Sunni Muslims begin to take a new approach to Qur’an 4:159
Jesus bin Maryam will come down to them. Their leader will step backwards so that Jesus can come forward and lead the people in prayer, but Jesus will place his hand between his shoulders and say to him: “Go forward and pray, for the Iqamah was given for you.” Then their leader will lead them in prayer. When he has finished, Jesus (as), will say: “Open the gate.” So they will open it and behind it will be Dajjal with seventy thousand Jews, each of them carrying an adorned sword and wearing a greenish cloak. When Dajjal looks at him, he will start to melt as salt melts in water. He will run away, and Jesus (as), will say: “I have only one blow for you, which you will not be able to escape!” He will catch up with him at the eastern gate of Ludd, and will kill him. Then Allah will defeat the Jews, and there will be nothing left that Allah has created which the Jews will be able to hide behind, except that Allah will cause it to speak – no stone, no tree, no wall, no animal – except for Al-Gharqad (the box-thorn), for it is one of their trees, and will not speak – except that it will say: “O Muslim slave of Allah, here is a Jews, come and kill him!“
In our discussion with respected Dr. Shaykh Shadee El Masry (and a recent clash he had with the Ahmadi religion) We were curious as to the way Dr. Shadee translated Qur’an 4:159
We never did get an answer to which Arabic word(s) he used to translate the text into ‘Hardly’. Do you, the reader, the truth seeker, see what is happening here? We Love Dr. Shaykh Shadee Elmasry and if you are in his community, Allah-willing, you are in good hands. However, sometimes people will be tenacious in defending the indefensible.
The Jews and Christians will be at each other’s throat until the day of judgement
“Every one of the People of the Book will definitely believe in him before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159) If you were to take the standard Sunni misunderstanding this would flatly contradict the following:
“And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. ” (Qur’an 5:64)
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
So the above verses do not give one the impression that Jesus (as) is going to come back and sing kumbaya with the Jews and the Christians.
We would not be surprised if some really desperate (clutching at straws) interpretation came that argued. Yes, Jesus (as) will bring the Jews and & Christians together, but they will still have animosity and hatred among them!!
Which begs the question: Why is he coming back?
Those of the Jews and Christians who see the truth and embrace insh’Allah are upon the path of safety. Those of the Jews and Christians who see the truth and reject it will be in hellfire.
“Indeed, that is My Path—perfectly straight. So follow it and do not follow other ways, for they will lead you away from His Way. This is what He has commanded you, so perhaps you will be conscious ˹of Allah˺” Qur’an 6:153)
“O mankind! Surely has come to you a convincing proof from your Lord, and We (have) sent down to you a clear light.” (Qur’an 4:174)
Our final point. We finish where we began.
“This is the dominant interpretation.” Well, Mufti, on what basis do you say this is the ‘dominant interpretation’ ? Can you tell us the total amount of tafsir literature you studied on this matter to conclude this? Also, if this is the ‘dominant interpretation’, it is by your own admission not necessarily the only one!
Truth vs. Popularity: The truth is not a matter of democratic opinion but of sound evidence from the Quran itself.
So dear respected readers which understanding of Qur’an4:159 do you accept as being more cogent?
The Sunni position.
The position of Mufti Zameer ur Rahman, Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah and the mufassirun — whom rely upon hearsay and disconnected chains coming often from anonymous sources.
A position that allows for whispering, speculation, doubt and uncertainty?
A position that ignores the advice of one of the four we are to learn the Qur’an from—none other than Ibn Masud (ra)?
A position that structures a belief that goes against the Sunnah? “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them.”
The Ibadi position.
A position that takes the sincere council of one of the four we are to learn the Qur’an from—none other than Ibn Masud (ra)?
A position that does not go against the clear Sunnah. A position where we do not disbelieve them but we certainly do not build a belief based upon their reports.
A position that ask if it is reasonable to accept a 700 year gap in the chain of transmission as admissible evidence.
A position that is primarily reliant upon Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an).
A position that allows the Qur’an to be interpreted by the use of other passages in the Qur’an, the use of grammar, context and theme?
A position that provides certainty and conviction?
