“Nasty women are for nasty men, and nasty men are for nasty women. And virtuous women are for virtuous men, and virtuous men are for virtuous women. The virtuous areinnocent of what the wicked say. They will have forgiveness and an honourable provision.” (Qur’an 24:26)
﷽
This article is written so that the masses can understand the correct understanding of the verse and not the faulty understanding that is widespread among the Ummah.
Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (h) explains the correct understanding of this verse:
This is from the ill understanding of some ayats, actually.
For example: {Nasty ones are for nasty people} (Qur’an 24:26) {good ones are for good peole} (Qur’an 24:26)
What do most people understand from this ayat? What does {good ones are for good people} mean?
Audience: “Means that the pious women is for the pious man.”
Shaykh Miqbali: “He understands that the pious woman is for the pious man, and this is not true, ever.”
{good ones are for good people,} and {Nasty ones are for nasty people,}
{good ones are for good people} and {Nasty ones are for nasty people}
He means the good words and sayings are for the good people, and the nasty words and sayings are for the nasty people.
So the nasty refers to the words and the good refers to the words, not that good women are for good men. Or else, Asia, a woman from the women of Jannah, is the woman of the Pharaoh! The Pharaoh is nasty, and she’s from the people of Jannah. So this can’t be!
And the women of Lut and Nuh are in the fire while they (Lut & Nuh) are prophets. So it’s not meant that women are wives…. No. Words are meant.
This ayat came in surah Al Nur, after mentioning the story of Ifk and the words
that were said to Lady Aisha (ra) and the accusations and false things.
So after that came the saying of Allah:{Nasty ones are for nasty people, and nasty people are for nasty ones, and the good ones are for the good people, and the good people are for the good ones.}
{Those are acquitted of what they…} ??? {…. SAY} (Qur’an 24:26)
Qutb Al A’ima (the centre of Imams) (ra) also mentioned this in his Tafseer Himyan Al Zad. He also said that it’s the view of the majority. And he stated that Ibn Abbas (ra) also went with this interpretation. He’s one of the biggest Imams of the madhab. And he has written more than 300 books!
If the Qutb is not enough, then there’s also the statement of Al Hawari in his tafseer, and it’s one of the earliest Ibadi tafseer books, 3rd hijri century. He also said the same.
For other examples of verses that have been misinterpreted or misunderstood, you may wish to see the following articles:
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. 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)
﷽
This is a recent e-mail sent to Todd Lawson an Emeritus Professor of Islamic thought at the University of Toronto.
I sent this inquiry as I am genuinely curious as to why he or anyone for that matter think that the Qur’an 4:157 seem to be interacting with anything that the Romans have done, or that the text is talking about a historical event known as the “Crucifixion” or that the Qur’an is denying/or affirming anything about a Cross at all.
Greetings Professor Lawson
I hope this email finds you in the best of health.
I had read your book “The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the HIstory of Muslim Thought.”
It was certainly an interesting read.
You have noted how extraneous material has influenced the Sunni Tafsir tradition and popular interpretation of Qur’an 4:157.
So to this point I am curious as to why you think the Qur’an engaged with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all?
The reason I ask this is because when one looks at the immediate text of the Qur’an 4:157 there does not seem to be any mention of Romans or Roman involvement at all.
I am deeply interested why your good self or anyone would feel that the Qur’an 4:157 engages with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all. I believe that a reading of the text without extraneous material tells us that the text is interacting with certain Jews who were making certain claims about Jesus.
When we read Qur’an 4:155 for example:
“They have incurred Allah’s wrath for their breaking the covenant, and their rejection of the signs of Allah and for slaying Prophets without right, and for saying: ‘Our hearts are wrapped up in covers-even though in fact Allah has sealed their hearts because of their unbelief, so that they scarcely believe.”
I believe we both concur that it would seem out of place for that text to address the Romans of the time of Jesus.
Furthermore the Qur’an 4:157 has a double denial in the text. They did not kill him nor did they (salabu). The initial denial is general and it can easily accommodate any understanding of a possible demise of Jesus.
It is immensely curious to follow up a general denial that can accommodate any particular understanding of any possible demise of Jesus with a particular denial immediately after.
Is it not more sensible in keeping with the immediate text and surrounding text to see this as the Qur’an interacting with particular claims made by Jews about Jesus? Rather these claims are based upon any historical event, document or even oral transmissions in certain circles that the Qur’an would be familiar with?
Given that this seems to be the very obvious case, how do you propose somehow Romans, and a “Crucifixion” is posited upon the text of Qur’an 4:157?
It is peculiar because Jews do not crucify people in their law. It is not a part of the Torah nor of the Talmud of which I am sure you are aware.
They do have laws about killing people and then impailing them. They do have assertions about those impaled being cursed by God.
Equally curious is the idea that (salabu) would translate to a Latin Cross, or the Tau Cross.
Given that the Qur’an in (7:124); 20:71; & 26:49) all describe cutting off the hands and the feet and given what we know about supporting the body weight on an ecclesiastical “Cross” it is it not presumptuous of us to assume Latin Cross, Tau etc?
The two noun forms in Qur’an 86:7 & Qur’an 4:23 which relate to the loins and the lumbus region seem to forcefully argue with a type of punishment that would involve impalement rather than anything to do with being tied to a patibulum and affixed to a crux or stake and than having nails driven in ones hands and feet.
When we look at the text of Qur’an 5:33 on page 31 of your book you state:
“the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.”
This does not seem to correlate to what Christians have in mind when they invoke the “Crucifixion” of Jesus. They seem to think this is a death on a cross and not a death prior to a cross.
I also felt that pike was more appropriate than cross given what we know about the Islamic legal schools. None of the legal schools, Ibadi, Zaydi, Zahiri, Shafi’i, Imami, Maliki, Hanafi or Hanbali make it a requirement to put someone on a patibulum and affix that patibulum to a crux or stake and than proceed to drive nails in the hands and feet.
Much more can be said. Again I believe my initial inquiry is that if we do a plain reading of Qur’an 4:157 or even invoke the immediate context where are we drawing upon the idea that this is interacting with something the Romans are said to have done to Jesus?
Thank you for your time.
Have a blessed weekend ahead.
If you would like to read more on this subject I invite you to read the following:
“There is nothing likeunto Him, and He is The Hearing, The Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example (mathalu) of his light is like a niche in which there is a lamp, the lamp is in a crystal, the crystal is like a shining star, lit from a blessed olive tree, neither to the east nor the west, whose oil would almost glow, even without being touched by fire. Light upon light! Allah guides whoever He wills to His light. And Allah sets forth similitudes for humanity. For Allah has knowledge of all things.” (Qur’an 24:35)
﷽
Let us get something out of the way from the very beginning. There is not a single narration from the Blessed Messenger (saw) where when he (saw) speaks of Allah’s “hands” that he (saw), says, “In a way that befits his majesty” or “unlike his creation.”
I challenge any of those people who make such a disclaimer statement after mentioning “hands”, “foot”, “eyes”, “shin” “leg” “foot” or “side” to show this!
The Ibadis discuss with the Atharis on their errors in regards to the understanding of Allah’s attributes.
Another point that we need to clarify from the very beginning is that a certain group of Muslims try to put in the minds of the common people is that the early generation of Muslims often called, ‘The Salaf’ were upon the following:
Assumption 1) That the early community even understood certain words in the Qur’an as ‘attributes’ of Allah (swt) to begin with. Where is that list from the Blessed Prophet (saw)?
Assumption 2) That the early community didn’t understand “face”, “hands”, “foot”, “shin” as metaphors, idioms, or allegory to begin with. In other words, that the Arabs of that time were ignorant of Majaz. At the end of this article we will have another article by our esteemed teacher.
Assumption 3) That they did not apply ta’wil (figurative) interpretation of what are assumed to be “Allah’s attributes”.
Assumption 4) All the companions had the exact same level of understanding and thinking about the sacred sources. This is simply not true. Just like there are people today who speak the English language and not all of them have the same mastery of the language; likewise there were Arabs who were more adept at their language than others.
These premise of theirs that they managed to fool the masses on has no basis. It is an unproven premise based on many assumptions (as we shall see).
Addressing the four assumptions.
Addressing assumption 1
Assumption 1) That Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) or his companions left us with a list (like you find in Al-Aqidah Al-Wasitiyah) they did not.
Addressing assumption 2
Assumption 2) Many languages employ the use of simile, metaphor, anthropormic metaphors, parables and other literacy devices.
Often context helps to determine the meaning of a specific word. The word ‘run’ has 645 meanings. To think that Arabic as a language would lack a depth in comparison to English is really quite shocking.
So for example in the Qur’an we may find a word. That word can have a range of meanings depending upon it’s context. Just like the example of the word ‘run’ which has 645 meanings which are determined by context.
In English we could say: “She is the brains of the organization.” Now a word is used that has the apparent meaning of brains. However, no English speaker individual would understand this as the woman is literally a brain or that the organization has a literal brain. They would understand what is meant is that the lady is in charge. The organization runs by her vision.
For example: Let us say that the Qur’an said: “Oh believers do not rattle my cage.” The assumption of the postmodern “Salafi” or ‘Athari’ is that the companions had a literal or apparent understanding of that idiom, to begin with. The assumption is that they did not understand that in accordance with the Arabic language that this simply meant: “Do not earn my wrath.”
A very obvious text that proves this point is as follows:
“O you who believe! Be helpers of Allah, just as Jesus son of Mary said to the apostles, “Who are my helpers unto Allah?” The apostles replied, “We are helpers unto Allah.” Then a group from the Children of Israel believed and a group disbelieved. So We strengthened those who believed against their enemies, and they came to prevail.” (Qur’an 61:14)
A similar statement is found in Qur’an 3:52.
