“Indeed, We have made it (ja’alnahu) an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
﷽
The truth of the matter is that the entire Muslim Ummah are in agreement that some aspect of the Qur’an is created. What they differ and disagree about are the specifics.
This debate has been framed incorrectly. It has been framed as a debate between those who believe the Qur’an is created and those who believe the Qur’an is uncreated.
The reality: The debate is about to what degree and which aspects of the Qur’an are created.
For example:
1. The Mushaf. The pages that the ink is printed upon. All Muslims call this the Qur’an. There is etiquette in regard to it. We do not bring it to dirty places. The proper disposal is to burn it’s pages. Yet, this is called ‘Qur’an’. Everyone who can be called Muslim agrees to this. That is that the Mushaf of the Qur’an is created. If there is a person who disagrees with this and or is hesitant to affirm this then know that they are upon something very strange.
2. The ink and the words which are written. The words and letters on the pages that were placed there by ink or the printing press. All Muslims call this the Qur’an. Everyone who can be called Muslim agrees to this. That is that the ink and the words on the pages are created.If there is a person who disagrees with this or is hesitant to affirm this then know they upon something very strange.
3. The recitation of the words of the Qur’an. This is is what we will be discussing today.
We will learn that the one who compiled ‘Sahih Bukhari’, whose full name is: Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammed ibn Ismāʿīl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mughirah ibn Bardizbah al-Juʿfī al-Bukhārī and his supporter who compiled ‘Sahih Muslim’ . Both believed that their recitation of the Qur’an is created. This caused a boycott of Bukhari by major Hanbali scholars..
“Muhammed bin Yahya al-Nisaburi wrote to the people of Rayy, informing them of al-Bukhari’s position. The accusation was that al-Bukhari held “lafzi bil-Quran makhluq”. That his pronunciation/recitation of the Quran is created.”
“My father and Abu Zur’ah heard from him, then they both abandoned his hadith when Muhammed bin Yahya al-Nisaburi wrote to them that he [al-Bukhari] had made it apparent to them that his pronunciation of the Qur’an is created.”
Source: (page 462 from Volume 12 of Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ (Biographies of the Noble Scholars) by Imam al-Dhahabi, edited by Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut.)
“[Al-Ma’idah: 64]. And his emigration (hijrah)(1) was from Mecca. He came to Iraq at the end of the night… [Quranic verse]: “If Allah helps you, none can overcome you; and if He forsakes you, who is there after Him that can help you?” [Al Imran: 160].”
“And Ahmad bin Mansur al-Shirazi said: I heard al-Qasim bin al-Qasim say: I heard Ibrahim, the scribe of Ahmad bin Sayyar, say: When al-Bukhari arrived in Marw, Ahmad bin Sayyar met him. So he said to him: “O Abu Abdullah, we do not oppose you in what you say, but the common people cannot bear this from you.” He [al-Bukhari] said: “I only ask about something I know to be true, fearing the Fire, lest I say other than it.” So Ahmad bin Sayyar turned away from him.”
“And Abd al-Rahman bin Abi Hatim said in Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil (2): Muhammed bin Isma’il al-Rayy came in the year 210 AH, and my father and Abu Zur’ah heard from him. And they abandoned his hadith when Muhammed bin Yahya al-Nisaburi wrote to them that he [al-Bukhari] had made it apparent to them that his pronunciation of the Quran is created.“
Then Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut comments on this.
By the way for those not familiar when you see the name Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut it is a reference to Abū Usāmah Shuʿayb ibn Muḥarram ibn ʿAlī al-Albānī al-Arnāʾūṭ.
Most people in Salafi/Athari circles simply refer to him as: al-Albānī.
