“The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.” (Qur’an 5:75)
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
“There is no comparison to His absoluteness.” (Qur’an 112:4)
﷽
I used to think that the Salafi/Athari were people who had subtlety in their doctrine. And people who at least claimed to take the apparent meaning of a text. They would claim that Allah (swt) is not like his creation and that they do not liken Allah (swt) to the creation.
I couldn’t have been more wrong!
I am now of the view that the God of the Salafis is one that has a form or a shape. This is from THEIR understanding of certain text.
It was narrated that Abu Umamah Al-Bahili said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) addressed us, and most of his speech had to do with telling us about Dajjal. He warned about him, and among the things he said was: ‘There will not be any tribulation on earth, since the time Allah created the offspring of Adam, that will be greater than the tribulation of Dajjal. Allah has not sent any Prophet but he warned his nation about Dajjal. I am the last of the Prophets, and you are the last of the nations. He will undoubtedly appear among you. If he appears while I am among you, I will contend with him on behalf of every Muslim, and if he appears while I am not among you, then each man must fend for himself and Allah will take care of every Muslim on my behalf. He will emerge from Al-Khallah, between Sham and Iraq, and will wreak havoc right and left. O slaves of Allah, remain steadfast. I will describe him to you in a manner in which none of the Prophets has described him before me. He will start by saying “I am a Prophet,” and there is no Prophet after me. Then a second time he will say: “I am your Lord.” But you will not see your Lord until you die. He is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed, and written between his eyes is Kafir. Every believer will read it, whether he is literate or illiterate.”
Notice that the text that is attributed to the Blessed Prophet (saw) does not even remotely begin to refute the idea that Allah could be in the form of a human being.
The text only gives the following assurances.
Your Lord is not One-Eyed.
You will not see your Lord until you die.
In other words it is not at the core of one’s innate fitra or it is not innate to the mind that Allah (swt) is not something that takes on forms and shapes!
To have such an assurance tied to this particular hadith, of which the multitude have not even heard of!?
The proof is irrefutable.
The Prophet (saw) said, “Allah did not send any prophet but that he warned his nation of the one-eyed liar (Ad-Dajjal). He is one-eyed while your Lord is not one-eyed, The word ‘Kafir’ (unbeliever) is written between his two eyes.”
Now those who follow the Neo-Salafi Athari school will use the above text to claim that Allah (swt) has two eyes. Although that is pure speculation. Saying that the Dajjal has eye one does not necessitate that Allah (swt) has two eyes. Or saying that Allah (swt) isn’t defective in one eye does not entail Allah (swt) has more than one eye. You could say that a spider has 8 eyes and that it does not have a defective eye and both statements could be true.
However, when Allah (swt) opened my eyes to something deeper and more sinister. That the Neo-Salafi believe that the above text is trying to teach a theological point!
So what they are saying and think about this…what they are saying is that the way to DISTINGUISH Allah (swt) from the dajjal, is that the dajjal has ONE EYE and ALLAH DOES NOT HAVE ONE EYE.
What about the fact that the very hadith says, “THE WORD KAFIR IS WRITTEN BETWEEN HIS TWO EYES.”? Wouldn’t that be a big tale tell sign that THIS IS NOT Allah (swt)?
But even more bone chilling and down right frightening is that this flawed analogy leads one to think what seems to be THE ONLY thing that distinguishes Allah (swt) from the dajjal? Wouldn’t it be OBVIOUS that if a PERSON, ANY PERSON were to claim to Allah (swt) that we as Muslims would KNOW that this person is a charlatan, simply on the basis of:
Allah (swt) cannot be and is not a man/human being.
Allah (swt) cannot and does not assume form/shape.
Allah (swt) cannot be and is not a person.
However, if one is to take the Neo-Salafi perspective apparently not! Think about this good people.
What if you were to find a person that does amazing feats of magic, or breaks the laws of physics or does the unexplained. Would YOUR criteria as a Muslim be, well the person has two eyes, 20/20 vision, so maybe, possibly it COULD be Allah?
REALLY?
If the Neo-Salafi do not understand this hadith as the Blessed Messenger (saw) simply informing that Allah (swt) is not unaware and has full grasp, and has no defects than brothers and sisters, dear readers…
WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM!
We have a big problem because nothing else is obvious; like the fact that the dajjal is:
human
has eyes.
has hands.
has feet.
has curly hair.
has a mouth.
most likely eats food (Qur’an 5:75) thus answers the call of nature.
has mass.
occupies space.
needs to have an army to effect change. Where as Allah (swt) gives the command ‘Kun faya kun’ (be and it is) ?wouldn’t ALL THESE BE A DEAD GIVE AWAY THAT THIS IS NOT ALLAH? According to the Neo-Salafi, NOPE!
But one way to POSSIBLY TELL THAT IT IS NOT ALLAH IS THIS: Is the person blind in one eye?
Imagine being brought up with this belief and you are out on police patrol one night in Saudi Arabia and you spot someone with one eye. “Hello, headquarters this is dispatch. Suspect has one defective eye. Possibly Dajjal, Definitely not Allah.”
So according to the Neo-Salafi the above hadith has come to teach us a theological point concerning Allah (swt). That being don’t be fooled because dajjal has one eye (one eye is defective) and your Lord does not have a defective eye.
This is what lead me to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people believe that Allah (swt) has a form, and can even come in the form of a human being!
Saying that the Lord is not one eyed is not an affirmation that he has two eyes!
“The Originator of the heavens and earth. How could He have children when He has no mate? He created all things and has knowledge of everything.” (Qur’an 6:101)
This is a negation that Allah (swt) could not have children as he has no companion. So does this entail the opposite? If Allah (swt) had a companion he could have children? How bizarre is this type of thinking! That Allah (swt) would need anything in order to accomplish what he wants is not the belief of the Muslims.
Subhan’Allah!
May Allah (swt) rescue the Muslims and save the Muslims from perversion in their faith!
“Oh, Mankind! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know one another. Truly, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, All-Aware.” (Qur’an 49:13)
﷽
Ahmad ibn Sulayman, Sahnun’s companion, said: “That whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black.”
One of our team members was in a discussion with someone named ‘Rider’ who had commented on the recent post titled “Are Arabs superior to Malays and everyone else? Imam Shafi’i and Ibn Taymiyyah think so!”
Rider seems to suggest that it is quite fine to treat African Americans differently from Caucasians in the United States as long as, ultimately, we are all treated spiritually equal (by our creator).
So those Muslim converts, rather than being converts from the Dalit in India, or our African American sisters and brothers coming to Islam expecting not to be treated in a prejudiced manner, may need to reassess the reasons for which they came into Islam.
Now coming to this statement.
Ahmad ibn Sulayman, Sahnun’s companion, said: “That whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black.”
If we were an apologist for “classical scholarship” we would reply and say, this whole text was really aimed at those who falsely attributed something to the Blessed Messenger (saw) that is not true. Thus, the issue is not whether the Blessed Messenger (saw) was ‘black’ or not, but rather whether someone attributed a false ascription to him. That is what our defending “classical scholarship” at all costs response would be.
However, our rationale is we are no longer prepared to defend this kind of nonsense says, “That is all fine and well except that the person could have simply stated, ‘falsely ascribing anything to the Prophet (saw) is punishable by death’.”
It must have been such an issue for this particular point (ascribing blackness) to be highlighted.
Seems like it may even have some merit in it and Allah (swt) knows best.
Lastly, it still does not answer the point. Why would death be issued against anyone who made false physical descriptions of the Blessed Messenger (saw)? Like if they said he (saw) was 5 9in instead of 5–8 in? Or if they said that he (saw) had a broad forehead instead of around one?
Seems like correcting someone would be in order rather than a knee-jerk emotional reaction like this.
So this drives home the point that this statement seems embedded in some of the more racist elements in the Muslim ummah. Racism is a disease of the heart. So, ironically, even a classical text called “Al Shifa” (Healing, Purification, Cure) didn’t seem to be free of this. Wallahu ‘Alim!
However, we now understand that Muslims like Rider may understand “Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him.” to mean that, yes, we are equal in the sight of Allah. However, the understanding of Islam that they have is that some people, even among Muslims, can be given preference and special treatment simply based upon their ethnic-racial origins.
It is now a curiosity of ours about how they would interact with the Brahman philosophical schools that give sound arguments to the caste system, or maybe they wouldn’t try to approach from that angle, seeing that Islam can, from Rider’s perspective, share some strong similarities with the Brahman caste system.
Or how appropriate these teachings may not be in a nation like Singapore that teaches meritocracy not based upon purported notions of racial superiority. Should a nation like Singapore not only be on guard against certain aspects of the Salafi movement, but equally should nations like Singapore and others engage more robustly with such concepts coming from ‘traditionalists?’.
We were wondering how this bias may cause prejudice among our local Imams, Shyookh, or even Professors when it came to their interaction with people of other races, even judging their term papers. For example: Let us say that these professors or teachers had this concept that the Arabs are superior to non-Arabs. How might this affect a situation where the Chinese student is performing better than the Arab student in a particular field? Assuming that this is true and that we have some elements in our Muslim community who hold this position on what consistent basis, they should be allowed to hold teaching positions or positions of authority over other ethnic groups.
This is a grave matter that any society that has a growing Muslim population needs to look at quite seriously and earnestly. Allah (swt) knows best and Allah’s help is sought.
Interesting times we live in.
Recently, an Ex-Qadiani convert to Sunni Islam, who embraced the Hanafi-Barelvi-aligned school of thought used this verse of the Qur’an to disparage Muslims that have more melatonin.
“On the Day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some faces will be (in the gloom of) black: To those whose faces will be black, (will be said): “Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith.” (Qur’an 3:106)
It really says more about what is in this individual’s heart. However, being from the Sub Continent where the caste system is still operative and being inundated with a belief in a racial and genetic hierarchy (You will find this among the Zaydi, Shi’i, and Sufi’) in particular.
“It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abdullah al-Bajali that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
One who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to his just cause), who raises the slogan of family or supports his own tribe, dies the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.
This individual and those like him are reminiscent of Iblis, who defiantly says in the Qur’an:
“He said, “Never would I prostrate to a human whom You created out of clay from an altered (hama-in)black mud.” (Qur’an 15:33)
Here clearly Allah (swt) honoured this particular pigment, the pigment black, and our All-Wise, All-Knowing Creator deemed it fit to create the progenitor of the human race out of black mud.
The way this lost individual states that: “The Salafi interpreted this Ayah as white faces referring to Sunnis and black faces referring to Kharijis.”
As no sources are cited, we are inclined to believe this individual received this suggestion from the one who whispered (and we seek protection with Allah from that).
Secondly, let us say that there was such a source. The Qur’an does not say this.
To draw the type of bizarre conclusion that this individual did would be akin to condemning a great many Caucasians on account of simply having blue eyes? Or anyone who has blue eyes, for that matter.
“(The) Day will be blown in the Trumpet, and We will gather the criminals, that Day, blue-eyed.” (Qur’an 20:102)
“It’s usually the negro that is attracted to Kharijism. Remember the prophecy about there being a black man among the Khawarij whose arm is like a woman’s breast. Why? It is a sickness of having hasad towards the Elite of our community.”