The obvious and most apparent reading of this text is that Allah needs help. I thought those that took the apparent reading were obtuse.
It should go without saying that Allah (swt) does not need any help.
“And whoever strives only does so for their own good. Surely Allah is not in need of His creation.” (Qur’an 29:6)
This also applies to the use of idioms or expressions:
Assumption 3) You will see examples of this later in the article.
Addressing assumption 4)
“Then We gave the Scripture as inheritance unto those whom We elected of Our servants. But of them are some who wrong themselves and of them are some who are lukewarm, and of them are some who outstrip (others) through good deeds, by Allah’s leave. That is the great favour!” (Qur’an 35:32)
In fact, this should be a wake-up call. Simply ask yourselves how many of the companions are known for their tafsir of the Qur’an? How many?
It is very important to not misrepresent the position or views of other Muslims. I do not believe that those who claim that Allah (swt) has “hands”, “face” “two right hands” or “two eyes” believe that Allah (swt) is composed of parts. This is what their belief entails. I also do believe that they are indeed body worshippers. They worship a body.
However, those who hold the apparent meaning of the words make many bold claims that are simply not true.
One of the most obvious indicators of the inconsistency of those who call themselves “Athari” or those who claim to uphold the way of the Salaaf is the fact that the Qur’an refers to Allah (swt) using the masculine pronoun ‘huwa’ or ‘he is’. This is because the word “Allah” is grammatically masculine, not because Allah is naturally masculine.
“Say: He is Allah, the One!”(Qur’an 112:1)
However, do these people claim that Allah (swt) is masculine? That Allah (swt) is a male? Of course not. Even though that is the apparent meaning of the text. You will never hear them say, We affirm Allah is a He (in a way that befits his majesty).
“It is He who sent down the Book to you from Him: verses that are absolutely clear — they are the foundation of the Book — and others which are open to interpretation. As for those whose hearts are given to swerving, they follow that of it which is open to interpretation, seeking discord and seeking its interpretation. And none know its (tawil) interpretation save Allah and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.” And none remember, save those who possess intellect.” (Qur’an 3:7)
Now it is generally understood that the absolutely clear, the mubeen are those verses in relation to the law. Where as those which are mutashabih, are those in which metaphor, simile, allegory and other rhetorical devices are used.
“Whenever they bring you an argument, We come to you with the right refutation and the best explanation-tafsiran.” (Qur’an 25:33)
The verses about hands, face, and shin were so absolutely clear to the Blessed Messenger (saw) that we do not find this innovated religious terminology of Him (saw) saying, “hands” “In a way that befits his majesty” or “hands” “unlike his creation.”
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
When someone says, we say ‘Hand but not like other hands‘ It is still comparing the Creator to the Creation. For example, I have a hand but it’s not like other human hands. Even identical twins have different hands with different patterns. Many animals have hands and those hands are not like the hands of other animals.
However, what is the apparent meaning of hand but hand? They know this that is why they are quick to add this innovated religious terminology that we do not see the Blessed Messenger (saw) say. That is they will quickly add the disclaimer: (but unlike other hands).
However, does the text say “unlike other hands”?
For example:
“And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended.” (Qur’an 5:64)
Did this text say:
“Rather, both His hands (which are unlike other hands) are extended?”
No! The text doesn’t say that. So on what basis do they deny that the hands are like other hands? They claim on the basis of this text.
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
Yet they turn around deny that because they do not allow the usage of the Arabic language to take effect.
Our real difference with them is the following:
We allow the Qur’an to be interpreted in light of how the Qur’an uses these words or expressions in other places.
The fact that the Blessed Messenger (saw), never used the innovated terminology “unlike other hands” or “in a way that befits his majesty.”
Their assumption that what they call attributes are even attributes to begin with.
That we firmly believe that the Arabs of that time were people of peak eloquence in understanding the Arabic language and all it’s literary devices.
So what are the principles when dealing with statements in the Qur’an about hands, face, shin, and so forth?
The first and most obvious point is that the Qur’an was sent down in Arabic.
“Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 12:2)
“And thus We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an and have diversified therein the warnings that perhaps they will avoid sin or it would cause them remembrance. “ (Qur’an 20:113)
“And that behold, it will be for Us to explain it.” (by-ya-nahu) (Qur’an 75:19)
As the Qur’an came down in the Arabic language it would employ the understanding that the Arabs would have of its grammar, syntax, metaphors, simile and so forth.
“Thus Allah makes plain to you His revelations, that perhaps you may reflect”. (Qur’an 2:219)
If something in the Qur’an is not made plain to us it falls under the category of being open to interpretation.
Also, those Muslims who claim that Allah (swt) has hands, face, and shin (but unlike his Creation) have admitted that they have no model of comparison and thus ultimately they don’t really know what it means. At this point to insist that we accept hands, face, and shin for Allah (swt) while admitting that they ultimately do not know what it means is committing a very heavy sin.
Allah (swt) does not need your disclaimer statements: Proof that those who call themselves “Salafi” have a guilty conscious.
If the “Salafi” or the “Athari” were consistent they would simply say, Allah (swt) has a hands, shin and face…full stop! Why do they need to add “in a way that befits his majesty?”
Why not simply do what is in line with Wara and Taqwa and say: “hands”, “shin” or “face” and than add what Allah (swt) says about himself: “There is nothing like unto Him”
Every single Muslim knows that Allah (swt) is majestic. So why do they need to add the disclaimer: “In a way that befits his majesty?”
Because they have a guilty conscious. This is why they use -bid’ah- innovated religious terminology that the Blessed Messenger (saw) did not use.
A sin of speculation about the Creator that Allah (swt) warned us about.
Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
Now we come to addressing assumption 3
Majaz is all through the Qur’an & the Sunnah.
I would encourage the readers to read this article about Majaz in the Qur’an.
Thankfully Allah (swt) has given us the Arabic language, with its rules of grammar and language pertaining to what is figurative interpretation, literal, metaphorical, and so forth.
Also, as we will see that those who are grounded In knowledge have shown that these are indeed figurative and metaphorical devices that are used by Allah (swt) about himself.
The Qur’an abounds with figurative language in regards to Allah (swt) that if taken by their apparent meaning will lead to some very problematic conclusions concerning our Sovereign Lord.
“Who is it that would loan Allah a goodly loan so He may multiply it for him many times over? And it is Allah who withholds and grants abundance, and to Him, you will be returned.” (Qur’an 2:245)
It should go without saying that Allah (swt) is not in need of a loan. There are three other places with such wording: Qur’an 57:11, 57:18, and 64:17.
“O you who believe! Be helpers of Allah, just as Jesus son of Mary said to the apostles, “Who are my helpers unto Allah?” The apostles replied, “We are helpers unto Allah.” Then a group from the Children of Israel believed and a group disbelieved. So We strengthened those who believed against their enemies, and they came to prevail.” (Qur’an 61:14)
It should go without saying that Allah (swt) does not need any help. A similar statement is found in Qur’an 3:52.
“They desire to deceive Allah and those who believe, and they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive.” (Qur’an 2:9)
It should go without saying that Allah (swt) cannot be deceived.
“The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and close their hands. They have forgotten Allah, so He has forgotten them accordingly. Indeed, the hypocrites it is they who are defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 9:67)
It should go without saying that Allah (swt) does not forget. A similar verse is in Qur’an 59:19
“Those who hurt Allah and His Messenger — they Allah has cursed in the present world and the world to come, and has prepared for them a humbling chastisement.” (Qur’an 33:57)
Are we really to believe that Allah (swt) can be hurt?
“And lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy and say, “My Lord, have mercy upon them as they brought me up when I was small.” (Qur’an 17:24)
An apparent and most obvious reading of this text is that human beings have at least two wings one of which is the ‘wing of humility’ that we should lower to our parents from time to time.
“Lo! those on whom you call besides Allah are slaves like unto you. Call on them now, and let them answer you if you are truthful!” (Qur’an 7:194)
Are we really to believe from this that Allah (swt) is giving permission for a momentary practice of shirk to prove a point?
Allah is the light of the heavens and earth.
“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example (mathalu) of his light is like a niche in which there is a lamp, the lamp is in a crystal, the crystal is like a shining star, lit from a blessed olive tree, neither to the east nor the west, whose oil would almost glow, even without being touched by fire. Light upon light! Allah guides whoever He wills to His light. And Allah sets forth similitudes(l-amthala) for humanity. For Allah has knowledge of all things.” (Qur’an 24:35)
“There is not like him (Kamith’lihi) anything.” (Qur’an 42:11)
In the above verse Allah (swt) is not denying being a thing. A Shay -or thing meaning something that exist. Allah (swt) is saying that nothing in existence is like his existence.
We know this from the fact that everything other than Allah (swt) is created. We know all other existents are dependent upon the existence of Allah (swt).
“And whoever is blind in this life will be blind in the Hereafter and more astray in way.” (Qur’an 17:72)
Are we really to believe from this that Shaky Abdul Aziz bin Baz (who was blind in this life) will be raised up blind in the next life?
THE “FACE” OF ALLAH?
“And whoever submits his face to Allah while he is a doer of good – then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold. And to Allah will be the outcome of all matters.” (Qur’an 31:22)
“Nay, whosoever submits his face to Allah, while being virtuous, shall have his reward with his Lord. No fear shall come upon them; nor shall they grieve. “ (Qur’an 2:112)
“So direct your face toward the religion, inclining to truth. Adhere to the fitrah of Allah upon which He has created all people. No change should there be in the creation of Allah. That is the correct religion, but most people do not know.” (Qur’an 30:30)
Anyone care to explain how I ‘direct my face towards the religion’?
Or what does it mean to ‘submit my face to Allah’?