So al-Albānī (Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut) comments:
“This is strange from Abu Zur’ah and Abu Hatim, for they both had already heard from him [al-Bukhari] and narrated from him, and they did not abandon him except based on the statement of their teacher al-Bukhari regarding the issue of lafz [pronunciation]. And it is not permissible for them to act upon this, due to what it entails of sin, caprice, and envy. And Imam al-Dhahabi said in Mizan al-I’tidal 1/111 in the biography of Abu Nu’aym, the author of Al-Hilyah: “The words of some of them regarding others are not to be relied upon, especially if it becomes clear to him that it is due to partisanship for a madhhab or envy. And no one is safe from that except one whom Allah protects. And I do not know of an era from the eras that is safe from that except the era of the Prophets and the Rightly Guided Caliphs. And if you wish, I could list that in volumes.” And al-Subki said in Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyyah 2/230: “The position of al-Dhuhali [Muhammed bin Yahya] regarding al-Bukhari came from envy of him.” And al-Subki said in Qa’idah al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil 12: “And from what should be examined is the state of beliefs and their differences in relation to the critic and the criticized. For perhaps the critic is wronged in creed, so his criticism of him is [invalid].”-Shaykh al-Albānī
Source: (page 462 from Volume 12 of Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ (Biographies of the Noble Scholars) by Imam al-Dhahabi, edited by Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut.)
Examining Shaykh al-Albānī charge of envy for abandoning Bukhari for his position on the createdness of the Qur’an.
Shaykh Shaykh al-Albānī’s argument in the highlighted footnote is essentially this: Abu Zur’ah’s criticism cannot be sincere because he also narrated from Muslim, who shared al-Bukhari’s theological position.
If Abu Zur’ah was willing to accept hadith from Muslim, he should have accepted them from al-Bukhari on the same grounds. Unless his abandonment of al-Bukhari was motivated by petty jealousy, or partisanship.
We have to be fair here in saying that Shaykh al-Albānī’s claim has a very strong basis.
This reasoning has some historical traction, but it is not the whole picture:
Muslim’s Position: It is well-established that Imam Muslim did agree with al-Bukhari on the lafz issue. Al-Bayhaqi explicitly stated that Muslim “was on the madhhab of al-Bukhari in the distinction” between recitation and the recited. Muslim also famously stood by al-Bukhari during the boycott, taking his written works back from al-Dhuhali and withdrawing from his circle.
Source: (Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ 12/460, Huda al-Sari in the introduction to Fath al-Bari 2/264)
Imam Muslim was the only one who did not abandon Imam al-Bukhari, since they were upon the same creed. Their creed opposed that of the Hanbali who opposed them.
“And Makki bin Abdan said: Dawud bin Ali al-Asbahani came to Nisapur during the days of Ishaq bin Rahwayh. They held a session of debate for him, and he attended the circle of Yahya bin al-Dhuhali, and Muslim bin al-Hajjaj. A theological issue was discussed in which Yahya spoke, and he silenced him, saying: “Be quiet, O boy!” So Muslim did not support him. He returned to his father and complained to him. His father said: “Who was he?” He said: “Muslim.” He said: “You have returned from every single one of my hadiths!” [Meaning: you have ruined your standing with him]. When this reached Muslim, he gathered what he had written from him in a notebook, sent it to him, and said: “I will never narrate anything from you ever again.”
“Abu Abdullah al-Hakim said:I have noted this story from Tahir bin Ahmad, from Makki, and Muslim may have differed after this incident with Muhammed bin Yahya, but he only cut him off because of the issue of al-Bukhari. And al-Hafiz Abu Abdullah bin al-Akhram knew that, so he informed about the alienation [that occurred] later.”
“And I heard him [al-Hakim] saying:Muslim bin al-Hajjaj used to openly declare the statement regarding al-lafz [the pronunciation of the Quran], and he did not conceal it. When al-Bukhari settled in Nisapur, he openly declared more of the disagreement with him. When the issue of al-lafz occurred between al-Bukhari and al-Dhuhali, and the people of Nisapur were prevented from differing with him [al-Dhuhali], and he called to that, the majority of people cut off from Muslim, other than a few. It reached Muhammed bin Yahya, and he said one day: “Whoever says al-lafz is not created, it is not permissible for him to attend my circle.” So Muslim took his garment, placed it on his shoulder, stood up before the people, and sent to him what he had written from him, saying: “We only used to narrate from you because of al-lafz.” And Muslim used to openly declare the statement regarding al-lafz and not conceal it.“
“Abu Hamid bin al-Sharqi said: I attended the circle of Muhammed bin Yahya, and he said: “Whoever says: ‘My pronunciation of the Quran is created,’ let him not attend my circle.” So Muslim stood up from the circle.”