So here he is saying that usually the negro is attracted to “kharijism”.
Our response to this individual (who clearly suffers from an inferiority complex himself) is that Allah (swt) has illuminated the hearts of people who have more melatonin in their skin to the truth than surely that is a favour from Allah (swt)!
That there is a prophecy about a black man among the Khawarij.
Presumably he is talking about the following hadith in which the Ahl Sunnah attack one of the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
That, ultimately, the Negro has hasad (jealousy) towards the Elite (which seemingly are those with less melanin in their skin).
It is a wonder to me those who are blinded by tribalism and racism and the idea of hereditary supremacy based upon family and clan in the face of the light of the Qur’an.
The light of the Qur’an is such that it blinds not the eyes, but illuminates the heart.
“Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the chests that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
Adam (as) had two sons. One of which murdered the other. How does being a descendant of a Prophet (saw) guarantee righteousness?
As regards the proper understanding of the verse:
“On the Day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some faces will be (in the gloom of) black: To those whose faces will be black, (will be said): “Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith.” (Qur’an 3:106)
The verse is self-explanatory. This is the day of judgement. People are being distinguished by their piety and deeds; rather, they held fast or became among those who rejected faith.
It has nothing to do with the amount of melatonin an individual has.
“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although they who rely upon other than or associate partners with Allah dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
Ali Erbaş Turkish Islamic scholar and President of Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) in Turkey says Jesus is dead and will not return. He also has stated that there is no Mahdi that will come. This is quite a huge deal because Ali Erbas is in essence the Mufti of Turkey.
These positions (especially concerning the Mahdi) are part of a de-shificiation process we see happening among Sunni Muslims.
It is interesting that more and more learned scholars around the round are coming to the Ibadi school’s position on these points. I wonder how many more actually hold such views but are not so bold as to proclaim them for fear of reprisal?
In the comment section you see threats, emotions and not proofs and evidences.
Here we look at the verse in the Qur’an 43:61 often quoted and used to affirm the second coming Jesus (as).
The following examines the word ‘tawaffa’ Yet, the Qur’an itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Q 5:117 and Q 3.55).
For twenty-three of those passages the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition of this term, that is that Allah (swt) separates the soul from the body or makes someone die.
Think about this Muslim brothers and sisters. For those passages that are not tied into ahadith about Jesus(as) coming back they are translated and understood as per usual.
What about all those hadith that speak about some second coming of Jesus? Aren’t they tawatur?
Al Ma’rij Imam Abu Muhammed Abdulllah Al- Salimi (r) Volume 1. It is actually is a fiqh book. Many times in our school when our scholars write a book about fiqh they will start with a short section on aqidah.
The coming of Isa Ibn Maryam 1) There is no Prophet after Muhammed (saw). 2) That which is narrated from the people (Ahl Sunnah) about Jesus (as) coming back it is not sound. 3) Even if it was sound, the time of Isa Ibn Maryam has already passed. 4) Same have said that Khidr and Elias (as) they are still alive then their status would be like angels. Their live would be veiled from the seen world. They would not eating drinking indulging. These things are not correct with our school. 5) If he comes he will come in the Shari’a of the Prophet (saw), which Ahl Sunnah has conceded. They have conceded he cannot come back as a prophet.
Source: (The Ascents of Hope in the Stages of Perfection, in the Introductions by Imam Abu Muhammed Abdullah Al-Salimi -may Allah have mercy on him)
“And We have certainly made the Quran easy to remember. So is there anyone who will be mindful?” (Qur’an 54:40)
﷽
Our colleague relates the encounter.
Imagine if you will that you have a son or a daughter that informs you that they wish to get married. You sit down with your son or daughter and ask them the following: “What do you wish for a life partner?” “What are some of the traits or qualities you would like to have in a life partner?” Their response is: “I don’t have any standards, I will just take anything!”
That response is the surest way of knowing that they are not ready for marriage at all!
This Muslim Ummah needs to have some standards. We are talking about elementary standards. We are talking about ‘the bare minimum‘.
If one is going to be acclaimed to be the commander of the faithful, the Imam of the Muslims, the Imam is such that if you do not recognize him you die the death of an unbeliever, then at the very least you had best be able to recite the Qur’an. That is not asking for much. It is, however, asking the Ummah to require some very basic standards.
So, no, we are not talking about theology, we are not talking about jurisprudence, we are not talking about philosophy. We are asking a very basic simple question: “Can you Qur’an tho?”
I do not know about other Muslims, but I would like my commander of the faithful and my Imam to be able to recite the Qur’an at ….the….very…..least.
In fact, this may be a very interesting academic article. When did the Imams of the Nizari Isma’ili community begin to distance themselves from the Qur’an? In other words, when did these phenomena of having an insouciant relationship with the Qur’an begin? Which of the Nizari Isma’ili imams set this off?
So recently, when encountering one of many arguments that took place in the wild world of X (Twitter). I saw some mutual fat shaming going on between Imam Hamza wald Maqbul and Professor Khalil Andani.
So, being mildly agitated by this bickering, I put out a challenge to both men.
It was quite a simple and straight-forward point-blank challenge to Professor Andani and Imam Hamza wald Maqbul. I challenged Professor Andani to produce for us the Aga Khan reciting the Qur’an in public. I also challenged Imam Hamza wald Maqbul to produce an example of him reciting the Qur’an in public.
To be quite honest, I do not doubt that Imam Hamza wald Maqbul can properly recite the Qur’an. Professor Andani, over all, is a guy who can comprehend more than basic English. Thus, his response was puzzling.
Produce for us the Aga Khan reciting the Qur’an in public. Professor Andani did the best he could, so he meekly offered: “Karim Aga Khan led the Ismailis in Eid Namaz twice in the 1940s as a child. Obviously he can recite the Quran, which he did during namaz.”
It was after this comment that I now publicly retract every glowing attribute I gave to Professor Andani during his debate with Jake Brantecella. Do I think Professor Andani won that debate? Absolutely. However, after I am quite dismayed at the response given by Professor Andani.
First there is the matter of plain English. “Produce for us the Aga Khan reciting the Qur’an in public.” That is people in the Julian calendar year of 2024.
Second, to make claims that (Professor Andani) himself did not witness is not “obvious” at all. Claims that he led the Eid prayer twice in the 1940s is not proof that he can properly recite the Qur’an. We want proof that Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, can properly recite the Qur’an.
Then Professor Andani gave another meek reply: “Quran is part of Namaz.” Indeed, it is. Indeed, it is. One could do the dhur prayer or asr prayer. In many schools of jurisprudence, the Qur’an is not recited out loud. Meaning that one would not be able to ascertain that one could properly recite the Qur’an. I will give the benefit of the doubt and say that it is possible that he may not be aware of this.
However, as the Eid Prayers have parts where the Qur’an is recited out loud, one could assume that a person knows how to properly recite the Qur’an. However, the idea that Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, did so twice as a child, of which Professor Andani did not witness (as he was not even born then) as being obvious has to be one of the most obtuse statements ever.
Ultimately, it is an admission of being unable to answer the challenge. The man, Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, became the Imam around/at the age of 20. He is currently 83 years of age. For 60 years on this Earth there is no evidence for us to ascertain whether this man can properly recite the Qur’an. You can turn the internet upside down and inside out, and you will find no evidence of him being able to recite the Qur’an at all.
Professor Andani doesn’t strike me as someone who wouldn’t bring his ‘A’ game. However, he hasn’t been the most forthcoming with Christians when he shows them his chart. You know the one:
The one that leaves out the Virgin birth of Christ Jesus (quite important to every Christian under the sun).
The one that leaves out the second coming of Jesus:
So all you Christians interacting with Professor Andani, open up your eyes and don’t be blind to it!
Thus, the meek response that Professor Khalil Andani is now proof positive for the whole world that it was the best he can do in the way of evidence. Meaning that there was some event that he himself did not witness or partake in which it is said that Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, twice as a child, led the Eid prayers. No evidence at all that he can properly read the Qur’an.
It is disheartening. If I thought for one moment that Karim, the son of Joan Yarde-Buller, was the commander of the faithful, the Imam of the Muslims how I would love to have his recitation of the Qur’an. How it could console me in dark times! Just to hear the cadence of his voice and the unison of heart and tongue as his holiness brought forth a most sublime and majestic recitation.
Unfortunately, for the Nizari, Isma’ili will never get this experience. Hey! There are always his sons! Perhaps they may take up seriously the learning to read the Qur’an! Or would that be a problem?
Is that the issue? How can someone who is not Allah’s divine representative on Earth possibly teach the divine representative the Qur’an?
*** UPDATE ***
There is an update to this article. Professor Andani thought he would give it one more shot.
First let me start with a major correction to Professor Andani.
Professor Andani states: “Your post is just a slander against me and the Ismaili Imamat.”
First, I do not see how stating the truth about something of which Professor Andani has failed time and again to prove the opposite of is slander.
Second, a major correction. It is more correct and circumspect to say Nizari Ismaili Imamat! It is hubris to think the Nizrari branch represents the entirety of Ismailism. It does not represent the Musta’li Ismai’li branch. A branch which includes the Dawoodi-Taybi as well as the Sulaymani-Tabi.as well as the Sulaymani-Tabi.
In fact, considering the Musta’li Ismai’li consider the Nizari claims null and void, they could very well be delighted to see such challenges. They may even be reading this article with a certain sense of satisfaction. They may be hoping that their Ismai’li brothers, who are following a man who has not been proven to recite the Qur’an with proper recitation, may decide to leave the Nizari and follow them instead!
Ladies and gentlemen. Dear truth seekers. A picture of a boy standing with his hands behind his ears is not proof that he can properly recite the Qur’an.
Imagine if you will there are people who doubted claims that, when I was an eight-year-old little girl I stood in front of the congregation of my church and recited the entire chapter of the book of Acts (King James Version) with perfect memory and no errors.
Then some people doubted this claim. So my mother, driven by emotional attachment to her daughter, rushes to produce a picture of me as an eight-year-old little girl in Church. “Here is your evidence!”
Surely one can see the futility of such.
If you enjoyed the above article you maybe interested in the following:
In this article we did our level best to help the Imami Shi’a solve a dilemma (the Ismaili included) we have not found any contemporary approaches among the Imami Shi’a to approach this dilemma.
“And [there are] those [hypocrites] who took for themselves a mosque for causing harm and disbelief and division among the believers and as a station for whoever had warred against Allah and His Messenger before. And they will surely swear, “We intended only the best.” And Allah testifies that indeed they are liars.” (Qur’an 9:107)
﷽
The right hand sword of the Umayyad Imperium, the Salafi Madhkalis, and left hand shield of the Zionist expansionism are at it once more.
Instead of giving focus to what is happening to our brothers and sisters in Palestine, Gaza, Rafah the Madhkalis being the agent provocateurs that they are try to cause fitna in the Ummah my digging up the graves of scholars long since past. They dig through the books seeking and finding what can cause strife between the Muslims.