If I take it at the apparent meaning does this mean I don’t have to submit my heart to Allah?
So let me tell you something about the Salaaf and these expressions in the Qur’an. Either one of two situations is possible.
Either you were told by people themselves who are not informed that these people (the early Muslims) did not employ the usage of the Arabic language to make sense of these expressions.
You were deliberately lied to.
We have already written an article in which we have shown that Ibn Taymiyya himself applied Ta’wil or figurative interpretation (based upon the tafsir of the Qur’an by the Qur’an and the usage of the Arabic language). In turn, he got this information from people like none other than Jafar As Sadiq (ra).
This should let you know that those who call themselves Athari, Salafi, or upon the Salafi manhaj are upon clear error. They claim it is a point of creed (aqidah) to affirm that Allah (swt) has two eyes. They have no clear text for this. The consistent position (for them) would be to affirm that Allah (swt) has eyes (plural) without specifying a number (of which is an innovation that they brought from their own pocket).
“Cast him into the chest and cast it into the river, and the river will throw it onto the bank; there will take him an enemy to Me and an enemy to him.’ And I bestowed upon you love from Me that you would be brought up under My eye.” (Qur’an 20:39)
“Build the Ark under Our eyes and Our direction. And do not supplicate Me concerning those who have engaged in wrong-doing. They are doomed to be drowned.” (Qur’an 11:37)
“Sailing, before Our eyes, a reward for him who was denied.”(Qur’an 54:14)
Now for a people who claim not to liken Allah (swt) to the creation, they sure did drop the ball on this one! They claim that Allah (swt) has two eyes of which they have absolutely 0 proof.
Abu Bakr Ibn Khuzaymah, stated:
“We say: Our Lord, the Creator, has two eyes and He sees with them what is beneath the soil, and what is beneath the seventh and lowest earth, and what is in the highest heavens, and whatever is between them, whether small or great…”
Source:(Kitāb At-Tawheed p. 52, Dār Al-Kitāb Al-Ilmiyyah)
Ibn ‘Uthaimeen stated:
“We believe that Allah, The Most High, has two real eyes. And this is the saying of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah. Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’aree said: The saying of Ahlus-Sunnah and the As-hāb Al-Hadeeth is that Allah has two eyes, without saying ‘how’ just as Allah has said, “[It was] sailing under Our Eyes.” (54:14).”
Source: (See Izālatus-Sitār ‘an Al-Jawāb Al-Mukhtār li-Hidāyatil-Muhtār of Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, p. 22; also Al-Maqālāt Al-Islāmiyyeen 1/345)
What they do is rely upon the following hadith:
Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, (saw) said, “No prophet was sent but that he warned his nation of the one-eyed liar. Verily, he is blind in one eye and your Lord is not. Verily, between his two eyes is written the word of unbelief.
Through the above hadith, they rely upon reason and speculation!! The very thing they accuse others of doing.
This should be a dead give away to the discerning reader whom Allah (swt) has guided as to the reality of their beliefs!
First point. Notice that they are contrasting two very real eyes for Allah (swt) with the creation (Dajjal)? If that Is not telling I don’t know what is. They have to one-up the Dajjal by attributing to Allah (swt) two eyes!
Second point. If they are going to take that route why not say Allah (swt) has ‘three very real eyes’? After all a careful reading of the dajjal hadith says, “between his two eyes‘.
Third point. As they have relied upon the hadith about the Dajjal and one eye, it is proof enough that they don’t feel the Qur’an informs them as to the actual “number of eyes” Allah (swt) really has. So from that perspective, Allah (swt) could have hundreds of thousands of eyes.
Fourth point. As their Shaykh Uthaymeen has said that Allah (swt) has “two real eyes” and Ibn Khuzaymah who said, “he sees with them,” this is unlike Satan who apparently doesn’t need the use of eyes to see us!
“O children of Adam, let not Satan tempt you as he removed your parents from Paradise, stripping them of their clothing to show them their private parts. Indeed, he sees you, he and his tribe, from where you do not see them. Indeed, We have made the devils as allies to those who do not believe.” (Qur’an 7:27)
Ibn Hazm who is more consistent than those who proclaim themselves “Salafi” or “Athari”.
Ibn Hazim said in regards to the the subject of Allah (swt) having “two eyes” the following:
Saying: He has two eyes is null and void and part of the belief of anthropomorphist. Allah said ‘ayn(eye) and ayunan (eyes) and it is not permissible for anyone to describe Him as possessing “two eyes”, because no text has reached us to that effect.”
Source:(Ibn Hazm, al-Fasl fi al-milal 2:166)
So concerning the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) and the Companions, you will find no record of them affirming “two eyes” for Allah (swt).
Those who claim this are either
1) Jahil (ignorant) merely repeating what others said without any verification.
2) They are spreading lies about the Blessed Messenger (saw) and the companions.
3) Attributing to Allah (swt) lies and falsehood without proofs and evidences. Merely relying upon assumption and speculation.
“SALAFI” and “ATHARI” publishers slowly back away from so called apparent reading of text in deference to Majaz.
Thankfully these people seem to be slowly backing away from this position as we have seen more sensible translations (within the parameters of the Arabic language) coming out of Saudi Arabia.
Examples:
“And construct the ship under Our observation and Our inspiration and do not address Me concerning those who have wronged; indeed, they are [to be] drowned.” (Qur’an 11:37 Sahih International)
“Sailing under Our observation as a reward for he who had been denied.” (Qur’an 54:14 Sahih International)
“She floats under our eyes (and care): a recompense to one who had been rejected (with scorn)!”(Qur’an 54:14 Yusuf Ali Original 1938 and Saudi Revised 1985)
That the Sahih International doesn’t opt for a literal translation is a softening of their approach. The fact that even the Yusuf Ali Saudi Revised 1985 edition which has in brackets (and care) shows that this is exactly what ‘under our eyes’ means. Both are good signs for the Muslim ummah.
THE “LAUGHTER” OR “CHUCKLING” OF ALLAH
Now to be honest this is very bizarre indeed.
Only in the minds of the people who liken Allah (swt) to the Creation is it necessary to affirm as a point of creed (I am looking at you Aqidah Al Wasatiyyah) that Allah (swt) laughs.
Imagine being ex-communicated from religion for refusing to believe in a God that laughs? Now they affirm laughter for Allah (swt) with the caveat “in a way that befits his majesty.”
Abu Razin reported: The Messenger of Allah, (saw), said, “Allah laughs at the despair of his servant, for he will soon relieve him.” I said, “O Messenger of Allah, does the Lord laugh?” The Prophet said, “Yes.” I said, “We will never be deprived of goodness by a Lord who laughs!” Source: ( https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:181 )
“It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: Allah chuckles at the two men both of whom will enter Paradise (though) one of them kills the other. They said: Messenger of Allah, how is it? He said: One of them fights in the way of Allah, the Almighty, and Exalted. and dies a martyr. Then Allah turns in mercy to the murderer who embraces Islam, fights in the way of Allah, the Almighty, and Exalted, and dies a martyr.”
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, (saw), said, “Allah laughs at two men, one of them killed the other, yet they both entered Paradise. This one fought in the way of Allah and was killed, then his killer repented and was also martyred.”
Apparently, Imam al-Bayhaqi reports (without a chain) that Imam al-Bukhari said concerning the hadith: “Allah laughs at two men, one of them kills the other, and both of them enter Paradise,” that laughing means, “mercy.” That is, ‘Allah shows mercy to both of them.”
Source: (Al-Asma wa al-Sifat: page 298 and 470 Imam al-Bayhaqi)
Prima-Qur’an comments:
I notice the inconsistency in the translation here. If “Allah Chuckling“ is to be equated with his mercy than the above hadith should have translated the word used for ‘chuckling‘ or ‘mercy‘ twice.
All of these hadiths seem to be confused and mixed up and I have a huge doubt that any of them were passed down impeccably. The fact that the ahadith seem to mix things up should be apparent to anyone reading them. They seem to belong to the same pedigree or genre.
So I would like to have good thoughts that indeed we are talking about the mercy of Allah (swt).
If not this presents a very dark picture of the Creator laughing and chuckling at people who are in despair. People who are contemplating suicide, the plight of the Palestinians, or even the Blessed Prophet (saw) being distraught over conveying Islam.
“You would only, perchance, worry yourself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message.”(Quran 18:6)
I believe another point of consideration is that if Allah (swt) chuckles and laughs is there sound?
Is this part of his speech?
If so does this mean that the chuckling and laughter of Allah (swt) is an eternal sifat?
Are we to imagine our Creator laughing/chuckling for all eternity?
On what consistent basis is the speech considered to be an eternal uncreated attribute but the chuckling and laughing is not?
Take heed seekers after truth! This is the kind of creed that many among the Muslims are calling you too, unfortunately! This type of aqidah (creed) is causing doubt among the Muslims.
THE “TWO HANDS” OF ALLAH?
Let us get something out of the way from the very beginning. There is not a single narration from the Blessed Messenger (saw) where when he speaks of Allah’s “hands” that he (saw), says, “In a way that befits his majesty” or “unlike his creation.”
I challenge any of those people who make such a disclaimer statement after mentioning “hands”, “foot”, “eyes”, “shin” “leg” “foot” or “side” to show this!
The fact that such people have to put a disclaimer after such a statement is an innovation!
“They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be within His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him.” (Qur’an 39:67)
This verse also demolishes the claim that Allah (swt) is above the throne in a literal sense. When Allah (swt) folds up the heavens there goes the throne as well!