“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
﷽
This text also has to be one of the most used and abused texts of the whole of the Qur’an. It is used to assert the so-called “2nd coming” of Christ Jesus. The fact that this is the ‘go to’ verse when anyone is trying to assert that the Qur’an affirms the “2nd coming” of Christ Jesus shows you just how weak their argument is.
Such people are better off using the ahadith to argue their position.
Let us start off with a major problem and contradiction with this understanding.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
That the Prophet (saw) said: “There are three, for which, when they appear, a soul will not benefit by its faith, if it did not believe before the Signs: Ad-Dajjal, the Beast, and the rising of the sun from its setting place” – or “from the west.”
The majority of Sunni Muslims believe that Jesus (as) is coming a second time. Those who believe that he is coming afterthe Dajjal. Remember, according to the above hadith and many like it faith does not benefit a person anymore!
“Do they wait for anything except that the angels should come to them or your Lord should come or that there come some of the signs of your Lord? The Day that some of the signs of your Lord will come no soul will benefit from its faith as long as it had not believed before or had earned through its faith some good. Say, “Wait. Indeed, we [also] are waiting.” (Qur’an 6:158)
It is very clear that when these signs happen, the faith and belief of those who came before will be rejected. Part of being a believer is to believe in the unseen.
“Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We have provided for them.” (Qur’an 2:3)
Those signs spoken of in Qur’an 6:158 will be so clear that after their appearance will neither avail the unbeliever to repent of his unbelief nor the disobedient to forsake his disobedience. So what would the point of Jesus (as) coming back and converting people to Islam (either by sword or by choice) when their belief counts for nothing any way?
Note how the text is being translated from the Qur’an corpus.
Muhammed Asad, Abdl Haleem & Mohamed Shafi translations have the “it” as the passage referring to the Qur’an.
Shabir Ahmed has ‘it’ as a reference to the Qur’an, but unlike Muhammed Asad and Abdul Haleem and Mohamed Shafi, he has the Qur’an talking about an “oncoming Revolution” rather than “the hour”.
Yusuf Ali’s Saudi version just goes all in!
“And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of).”
Prima Qur’an comments: So, according to that translation, not only is it Jesus, but he is a Sign as well!
Safi Kasas has Jesus in brackets but, unlike Yusuf Ali, he puts the [a sign] in brackets as well.
Abdul Hye goes all in with the second coming. “And he (Jesus) is a KNOWN SIGN.”
Dr. Munir Munshey gets carried away with: “In fact he, (and his fatherless birth) is a sign”
Then we have the Mustafa Khattab translation, really overselling it with their translation,
“And his ˹second˺ coming is truly a sign for the Hour. So have no doubt about it, and follow me. This is the Straight Path.”
Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilah (another Saudi translation) have it as: “And he (Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) shall be a known sign.”
Dr. Mohammed Tahir ul Qadri takes a que from his Salafi opponents and follows their lead with: “And surely (when) he, (Isa[Jesus], descends from heaven), he will be a sign…”
Ali Unai just goes on a tangent: “Surely he (Jesus) (brought into the world without a father, and granted such miracles as reviving the dead) is a means to knowledge of the Last Hour.”
Hamid S. Aziz is more neutral, non-committal in translation:
“And most surely it is (the above events or the Quran or he, Jesus) is a sign of the knowledge of coming of the Hour (of Resurrection and Judgment). Therefore have no doubt about it and follow Me: this is the Straight Way.”
Muhammad Taqi Usmani has it as: (‘Isa)
Syed Vickar Ahamed has it as: “And (Isa)
Farook Malik has it as: He (Jesus)
Maududi has it as: “Verily he [i.e, Jesus)
Rashad Khalifa has a bizarre translation: “He is to serve as a marker for knowing the end of the world, so you can no longer harbor any doubt about it.”
The Monotheist group — taking a que from their former mentor and master, Rashad Khalifa, has it as “He” and this becomes “a lesson for the Hour”
Are those who think the verse is a reference to Jesus justified?
Well, if you look at the surrounding context of the verse, the immediate context is about Jesus.
The verses before:
“Jesus was not but a servant upon whom We bestowed favor, and We made him an example for the Children of Israel.And if We willed, We could have made [instead] of you angels succeeding [one another] on the earth.” (Qur’an 43:59-60)
As well as the text after.