Their swords are ever thirsty for the blood of the believers. Their vigor and fervor is for strife among the Muslims. While the people of Sudan and Libya are the victims of their tyranny they tire not in their fight against the Muslims.
We have already covered in an previous article that every group among the Muslims and even Pseudo-Islamic sects have exclusivist views. There is no exception.
We have covered the statement of Imam Malik there.
We also need to recall the words of Imam Malik himself: كُلُّ كَلَامٍ فِيْهِ مَقْبُوْلٌ وَ مَرْدُوْدٌ إِلّا كَلَامُ صَاحِبِ هَذا القَبْرِ
So his words can be rejected.
All of these statements of past scholars have social/political context. They were said in the context of which they live.
Yet the majority of the world’s Muslims want to live together and coexist. Sure, we can still have debates concerning who is upon truth and error upon this or that point. Albeit this should in reality be the domain of the scholars.
Do these agents really think that the Muslim Ummah are that gullible?
When the scholars of this Ummah had asked Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) to be head of the International Union of Muslim scholars do you not think they are aware of various positions stated in their books from long ago? Do you not think they are not aware of tough positions among some of our scholars? Of course they are!
These Wahhabi Madhkhali believe all people of Palestine who die not upon their creed will be people of the hellfire! The quote as evidence the hadith of 73 sects. Now we can ask these people that bark so loud the following? The 72 sects are they in hell for awhile only or forever?!
Actually not just Palestine but everyone and anyone.
a) If they are in hell only for a while than insh’Allah we will all see each other in heaven.
b) If they are in hell forever than at least be honest and transparent with the Ummah!
What Was the Position of the Salaf Concerning Praying Behind the so-called Khawarij According to Ibn Taymiyya?
– The Path of the Prophetic Sunnah
2. *في نقض كلام الشيعة القدرية*
– In Refutation of the Shiite Qadariyyah Doctrine
3. *لابن تيمية*
– By Ibn Taymiyyah
4. *أبو العباس تقي الدين أحمد بن عبد الحليم*
– Abu Al-Abbas Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim
5. *تحقيق الدكتور محمد رشاد سالم*
– Edited by Dr. Muhammed Rashad Salim
6. *الجزء الخامس*
– Volume Five
“And what indicates that the Companions did not consider the Khawarij to be disbelievers is that they used to pray behind them. Abdullah ibn Umar -RA- and others[companions] used to pray behind Najda al-Haruri. They also used to engage in debates with them, as the Muslim would debate with a Muslim, as Abdullah ibn Abbas debated with Najda al-Haruri when he was sent to him to ask about certain issues, and his hadith is in Al-Bukhari. Likewise, Nafi’ ibn Al-Azraq debated on famous issues. Nafi’ used to debate on matters in the Quran, as any two Muslims would debate among themselves”
Prima Quran Comment: By the way that admission above is enough for any thinking Muslim to come to understand that these so called hadith about the Khawarij that are put in the mouth of the Blessed Prophet (saw) are forgeries and blasphemy! These are no doubt the creation of a redactor.
“It was narrated about Ibn Umar, (ra), that it was said to him during the time of Ibn Al-Zubair, the Khawarij, and Al-Hajjaj: ‘Do you pray with these people while some of them are killing others?’ He replied: ‘Whoever says “Come to prayer,” I answer him, and whoever says “Come to success,” I answer him. And whoever says “Come to kill your Muslim brother and take his property,” I say: No.'” Source: (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah)
Also, look what our teacher Shaykh Hamed Hafidh Al Sawafi (May Allah continue to benefit us by him) says:
هناك ما يشير إلى أن الصحابي عبدالله بن عمر رضي الله عنهما لم يبايع الخليفة الرابع عليا بن أبي طالب كرم الله وجهه.
وكان من يسمون أنفسهم بأهل السنة على مذهبه حتى جاء أحمد بن حنبل فجاء بالتربيع بعلي فقاموا عليه فقالوا له إن التربيع بعلي طعن في طلحة والزبير وخروج عن نهج عبدالله بن عمر…. وكانت بينهم محاججة انتهت بالتسليم لموقف أحمد بن حنبل
ومعروف أن أحمد بن حنبل من علماء القرن الثاني الثالث الهجري. (فترة مملكة بني عباس وهم خصماء مملكة بني أمية)
“There is evidence that the companion Abdullah Ibn Umar, (May Allah be pleased with them both, did not pledge allegiance to the fourth caliph, Ali bin Abi Talib, May Allah honour his face. Those who call themselves ‘Sunnis’ adhered to his doctrine until Ahmad ibn Hanbal came and brought them to be square with Ali, so they rose up against him (Imam Ahmad) and told him that trying to make them square with Ali was an attack on Talha and al-Zubayr and a departure from the approach of Abdullah ibn Umar…. There was an argument between them that ended with them submitting to the position of Ahmed ibn Hanbal. It is well known that Ahmad bin Hanbal is one of the scholars of the second and third century AH. The period of the Bani Abbas Imperium, who were opponents of the Umayyad Imperium.” -Shaykh Hamed Hafidh Al Sawafi
The source for that is as follows:
Anticipating a response from the Wahhabi Madhkhali
Now, if these Wahhabi Madhkhali want to reply and say:
“Oh! you are quoting the evidence of Ibn Taymiyya so does this mean you accept you are Khawarij?”
The Answer to that is: No! But you call us (the Ibadi as Khawarij) so even if we are by your standards than you must make the prayer behind us!
So the next time you get someone like Shaykh Assim Al-Hakeem (who admits he drinks alcohol and is proud of it) telling you that you cannot pray behind Ibadi it is best you get your information and sources from more sober minded people.
Hayya alas Salah means exactly that: Come to Prayer. It does not mean come to this or that group or sect. The Imam leads the prayer. You stand behind him as long as he is Ahl Qiblah. Simple.
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will exalt you in my presence 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)
“And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
﷽
The Pseudo-Salafis are attacking Imam Imran Hossein because he basically doesn’t believe that the Qur’an says the following:
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill himnor did they impalecrucify him but Allah made some random individual look exactly like Jesus and that person was crucified instead of Jesus. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
“What did Allah do to make it appear…that he died? Let me warn you! And my language some time is very harsh. Because that is the only language some people can understand. Don’t come with this nonsense! Because it is not only pathetic nonsense it is absolutely sinful! To say that Allah (authubillah) caused someone else to take the appearance of Nabi Isa (a.s) and that innocent man, innocent because he never claimed to be the Messiah! He was crucified. Wait for judgement day with that nonsense! Pathetic nonsense! It’s not there in the Qur’an. It’s in your imagination. That’s where it is. Yet it took the world of Islam by storm. What a brain washed ummah we are today! Well than what happened? Well, then why don’t you go to the Qur’an and let the Qur’an explain rather than go on fancy flights of imagination. “-Shaykh Imran Hossein.
Now notice that @ 1:27 this “Nasir Al Hanbali” states:
“We will bring the Ayah in the Qur’an and the Tafsir from ibn Kathir narrated by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, but notice how this creep (Shaykh Imran Hossein) says: “why don’t you go to the Qur’an and let the Qur’an explain…” but he brings no Ayah from the Qur’an, just his weird: “LET ME WARNN YOUUU!!!“
“You gonna tell Allah on judgement day you caused that man to assume the appearance of someone? And he who never claimed to be the Messiah he was crucified that is an act of injustice! You are attributing injustice to Allah what foolishness. Where are the scholars who will correct this foolishness? That’s why I have to be so forceful in my language. Allah took his soul. That he was dead. They took down the body. They put the body in a cave. They sealed the cave. Allah returned the soul. As simple as that. Nobody knew that the body, that the soul was returned and Allah raised him. But let me warn you one more time. If you stick with this theory of substitution you are going to be in a pathetic state on judgement day. Let me warn you one more time. This is a simple explanation from the Qur’an. “- Shaykh Imran Hossein.
So than “Nasir Al Hanbali” puts the following recitation up:
“Nasir Al Hanbali” than ask us: “Do you think Shaykh Ali Jaabir was wrong and the creep was right?”
My comment:
Where did Shaykh Ali Jabir recite “the resemblance of Isa was put over another man (and they killed that man” ? Shaykh Ali Jabir did not recite that at all! Yet the text put up there fools those who do not understand the Arabic text!
Then, ‘Nasir Al Hanbali’ gives us another reciter.
“Nasir Al Hanbali” than ask us: “Do you think Shaykh Abu Bakr ash-Shatiri was wrong and the creep was right? Let us listen to the next reciter, Shaykh Sa’ood ash-Shuraim.”
Prima Qur’an comment:
Where did Shaykh Abu Bakr ash-Shatiri recite “the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)”? Shaykh Abu Bakr ash-Shatiri did not recite that at all! Yet the text put up there fools those who do not understand the Arabic text!
Prima Qur’an comment:
Where did Shaykh Sa’ood ash-Shuraim recite “the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)” ? Shaykh Sa’ood ash-Shuraim did not recite that at all! Yet the text put up there fools those who do not understand the Arabic text!
This is simply pure deception on behalf of the one who put the video up.
“Allah said to Isa: Allah said: O Isa (Jesus)! I will take you and raise you to Myself [Qur’an 3:55] Allah said: “Ya Isa” referring to Isa ibn Maryam (a.s) when the Jews plotted against him, they wanted to kill him. They entered upon him wanting to kill him [because] their norm was to kill Prophets. When they entered upon [Isa ibn Maryam], Allah raised him from amongst them. He made another man resemble him. They grabbed that man, crucified him and killed him thinking that he was Isa. As for Isa, then Allah raised him from amongst and they did not perceive it. That is why Allah says: “but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)],” [Qur’an 4:157] -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an comment:
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan has invented an outright lie about Allah (swt)! Let the Shaykh be reminded the following:
“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)
Prima Qur’an comment:
Where did Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan get the daleel from the Qur’an and Sunnah that ” He made another man resemble him.” This is Aqeedah! The Qur’an does not say this! This is not from the Sunnah!
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan continues:
“Allah made this man resemble the Messiah, Isa. He himself accepted it and ransomed himself; he ransomed himself and he accepted that he would be killed and crucified. Allah honored him and did not waste this person and what he did with the Messiah. It is said that the one who Allah made to resemble Isa was the one who practiced treason; the one who led [the Jews] to Isa. The one employed treachery or betrayed Isa and led the Jews to him. Allah made him resemble Isa, so they killed him. However, the first opinion is more famous, that the one who chose to resemble Isa was honored and he chose to take his place. This man sacrificed himself for the sake of Allah, he was crucified and killed, so the Messiah Isa ibn Maryam could be saved from them. And Allah knows best. Allah raised him alive with him soul and his body. Not how some of the ignorant individuals say: “he was only raised with his soul.” He was raised with his soul and body alive. They were not able to touch him with any harm.” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an comment:
Where did Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan get the daleel from the Qur’an and Sunnah that “Allah made this man resemble the Messiah.” This is Aqeedah! The Qur’an does not say this! This is not from the Sunnah! How can we be so carefree in ascribing to Allah (swt) such things and in the next breath say, “he first opinion is more famous.” Of course the opinion that some random person volunteered to be killed sounds better than just some random guy being chosen! The point being Shaykh Salihi al-Fawzan we don’t attribute opinions and conjecture to Allah (swt) !! It would have been appropriate to say that this is an interpretation of the text that was taken from the People of the Book and it does not have a sound chain of narration.