“Allah said, “O Iblis, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant then, or were you already among the haughty?” (Qur’an 38:75)
Some of these people have tried to argue that this word translated as “hands” must be understood as “hands” as something special in relation to the creation of Adam. However, this is refuted by the following text of the Qur’an:
“Do they not see that We have created for them from what Our hands have made, grazing livestock, and then they are their owners?”(Qur’an 36:71)
Are we to say that cattle have an advantage or distinction over other animals because they were created by the “hands” of Allah?
“And the sky we built it with hands.” (Qur’an 51:47)
Look at how all three of these Saudi English translations of the Qur’an translate the above text!!
“And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are its expander.”(Qu’ran 51:47 Sahih International)
“With power did we Construct heaven. Verily, We are able to extend the vastness of space thereof.” (Qur’an 51:47 Muhsin Khan & Muhammed Al Hilali)
“With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.” (Qur’an 51:47 Yusuf Ali Saudi 1985)
The hands of Allah (swt) tied up?
“And the Jews say, ‘The hand of Allah is tied up.’ Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His Hands are extended, HE spends however He Wills.” (Qur’an 5:64)
It is obvious, to begin with, that this very verse is allegorical. The Jews are not literally saying that Allah’s hand is “tied up”. Rather they are claiming that Allah (swt) is not bestowing upon them what they feel he should bestow. What this verse means is that both the power and generosity of Allah (swt) is on full display.
“The Prophet [saw] said: “Those who are just and fair will be with Allah, Most High, on thrones of light, at the right hand of the Most Merciful, those who are just in their rulings and in their dealings with their families and those of whom they are in charge.” Muhammed (one of the sub narrators) said in his Hadith: “And both of His hands are right hands.”
Source: (Sunan an-Nasa’i 5379 Book 49, Hadith 1 English reference: Vol 6, Book 49, Hadith 5381)
This cannot be said to be attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw). This is the statement of the sub-narrator. These people in their guilty conscious did not want people to think Allah (swt) has a left hand. Which also shows they are involved in dhan (speculation) about Allah (swt). They did not just let the words pass they had to make bold assertions without proof!
Other uses of the word hand in the Qur’an.
“Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you, they are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. The hand of Allah is over their hands. So he who breaks his word only breaks it to the detriment of himself. And he who fulfills that which he has promised Allah – He will give him a great reward.” (Qur’an 48:10)
This is a metaphorical usage of the word hand that is allowed within the context of the Qur’an itself. Will it be said that people who have no hands or people who are amputees could never make such a pledge?
“And whatever strikes you of disaster – it is for what your hands have earned, but He pardons much.”(Qur’an 42:30)
Are we to understand from the above verse that as long as we do evil with our tongues, eyes, feet that disaster will not befall us? As far as those who do not have physical hands does this verse still apply to them?
“And also prohibited to you are all married women except those your right hands possess.” (Qur’an 4:24)
Are we to understand by this verse that a person who has no right hand or a person who was an amputee would not be permitted to marry women as he has no “right hand” to possess them? Certainly not.
“Oh Prophet, say to whoever is in your hands of the captives, “If Allah knows any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what was taken from you, and He will forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 8:70)
Are we supposed to imagine that the Blessed Prophet (saw) was a giant with little tiny people in his hands!?!
“And remember Our servants Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub, men who possessed hands and vision.” (Qur’an 38:45)
Here the word hands literally do mean power. Look how virtually everyone under the sun translates this!
“Or he in whose hand is the knot of marriage remits.” (Qur’an 2:237)
AFFIRMING THE “SHIN” FOR ALLAH
“The Day the shin will be uncovered and they are invited to prostration but the disbelievers will not be able.”(Qur’an 68:42)
The Shin. Why the shin?
Just ask that question of those who say that it is a matter of creed to accept this on its apparent meaning. Without going into linguistics this alone should expose to everyone under the sun their anthropomorphic creed.
If this is not a metaphor, an example of majaz and we are to understand that an attribute of Allah (swt) called, “The Shin” ‘ (but a Shin, unlike the creation, is shown) o.k fair enough, but….. umm……
WHY THE SHIN IN PARTICULAR?
Why not the hands, face, foot, leg, or side? Think about it. Take all the time that you need.
What did the Salaaf say about the shin? What did those early Muslims say about the “Shin”?
Ibn Abbas (ra) understood this to mean “severity”. That is, “The day that severity will be laid bare.” Explaining this verse, Imam al-Tabari said:
A group of the Prophet’s companions and their disciples, and the people of figurative interpretation have said: “He will uncover a severe matter.” And among those who interpreted the shin to mean “severity” from the Imams of Quranic exegesis are Mujahid, Sa’id bin Jubayr, Qatada, and others, Allah (swt), said,: “And the sky, we built it with hands, And it is We who give expanse.” (Quran 51:47). Ibn Abbas said concerning it: “with strength”.
Source: (Tafsir al-Tabari 27/57)
AFFIRMING THE “LEG” OR “FOOT” FOR ALLAH
And his saying, (saw) Hell will continue to be filled and will say: Are there any more? Until the Lord of honor places His leg (and in another narration: His foot) over it and some of its parts retreat from each other and it says: Enough! Enough!’ All of its parts will be filled together and Allah will not wrong any of His creatures. As for Paradise, Allah will create a new creation with which to fill it.” Source: (Al-Bukhari 4569 and Sahih Muslim 2847)
Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi a Shafi’i hadith master said concerning this:
“The meaning of the qadam here is possibly a reference to those whom Allah has created of old or “sent forth” for the Fire in order to complete the number of its inhabitants. Everything that is “sent forth” is a qadam, in the same way, that the verbal noun of demolishing (hadama) is a hadm or ruin, and that of seizing (qabada) is qabd or a seizure. Likewise, Allah said:
“They have a sure foundation (qadam sidq) with their Lord.” (Qur’an 10:2). With reference to the good works which they have sent forth. This explanation has been transmitted to us from Al-Hasan al-Basri”
This is the nature of our brothers who understand the usage of the Arabic language and apply those rules accordingly. Otherwise, we will end up believing disgraceful things concerning our Creator.
For us, the Muslims, Ahl al-Haqq wa-l istiqama (The People of Truth and Straightness)there are a few points we might make as regards this hadith.
As mentioned by al-Khattabi there is scope for a figurative interpretation based upon the rules of the Arabic language. Otherwise, that hadith will clash with these two verses from the Qur’an:
“Allah said, “O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham.” (Qu’ran 21:69)
Upon the command of Allah (swt) the fire became cool why would Allah (swt) need to stamp it out with his foot or leg? He can just make the command.
“Had they really been gods they would not have entered it: They will all abide in it forever.” (Qur’an 21:99)
We know that Allah (swt) is really God. So on the basis of this verse hell is for that which is evil, vile and false and Allah (swt) is Haqq, not falsehood.
AFFIRMING THE “COMING” OF ALLAH
“Do they await but that Allah should come to them in covers of clouds and the angels as well and the matter is then decided? And to Allah, all matters are returned.” (Qur’an 2:210)
“And thy Lord shall come with angels, rank on rank.” (Qur’an 89:22)
‘Are they waiting for the angels to come, or for your Lord to come, or for some of the signs of your Lord?’ (6:158)
This is Imam Ahmad’s ta’wil of the “coming”
Ibn Kathir reports in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya that Imam Ahmad said about Allah’s saying: “And Your Lord comes”, “That is, His reward comes.” Imam al-Bayhaqi said, “This is a chain with no dust on it.”
“Wait they aught save that your Lord’s command (amr) should come to pass?” (Qur’an 16:32)
Imam Ahmad’s nephew Hanbal said that he heard Imam Ahmad say:
They argued against me on the day of the (great) debate [munazara], and they say: ‘Sura al-Baqara will come on the Day of Resurrection.” He [Imam Ahmed] said: “So I said to them: “That is merely the reward of Sura al-Baqara that will come.”
Source: (Imam al-Razi’s Asas al Taqdis p 108 and Dhahabi’s Siyar Alam Al-Nubala: 5/11)
Also telling from this group is their treatment of the following hadith:
“Allah says…..And whoever comes to Me walking, I come to him running.”
Concerning the above hadith they have been reported to have said::
In Fatawa al-Aqida by Muhammad b. Salih b. Uthaimin, page 112, he says: Quote:
وأي مانع يمنع من أن نؤمن بأن الله تعالى يأتي هرولة
“What could forbid us from believing that Allah performs jogging/trotting [harwala]?” [!!!]
Quote:
“If My slave comes to Me walking, I go to him running”.
Source:(Al-Bukhari, vol. 9, Book 93, Number 627)
Ibn Baz cites the hadith in his Fatawa and adds:
“Interpreting such hadith metaphorically and avoiding relying upon their literal meanings is the practice of the heretic Jahmiyyah and Mu’taziliyyah”.
Source: (Fatawa Ibn Baz, vol. 5, p. 374)
Al-Albani is very explicit on the point: “Running is an attribute of Allah that we lack a base for denying”. Source: (Fatawa Al-Albani, p. 506)
Again, Ibn Baz adds:
Question: Is running an attribute of Allah?
Answer: Yes, as it has been shown in the holy divine hadith…..” and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ narrated Bukhari and Muslim.
Ibn Baz, The Everlasting Garden for Scientific Research and Legal Opinions Vol.3 Page 196. The heading of the subject where this fatwa was issued is called “Sifat al-harwala” , the attribute (Sifa) of running.
Source: (The fatwa issued here is number 6932 Book title: Fatawa al-Janna al-Da’ima Lilbuhuth al’ilmiyah wa al’ifta)
“Standing firm on justice” (Qur’an 3:18)
You may also ask these people if they believe that Allah (swt) is “sitting” on the throne or do they believe that Allah (swt) is “standing” as this verse says. Perhaps some of them believe it is both and will simply add “without asking how.”