“And when Jesus brought clear proofs, he said, “I have come to you with wisdom and to make clear to you some of that over which you differ, so fear Allah and obey me.” (Qur’an 43:63)
So this could be a reason why some have considered 43:61 to be about Jesus.
However, as you will see when we see the over-arching theme of Qur’an 43 as well as whom the immediate audience is, that justification will quickly disappear.
What about Arabic grammar?
A closer look at the Arabic text. “wa-innahu”, this is the 3rd person masculine singular object pronoun. We have third-person pronouns in English as well. We have object pronouns—me, you, him, her, it.
Secondly, the word “biha” is a 3rd person feminine singular personal pronoun. So this further clarifies how “wa-innahu” should be understood.
“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
So, to support their claim, they would have to go against Arabic grammar!
What is the overarching theme of Qur’an 43?
Do not just look at the verses immediately before or after. Read all the verses before and after.
Verses 43:2-5 are references concerning the Qur’an.
43:14 is a reference concerning the resurrection.
43:21 is a reference to the Qur’an.
43:31 is a reference to the Qur’an.
43:35 is a reference to the hereafter.
43:43-44 are both references to the Qur’an.
Yes, Allah spoke about Jesus (as) in the past tense. Just as Allah spoke about Moses (as) in the past tense. Allah spoke about Abraham (as) in the past tense.
Not only this but think about this.Who is the immediate audience of the Qur’an 43:61?
The immediate audience is the pagan Quresh. How is some “2nd coming” of Jesus supposed to be an argument for the oneness of Allah (swt), or the truth of the resurrection to that immediate audience?
What is more sensible?
Understanding A)
“And indeed, he (Jesus) surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it(second coming of Jesus), and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
How are you asking a group of pagan idolater Quresh to not be in doubt concerning it to believe in some second coming of Jesus (as) that they will never witness?
In what universe does this make sense?
Understanding B)
“And indeed, it surely is a knowledge of the Hour. So do not be in doubt about it, and follow Me. This is the Path Straight.” (Qur’an 43:61)
Or, are a group of pagan idolater Quresh being asked to believe in the Qur’an (it) with arguments about the hereafter and resurrection that they can ponder and believe in during their own lifetime?
Which of the two understandings of the verse above is more sensible?
Not only this, we still have to contend with the fact that, as per our other articles, Jesus(as) has died. That Muhammed (saw) is the last and final Prophet. The text of the Qur’an should be in harmony with one another. The supposition that the Qur’an supports the idea that Jesus (as)is not based upon solid evidence.
“Until, when HE reached THE SETTING OF THE SUN, HE found IT SET IN a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! ,either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness” (Qur’an 18:86)
﷽
“Until, when HE came to the rising of the sun, HE found IT RISING on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.” (Qur’an 18:90)
We believe these are the translations most favoured by atheists and skeptics. There are no parentheses around any of the text in English.
For example: he found it [as if] setting in a dark (Safi Kasas translation)
or
he found it [seemed to be] setting into a muddy spring (Abdel Haleem)
So we want to do away with any translation that has parenthesis. As if the authors are aware of the problem of the apparent reading of the English translation. However, we do want to bring another text into the discussion.we will use Arberry, a non-Muslim Christian translation of the Qur’an. We will use this translation because it bolsters the resolve of the skeptic and the atheist. Yet, we will see why insh’Allah
“And the sun — it runs to a fixed resting-place; that is the ordaining of the All-mighty, the All-knowing.” (Qur’an 36:38)
What we have noticed is that Christians and Jews do not use these types of arguments as they once did to attack the veracity of the Qur’an.
Why do Christians and Jews not use these types of arguments against the Qur’an anymore?
Why is that?
“On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!” (Joshua 10:12-14)
“And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters.” (Revelation 8:10)
Does everyone realize that the smallest star discovered so far is the size of Saturn? We hope people realize that you cannot actually hurl a star down to Earth the size of Saturn because that would do more than fall upon a third of the rivers!
What about this scientific blunder and simply fallacious statement?
“Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live.” (Ezekiel 47:9)
Let’s give some context, shall we?
“He said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, where it enters the Dead Sea. When it empties into the sea, the salty water there becomes fresh.” (Ezekiel 47:8)
Can it be said that the Dead Sea is freshwater? Does salt water become freshwater?