Also, which text in the Qur’an says that Allah (swt) “He was raised with his soul and body alive.”
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan continues:
“As for His statement: I will take you.. [Qur’an 3:55] The word Wafaat can mean death and it can also mean to sleep. “It is He who takes your souls by night (when you are asleep), and has knowledge of all that you have done by day,. [Quran 6:60]” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
“Wafaat here means to sleep and Allah knows best or I will take you…[Qur’an 3:55], It can also mean to take you. Mutawaffi also means to take; Tawaffa haqqahu min fulaan [he took his rights from so and so]. The word Wafaat here does not mean death. Because the Messiah is still Alive and will descend at the end of times, he will kill the Dajjal and then he will die after that.” -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
“Because: “Every soul shall taste death.” [Qur’an 3:185] He [Isa a.s] will die after that. The point of evidence here is that [the Ayah]: “I will take you and raise you to Myself” [Qur’an 3:55] To raise him to him is not done except to a higher place. This is proof that Allah is [always] high and above [His creation]. -Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan
Prima Qur’an comment:
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan quotes the verses: “It is He who takes your souls by night (when you are asleep), and has knowledge of all that you have done by day,. [Quran 6:60]” Does he not realize that he further proves our point that Jesus is dead? If there is any confusion as to what happens when we “sleep” let the Blessed Messenger (saw) explain it to you.
When we sleep we die. Our soul travels. If Allah (swt) does not return to the soul to the body than we die in our sleep. As far as Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan statement: “To raise him to him is not done except to a higher place. This is proof that Allah is [always] high and above [His creation].”
To Allah (swt) shall all return [not just Jesus].
“Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return.” [Qur’an 2: 156]
It does not mean spatial location. Even though Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan who is fond of taking his creed from the people of the book Allah (swt) is not contained in a spatial location.
“And he said: Lo! I am going to my Lord Who will guide me.” [Qur’an 37:99]
Ibrahim a.s says I am going to my Lord did he mean from place to place? No.
It is unfortunate because the more you investigate the beliefs of ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah‘ on this you can see they are in disarray over it.
Some say someone random was made to look like Jesus and he was put on a cross.
Other’s say Jesus was on a cross and died.
Other’s say that Jesus was on a cross but he passed out and latter was resuscitated.
“And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
“We do not abrogate an ayat or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (Qur’an 2:106)
“And when We substitute an ayat in place of an ayat – and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down – they say, “You, [O Muhammed], are but an inventor [of lies].” But most of them do not know.” (Qur’an 16:101)
﷽
One of the major differences in aqidah (creed) between the Ibadi school and those from ‘Ahl Sunnah’ is on the issue of the preservation of the Qur’an.
The Ibadi position is this:
We have the entire Qur’an. (Chart A)
We have the Qur’an that Allah (swt) intended for us to have which is Chart A
The Sunni position is this:
We have the Qur’an that Allah (swt) intended for us to have. Chart B
We do not have the entire Qur’an.* Chart B
*Note. This is not an outlier or strange position. This is the major position with in what is called ‘Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah‘. You may be surprised at those who call themselves Sunni who are simply ignorant of this. However; as with any school of theology, jurisprudence or approach taken it is always possible to have minority voices and or those that dissent from the mashur (majority view).
This entry will discuss some observations by a Sunni apologist whom is replying to what is commonly referenced on internet culture as team: “Atheist-Christ*” . In this particular response to 1/2 of team Atheist-Christ an enterprising Sunni apologist gives what he feels is a robust response.
*Note: For those not familiar, an Atheist-Christ is a Christian unbothered by an unsaved Atheist among them. He (the Christian) teams up with the Atheist and they jointly attack Islam.
Thus, 1/2 of team Atheist-Christ is an apologist whom has taken issue with the idea of the Qur’an having lost and/or forgotten chapters/verses/words and so forth.
When it comes to the idea or concept of abrogation the only consensus that the Sunni Muslims seem to have is that such a concept exist. What actually abrogates what is anyone’s guess.
Some of them even believe in scenarios such as that the Qur’an used to have verses that explicitly mention stoning adulterers to death and that the verses were abrogated/lost/forgotten/eaten by a goat. However, the ruling remains! In our school this concept is one in which refuge in Allah (swt) is sought.
You get into issues such as the Qur’an abrogating the Qur’an. The Sunnah abrogating the Sunnah. Or even the Sunnah abrogating the Qur’an. The last one being the most dangerous of all, as the sunnah is primarily preserved and transmitted via lone narrator reports. It is an excellent opportunity for something that is dhan (uncertain) to overrule or overwrite something that is qati (decisive) such as the Qur’an.
The basis for this belief is the following text from the Qur’an.
“We do not abrogate an ayat or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (Qur’an 2:106)
The assumption here is that the word ayat is referencing a verse in the Qur’an. It is not assumed for example that is a reference to miracles, that are no longer witnessed or tangible. or that it a reference to even the previous revelations. Now there are so many things to be said about this in and of itself. Notice that it does not say the word surah (chapter). For example in the following verse:
“And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Slave, then produce a Surah (chapter) the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful.” (Qur’an 2:23)
This part also deserves pensive reflection on the part of those who believe the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated.
“We bring forth better than it or similar to it“
Abrogation is omission, removal and it is impossible for that which is eternal. The idea that some part of Allah’s sifat of attribute of ‘speech‘ would be ‘better‘ or “improved upon” over other parts merits pensive reflection.
“We bring forth better than it or similar to it”
If a person believes that this statement is a reference to the Qur’an than it creates a circular reasoning. If you no longer have the original source to compare it with than you have no way of knowing in what way that which was brought was improved upon.
An example:
As mentioned there is the view among a great many Sunni scholars that there used to be verses of stoning the adulterers in the Qur’an and that was abrogated/lost/forgotten/eaten by a goat. Recall the verse they base their belief on states: “We bring forth better than it or similar to it.” So which verse in the Qur’an now is now similar to it or better than it?
Why are Christians scolded for forgetting the revelation where as for Muslims it becomes a proof and a miracle for Islam? So much so that for the Christians hate and enmity was stirred up between them?!
“And with those who say ‘We are Christians’ We took compact; and they have forgotten (fanasu)a portion of that they were reminded of. So We have stirred up among them enmity and hatred, till the Day of Resurrection; and Allah will assuredly tell them of the things they wrought.” (Qur’an 5: 14)
In fact because I can anticipate how these people think. I can almost guarantee you the immediate response will be something akin to the following: “The difference here is that Allah made the companions forget where as the Christians forgot from negligence.”
Which also baffles me. The Creator causes you to forget his revelation = something meritorious.
The Arabic word Insan is derived from the Arabic nasiya meaning to forget. In fact you can see that in the very text of Q 5:14 above.
So allow me to share with you the video from a Sunni apologist who goes by the name of Farid. I think he means well and over all he some good material.
So after listening to 1/2 of team Atheist-Christ put up his objections against the Qur’an Farid had the following to say:
“”Alright. So Firstly the common answer to this which is the answer I adopt is that this this chapter was abrogated. That’s what that’s the classical position. So the argument for that is really simple. Uh basically this specific verse. This specific verse that speaks of the son of Adam having valleys of gold or valleys of wealth, this specific uh verse was memorized and documented by um according to Sayuti 15 companions. That’s quite a high number. and yet it never got into the Qur’an.” -Farid
Prima Qur’an comments:
Actually, it is very surprising that Farid says this. Perhaps to give him the benefit of the doubt what he means is the Uthmanic codex; because to say that it was never part of the Qur’an is to totally misread what was plainly stated.
Look again:
“We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this…..”
It is clear that was considered part of the Qur’an. We do not call du’a and invocations surah. So the more correct perspective here (if it were true at all) is that it was part of the Qur’an. It just doesn’t become part of the Uthmanic codex.
Farid continues:
“Now there is nothing controversial about the verse. There’s no reason for someone to hide the verse away or anything like that. So yes the traditional Islamic answer is this verse EXCUSE ME THIS CHAPTER was abrogated. And that itself will be convincing to any Muslim.”-Farid
Prima Qur’an comments:
Well, I am a Muslim and I am not the only one that doesn’t buy this at all. The Mufti of Oman, learned scholar and Shaykh, has this to say:
“Abrogation is never permitted in the reports of the Law-Maker because His Knowledge is not refreshed and He is not ignorant of anything that happens, and He does not reveal but the truth.”-Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h)
Notice that Farid does a kind of bait and switch. In the above paragraph he uses the word ‘verse’ twice and the third time finally says, “Excuse me This CHAPTER.” Because that is what is being discussed. Recall “We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this…..”
So since the entirety of the chapter(surah) was lost or forgotten Farid is in no position to say that nothing controversial was in its contents. The reason he cannot say that is accordingly the chapter (surah) as a whole was lost/forgotten. However, the portion the chapter that was remembered was: “If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.”
Also, recall the verse in the Qur’an that is the basis for this belief.
“We bring forth better than it or similar to it”
So what verse did Allah (swt) bring that was better than or equivalent to the one of the two valleys full of riches?
Farid continues.
“Now before getting to my arguments I want you to be aware that the concept of abrogation is not something that is specific to Islam. It’s something that existed in Christianity previously you have the laws of Christianity abrogating the laws of Judaism. Right? Umm You even have specific examples of works that were abrogated because they were not important um in Judaism. So this is again this is not something that’s exclusive to Islam.”-Farid
Prima Qur’an comments:
It would have been great if Farid would have given an example of a law in Christianity abrogating a law of Judaism. If he done that perhaps we could see even how problematic such a concept was in their traditions as well. For example:
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9)
“If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
So initially Jesus (whom is God the Son) according to the Athanasian Trinity gave Moses this command that it was o.k to divorce a woman if he found something displeasing or indecent about her. After she marries another man and he too divorces her or dies she cannot go back to the first husband as that would be ‘detestable’ in the eyes of the Lord. Yet, this same Jesus (whom is God the Son) than tries to say it was Moses who gave such a law because “your hearts’ were hard”
Christian damage control
“Jesus now answers that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts. This means that God created a set of rules limiting the damage which divorce might cause. Jesus adds that it was not so from the beginning. In other words, God’s intention in creation was that all human marriage between man and woman should be lifelong. To separate what God had joined was a violation of God’s design. Under Moses, however, Israel was allowed to break the design because of the sin-hardened hearts of the people—providing limits and restraints on the practice.”
God (Jesus as God the Son) first allowed this type of divorce even though it was a violation of his (Jesus) design. Mostly because of the recognition that people’s hearts were hard. However, he suddenly changes that. Umm why? Aren’t the hearts still hard? You mean to say that human hearts are not hard anymore?
Do you know the irony of all this dear readers?