AFFIRMING THE “SIDE” OF ALLAH
“Lest anyone should say, Alas for me, having neglected the side(janbi) of Allah, and having been one of those who scoffed!” (Qur’an 39:56)
Thankfully this one escaped the Aqida Al Wasatiyyah! I haven’t heard yet these people asking Muslims to affirm the “side” of Allah (swt) as an attribute. Praise be to Allah (swt) that Majaz, the usage of the Arabic language prevailed here!
In fact all three of the usual suspects, all three Saudi Arabian English translations have translated Arabic as such:
“Lest the soul should (then) say: ‘Ah! Woe is me!- In that, I neglected (my duty) towards Allah, and was but among those who mocked!’- (Qur’an 39:56 Yusuf Ali Saudi Version 1985)
“Lest a person should say: “Alas, my grief that I was undutiful to Allah (i.e. I have not done what Allah has ordered me to do), and I was indeed among those who mocked (at the truth! i.e. La ilaha ill-Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), the Quran, and Muhammad SAW and at the faithful believers, etc.)” (Qur’an 39:56 Muhsin Khan & Muhammed Al Hilali)
“Lest a soul should say, “Oh [how great is] my regret over what I neglected in regard to Allah and that I was among the mockers.” (Qur’an 39:56 Sahih International)
In fact, this is a rare occasion of total consensus in the English language in which all translations have translated at the word as other than “side”.
I wonder if the Christians find it bittersweet that the Saudi funded Shaykh Ahmed Deedat (May Allah have mercy on him) which was set loose upon Christianity and mercilessly attacked anthrporphic descriptions of God in the Bible are regretting the fact that the chickens are coming home to roost!
In the end, ultimately this type of concept concerning Allah (swt) falls flat. If these people will refer back to the Salaaf and bring us a single statement where the Blessed Messenger (saw) said, “hand- in a way that befits his majesty” or “foot- in a way that befits his majesty”.
If they are unable or unwilling to understand metaphor, majaz, figurative speech and/or rhetorical devices than perhaps they will listen to this Imam of the Hanbali school, none other than Ibn Jawzi.
“Regarding Abu Ya’la ibn al-Farra, the scholars have been particularly harsh. Ibn al-Athir relates that Abu Muhammed al-Tamimi said of him that he had stained the Hanbalis with such distortion and disgrace that the waters of the sea will never wash them clean.” Source: (Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil 10:52)
Furthermore, Ibn Jawzi relates:
“Al-Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi says: “One of my shaykhs whom I consider trustworthy has related to me that Abu Ya’la used to say in relation to the meanings of Allah’s attributes: “No matter what justifications you give to me, I consider it necessary for Him to possess everything in the way of attributes, except a beard and genitals.”
Source: (Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi al-Awasim 2:283)
What an evil thing to muse about Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) guide these people
You might be interested in the following articles:
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. 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)
﷽
Al hamdulillah. All praise be to Allah (swt) for the right guidance. Whomever Allah guides no no one can misguide them. Whomever Allah allows to stray no one can guide them.
Now, there are Muslim sects as well as Pseudo-Islamic sects that are willing to assert that our creator Allah (swt) is ignorant of the Jewish penal system. May Allah (swt) guide them and us!
Among such groups are basically, the entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani movement as well as the Ismaili Nizari.
Their views are unnecessarily convoluted and have caused unnecessary confusion on this matter.
These same groups without even a shred of evidence will look at the following text of the Qur’an and some how imagine and insert Romans and Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross)!
The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority. (Qur’an 4:153)
And We cursed them for their breaking of the covenant and their ingratitude towards the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets* without right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their ingratitude, so they believe not, except for a few. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (Qur’an 4:155-156)
The above text certainly is not talking about Christians at all!
There are no records of Christians killing their prophets. The only Prophets of the Christians are Yahya (John) & Esau (Jesus).
Also, Christians would never utter against Mary a false charge. In the sense of saying saying demeaning of her (Allah has honoured her in this life and in the life to come!)
Read the Qur’an dear brothers and sisters.
Read it from Qur’an 4:153-157.
Now just on reading that text alone where are the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani/ The Ismail-Nizari, and the entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah conjuring up Romans from?
The fact, is all of these groups, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani, the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, and the Ismaili Nizari have to depend upon extraneous material and information outside of the Qur’an and the Sunnah to assert their rather baseless claims that some how when we read this text we must imagine it speaking about Romans!
The Arabic word for Romans is not something unfamiliar to the Qur’an.
“The Romans have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:2) غُلِبَتِ ٱلرُّومُ ghulibati l-rūm
This is akin to Muslims reading Surah Ikhlas, the 112th chapter of the Qur’an and looking at the Arabic text and imaging it speaking about Greeks and the Trojan War.
This would come across to any sane Muslims as something very wacky! It is very left field.
Jews and Judaism unnecessarily get left out in the cold.
Imagine Christians and Jews debating about an issue concerning Muslims and Muslims were not even invited to the table?! It would be quite rude. However, this happens with the Jews and Judaism by us Muslims virtually all…..the…..time!
So I reached out to chabad.org and I thought I would ask practicing Jews what Jews believe. Who would have thought? Such a novel concept right? I will share the short but very polite and insightful e-mail exchange with Rabbi Dov Stein
Here is a comparison/contrast of four views that one may come across today.
Traditionally Sunni view.
Modern Sunni view that adopted the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani view.
The Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani view.
The Ismail Nizari/Todd Lawson view.
All four of the above views have the following in common.
All four posit (without any evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah) that Qur’an 4:153-157 is some how speaking about Romans.
All four posit (without any evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah) that Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross).
All four get the basis for their views from Isrā’īliyyāt material.
All four use this Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose a view upon the Qur’anic text.
All four posit a a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum (Cross) as historical reality with them differing on rather or not Jesus was placed on a Patibulum (Cross) or not. Rather he was killed on a Patibulum (Cross) or not.
Imami Shi’a tradition.
Want to know who does not speak about Qur’an 4:157?
The following:
Muhammed al Baqir. al-Hasan al-‘Askari. Furat ibn Ibrahim al-Kufi. ali ibn Ibrahim-al-Qummi & Muhammed ibn Mas’ud al-Ayyashi.
“Of some interest is also the fact that there is not even any mention of the verse (Qur’an 4:157) in the voluminous collection of Shi’i traditions, Usul al-Kafi, complied by the Twelver scholar al-Kulayni. Indeed, it is not until the first major tafsir work of Twelver Shi’ism by Abu Ja’far al-Tusi that the problem is broached at all.”
Source: (The Crucifixion and the Qur’an pg. 75 Todd Lawson)
The one thing all four views have in common is that they indirectly by their own ignorance of the Jewish penal system attribute to Allah (swt) ignorance of the Jewish penal system!
Insh’Allah will explain how and why that is the case.
So, I had sent an e-mail to Chabad.org and I received a very cordial and swift reply.
“Capital punishment in Judaism does not involve crucifixion.“
This is very important admission by the respected Rabbi because lays to bed the idea that Jews crucify people. It is simply not part of their penal system.
Our, the Ibadi view is a very simple plain reading of the text. We let the text stand on it’s own without it being interpreted in light of the Isrā’īliyyāt material.
What is that simple conclusion? The very simple basic conclusion for anyone who has even a modicum of Arabic reading comprehension skills is that Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of the Jews from the Children of Israel.
The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority. (Qur’an 4:153)
“But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them. This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
And We cursed them for their breaking of the covenant and their ingratitude towards the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophetswithout right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their ingratitude, so they believe not, except for a few. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (Qur’an 4:155-156)
and their killing of the prophets without right As this is a continuation of the theme it neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. 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)
So let us explore the key passage of this text:
“Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him.”
It cannot refer to Christians. Christians would not kill Jesus. Nor would they make a claim that ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary.’
It cannot refer to Romans simply because the passage does not say so. There is no Arabic word for Romans any where in the text.
The whole theme of Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of Jews from the Children of Israel.
So it should be beyond evident that Qur’an 4:153-157 is not addressing Romans nor Christians.
So now let us look at another key text:
“And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)”
So virtually everyone translates the text as
“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him.”
Even the Hafs Qur’an Only religion* disappointed me. Here I was hoping they might show a little initiative but no. They had to go and follow the others.
* Refers to (those who platform a Qur’an only approach)
So let’s go with that for a moment. “nor did they crucify him.”
We have already established that the context of Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of Jews from the children of Israel.
So now Qur’an 4:153-157 is reupdating the claims of this group of Jews with:
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they crucify him.”
However, the good Rabbi has informed us:
“Capital punishment in Judaism does not involve crucifixion.“
In fact, in a follow up e-mail with the respected Rabbi, Dov Stein we are informed:
“as they are hung after being executed.”
“where the body was positioned after stoning.”
You have to be a very gullible person to imagine Jews boasting: “Yeah we killed Christ Jesus the Son of Mary by a method of execution not sanctioned by the Torah ha ha ha!”
Now if you notice in the first e-mail exchange the respected Rabbi gave me two links.
“I.e. after they have been executed, they are hung publicly. The person is hung up just before sunset and taken down immediately thereafter. See Hilchos Sanhedrin 15:6-7.”
It is a positive commandment to hang a blasphemer and an idolater after they have been executed, as implied by Deuteronomy 21:23: “A person who is hung is cursing God.” This refers to the blasphemer. With regard to an idolater, Numbers 15:30 states: “He blasphemes God.”
A man is hung, but a woman is not hung, as implied by Deuteronomy 21:22: “When a man has sinned and is condemned to die, after he is executed, you shall hang him….”ו
How is the mitzvah of hanging carried out? After the convicted is stoned, a beam is implanted in the ground with a rafter protruding from it. The two hands of the corpse are intercrossed and he is hung close to sunset.