“He put another parable before them, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches (Matthew 13:31-32)
This is not to be condescending, and we do apologize if it comes across as such. However, if you were to talk to the average everyday speaker of the English language, and even those of you who speak it as a second or third language, would you know the following if someone stopped and asked you?
Give me an example of the predicate of the sentence. Give me an example of a lowercase nominative. Even some people would need to pause and think about what a helping verb is! Many people are simply not grounded in the grammar of their own language.
The Qur’an uses metaphors.Example:
“Then your hearts became hardened after that, being like stones or even harder. For indeed, there are stones from which rivers burst forth, and there are some of them that split open and water comes out, and there are some of them that fall down for fear of Allah. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:74)
We are surprised the atheists and the skeptics have not asked us Muslims for examples of a stone that you can split open and water would come forth. Or anywhere on the Earth where we can find water gushing forth from stones!
The Qur’an uses idioms. Example:
And who say, “Our Lord, bestow upon us from our spouses and offspring that will be the comfort of the eyes, (Literally: the coolness (when) the eyes settle down) and make us an imam (leader) of the pious.” (Qur’an 25:74)
Now the view common to people in the time in which the Qur’an was revealed would be:
That the world/earth is flat.
That the Sun revolves around the earth.
Here is a question you never see Muslims involved in daw’ah, apologetics or polemic ask these skeptics and atheists. Using the Arabic language of the 7th century, how would you construct the sentences of Qur’an in 18:86 and 18:90 that would be palatable to 21st century understanding?
For example, if the Qur’an had used a different way of describing events, we would have been described as flat earthers!
On the flat earth wiki the question is asked:
How do you explain day/night cycles and seasons?
“The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it’s day. When it’s not, it’s night. The light of the sun is confined to a limited area, and its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth.”
Now let us look at the two passages in question again:
“Until, when HE reached THE SETTING OF THE SUN, HE found IT SET IN a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! ,either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness” (Qur’an 18:86)
“Until, when HE came to the rising of the sun, HE found IT RISING on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.” (Qur’an 18:90)
The English translated text “he found it” in Arabic wajadaha.
“And establish prayer and give zakah, and whatever good you put forward for yourselves – you will find it with Allah. Indeed, Allah of what you do, is Seeing.” (Qur’an 2:11)
‘Will find it’ in Arabic is tajiduhu
No one among Muslims believes that a person is going to find their prayers, or purification of wealth, and good actions in a pile somewhere with Allah (swt). It is perceived, as the verse itself says, that Allah (swt) is acquainted with what we do. Our intention behind every action, everything. Now you have to wonder what Zul-qarnain actually found, given his own empirical data about the sun.
The sun is hotter than other days. Even looking at this sentence we used in English, it is problematic. It is not that the sun may necessarily be hotter than other days, it is that the proximity of the sun is closer to the earth during certain times of the year.
The sun appears brighter on some days more than on others.
The sun obviously does not literally set in a murky spring because its light is not doused or put out. If the Qur’an was describing something literal, you would think that the sun being dipped in a murky spring would produce some type of noteworthy phenomena.
Let us look at some other verses in this conversation, Qur’an 21:33.
We will use three orientalist/Christian translations; not necessarily Islam-friendly.
“It is He who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each swimming in a sky.” Arthur John Arberry
“It is He who hath created the night, and the day, and the sun, and the moon; all the celestial bodies move swiftly, each in its respective orb.” -George Sale(all celestial bodies) is not in the Arabic text.
“And He it is who hath created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each moving swiftly in its sphere.” -John Medows Rodwell
Now those are the type of text that flat earthers would just love to use. Do note that one thing that is clear about the three above translations taken together is that the moon and the sun “do something” in their own respective sphere/lane.
Now why I say “do something” is that the Arabic that is used is the same word for ships. So a ship can float and seem stationary and yet a ship can be moving at the same time. A force can move a ship.
Let’s look at another verse: Qur’an 36:40
“It behoves not the sun to overtake the moon, neither does the night outstrip the day, each swimming in a sky.” Arthur John Arberry
“It is not expedient that the sun should overtake the moon in her course; neither doth the night outstrip the day: But each of these luminaries moveth in a peculiar orbit.” George Sale
“To the Sun it is not given to overtake the Moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day; but each in its own sphere doth journey on.” John Medows Rodwell.