Religious Jews will see this a proof against Christianity and the capricious nature of how they perceive God.
Religious Christians will see this a proof for Jesus divinity because: Who else can give laws that they personally dislike, and violate the very intended pattern hey have planned for human beings (but not yet cause their hearts are hard) but some time 2000 years ago (possibly their hearts were not as hard) and yes you know what that was not adultery than but it is now: who can do that but God?
Religious Muslims who are involved in polemic with Christians (people like brother Farid) would possibly use arguments like this against the Christian faith and yet see things like this as a case for Islam.
This doesn’t become about being consistent and defending the haqq (truth). It’s about the football jersey that I wear and yours doesn’t’ match mine!
Farid continues.
“Now in regards to this specific matter what I find really interesting here this is referring to Abu Musa Al Ashari; who taught the Qur’an in Basra who taught the Qur’an in Yemen he was seen as one of the main reciters of the Qur’an. We rely upon Abu Musa for our Qir’aat today however, however, interestingly Abu Musa forgot a complete chapter of the Qur’an And what’s really interesting about that specific chapter is like we have no information about it.”-Farid
Prima-Qur’an comments:
These statements by Farid prove my previous points. Namely,
A) We can’t say that the chapter contained anything controversial because as he stated, “We have no information about it.”
B) Farid stated earlier that “and yet it never got into the Qur’an.” Than he says, “Abu Musa forgot a complete chapter of the Qur’an” This is why I give him the benefit of the doubt that what he means is the Uthmanic codex. Not that it was never part of the Qur’an ever.
Farid continues.
“Now in this specific hadith we find Abu Musa not saying not saying I forgot this chapter. He says, I was made to forget this chapter. Where do we find this concept? Well we find it in the Qur’an in verse 106 in Surat al Baqarah mā nansakh min āyatin aw nunsihā nati bikhayrin min’hā aw mith’lihā (We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it.”-Farid
Prima Qur’an comments:
Actually, Abu Musa does not say, “I was made to forget this chapter.” He says, “I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this.” Thus, he did not forget the whole chapter. He forgot all of it with the exception of a certain portion. A portion which Farid admits was recited as the Qur’an and it is still there (as it is in the hadith) but it not recited as part of the Qur’an today.
Is this really what Qur’an 2:106 is saying?
Does it say, “We do not abrogate an entire chapter, with the exception of some verses that will remain but will not be in the final version of this Qur’an, or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it, except for the two valleys verse which will remain and not be included in the final compilation.”
This is absolutely bizarre.
Farid continues.
“Now I want you to focus on the words cause it to be forgotten. That is what Abu Musa is saying I was made to forget this. That’s what Abu Musa is saying. Now, how can that even be proven right? I mean that’s the concept is very strange in itself, but is there any precedence for this? Now what really blew my mind was this specific narration That is narrated by Abu Umamah ibn Sahl in which he says, One night a man tried to read a chapter of the Qur’an that he had but he could not. Another man tried to read it but he also could not. Another man also tried to read it but failed. In the morning they went to the Messenger of Allah and gathered there. One of them said: “O Messenger of Allah! Yesterday night I tried to read chapter so-and-so but I could not.” The other said: “I have come for this very reason.” The third man said: “Me too.” The Messenger (saw) said: “It was abrogated yesterday.” Uh this specific hadith is narrated in nasikh wal mansukh by Abi Obaid; it was also narrated in other works like (I did not catch this part) Um it was also narrated by Tabarani in his Mu’jam al-Kabir in which he says that the Ansar that actually go to recite this verse only managed to recite the words bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, in the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, Most Merciful, and than they just freeze. Not knowing forgetting the rest of the chapter. Which is just it’s really interesting.Basically, what happened was you have this collective amnesia that occurred. Now, now I don’t have the answers in regards to why this occurred. I have no idea what was in that chapter. I have no idea what was in the chapter that abu musa narrated. Um it may even be the same chapter; but for some reason God in his infinite wisdom decided to abrogate that chapter in the same way he decided to abrogate the laws of the old testament and the..(pause) and other books in the old testament as well.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
Al hamdulillah. At least Farid realizes that this whole thing does seem “very strange'”
Farid proposes that there was some how this “collective amnesia” that occurred.
Now neither Farid or myself (to my knowledge) are medical doctors. However, what I can see is that there are considered to be three types of amnesia.
Types of Amnesia
Retrograde amnesia. Having retrograde amnesia means you’ve lost your ability to recall events that happened just before the event that caused your amnesia. …
Anterograde amnesia. …
Transient global amnesia (TGA).
You may read more the distinction between Anterograde Amnesia VS. Retrograde Amnesia here:
I was not satisfied that what Farid describes really fits into any of these categories. At first I thought that maybe Transient global amnesia (TGA) would fit the description. Yet this seems temporary with the memories coming back. So than I thought I would search selective amnesia. This seems to fall under a type of dissociative psychiatric disorder. I do not believe that Farid attributes that to the companions at all.
Farid quotes an example of a few people not being able to remember a particular surah (chapter) and than the Blessed Messenger (saw) is attributed with saying that it was abrogated the night before.
Farid than quotes two other sources but does not bring the references.
“ it was also narrated in other works like (I did not catch this part) Um it was also narrated by Tabarani in his Mu’jam al-Kabir.”
So for example we do not know the type of “amnesia” they had. Was it temporary?
There seems to be temporary memory loss. Where did I place those car keys? There seem to be permanent memory loss, associated above with one of the types of amnesia.
There seems to be forgetfulness of something tangible and non tangible. There seems to be a situation where you were forgetful of what you are forgetful of. Another is something tangible.
So again this creates a type of circular reasoning where if you do not really recall a particular chapter or verse it is possible that you did not forget it at all but just think that you did. You could misplace or forget where you put your car keys. Yet, you know the item in question is tangible, they are car keys. But where did you place them? However, if you think about something obscure like a passage from a book and you think you forgot how to recollect it, it is very possible that actually didn’t commit it to memory to begin with. A type of paradox.
Farid continues.
“Now the Non-Muslim that’s watching this video naturally will be skeptical. Um will probably say, but you see this hadith of Abu Musa it’s speaking about a miracle why should I believe this narration that’s speaking about a miracle there’s no reason for me to believe this. Now I understand where you’re coming from. But that’s why the hadith of Abu Musa that David{1/2 of Atheist-Christ} is quoting is really interesting; and the reason is because again it’s narrated by around 15 people um at least of course at least that’s what we have received. Right? Now none of those 15 actually provide um any context to this. They simply say stuff like oh I heard Rasulullah (saw) recite this verse that speaks of the son of Adam having two valleys of wealth right? Um and you have them narrating this and it’s preserved arbitrarily. It’s narrated at different times at different places. So, yes you have Abu Musa narrating this in Basra. Uh Ibn Abbas, Ibn Zubair narrating this in Mecca. You have Zaid bin Arqam narrating this in Kufa; and of course you have the rest of the sahaba um narrating this in Medina. That’s really interesting. Their narrating this without a context. No one, none of them are arguing that there is a um collective amnesia going on. However, there is absolutely no trace of this chapter. We don’t know anything about this chapter; except for this one verse. Subhan’Allah. Now, there’s one last thing that comes to mind, which is why does this verse exist. Why do they all remember this verse? And why have they all forgotten the rest of the chapter? Now it seems to me like wallahu’alim that Allah (swt) has left this as a trace to point to there being something there once, and now it’s all gone. Subhan’Allah. And Subhan’Allah I mean I wouldn’t have even come across this if it weren’t for our good friend David Wood {1/2 of Atheist-Christ} Um so thank you David {1/2 of Atheist-Christ} I really appreciate this one. Um trust me I wouldn’t have come across this if not for your video. So please keep it up I’m enjoying, I’m learning I’m hoping that everyone else is enjoying the show as well.” -Farid
Prima-Qur’an comments:
Notice that Farid says, “it’s narrated by around 15 people” latter on he states: “Why do they all remember this verse? And why have they all forgotten the rest of the chapter?“
Now I know that English may not be brother Farid’s native language. May Allah (swt) bless him for doing his level best to combat the false narratives about Islam. However, for an English speaker following along the way Farid words things it gives the impression that these 15 narrators all made comments similar to Abu Musa Al Ashari above; namely, “We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this.” However, that is simply not the case at all. This is why it is important to double check sources and to have those sources available for everyone to scrutinize. Source “Trust me bro” is not helpful. For example:
Anas reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying: قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ
If the son of Adam were to possess two valleys of riches. he would long for the third one. And the stomach of the son of Adam is not filled but with dust. And Allah returns to him who repents.
Ibn Abbas reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
If there were for the son of Adam a valley full of riches, he would long to possess another one like it. and Ibn Adam does not feel satiated but with dust. And Allah returns to him who returns (to Him). Ibn Abbas said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur’an or not; and in the narration transmitted by Zuhair it was said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur’an, and he made no mention of Ibn Abbas.
Now it is not possible for the companions to not know the difference between a saying or statement of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and the Qur’an.
Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d:
I heard Ibn Az-Zubair who was on the pulpit at Mecca, delivering a sermon, saying, “O men! The Prophet (saw) used to say, “If the son of Adam were given a valley full of gold, he would love to have a second one; and if he were given the second one, he would love to have a third, for nothing fills the belly of Adam’s son except dust. And Allah forgives he who repents to Him.” Ubai said, “We considered this as a saying from the Qur’an till the Sura (beginning with) ‘The mutual rivalry for piling up of worldly things diverts you..’ (102.1) was revealed.”
If anything is correct about this it is most likely of a similar nature to the Qudsi hadith. That is the content being attributed to Allah (swt) but actually the words of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Now there is something that Farid said above that sounds sensible when it comes to his point about a trace of something. However, trying to make a connection between 15 narrators and the exact statements of Abu Musa Al Ashari is not something he established. Nonetheless when he says, “Now it seems to me like wallahu’alim that Allah (swt) has left this as a trace to point to there being something there once, and now it’s all gone.“
That is how you avoid the paradox I mentioned earlier. You have to be able to recall that you forgot something and having a trace of that can help to establish something was forgotten(temporarily, forever) that is not established. The point that I made above:
“So again this creates a type of circular reasoning where if you do not really recall a particular chapter or verse it is possible that you did not forget it at all but just think that you did.”
Prima-Qur’an Conclusion:
I do not think that anything presented by Farid presents any type of proof or miracle for Islam and/or the preservation of the Qur’an. Not being able to know if a particular thing forgotten was temporary or permanent is important.
The very hadith cited that kicked off the conversation could very well fall into the genre of Qudsi hadith. There is evidence that the companions felt this was a saying of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
The statement from At Tabarani was not given the source or actual quote. You would think something this phenomena would be more wide spread as well. The concept of abrogation as mentioned in my other entry here: https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/why-abrogation-in-the-quran-is-a-false-doctrine/ is an absolute train wreck of a doctrine!
Sunni Muslims (with dissenting voices) believe things like there used to be verses about stoning in the Qur’an and it was removed (abrogated) and yet the ruling remains! Why?