“Abu Bakr al-Khatib said: Muslim used to fight on behalf of al-Bukhari, until the relationship between him and Muhammed bin Yahya became estranged, due to his [al-Bukhari’s] reason.”
“I [al-Dhahabi] said:Then, [if] he was a Muslim due to his createdness [meaning: his stance on the creation of actions] he also turned away from al-Bukhari, and did not mention him as a narrator of hadith, nor did he name him in his Sahih. Rather, he began the book with the wording of those who stipulated al-lafz for whomever he narrated from, in a manner that claims consensus in the contemporary era is sufficient [to establish it], and he did not pause on that knowledge of the two of them, and he criticized whoever stipulated that. But rather, Abu Abdullah al-Bukhari said that, and his teacher Ali bin al-Madini, and it is the most correct and most sound [position]. And this is not the place to elaborate on this issue.”
“The Hafiz Abu al-Qasim bin Asakir said in Al-Atraf: It is after he mentioned [the Sahih of al-Bukhari]: Then he followed the path of Muslim bin al-Hajjaj, and he took the extraction of his book, its composition, and its arrangement into two parts. He intended to mention in the first part the hadiths of the reliable people of precision, and in the second part the hadiths of the people of covering and truthfulness, those who did not reach the rank of the firmly established. The death prevented him from completing this aspiration, and between him and this aspiration was the completion of his book. However, his book became famous and spread despite his need for it [to be completed].”
“And al-Hakim said: Muslim wanted to extract the Sahih into three categories, and upon three generations of narrators. He mentioned this at the beginning of his introduction, but he was not able to finish except the first category, and he died.”
Source: (page 628 from Volume 12 of Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’, in the biography of Imam Muslim)
The second point.
Abu Zur’ah’s Relationship with Muslim: Abu Zur’ah was not hostile to Muslim. In fact, Muslim submitted his Sahih to Abu Zur’ah for review, and Abu Zur’ah’s approval was seen as a mark of its authenticity. if Abu Zur’ah accepted Muslim’s Sahih despite his lafz views, why did he abandon al-Bukhari?
Insh’Allah we will update this page and provide an easily accessible online source when it becomes available.
If you would like to learn more about this specific subject please read the following:
“We certainly brought you the truth, but most of you, to the truth, were averse.” (Qur’an 43:78)
“And of the people is he who disputes concerning Allah without knowledge or guidance or an enlightening Book, twisting his neck to mislead from the way of Allah. For him in this world is disgrace, and We will make him taste on the Day of Resurrection the punishment of the Burning Fire.” (Qur’an 22:8-9)
﷽
In this article we explore who has the correct aqidah? Which of the Salafi (Athari) are among the Mu’attilah and which are not?
Who is correct in regarding a theological matter of great importance: HOW MANY FINGERS DOES ALLAH HAVE?
A matter in which Muslims can be removed from Islam and a matter in which the blood of a believer may be considered permissible.
Just how many fingers does Allah have? The debate among the Athari/Salafi rages on!
First let it be said as regard the video we disavow the meme and the laughing emojis. We can make our points without appealing to such.
Shaykh Uthman al-Khamis:
فهل نثبت لله خمسه اصابع؟ نثبت لله الاصابع والحديث ما في خمسه اصابع. الحديث ما في خمسه اصابع وانما قال ان الله يحمل السماوات على اصبع والاراضين على اصبع والجبال على اصبع والشجر على اصبع ما في تحديد خمس اصابع فلا نحدد نقول لله اصابع تليق به ونسكت
English Translation: “So do we affirm five fingers for Allah? We affirm fingers for Allah, but the Hadith does not mention five fingers. The Hadith does not mention five fingers; rather, it states that Allah places the heavens on a finger, the earths on a finger, the mountains on a finger, and the trees on a finger. There is no specification of five fingers, so we do not specify. We say that Allah has fingers that befit Him, and we remain silent. -Shaykh Uthman al-Khamis.