The empirical data that people see and observe is that the sun does indeed overtake the moon. The empirical data that people see and observe is that the night does outstrip the day. Yet, Allah (swt) described natural phenomena couched in a language that contradicts the idea that the earth is flat (sunset/sunrise).
All the text taken in their literal apparent sense states that:
The sun sets, the sun rises. This does not happen on a flat earth.
The Sun and the Moon float/move in their own respective sphere, orb. Something that apparent empirical data does not suggest.(different spheres of influence).
The sun does not overtake the moon (as if they were in the same lane-line), something that the apparent, empirical data suggest. (your turn/my turn).
Now one more verse that clearly shows that the sun setting in a murky spring is in accord with the empirical observable data that human beings see and witness. This verse, subhan’Allah, has something very interesting to say.
“And the sun — it runs to a fixed resting-place; that is the ordaining of the All-mighty, the All-knowing.” (Qur’an 36:4) Arberry translation.
Interestingly, the words used in Qur’an 18:86 are taghrubu (setting) and maghriba (The setting of the sun). They are both used to denote the west. Out of our five daily prayers, the fourth prayer is called the ‘maghrib’ prayer. North Africa is known as the ‘Maghreb’—a westernmost place or place where the sun sets.
Whereas in Qur’an 36:4 this verse says nothing about setting in a murky spring. The Arabic here is ‘limus’taqarrin’. The verse is describing the ultimate end of the sun. The choice of ‘limus’taqarrin’ is mind-blowing. After reflecting on this, is it not time to stop typing and do sujudd and thank Allah (swt) that we are Muslim! Al hamdulillah!
To be or become cool, remain quiet, be steadfast, be firm, refresh, be stable, be firm, receive satisfy, affirm, agree, settle, last. qarar – stability, a fixed or secure place, depository, place ahead. qurratun – coolness, delight. aqarra (vb. 4) – to confirm, cause to rest or remain. istaqarra (vb. 10) – to remain firm. mustaqirrun – that which remains firmly fixed or confirmed, in hiding, is lasting, which certainly comes to pass, which is settled in its being/goal/purpose. mustaqar – firmly fixed/established, sojourn, abode. qurratun – coolness, refreshment, source of joy and comfort. qawarir (pl. of qaruratun) – glasses, crystals.
“To be or become cool, remain quiet, be steadfast, be firm, refresh, be stable, be firm, receive satisfy, affirm, agree, settle, last. qawarir-glasses, crystals
“Which is settled in its being/goal/purpose.” This is also interesting because the Arabic that is used indicates a stage that has been fulfilled but not that it does not have any more purpose of use. One purpose has been served and a new purpose awaits.
“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts? (Qur’an 47:24)
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
We have absolutely been fascinated by those few individuals who have found there to be controversy surrounding the identity of Dhul-al-Qarnayn. The reason why we are fascinated is that historians and Orientalists are not actually interacting with the Qur’an per se. They are interacting with commentary about the Qur’an.
Historian: We found no evidence that X existed.
Believer: They have yet to find evidence that X existed.
Epistemology matters!
The chart above shows the difference between the different axioms of the believers and the doubters. Agnostics and atheists have a different epistemology than believers.
How The Above Chart Explains the Concept:
The Source (A): Everything begins with the “Original Source” (A), which is the divine, perfect narrative from God.
The Two Paths:
The human traditions (B) are a changed and corrupted version of the original story, having passed through centuries of human transmission (resulting in legends, folklore, and altered scriptures).
The Qur’an (C) comes directly and perfectly from the same original source (A), acting as a “Final Revelation” that restores the original message.
The Optical Illusion (The Core of Our Point):
The Skeptical View (dashed line) looks at the relationship between B and C and mistakenly concludes that C must have copied from B because B appears earlier in history.
The Islamic View (solid arrows) correctly identifies that both B and C draw from a common, older source (A). Therefore, when B contains elements that align with C, it doesn’t mean C copied B—it means B still contains remnants of the original truth (A) that the Qur’an (C) confirms and corrects.
The Verbatum Point: The arrow from C to B, labeled “Corrects & Purifies,” visually explains why you will never find verbatim copying. The Qur’an doesn’t replicate the corrupted narratives (B); it speaks with authority from the original source (A) to rectify them.