Than as Farid states apparently one companion is made to forget an entire chapter of the Qur’an (with the exception of one verse) and even that verse does not end up in the Qur’an we have today.
The idea that Allah’s verses (his eternal speech) and sifat is superseded by (other eternal speech) better than before merits pensive reflection.
When it comes to our school, Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama we believe the following:
A) We have the whole of the Qur’an with us.
B) We have the Qur’an that Allah (swt) intended for us to have.
Sunni Muslims (with dissenting voices) for the most part hold to position B. They do not hold position A, as they believe whole chapters, verses etc. were lost/forgotten/ etc.
I am motivated to write articles like this because I imagine there is someone persuaded by the depth, comfort, beauty and cohesiveness of Islam. That person than becomes deterred by others telling them, have you seen this video by Atheist-Christ? Than that well intentioned person watches that video and in fairness watches Farid’s video. That person maybe driven further into doubt because Farid’s video could come across as massive copium. In fact that video response could be what drives that person away from embracing the faith!
I want individuals to find responses like this so that they may know that yes Islam is cogent, beautiful, comforting and has depth. If you find certain presentations of Islam disheartening that is not an aspersion on Islam, it is an aspersion on that particular presentation of Islam.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) grant victory to our brothers in Palestine amin!
For those interested I also have some entries on abrogation here:
This was in response to statements by Dr. Abdullah Bin Hamid Ali of Lamppost productions and affiliate of Zaytuna Institute in the United States. He is a Sunni Maliki Ashari’i Islamic scholar.
And recite that which hath been revealed unto you of the Scripture of thy Lord. There is none who can change His words, and you will find no refuge beside Him. (Qur’an 18:27)
“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it.” (Qur’an 15:9)
“It is for us to assemble it and to promulgate it. And when we have promulgated it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated). Nay more, it is for us to explain it.” (Qur’an75:17-19)
“It is not you who slew them; it was Allah: when you threw , it was not your act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who hears and knows (all things). (Qur’an 8:17)
﷽
Perhaps one of the most fundamental things that sets the Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama (The People of Truth and Steadfastness) is the issue of the integrity of the sacred sources. None more important than the foundation of our faith, the Qur’an.
One can say they love the Blessed Messenger (saw) with every fiber of their beings. One can say they are defenders and vanguard of the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw). However, all of that is an absolute façade if one cannot defend the integrity of the foundation of our faith; namely the Qur’an.
In fact one Sunni apologist whom is known for mostly engaging with Shi’i made a video exclaiming that the fact that chapters of the Qur’an were forgotten and the fact that people forgot it was a proof for it’s veracity and integrity! Can you Imagine!
This article is written to refute the very dangerous assertion by those sources of the Sunni denomination whom proclaim that the Qur’an that Muslims have today does not have the entirety of the Qur’an with in it!
Those particular sources of theSunni denomination lead us to the following conclusions:
a) There are large portions of the Qur’an that are simply missing (because they were forgotten)!
b) There is some Qur’an that is not in the Qur’an that Muslims have today.
c) TheQur’an abrogates (over rides/cancels) other parts of theQur’an.
d) That c leads to the concept of redundant revelation.
The position of such people that believe these concepts and sources are an accurate portrayal of our faith is that we do not have the whole of the Qur’an today but we simply have the Qur’an that Allah (swt) intended us to have. Read that again because such a position is extremely nuanced and slippery.
Before I begin I would like to say that I would consider myself a fairly open minded Muslim. I would also consider myself able to accept a wide range of opinions and views with in the Islamic tradition.
However, when it comes to anyone trying to undermine the revelation of the Qur’an and thus undermine Islam in the process I am not open to such a position. It is without doubt a major redline.
In fact when some of the early scholars were writing text on issues of creed I do not see how they left out this most important issue; namely that the total Qur’an has come down to us without being tampered with, intact, guarded, preserved.
I do not compromise on the position that the Qur’an is 100% complete. Now those scholars of theSunni denomination may allege that I misrepresent their position.
They will claim that they too believe that theQur’an is 100% complete and at the same time they will affirm all of the oral traditions below. This tongue and cheek approach is anything but sincere. I believe in what Allah has said in the Qur’an.
1) Allah will guard the Qur’an.
2) None can change Allah’s words
3) Allah will collect, propagate and distribute theQur’an.
4) Nothing Allah (swt) revealed is redundant.
The Qur’an itself claims it is easy to remember and itself is called the dhikr, that which is remembered, recalled.
“And We have certainly made the Quran easy to remember. So is there anyone who will be mindful?” (Qur’an 54:17)
“This (is) a Reminder. And indeed, for the righteous surely, is a good place of return.” (Qur’an 38: 49)
So imagine that Allah (swt) has said the Qur’an is easy to remember and even calls the Qur’an something that is recalled. Yet, these people want to claim that even the Blessed Messenger (saw) forgot his revelation.
They will often cite the following as evidence:
“We will have you recite ˹the Quran, O Prophet,˺ so you will not forget ˹any of it˺, unless Allah wills otherwise. He surely knows what is open and what is hidden.” (Qur’an 87: 6-7)
Some of the detractors focus on the part “unless Allah wills”.
First, it is important to understand that Allah’s will is not like a human will. If a human being wills something today that person may change their mind tomorrow, and when tomorrow comes they may again adopt a completely different idea.
Because exception by the Will of Allah comes in the Word of Allah to emphasize that what is reported happens by His Will (not otherwise). If he wills the opposite of that, it will be so. When Allah (swt) says that something happens if He wills it, it is intended to show His power and majesty because He has control over all things.
That is like in His saying, Exalted is He:
“We would have invented against Allah a lie if we returned to your religion after Allah had saved us from it. And it is not for us to return to it except what Allah wills. Our Lord has encompassed all things in knowledge. Upon Allah, we have relied. Our Lord, decide between us and our people in truth, and You are the best of those who give a decision.” (Qur’an 7:89)
We can see the phrase: ‘Except what Allah wills‘ above.
Does anyone think for a moment that the will of Allah (swt) that people leave Islam for their previous religion? Does anyone think, ‘Well you know there may be exceptions were Allah wants people to leave Islam and practice Shirk again!‘. It is an absolutely ridiculous idea.
Another example:
Certainly, has Allah showed to His Messenger the vision in truth. You will certainly enter al-Masjid al-Haram, if Allah wills, in safety, with your heads shaved and hair shortened, not fearing anyone. He knew what you did not know and has arranged before that a conquest near at hand.” (Qur’an 48:27)
This verse cannot be construed that Allah (swt) will ‘change his mind‘ as Allah (swt) has already given his decision on this matter: “You will CERTAINLY enter.”
Another example:
He will say, “The Fire is your residence, wherein you will abide eternally, except for what Allah wills. Indeed, your Lord is Wise and Knowing.” (Qur’an 6:128)
People use this to try and argue that people will not remain in the hellfire forever.
This is also clear from the following text:
“They would desire to go forth from the fire, and they shall not go forth from it, and they shall have a lasting punishment.” (Qur’an 5:37)
“Surely as for those who reject Our communications and turn away from them haughtily, the doors of heaven shall not be opened for them, nor shall they enter the garden until the camel pass through the eye of the needle; and thus do We reward the guilty.” (Qur’an 7:40)
So as we have seen ‘Except what Allah wills‘ can be seen as a rhetorical device.
They will also bring the following as evidence:
“We do not abrogate an ayat or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?” (Qur’an 2:106)
They are so certain that the word ‘ayat’ is used for the Qur’an itself rather than previous revelations or even miracles for that matter.
“There is no changing in the words of Allah.” (Qur’an 10:64)
So what about those who say what about the previous revelations? I have an article on that and Allah (swt) clearly told us in the Qur’an whom was responsible for safeguarding the previous revelations:
“Verily, It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (the Qur’an) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption) .” (Qur’an 15:9)
“…and the rabbis and the priest (judged according to their Scriptures), FOR TO THEM WAS ENTRUSTED THE PROTECTION OF THE BOOK OF ALLAH, and they were witnesses to it.” (Qur’an 5:44)
For those interested you may read my article: Is the Bible the Unadulterated Word of God?
So let us look at the claimscontained with in Sunni sources.
The claims of Sayuti have mostly not been translated into English but remain in Arabic and other language sources.
The great Sunni Imam Sayuti claims records that
“It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: “Let none of you say ‘I have full knowledge of the Quran’. How could he know what full knowledge of it is when much of the Quran has passed by him! Rather, let him say ‘I have acquired of the Qur’an that which is present.’”.
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).
Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash’ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur’an and he said:
You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it:” If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.” And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it:” Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practice” (lxi 2.) and” that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection” (xvii. 13).
Abu Waqid al-Laithii said, “When the messenger of Allah (saw) received the revelation we would come to him and he would teach us what had been revealed. (I came) to him and he said ‘It was suddenly communicated to me one day: Verily Allah says, We sent down wealth to maintain prayer and deeds of charity, and if the son of Adam had a valley he would leave it in search for another like it and, if he got another like it, he would press on for a third, and nothing would satisfy the stomach of the son of Adam but dust, yet Allah is relenting towards those who relent.”
“We used to recite a surah similar to one of the Musabbihaat, and I no longer remember it but this much I have indeed preserved: ‘O you who truly believe why do you preach that which you do not practice?’ (and) ‘that is inscribed on your necks as a witness and you will be examined about it on the Day of Resurrection.’
“Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from al-Qaqa ibn Hakim that Abu Yunus, the mawla of A’isha, umm al-muminin said, “A’isha ordered me to write out a Qur’an for her. She said, ‘When you reach this ayat, let me know, “Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to Allah.”‘ When I reached it I told her, and she dictated to me, ‘Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah.’ A’isha said, ‘I heard it from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.'”
“Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Amr ibn Rafi said, “I was writing a Qur’an for Hafsa, umm al-muminin, and she said, ‘When you reach this ayat, let me know, “Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to Allah.”‘ When I reached it I told her and she dictated to me, ‘Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah.”
Source: (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 8, Number 8.8.27)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Let me ask you my Muslim brothers and sisters when you open up theQur’an do you find “Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah.” ?
https://www.islamawakened.com/index.php/qur-an (just in case you do not have aQur’an with you) Now for me the above are less serious as they can easily be attributed to a scribal error. People would often sit for long sessions taking information and transcribing. So I do not find the above to be truly problematic. However, it is a glaring reality that lone narrator reports do not necessarily convey absolute certainty.
Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
`Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” `Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Messenger (saw) carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”
Zirr ibn Hubaish reported: “Ubayy ibn Ka’b said to me, ‘What is the extent of Suratul-Ahzab? ‘I said, ‘Seventy or seventy-three verses’. He said, ‘Yet it used to be equal to Suratul-Baqarah and in it we recited the verse of stoning’. I said, ‘And what is the verse of stoning’? He replied, ‘The fornicators among the married men ( ash-shaikh)) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise.”‘
Why I bring this up is that the Sunni Muslim scholars hold to the doctrine of abrogation.
So now we have a Qur’an that is both eternal that contains verses that abrogate each other?