He is released immediately. If not, a negative commandment is transgressed, as Ibid.:23 states: “Do not let his corpse tarry overnight on the beam.”
Now the commentary that you have seen above is by the legendary Rabbi, Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). That commentary was on the following text of the Torah:
“If any party is guilty of a capital offense and is put to death, and you impale the body on a stake, you must not let the corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury it the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God: you shall not defile the land that your God יהוה is giving you to possess.”
“If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall [then] hang him on a pole. But you shall not leave his body on the pole overnight. Rather, you shall bury him on that [same] day, for a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God, and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance.”
Now is there anything with in the sacred sources of the Jews that the Qur’an may be refuting or interacting with?
“At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.” (John 8:59)
“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” (John 10:31-32)
“But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!” (Qur’an 61:6)
Recall that the Qur’an mentions a double denial or a double negation.
Simply stating: They didn’t kill him would be sufficient. It covers every mode or method of death known to mankind.
Yet the Qur’an deliberately gives us a double denial/double negation.
Recall that the Jews do not crucify people but they do hang/impale them after stoning them to death. In other words a post mortem suspension humiliation.
Recall the words of the Torah:
“For an impaled body is an affront to God.”
“And they did not kill himnor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ )”
The double negation certainly rules out the Ismaili Nizari /Todd Lawson position.
That is because they understand the part of the text: “they did not kill him” (as a reference to Jesus soul). However, they do assert (without a shred of evidence) the things the other 3 groups hold to as asserted in my points: 1-5 above.
This is indeed a glaring problem for the Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson position. The Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson assert that a crucifixion happened.
Remember, that neither the Nizari/Todd Lawson do not assert the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani interpretation of Crucifixion as ‘crucified to death’.
You see dear respected readers. All of these groups: The entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani movement as well as the Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson have made Qur’an 4:153-157 so unnecessarily convoluted. They are astray because they do not use the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the foundation. Rather, they rely upon the Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose meaning upon the Qur’an.
The Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah faltered because they relied upon the Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose meaning upon the Qur’an. They have never been able to substantiate their view from the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The Imami Shi’i , the Ismaili-Nizar faltered because they did not check the base presuppositions of the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah. They relied upon those presuppositions but came to different exegetical conclusions. However, they assumed the base points that the Sunni assumed.
The Ahmadiyyah (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) faltered because he too did not check the base presuppositions of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah. He relied upon those presuppositions but came to different exegetical conclusions.
The latter Sunnis who adopted the Ahmadiyyah position as it was useful for debates: (Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, Yusuf Ismail, Yusuf Buccas). However, there has to be more credit given to them because at the very least they found issue with the prevailing dominant Sunni position on the issue. Where they faltered was because they did questioned some of the assumptions of the Isrā’īliyyāt material that informed that tradition, but did not think to question it in total.
Certainly with all these groups as with any who do good their reward is with Allah (swt). There is no doubt about that. Those views may have been helpful in the past. We have a better way.
There is a very simple solution to all of this. Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)
When we do this. We can see that: Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking to a group of Jews from the Children of Israel. No Romans or No Christians any where in the text.
We can also see that if we do a textual analysis of Ṣād-lām-bā’: ṣalb and ṣallab refer to a bone from the upper body to the waist [i.e., the backbone]
We will clearly see the above text: Qur’an 4:153-157 (especially given that it relates to Jewish claims) does not refer to a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross)!
Think about it!
The Qur’an when dealing with the Christians speaks about the alleged deity of Jesus and his allegedly being the Son of Allah.
So what is the implication of the double negation (not killing or impailing) being directed towards a group of Jews from the Children of Israel?
You did not kill him.
You did not impale him. This is especially important because: For an impaled body is an affront to God
Look at this different translations of 1 Corinthians 1:23
This whole text Qur’an 4:153-157 has noting at all to do with Romans.
We don’t have to get all fancy schmancy and start talking about Jesus dying physically on a Roman Patibulum (Cross) but not his soul!
We don’t have to get fancy schmancy and start talking about Allah creating Christianity because he made someone else look like Jesus and that someone else was killed on a Roman Patibulum (Cross).
We don’t have to get all fancy schmancy and start talking about Jesus was indeed put on a Roman Patibulum (Cross) but was taken down alive, presumably after he swooned, fainted or passed out.
“He is is going forth to be stoned.” وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ they did not kill him
He was hanged (impaled) on the even of the Passover. وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ they did not impale him.
Very simple very easy to understand. Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. No need to use the Isrā’īliyyāt to impose meaning upon the Qur’an.
Well, for those of you who want to believe in the crucifixion of Jesus or not believe he was crucified Knock yourself out! The idea of Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross) is alien to the Qur’an. It neither affirms it nor negates it.
Final Thoughts.
What are the implications?
This deals a final nail in the coffin of the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani movement. The information contained in this article is a death blow to their movement. Mirza Ghulam is evidently a false Prophet. He was not aware that Qur’an 4:153-157 is not speaking about the Romans.
We don’t have to deal with missionary claims that the Qur’an denies a supposed ‘historical fact’. It is simply irrelevant to the Qur’an.
That a purist approach to interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an makes the most sense.
We don’t have to follow the Salafi Manhaj, the Dawatus Salafiyyah, the Ahmadiyyah, the Nizari Ismail and whoever else believe in Isrā’īliyyāt material with no sanad, no connected chains going back to the claimed source material.
We don’t have to imagine the creator, Allah (swt) being unaware of the Jewish penal code. Astaghfirullah.
The Jews can no longer be called Christ Killers, because the Qur’an exonerates them of the charge.
“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)
“Our Lord, do not take us to task in case we forget or we make mistakes.” (Qur’an 2:286)
﷽
APOLOGY TO FELLOW MUSLIMS AND TRUTH SEEKERS.
May Allah (swt) forgive me. Praise be to Allah (swt) who guides us to a way that is best.
I used to rely upon a particular translation of the Qur’an 4:31 until upon closer examination I realized the game that was being played upon the unaware.
I’m thankful to Shaykh Hafidh Hamed Al Sawafi for pointing this out to me!
Most people are usually familiar with this translation:
“If you avoid major sins that you are prohibited, We will absolve YOU YOUR MINOR SINS and cause you to enter a generous gate.” (Qur’an 4:31)
Any translation that comes remotely close to that is a FALSE
Take a look at the different translations into English here:
Those people who are either translating this text as such are doing so according to their i’tiqad or without giving much thought about it -according to the i’tiqad of others.
The most correct translation is: the one from Yusuf Ali (1985) which states:
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” -(Qur’an 4:31)
The reason that certain translators translate it the way that they do is because of their theology. Which is that the small sins get wiped out and the big sins get purified in the hell-which one latter is released from.
However, the correct understanding is that if a Muslim avoids the major big sins, or if they do them and rush to repent and reform, Allah (swt) will forgive our minor mistakes and faults.
Imposing their theological suppositions upon the Qur’an Al-Kareem!
As one Muslim brother pointed out: “Saiyiatikum” is “all evil in you”.
To interpret it as “minor sins” or the likes is but an interpretation.
The literal meaning takes precedence over an interpretation unless there’s a hujjah to support the interpretation.
Insh’Allah in time I will begin to replace the translation with the appropriate translation free from i’tiqad -may Allah (swt) help me.
Kindly take note. My humble and sincere apologies.
“And protect them from the evil consequences [of their deeds]. And he whom You protect from evil consequences that Day – You will have given him mercy. And that is the great attainment.” (Qur’an 40:9)
“And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. 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)
﷽
Allah-willing I will be going through my articles and replacing the standard translation into English with what you see above.
Before I get into this let me first say that there seems to be three ways of understanding the above text among Muslims today.
1)The majority view is to affirm the Christian ecclesiastical view of the patibulum –(The crossbar of a cross used for crucifixion). However, at the same time deny that instead of Jesus being on the cross, Allah (swt) made someone look like Jesus and to put this person on the cross. The ecclesiastical Christian view is not challenged. Some how they imagine Romans involved in the text.
2) The second view is to affirm the Christian ecclesiastical view of the patibulum. However, this view first espoused by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyah movement has that Jesus was on the cross but swooned and was taken down alive where he migrated to Qadian India and died. Some how they imagine the Romans involved in the text.
This view is later adopted by Muslim apologist Shaykh Ahmed Deedat -raheemullah, and Toronto based apologist Shabir Ally. However, it should be noted that neither Deedat or Ally believes that Jesus migrated to India and died.
3) The third view is also to affirm the Christian ecclesiastical view of the patibulum. However, this view also accepts the entire position of the Christian ecclesiastical view; even stating Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected! The only difference with the Christians is on the theological implications. This view is espoused by Zaytuna College alumni Dr. Ali Ataie-whom is an assistant professor with interfaith activities. * note * I am of the understanding that Dr. Ali Ataie has changed his views on this and I will update accordingly inshAllah.
Most likely Dr. Ali Ataie is attempting to reconcile clear passages of the Qur’an that Jesus died all the while trying to reconcile the Christian ecclesiastical tradition along with the various hadith that mention the second coming of Christ Jesus.
Dr. Ali Ataie position has the influence of Todd Lawson written all over it. Speaking of Todd Lawson
Todd Lawson is the author of the book: The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought.
Now without getting too much into this particular book, I think it suffices to bring to the readers’ attention two glaring problems with Todd Lawson’s book.
Todd Lawson himself does not even attempt to define the word ‘Crucifixion’. It certainly seems rather odd having the very word in the title of one’s book and not attempt to challenge the ecclesiastical handed-down version of the Christian tradition and yet in the same vain challenge the “ecclesiastical” handed-down version of the Islamic tradition.