For the skeptics and doubters, their findings reinforce their epistemology and their axioms. For the Muslims, the findings of the skeptics and doubters provide corroborating evidence of our own epistemology and axioms.
As a Muslim, we know that a tafsir is not divine revelation.Tafsir is scholarly musings about the text.
1st, it should be noted that Dhul Al-Qarnayn, like Khidr, are simply epitaphs, like Al-Amin. These are not real names they are descriptors.
2nd, it should be noted that not much attention is given to the individuals (Khidr & Dhul Al-Qarnayn) beyond their epitaphs. The attention is given to the events that unfold or surround them.
3rd, the Qur’an only mentions Dhul Al-Qarnayn thrice.
So let us get into the narrative of Dhul Al-Qarnayn in the Qur’an.
“And they will ask you about Dhul-Al Qarnayn. Say: I will recount to you a remembrance of him.” (Qur’an 18:83)
“We established him on earth, and We gave him from everything a way.” (Qur’an 18:84)
“And he followed a way.” (Qur’an 18:85)
“Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhul-Al Qarnayn! Either punish or show them kindness.” (Qur’an 18:86)
“He responded, “Whoever does wrong will be punished by us, then will be returned to their Lord, Who will punish them with a horrible torment.” (Qur’an 18:87)
“But as for the one who believes and does righteousness, he will have the best of rewards. We shall require him to do only easy things.” (Qur’an 18:88)
“Then he followed a path.” (Qur’an 18:89)
“Until he came to the rising of the sun. He found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no shade.” (Qur’an 18:90)
“And so it was, Our knowledge encompassed all that happened to him.” (Qur’an 18:91)
“Then he followed a path.” (Qur’an 18:92)
“Until he reached between a barrier, where he found a people who could hardly understand a word he was saying.” (Qur’an 18:93)
“They said, “O Dhul Al-Qarnayn, Gog and Magog are corrupting this land. Can we pay you to erect a barrier between us and them?” (Qur’an 18:94)
“He responded, “What my Lord has provided for me is far better. But assist me with resources, and I will build a barrier between you and them.” (Qur’an 18:95)
“Bring me blocks of iron!” Then, when he had filled up ˹the gap˺ between the barriers he ordered, “Blow!” When the iron became red hot, he said, “Bring me molten copper to pour over it.” (Qur’an 18:96)
“And so the enemies could neither scale nor tunnel through it.” (Qur’an 18:97)
“He said: This is a mercy from my Lord; but when the promise of my Lord comes to pass, He will lay it low, for the promise of my Lord is true.” (Qur’an 18:98)
“On that Day, We will let them surge ˹like waves˺ over one another. Later, the Trumpet will be blown, and We will gather all ˹people˺ together.” (Qur’an 18:99)
The first thing that we found fascinating about this set of texts is the use of twos. Things are in contradistinction to one another. Like two different items, two different scenarios, two things in contrast.
First, being the main focus of the individual in the narrative, is Dhul Al-Qarnayn — the two-horned one, one of two different epochs. The one with two braids. The one with two people.
ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَبًا
That exact phrase appears twice.
Setting-place of the sun/he came to the rising of the sun (two different scenarios in relation to the sun)
Either punish or show them kindness (two different ways to deal with a particular people).
A people for whom We had provided no shade contrasted with a people who had no protection against tribes.
The tribes in question are two gog/magog. Two tribes.
He met two different types of people; people who could hardly understand a word, contrasted with people he could communicate with readily.
A barrier between you and them-a barrier is a separation between at least two different things.
The barrier they were not able to do two things: neither scale nor tunnel through it.
The barrier itself is made from two different metals: iron and copper.
If we are looking for clues of a historical vestige (remembrance), we would want to note the following:
A)What is the meaning of Dhul Al-Qarnayn in the Arabic language?
B) They will ask you. Who is the ‘they’?
C)How did they respond to the information?
D) Tribes are identified as Gog and Magog.
E) Blocks of iron and molten copper are used to seal an apparent gap/breach in a barrier.
Ea) It is assumed that there is a garrison that defends the area. The purpose of the wall is to prevent being overrun. *note*
Note: This is an assumption on our behalf.