Welcome to the very weird theological position of eternal abrogation! This is as weird a theological position as the Christian claim of ‘eternally begotten’. How are you going to be eternal and begotten at the same time? How is the Qur’an going to be eternal and abrogated simultaneously? Odd, very odd indeed.
How could you have an eternal perfect revelation that is at the same time replaced by other eternal revelation that is either similar to or superior than it?
But this is where it gets very messy.
I could very well see them making the counter claim. “No brother you see all the verses are eternal, what you don’t understand is that they were revealed in different sequences.”
Yet, the Allah (swt) says in the Qur’an:
“Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.” (Qur’an 4:82)
The idea that theQur’an would contain eternal redundant revelation is both blasphemous and cause for pensive reflection
Prima Qur’an Conclusion:
The ideas that the sources of the Sunni denomination are propagating that the Qur’an does not contain the entireQur’an I feel greatly undermines the preservation, and veracity of the text of theQur’an.
Perhaps more than any other view on aqidah it is this belief that separates the Ibadi perspective from that of the Sunni perspective (with dissenting voices) as mentioned.
It puts the ultimate weapon in the hands of the detractors of faith to tear down the entirety of Islam.
The sources of the Sunni denomination have no moral ground, and in fact no justification to lift a pen in the defense of Islam, do a radio or television program, or write an article or book to defend this great faith because it is all done in vain.
Why on Earth Princess Leia would hand over plans to the death star to the empire, and than claim she has the best interest of the rebellion at heart is beyond me!
As a follow up I need to write an entry for the following. (Allah-willing)
a) showing the problematic nature of believing the Qur’an to be eternal.
I leave you with the supreme words of the Creator.
Those who distort Our revelations are not hidden from Us. Is one who is thrown into Hell better, or one who comes secure on the Day of Resurrection? Do whatever you wish; He is Seer of what you do. Those who have rejected the Reminder when it came to them; and it is an Honorable Book. No falsehood could enter it, presently or afterwards; a revelation from One Most Wise, Praiseworthy. (Qur’an 41:40-42)
Moses said to them: “Woe to you, do not invent lies about God, else the retribution will take you, and miserable is the one who invents.” (Qur’an 20:61)
“Verily! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding.” (Qur’an 3:190)
﷽
There has been circulating around social media a recent talk done by Dr. Ali Ataie of Zaytuna institute. It looks as if he was defending the concept that the earth is circular and flat rather than circular and spherical.
Note: This article has been updated as of 20/7/2023 in light of new developments. Please see the end of this article.
This seems to have spread from the venue of a YouTube channel for MCC East Bay and then quickly deleted.
Deleting the video was a bad move to begin with. Why?
Because it looks as if something was being covered up and, quite naturally, it got thinking people curious. The title of the video itself could go either way. Meaning Dr. Ataie could be discussing competing views while sharing his own. Or, Dr. Ataie could be sharing competing views while debunking another view.
The video title says: “Views on the Shape of the Earth: Flat Earth & Geocentrism| Dr. Ali Ataie“
Interestingly, the pro-Zionist, MEMRI channel picked up on this with lightning speed! MEMRI was co-founded by former Israeli military intelligence officer Yigal Carmon and Israeli-American political scientist Meyrav Wurmser.
You can see the video clip above:
Now some who do not think Dr. Ali Ataie was promoting flat earth may ask “Where is the time stamp where he says the Earth is flat?” In fact, Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali posted this on his Twitter feed:
Three things to note from this:
“I was just raising some common arguments that flat earthers raise.” Which is not a denial that he is a flat-earther.
“Notice I never said that I believed in the flat earth.” But he never said he didn’t either.
“My position is always Allah Alim, it’s not essential to me either way.”
Also, the talk went very quickly into free-mason territory. Everyone from Sir Isaac Newton being a knighted Freemason occultist, to around 94% of astronauts being Freemasons to Neil deGrasse Tyson.
These are the type of things you would want to seed in the minds of the population if you wanted to say there was a massive effort to distort reality.
Now that being said, we want to say what our position is. We personally will stop using the terminology “conspiracy theory”. We believe such terminology is created by those who do not want us to think. Yes, indeed there are conspiracies. Not all conspiracies are nefarious. People could conspire to throw a colleague a surprise party, for example.
Yet, we do not believe in labeling things as conspiracy as a pejorative to shut down a particular view point.
Every theory is a theory that merits rigorous principles of logic, investigation, reflection and experimentation where possible.
In fact, we find it strange that those people who consider themselves skeptics or open-minded do not welcome the exploration of all theories.
So, for us it is all on the table.
Did the moon landing happen? Was JFK an inside job? Is COVID-19 a massive data collection ploy and a means to boost the revenue of big pharma?
Maybe it is plausible that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a plant that said what he said to make anyone who challenged the official narrative of covid-19 look like anti-Jewish quack.
Who knows anymore!
There is something that strikes a cord with what Dr. Ali Ataie said, though that merits pensive reflection:
“If we are on a flat surface and all the stars and planets go around us, then this is clearly designed for us. Someone put us on a pedestal. But by insisting that we are all apes, living on some random planet, going around the sun, in the corner of some random galaxy among billions of others, then we are easier to control by people in power. They can convince us that our lives are all about dunya, and to obey them, not God” — Dr. Ataie
Now let us suspend judgement for half a second. If, for the sake of argument, that model of the flat Earth was/is true, it would be such, in your face, evidence that we really are a special creation that one would have to have veils upon veils of darkness upon them to deny Allah.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
We have two other related articles on the subject you, the reader may be interested in:
This article has been updated as of 20/7/2023 in light of new developments.
Dr. Ali Ataie has unequivocally stated that he is not a flat earther!
Because this does not help either brother Ataie. People will wonder
“Wallahi, anyone who calls me a flat earther is a liar.” -Dr. Ali Ataie
“I am not a flat earther.” -Dr. Ali Ataie
“But I am not a flat earther.” -Dr. Ali Ataie
Prima Qur’an comments:
Dr. Ataie states:
“The article by memri is an inaccurate hit piece written by a Zionist organization.”
Hence, the reason why the video should not have been deleted by MCC East Bay. Because that video would have provided much needed context, if any. However, we are the ones that pointed out that this organization (MEMRI) is run by Zionists, and we were also amazed at how quickly that organization picked up on some small discussion which was not at a convention or even well advertised. Dr. Ataie is not really all that well known. I do not mean that as a slight. Really makes you wonder who is who in our Muslim community. How did that organization(MEMRI) get that material and publish it ?
That being said, it would help if MCC East Bay did not delete the video. Because, on the one hand, Dr. Ataie is saying:
“The article by memri is an inaccurate hit piece written by a Zionist organization.”
While also stating:
“I made several ill-advised off-the-cuff comments during a random Q &A…”
“It was not wise to make those comments and cause confusion.”
We really, really wish Dr. Ataie wouldn’t have made that statement: “is an inaccurate hit piece.” The rest of his statement is absolutely fine.
However, by making that comment, Muslims are now going to wonder why the original video was deleted and if it would be made public and this has the potential to lend credibility to that cursed organization (Memri). That is if nothing was taken out of context.
Dr. Abdullah Bin Hamid Ali, who meant well by defending his friend, most likely triggered more people by tweeting a flurry of controversial tweets.
Views should be weighed by the evidence and the arguments.
That being said, we do not think that Dr. Abdullah, Dr. Ataie or anyone for that matter should be castigated for having views that others find that go against mainstream scientific convictions.
Naturally, some Muslims chimed in and rightfully mentioned that much of this could have been clarified from the first post.
The problem with this clarification is that it comes down to a situation of damned if you do and damned if you do not. So, because Dr. Ataie brought up the free masons, some flat Earthers who support Dr. Ataie (based upon their presumptions of his own views) are now going to think that Dr. Ataie is caving in to pressure from such groups. They fail to realize that Dr. Ataie was simply sharing their perspective without necessarily endorsing it.
People, it is not easy to be in the public eye.
Our sincere advice to Muslim speakers. Whoever is recording such public events should give full disclosure to the one being recorded and be completely transparent with them on how and where the contents are to be released.
Conclusion: Dr. Ali Ataie has not retracted or recanted anything. To recant or retract would be to state something and then change positions. He never claimed he was a flat earther. He has simply clarified in no uncertain terms. He is not a flat earther.
As regards those Muslims who associate with and support Zionist and Zionist supporters.
May Allah guide you! May Allah (swt) free Palestine and either guide or crush the oppressors! Amin
(After rebuking his people) Moses turned to Aaron and said: “Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following my way? Have you disobeyed my command? Aaron answered: “Son of my mother! Do not seize me with my beard, nor by (the hair of) my head. I feared that on returning you might say: ‘You sowed discord among the Children of Israel, and did not pay heed to my words.” (Qur’an 20:91-93)
﷽
This is in response to other hadith that the Shi’i often use. They try to justify their claims of Ali being the correct or rightful Imam of the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw).
It is another example (of many) of them making a mountain out of a molehill.
The following hadith comes to mind:
Narrated Sa`d:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) set out for Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet (saw) said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
The hadith about Umar (ra) neutralizes any attempt to single out Ali for a uniquely elevated status.
This hadith (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4416) shows clear as daylight that Ali was not pleased being left to take charge of the affairs of the people of Medina. So how much more the whole Ummah?!
Rather than seeing this as an honor bestowed upon him as one being the most trustworthy to take care of the most vulnerable, Ali saw it as a slight.
So not being content with trusting his station to his Imam, which is none other than the Blessed Messenger (see), Ali quipped, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?”
Was Ali not aware of this verse of the Qur’an?
“Whoever obeys the Messenger has truly obeyed Allah. But whoever turns away, then ˹know that˺ We have not sent you ˹O Prophet˺ as a keeper over them.” (Qur’an 4:80)
Because the Shi’i cannot prove their case for the concept of the Imamate of Ahl Bayt from the Qur’an, they must quickly pivot the conversation to Hadith, which they feel justifies their position.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) is said to have replied to the recalcitrant Ali,
“Will you not be pleased that you will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
Somehow, the Shi’i seemed to close their eyes over the fact that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was trying to console his otherwise temperamental cousin.
Perhaps Ali sought glory or standing on the battlefield? Allah (swt) knows best. Yet, the Blessed Messenger (saw) gave Ali a more noble task than what Ali could have longed for.
The Shi’i run wild.
So, the Shi’i became laser focused on the part: “You will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”
They start to surmise that this must be a strong indication that Ali, without a doubt, is the one who will lead the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw) is gone.
So they start to imagine that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said things that he did not say. For example, the Hadith says, ‘no prophet after me’ but it does not say ‘no messenger after me’.
So perhaps Ali could be a Messenger after the Prophet Muhammed (saw) ?