Secondly, Todd Lawson dissects many words in Qur’an 4:157 yet, curiously he is quite dismissive of the treatment of the word صلب
There is scant discussion on the various verb/noun forms ‘sulb‘. Todd Lawson came with a mission. Super impose the word Cross and Crucifixion upon صلب
On page 31 of his book he states:
“It occurs in the Qur’an eight times (4:157; 12:41; 7:124; 20:71; 26:49; 5:33; 86:7;4:23). Six of these are as a verb with the accepted meaning of ‘to crucify’. The others are as a noun meaning ‘back’ or ‘loins’ (86:7; 4:23). Aside from its use in 4:157, the five remaining positive uses refer to (respectively): the fate of one of Joseph’s fellow prisoners (12:41); Pharaoh’s threat to his magicians (7:124; 20:71; 26:49); and a prescription of punishment for those who fight against God and his messenger (5:33). There is no reason to doubt that the verb indicates the punishment of crucifixion, as it is USUALLY UNDERSTOOD.”
Now there is a great reason to doubt why anyone would superimpose the ecclesiastical Christian Cross as Todd Lawson tries to do. The very paragraph itself gives you reason enough.
Alas, Todd Lawson also some how imagines Romans involved in the text of Qur’an 4:157
Another interesting take away from Dr. Ali Ataie’s position is that Zaytuna champions the idea of following strictly a legal school and considers that we must champion traditional scholarship without question.
Yet, Dr. Ali Ataie’s position if honoured by Zaytuna is certainly a sign that a whole string of titans in the Sunni Islamic tradition on exegesis made a gargantuan error. Something interesting to ponder.
Every translation I have encountered in English has Qur’an 4:157 as “they didn’t crucify him.”
I also have no good reason to believe that Romans are involved in the text of Qur’an 4:157
There are a few reasons why I can no longer accept the standard understanding and translation of this text as such.
BEFORE GOING FURTHER: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRUCIFIXION AND IMPAILMENT?
Two be clear: Both punishments are suspension punishments. That is to say something being hoisted or lifted up. The differences between Impailment and Crucifixion are as follows:
A) Impailment is a punishment where a pike/spike or other sharpened object is shoved through the loins/lubmus region of the body. The spine is used to hoist the individual. Depending upon the technique used it is designed to be a quick death struggle after. After the hapless victim cannot use their feet or hands to keep the impale device from reaching vital organs due to exhaustion. The impale device pierces vital organs and the victim dies an excruciating death.
B) Crucifixion is a punishment where an individual is put on a patibulum which is than affixed to a crux (a pole or beam). There is no nothing driven through the spine and the spinal column is relatively left intact. This suspension punishment focuses on putting nails through the hands and feet and meant to be a prolonged death struggle. Death is usually from asphyxiations. No vital organs are pierced. In fact people could survive being crucified for days. Hence, Christians make a huge ordeal about Jesus being scourged before Crucifixion.
Anything that tries to obfuscate the two is not helpful.
Usually those who want to assert the cross are the same ones who superimpose it on Qur’an 4:157. Because if both mean impailment than just translate Qur’an 4:157 as impale then (wink, wink, nudge,nudge).
I am not convinced that ṣād-lām-bā’: used twice as salabu, four times as yusallabu and twice as sul’b means “cross” or “double cross”-like structure.
A “double-cross” or “cross”-like structure would include any of the following in the link below.
There is simply not a shred of evidence from the Qur’an to support this.
What is the best approach to interpreting the Qur’an?
If we are going to have a consistent method of interpretation the best place to start would be Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an). That is to say to do a tight analysis of all text of a given word and it’s various forms and usage.
Ṣād-lām-bā’: ṣalb and ṣallab refer to a bone from the upper body to the waist [i.e., the backbone]
Let us look at all the instances of this noun form in the Qur’an.
The artist impression.
Often in many countries where a person is robbed the police will ask the victim to give a description of the assailant. The police will than have an artist give the best description or approximation of what that individual may look like.
Now we are going to do a little exercise. Imagine you are going to do an artist impression of the passages you read in the text. What would that artist impression look like?
“And also prohibited are the wives of your sons who are from your loins (aslabikum)(وَحَلَائِلُ أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ), And that you take in marriage two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:23)
The use of the noun form sulb is very interesting here. It indicates the loins. Which also gives a very strong proof that these people were indeed not ‘crucified‘ and that the text translated in 4:157 ‘they didn’t crucify him‘ is sorely mistaken.
Let’s use logic and deduction. Given that the noun form of صلب in the text above indicates the loins. Would it make more sense that:
A) ṣalabūhu used in Qur’an 4:157 is a punishment that relates to this region of the body?
or
B) a punishment that relates to the hands and feet being nailed on a patibulum?
The following link gives an excellent description and picture show casing the lumbar region.
Again the noun form sulb being used to talk about the lubmus system and nothing to do with hands and or feet!
Perhaps Todd Lawson or those who advocate that Jesus died on an ecclesiastical cross could tell us which makes more sense the word صلب is used in connection to impailment or in connection to putting nails through a person’s hands and feet and suspending them on a patibulum?
In Oman the Arabic speaking people have various interesting phrases none of which has to do with hands or feet being pierced.
The previous two verses do not support the صلب being translated as cross or crucify.
“Correct your spine.” Is a a common phrase in Oman.
Let us look at all the instances of this verb form in the Qur’an.
HOW DOES ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE UNDERSTAND صلب IN THE FOLLOWING VERSE?
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or impaled(yuṣallabū) (أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ) …cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter.” (Qur’an 5:33)
Now this verse has not been said to be allegorical but clear. It relates to the punishment known as al-Hiraba (or armed robbery, highway robbery). The punishment is also used for “causing corruption in the land.” Now if you asked your average Muslim (even learned) when it says, “killed” what tool or instrument is used to kill?
Likewise when Muslim jurist saw the word “(yuṣallabū)” do you think they said, “Golly gee whiskers I wonder what this means?”
Are we really to believe that Muslim jurist that had ordered this Hadd punishment to be carried made crosses and double cross like structures when dealing with these criminals? Are we to believe that Muslims jurist ordered that the criminal carry a patibulum, suspended said person and put nails in their hands and feet?
In fact, name for us any school of jurisprudence: Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Zahiri, Hanafi, Zaydi, 12er Shi’i or Ibadi that does this?
Why was Todd Lawson so incredibly lazy in his research in this regards?
The fact that Islamic schools of jurisprudence across the Sunni, Ibadi and Shi’i tradition do not do this a deathblow to any notion that صلب means cross or crucify.
Contemporary example: May 30, 2009 (just 14 years ago)
“Even though the word “crucifixion” is used to describe the pubic display, the act has no connection to Christianity and the crucifixion of Jesus.The bodies are not displayed on crosses.
“Chirouf said those crucified are beheaded first and then their heads are sewn back on their bodies. Then, the corpse is mounted on a pole or a tree.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: The above is important because it shows clearly that there is obfuscation over the word “crucifixion”.
Keep in mind what you see here is the Shafi’i or the Hanbali school’s interpretation of Qur’an 5:33.
In fact a little inconvenient nugget in Todd Lawsons Book states:
“A cursory look at the history of crucifixion shows that the procedure was adopted for two distinct, if sometimes combined reasons: (1) as a means of execution; (2) to provide a forceful deterrent to future crime. In the second case, the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.These grisly details are in line with the Shafi’i ruling for one convicted for highway robbery and murder, in which this second procedure was to be followed. The sequence of events, execution then crucifixion, may be reflected in the unchanging order of the two distinct ideals of killing and crucifixion in every tafsir consulted for this study. It is also possible that this reflects nothing more than the Qur’anic word order, in which case hyperbaton (taqdim) could be expected to have been invoked by Muslim rhetoricians; but which fact alone might lead the student of the history of religion to investigate seventh-century Arab methods of punishment.”
Source: (Todd Lawson The Crucifixion and the Qur’an page 31)
A few points to note here:
a) Todd admits the people were killed and then displayed on a pike or a “cross”. So this is certainly not a crucifixion-at least not as Christians would envision for Jesus.
b)Todd does not give us any proof that in Shafi’ jurisprudence people are displayed on the patibulum or on a cross.
c) Todd is content to allow the student to “investigate seventh-century Arab methods of punishment“
One final point:
Often criminals lead a life of crime. Meaning they do lesser crimes that eventually lead to bigger crimes. So let us say there is a case in which a thief had been caught and according to the jurist their hand is cut off. The thief is caught again and a foot is cut off. Then said individual commits the crime of al-Hiraba. So than how do they (yuṣallabū) the individual?
PHAROAH EGYPT & صلب (SULB)
Now we will examine three text of the verb form that relate to the same incident.
“I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides; then I will surely impale(la-uṣallibannakum) (لَأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ ثُمَّ لَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ) you all.”(Qur’an 7:124)
It is obvious and plain as day that a person who has their hand cut off is not going to be “crucified” -especially not in the way the ecclesiastical sense that Christians imagine. If the hands were cut off then definitely it was not a T or ✞ shaped cross, it had to be impalement.
“[Pharaoh] said, “You believed Moses before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic, but you are going to know. I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will surely impale (wala-uṣallibannakum) (لَأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ) you all.” (Qur’an 26:49)
Again as above a person who has their hand cut off on opposite is certainly not ‘crucified‘ -especially not in the ecclesiastical sense that Christians would image. If the hands were cut off then definitely it was not a T or ✞ shaped cross, it had to be impalement.
“[Pharaoh] said, “You believed him before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic. So I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will impale you (wala-uṣallibannakum) (وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ فِي جُذُوعِ النَّخْلِ) IN/ON THE TRUNKS OF PALM TREES, and you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring.” (Qur’an 20:71)
Again, a person is who has their hand cut off is not going to be “crucified” -especially not in the ecclesiastical sense that Christians have imagined.