Eb) It is assumed that whoever the Gog and Magog are, that they are either
a) raiders b) expansionists
If we assume they are raiders, this means they have had a foray into these people’s territories before. Though they never established dominion over them.
If we assume that they are expansionists, then the people that Dhul Al-Qarnayn encounter are those who presume expansion is heading in their direction and thus, they want to make preparations.
As regards Qur’an 18:98 we do not see that as connected to Qur’an 18:99 as in events that happen at the same time. For more on this please see:
There is nothing that an individual using the historical critical method or an orientalist has brought that even remotely challenges the narrative of the Qur’an. Nihil ad rem. People having doubts because a tafsir was challenged. That is an absolute nothingburger.
Recall:
“And they will ask you about Dhul-Al Qarnayn. Say: I will recount to you a remembrance of him.” (Qur’an 18:83)
There is nothing in that verse that indicates that the answers to the questions that they posed were matters that concern anyone outside those that asked the questions.
“As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people, working at sea. So I intended to damage it, for there was a king ahead of them who seizes every ship by force.” “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.” (Qur’an 18:79-81)
﷽
The Qur’an is sublime.
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
In the Qur’an, in chapter 18, verses 65 to 82, we have information related to us by a figure that Islamic scholars have named ‘Khidr’.
Finally, when Prophet Moses (as) is no longer able to keep patient with this figure and the things that this figure does prompt Moses (as) on every occasion to question why he does the things that he does, he finally gets resolution.
“As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people, working at sea. So I intended to damage it, for there was a king ahead of them who seizes every ship by force.” “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.” “And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure for them, and their father had been righteous. So your Lord intended that they reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord. And I did it not of my own accord. That is the interpretation of that about which you could not have patience.” (Qur’an 18:79-81)
None of the translations of the meaning can give justice to the Arabic Qur’an.
As regards the action of damaging the ship. The individual ascribes that action to himself.
So I intended to damage it. I intended: fa-aradttu 1st person singular verb.
“and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.”
We feared:fakhashina 1st person plural perfect verb. The ‘we feared’ is better translated or understood as ‘we disliked’. Whatever displeases Allah (swt) displeases his loyal and faithful servants.
We hoped: fa-aradna 1st person plural perfect verb. The ‘we hoped’ is better translated as we intended.
In here fakhashina ‘we disliked’ he returns it to himself and to Allah (swt). Why?
Killing the child, he returns back to himself.
“So they proceeded until they came across a boy, and the man killed him. Moses protested, “Have you killed an innocent soul who killed no one?” You have certainly done a horrible thing.” (Qur’an 18:74)
“So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.”
Allah is replacing the child with another.
So the killing is from the companion of Moses (as) and the replacement is from Allah (swt). You can use the ‘We’ as Allah (swt) is the creator of all things and human beings acquire the actions.
“So your Lord intended that they reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord.”
The Lord intended: fa-arada rabbuka 3rd person masculine singular perfect verb
fa-aradttu (I intended) an a’ibaha (cause a defect) -I wanted to. fa-aradna- (we intended) fa-arada rabbuka (so intended Your Lord)
Very often the various translations rob the reader of the depth of the Arabic language.
Another example is Qur’an 3:7
“And none know its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.”
Those who may lack depth of Arabic grammar and syntax would argue that the verse should be read as: “But none knows its interpretation except Allah”. And those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: “We believe in this, it is all from our Lord.”
Whereas the better reading is:
“But none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
However, due to the lack of depth of the Arabic grammar and syntax, they would object by looking at English translations of the meanings and say:
That Allah (swt) would not say: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
But this is not the proper understanding at all. The part of the verse: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.” Is a reference to : “Those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.” and not to Allah (swt).
Issues that arise from the verses by those not grounded in theology.
They argue that it looks as if Allah (swt) is certain of the righteousness of the substitute son that does not exist yet; all the while, the unbelieving son, Allah (swt) was simply using the principle of probability.
But this type of reasoning is turned on its head. If Allah (swt) knew, the righteousness of the substitute son, which does not exist yet, he certainly knew of the actions of the unbelieving son.
Allah (swt) allowing for the son to be killed as well as the announcement of another son are all based upon certain knowledge that Allah (swt) has.
Prima Quran 