The Shi’i who are known to be lovers of Qiyas (analogy) so well …maybe just this once.. 😉 🤫
So, with the above hadith in tow, we can quickly turn to the Qur’an and find:
“We made an appointment of thirty nights with Moses (On Mount Sinai), to which We added ten more; so the term set by the Lord was completed in forty nights. Moses said to Aaron, his brother: “Deputize for me ((ukh’luf’nī) among my people. Dispose rightly, and do not follow the way of the authors of evil.” (Qur’an 7:142)-Ahmed Ali
“And We treated with Musa thirty nights, and We completed them with ten; so the appointment of his Lord was completed by forty nights. And Musa said unto his brother Harun: act thou (ukh’luf’nī) in my place among my people, and rectify, and follow not the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)=Abdul Majid Daryabadi
As archaic and jumbled as Abdul Majid Daryabadi’s translation sounds to us, it best represents both the Arabic and the context. Although Ahmed Ali’s translation is good as well.
As always, because we are not here to tell you how to think or what to think, but for you to research and come to your own conclusions, please proceed to:
Even some of the more modern translations do a very horrible job of translating the verse:
For example, Sahih International has:
“And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights and perfected them by [the addition of] ten; so the term of his Lord was completed as forty nights. And Moses said to his brother Aaron, “Take my place among my people, do right [by them], and do not follow the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)
“Take my place.” No. Moses was not going anywhere permanently. Moses went somewhere briefly.
The following translators translate (ukh’luf’nī) in a Shi’i friendly manner.
Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar-Iranian Christian translator Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali -Al Ahzar Ali Quli Qara’i -Shi’i translator Ali Bakhtiari Nejad -Shi’ia translator The Monotheist Group [2013 Edition]-Quranist
The following translates the verse that we feel best expresses the meaning of ukh’luf’nī given the context.
Abdul Majid Daryabadi Ahmed Ali Hamid S Aziz A.L Bilal Muhammed et al Mushraff Hussain Mohammed Shafi
So we know that it cannot mean to “take my place” permanently because Moses came back. We also know that it cannot mean taking my place in succession. How do we know this?
The historical data does not support this.
“Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses.” (Deuteronomy 34:9)
The following, which is quite literally, is titled: Joshua to Succeed Moses.
Then Moses went out and spoke these words to all of Israel: “I am now a hundred and twenty years old, and I am no longer able to lead you. The Lord has said to me, ‘You shall not cross the Jordan.’ The Lord your God himself will cross over ahead of you. He will destroy these nations before you, and you will take possession of their land. Joshua also will cross over ahead of you, as the Lord said. And the Lord will do to them what he did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, whom he destroyed along with their land. The Lord will deliver them to you, and you must do to them all that I have commanded you. Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”
Then Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the presence of all Israel, “Be strong and courageous, for you must go with this people into the land that the Lord swore to their ancestors to give them, and you must divide it among them as their inheritance. The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”
Next time your overly excited Shi’a friend starts to tell you about the above Hadith and quotes the above verse of the (Qur’an 7:142), inform them what it says just 8 verses later.
“And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by his head, pulling him toward him. [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 7:150)
“And recall when We summoned Moses for a term of forty nights, and then you set up the calf as your god in his absence. You indeed committed a grave wrong.” (Qur’an 2:51)
Moses scolded, “O Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following after me? How could you disobey my orders? Aaron pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” (Qur’an 20:92-94)
So, if the Shi’i want to make Ali analogous to Harun (as) in a very literal way, we have some real problems.
Let us replace the words Moses (as) with the Prophet Muhammed (saw) and wewill replace Aaron (as) with Ali and let us see how this works.
“And when Muhammed returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized Ali by his head, pulling him toward him. [Ali] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 7:150)
Muhammed scolded, “O Ali! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following after me? How could you disobey my orders? Ali pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” (Qur’an 20:92-94)
Are we to believe that it only takes the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to be gone for 40 days as Ali, fearing for his life, allows the people to fall into blatant shirk?
Are we to believe there could be a scenario where the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is so furious with Ali that he snatches him up by his beard?!
Are we to believe there is a scenario where the Blessed Prophet (saw) scolded Ali for disobeying his orders? Even to the point where Ali feared that the Blessed Prophet (saw) would say that he (Ali) caused division among the Muslims?
Keep in mind that Moses (as), like the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) would have been given knowledge by Allah (swt) that Aaron (as) was not, in any way shape or form, in dereliction of his duties. Yet Musa (as) snatched Aaron (as) up!
We do not believe these are things the Shi’i are willing to entertain regarding Ali.
The Moses Aaron comparison is also devastating to Shi’i claims.
Why? Because they do not have equal authority.
“When there comes to them some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the Messenger, or to those charged with (ulī l-amri) authority among them, the proper investigators would have tested it for them (direct). Were it not for the Grace and Mercy of Allah unto you, all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan.” (Qur’an 4:83)
Aaron did not have the knowledge of the divine will that Moses had.
“I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’
“And [recall] when Moses said to his people, “O my people, indeed you have wronged yourselves by your taking of the calf [for worship]. So repent to your Creator and kill yourselves [i.e., the guilty among you]. That is best for [all of] you in the sight of your Creator.” Then He accepted your repentance; indeed, He is the Accepting of Repentance, the Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:54)
This line: “I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.” This absolutely does not refer to Ali ibn Abi Talib at all! This was a man who, instead of pursuing the killers of Uthman, wasted no time in collecting his army to go fight the people of Sham!
Translation of the above:
“This year of his caliphate, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib, assumed leadership and appointed governors over the regions. He appointed Abdullah ibn Abbas over Yemen, Samurah ibn Jundab over Basra, Imarah ibn Shihab over Kufa, Qays ibn Sa’d ibn Ubadah over Egypt, and over Syria, Sahl ibn Hunayf in place of Muawiyah. Sahl marched until he reached Tabuk, when the close associates of Muawiyah met him and said, “We want to say…” It was said, “He knows.” They said, “We want to say…” It was said, “He knows.” They then said, “If Uthman sent you in his capacity [as the rightful caliph, then proceed], but if it was someone else, then go back.” They said, “Have you not heard what happened?” They replied, “Yes.” So he returned to Ali.”
“As for Qays ibn Sa’d, the people of Egypt differed concerning him. The majority pledged allegiance to him, but a group said, “We will not pledge allegiance until the killers of Uthman are brought to us.” The situation was similar in Basra. As for Imarah ibn Shihab, who was sent as governor to Kufa, Talhah ibn Khuwaylid prevented him from entering out of anger for Uthman. He returned to Ali and informed him. The strife intensified, the matter became grave, and opinions differed. Abu Musa wrote to Ali informing him of the obedience and pledge of allegiance of the people of Kufa, except for a few. Ali sent many letters to Muawiyah, but he did not receive any reply. This continued repeatedly until the third month after the murder of Uthman, in Safar.”
“Then Muawiyah sent a scroll with a man who came to Ali. Ali asked, “What news do you bring?” The man replied, “I come to you from people who desire nothing but revenge, deeply aggrieved. I left seventy thousand elderly men gathered under the shirt of Uthman, which is displayed on the pulpit of Damascus.” Ali said, “O Allah, I declare myself innocent before You of the blood of Uthman.” Then the messenger of Muawiyah left Ali’s presence, and those Kharijites who had killed Uthman intended to kill him, but he barely escaped after much effort.”
“Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, resolved to fight the people of Syria. He wrote to Qays ibn Sa’d in Egypt, urging the people to mobilize for fighting them, and to Abu Musa in Kufa. He also sent word to Uthman ibn Hunayf about this. He addressed the people, inciting them for that purpose. He was determined to prepare and depart from Medina, appointing Qutham ibn Abbas as his deputy over it. He was resolved to fight, with those who obeyed him, against those who disobeyed him, rebelled against his command, and did not pledge allegiance to him along with the people.”
“His son, Al-Hasan ibn Ali, came to him and said, “O my father, abandon this, for it involves the shedding of Muslim blood and the occurrence of division among them.” But he did not accept that from him; rather, he insisted on fighting and organized the army. He gave the standard to Muhammed ibn al-Hanafiyyah, appointed Ibn Abbas to be in charge of important matters, and Umar ibn Abi Salama over the vanguard. It is also said he appointed Umar ibn Sufyan ibn Abd al-Assad over the vanguard. He appointed as the commander of his advance guard Abu Layla ibn Amr ibn al-Jarrah, the nephew of Abu Ubaydah. He appointed Qutham ibn Abbas as his deputy over Medina. Nothing remained except for him to depart from Medina heading towards Syria, until there came to him what diverted him from all of that, which we will mention.”
Source: Al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (البداية والنهاية) by Ibn Kathir Volume: around Vol. 7 or 8 (depending on the edition)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Ali claimed that he is in Bara’ah with those who killed Uthman.
He did not spend his time looking for these killers. Ali did not seem concerned at all about finding the killers of Uthman.
Trying to find the killers of Uthman could have easily disuaded the tension or at the very least exposed Muawiyah as a hypocrite.
Rather, Ali wasted no time in raising an army for the continued fighting, and killing and slaughter among the Muslims.
Al Hasan ibn Ali was much wiser than his father (Ali), who was spoiling for a fight.
Look at the words of Al Hasan ibn Ali.
“O my father, abandon this, for it involves the shedding of Muslim blood and the occurrence of division among them.” But he (Ali) did not accept that from him.”
So try to apply the following statement of Aaron (as) to Ali : “I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.” This absolutely does not apply to Ali.
In addition to that, we have the following:
Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin Abbas
“Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of Allah’s Apostle during his fatal illness. The people asked, “O Abu Hasan (i.e. Ali)! How is the health of Allah’s Apostle this morning?” ‘Ali replied, “He has recovered with the Grace of Allah.” ‘Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, “In three days you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else), And by Allah, I feel that Allah’s Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of ‘Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah’s Apostle and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us.” ‘Ali said, “By Allah, if we asked Allah’s Apostle for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah’s Apostle for it.”
It is quite clear that Ibn Abbas was not aware of any Shi’i interpretations that Ali should be the one to lead the Muslims after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Ali himself was not of the understanding that it was something that was his to take simply by being related to the Blessed Prophet (saw).
This is another reason why it is best to make the Qur’an the pillar of our theology and faith, as the hadith themselves have narrations that the Shi’i themselves wince at.
Then there is this straight from Nahjul balagha itself. Straight from a Shi’i website:
“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it. When the caliphate came to me, I kept the Book of Allah in my view and all that Allah had put therein for us, and all that according to which He has commanded us to take decisions; and I followed it, and also acted on whatever the Prophet – may Allah bless him and his descendants – had laid down as his sunnah. In this matter I did not need your advice or the advice of anyone else, nor has there been any order of which I was ignorant so that I ought to have consulted you or my Muslim brethren. If it were so I would not have turned away from you or from others.”
This sermon is said to have happened long after the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) died. This sermon itself proves that Ali never considered that he was already the appointed Khilafa of the Muslims.
He said, “When the Caliphate came to me.” This means he was not the Caliph at the time, he recognized it as such and nor did he want it. Someone who is divinely appointed by Allah (swt) to the Khilafa of the Muslims takes pride in it, claims it and upholds that as a great trust.
It shows Ali himself viewed the caliphate as something that came to him by people’s invitation after Uthman’s death, not as a pre-appointed right he was claiming.
Someone who recognizes they are not divinely appointed but that people have chosen who will lead them and then gets pushed into a position of leadership makes the kind of statements that Ali made above.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