Very interesting in the above text that these people will be impaled IN the trunks of Palm Trees. If you look at the various translations of the Qur’an they translate the word fi’ as ‘on‘ which is a bit curious.
The translators: Muhammad Ahmed & Samira translate 20:71 as:
“He said: “You believed to him before that I permit for you, that he truly (is) your biggest/greatest (E) who taught/instructed you the magic/sorcery, so I will cut off/sever (E) your hands and your feet from opposites (sides), and I will crucify you (E) in the palm trees’ trunks/stems, and you will know (E) which of us (is) stronger (in) torture and more lasting .”
So let us do back to our artist impression. We draw a picture or someone with their hands and feet cut off on opposite ends and impaled in the trunk of palm trees. How on earth anyone gets a patibulum with nails in the hands and feet from the above text is just pure desperation.
By the way (Qur’an 20:71) & (Qur’an 26:49) & (Qur’an 7:124) is a reference to the same incident. So what Qur’an 20:71 states is applicable to the other two text.
So when Pharaoh says: “And you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring,” you know that he had something truly diabolical in mind.
Look what the world History Encyclopedia says:
“Ancient Egypt utilized a process known as impaling. The body was literally impaled upon a pointed stake and death occurred quite rapidly as the major organs were pierced. The hieroglyph character for denoting this was a picture of it, with the phrase, “to give on the wood.” The practice is mentioned during the reigns of Sobekhotep II, Akenaten, Seti, and Ramesses IX. Merneptah (1213-1203 BCE) “caused people to be set upon a stake” south of Memphis.” Source:https://www.worldhistory.org/crucifixion/
The American schools of oriental research state:
“The death penalty was carried out by impalement. The body was put on the pointed top of a wooden stake and the victim’s weight drew the body down the pole. We have no representations of this procedure, but there is a hieroglyph depicting a body atop a stake after the phrase “to give on the wood.” The execution seems to have been in public; one text even says besides a temple.” Source: The American schools of oriental research https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2016/01/crime-and-punishment-in-pharaonic-egypt/
So when we see this expression of Pharaoh in the Qur’an:
“I will impale you (wala-uṣallibannakum) (وَلَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ فِي جُذُوعِ النَّخْلِ) IN/ON THE TRUNKS OF PALM TREES.”
And we see the expressions: “To give on the wood“
By the way (Qur’an 20:71) & (Qur’an 26:49) & (Qur’an 7:124) above cannot refer to a crucifixion or to a cross.
Why? Look at the picture below and you do the physics.
Every once in awhile a Christian gets the idea that he wants to experience the suffering that Jesus is alleged to have endured on the so called double-cross. So this person will lay down half naked on a beam of wood and gets someone to nail the palms of his hands (or the wrist) and his feet to the beam. When the beam of wood is stood up on its end, the persons’ body weight immediately tears his hands and the feet loose and they slide off the beam in degradation and humiliation.
This happened all to often, and people began to really wonder if the ecclesiastical images of Jesus inspired by painters, having him on the double cross were really true.
Thus, in all effort to make sense of the ecclesiastical images, made popular by paintings, the all too familiar “nailed to the double cross” method, along came the idea that the hands were not only nailed to the cross, but ropes were used to bind the forearms to the horizontal beam. This satisfied the world that such a method would prevent a body from falling off the cross and everyone breathed a sigh of relief.
This brings us to the next text: “Oh two companions of prison, as for one of you, he will give drink to his master of wine; but as for the other, he will be impaled (fayuṣ’labu) (وَأَمَّا الْآخَرُ فَيُصْلَبُ فَتَأْكُلُ الطَّيْرُ مِنْ رَأْسِهِ), and the birds will eat from his head. The matter has been decreed about which you both inquire.” (Qur’an 12:41) This is what the Torah says about the incident:
“When the chief baker saw that Joseph had given a favorable interpretation, he said to Joseph, “I too had a dream: On my head were three baskets of bread. In the top basket were all kinds of baked goods for Pharaoh, but the birds were eating them out of the basket on my head.” “This is what it means,” Joseph said. “The three baskets are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and impale your body on a pole. And the birds will eat away your flesh.”
(Genesis 40:16-19) New International Version
Compare/Contrast this with:
When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was good, he said unto Joseph, I also was in my dream, and, behold, I had three white baskets on my head: And in the uppermost basket there was of all manner of bake meats for Pharaoh; and the birds did eat them out of the basket upon my head. And Joseph answered and said, This is the interpretation thereof: The three baskets are three days: Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.”
(Genesis 40:16-19) King James Version
Since this text is dealing with prophet Joseph (as) and he was under the Pharaoh of Egypt of his time and this is even prior to the time of Moses (as).
So based upon what we have seen concerning صلب as impailment in the above text (Qur’an 20:71) & (Qur’an 26:49) & (Qur’an 7:124) there is no good reason to believe that (Qur’an 12:41) is a reference to the patibulum, a cross or crucifixion.
So having gone through all the verses in the Qur’an that only leaves us with Qur’an 4:157.
What about Qur’an 4:157?
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. 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)
Notice that the context Qur’an 4:157 is speaking about Jews. There is no mention of Romans in the text. You may start at Qur’an 4:154 for context.
There is a double denial. They did not kill him nor did they (ṣalabūhu) him.
Why the seemingly redundant text? Is it not sufficient to say “And they did not kill him?” Surely that covers everything?
Why would Allah (swt) deny that Jews “Crucified” Jesus? Especially if Allah (swt) is aware of Jewish laws?
Jews do not crucify anyone nor do they put people on crosses.
Jews do however impale people. So translating (ṣalabūhu) as impale makes complete sense.
The phrase “but it was made to appear to them” does not indicate that this was something Allah (swt) did.
Now what happens is for some reason Muslims look at Qur’an 4:157 and they see Romans! The whole context of the text is that Allah (swt) is talking about Jews.
If Allah (swt) wanted to say Romans he certainly he could have. Yet, Qur’an 4:157 mentions nothing about the Romans.
“The Romans have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:20)
So where than do Muslims gets Romans or Crucifixion or Cross in Qur’an 4:157 ?? ?
Now if you want to wade knee deep in shoddy scholarship and try to reconcile Islam with received Christian ecclesiastical history and ignore the context of the Qur’an and interpret passages in a vacuum go for it. Like Todd Lawson, you can superimpose the Romans on the text. You can even imagine that Qur’an 4:157 is speaking about some historical event in relation to Christian Good Friday if you want. (Crucifixion) ?
Objection: But This means the Qur’an denies the Crucifixion and that is historical fact!
Response: The Qur’an is absolutely unaware of an event called “The Crucifixion” either in support of it or in negation.
However, such a discussion is absolutely irrelevant to the text of the Qur’an.
Objection: But doesn’t’ the Arabic word salib mean cross? Don’t we see that in the Arabic language today?
Answer: First one would do well to bare in mind that ‘The Cross’ was not a de facto symbol of Christianity, really only becoming venerated in the 4th century C.E. Secondly, words acquire meaning or encapsulate new expressions that they did not originally intend or convey.
For example: I see hot molten rock spewing forth from the Earth in Hawaii. I turn to my friend and say, “Wow cool!” Now the word cool does not necessarily connoate the temperature of something.
The word fantastic etymologically has the same root as fantasy. Fantastic initially meant something conceivable by the imagination. Now the word fantastic basically means wonderful.
Conclusion:
There is simply not a shred of evidence that the Qur’an mentions a cross or anything at all about crucifixion. There is no mention about a patibulum or nails, nothing, nada, zilch, zip.
Henceforth from today, I will be translating the Qur’an 4:157 as saying, “They didn’t impale him” -keeping consistent with his various usages and forms throughout the Qur’an.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.” (Qur’an 5:83)
“Everyone upon the earth will perish but The face of your Lord will remain, possessor of majesty and honor.”(Qur’an 55:27)
﷽
“Everything will perish except His face.” (Qur’an 28:88)
Ibn Taymiyya related that Ja’far al-Sadiq’s interpretation of Allah’s “face” as meaning the Religion of Islam, and al-Dahhak’s interpretation of the face in the same verse as meaning: “Allah’s essence, Paradise, the Fire, and the Throne.”
You can imagine the kind of struggle those who say we do not apply ta’wil had when coming to the verses above. If taken at their apparent meaning it indicates that the face is the only attribute of Allah (swt) that would remain while the other attributes would perish.
You cannot have a divine being that is both annihilated and existing forever at the same time. So what does Ibn Taymiyya do in this situation? What any other rational human being would do. Using the rules of grammar he applied ta’wil!
As for Ibn Taymiyya himself, he interprets ‘his face’ as meaning direction (jiha), so that the meaning would be for him: “Everything will perish save that by which Allah’s direction is sought.” He then adds, “This is what the vast majority of the Salaf have said.”
Source: (Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu’at al-fatawa 2:428)
“This is what the vast majority of the Salaf have said.” -which if we are to believe Ibn Taymiyya it means the vast majority of the salaaf applied ta’wil.
Now only one of two scenarios are possible according to Ibn Taymiyya’s statement.
The vast majority of the salaaf applied ta’wil.
The salaaf didn’t apply ta’wil because they knew the Arabic language better than we do and understood that ‘wajh’ meant essence or direction.
Now proponents of inconsistency will exclaim “This is no ta’wil at all!” “The face is not necessarily an attribute.”
Yet Ibn Taymiyya in Al-Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah has clearly stated that the face is an attribute of Allah (swt).
However, the response is that whatever made the “wajh” not necessarily refer to one of the attributes is precisely the type of ta’wil that Ibn Taymiyya has allowed for others to open the door!
Prima Quran 