احسن الله اليكم سائل يقول هل الاعتقاد الصحيح هو ان لله خمس اصابع فقط
English Translation: “May Allah be good to you, a questioner asks: Is the correct belief that Allah has only five fingers?”
Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz:
يعني كل يد لها خمس اصابع ان الله جل وعلا له يدان ولكل يد دن اصابع وهذا من الكمال
English Translation: “Meaning, each hand has five fingers. Indeed, Allah, Majestic and Exalted, has two hands, and each hand has fingers, and this is a matter of perfection.” -Shaykh Abdul-Aziz Bin Baz
Shaykh Muhammed Nasir al-Din al-Albani says the hadith does not prove Allah (swt) has five fingers.
Al-Albani was asked directly: “The hadith counts five. Does this mean Allah has five fingers?” He replied: “No! We do not add to the hadith nor subtract from it.” When pressed that the five is a mafhūm (implied meaning), he said: “There is no harm in taking the mafhūm as long as it does not contradict an explicit text.”
So here we have Shaykh Muhammed Nasir al-Din al-Albani saying that implication has a basis in theology!
Shaykh Al Uthaymin says Allah has an undetermined number of fingers.
Uthaymin was even more explicit in warning against the question itself. In his lecture on al-ʿAqīdah al-Saffārīniyyah, he said:
“A questioner asked me: ‘What do you say about Allah’s fingers. How many?’ I said: ‘Do you have to know this? Affirm that Allah has fingers as the Prophet ﷺ said. As for how many? We cannot speak about this.’ By Allah, you are not more eager for knowledge of Allah than the Companions! When the Prophet ﷺ said ‘Allah places the heavens on a finger,’ did they say: ‘O Messenger of Allah, does Allah have more than three fingers?’ They did not. Because they were more complete in manners and more reverent toward Allah than those who came after them.”
Shaykh Abdul-Aziz al-Rajihi believes that Allah (swt) has five fingers.
في هذه الأحاديث إثبات الأصابع للرب عز وجل، وأن لله خمسة أصابع وهي صفات ذاتية تليق بالله، وأن الله تعالى يضع السموات على أصبع والأرضين على أصبع والشجر والثرى على أصبع وسائر خلقه على أصبع. في الحديث الأول: «يُمْسِكُ السَّمَوَاتِ عَلَى إِصْبَعٍ، وَالأَْرَضِينَ عَلَى إِصْبَعٍ، وَالْجِبَالَ عَلَى إِصْبَعٍ، وَالشَّجَرَ عَلَى إِصْبَعٍ» فهذه خمسة أصابع.
English translation:
“In these hadiths there is affirmation of fingers for the Lord, Mighty and Majestic, and that Allah has five fingers, which are attributes of His essence befitting Allah, and that Allah, the Most High, places the heavens upon a finger, the earths upon a finger, the trees and the soil upon a finger, and the rest of His creation upon a finger. In the first hadith: ‘He holds the heavens upon a finger, the earths upon a finger, the mountains upon a finger, and the trees upon a finger’ So these are five fingers.”- Shaykh Abdul-Aziz al-Rajihi
Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan’ mentions that Allah has five fingers and he affirms this as the belief of Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab in his ‘Book of Tawhid’.
“نعم، شوف في آخر كتاب التوحيد أن الله -جَلَّ وَعَلا- يطوي السماوات السبع، والأراضين السبع بيديه، أو يجعل البحار على أصبع، أو يجعل الجبال على أصبع، راجع آخر كتاب التوحيد في هذا… إلى أن ذكر خمسة أصابع… نعم، نثبت الأصابع لله عز وجل.”
English translation:
“Yes, look at the end of Kitab al-Tawhid. That Allah, Mighty and Majestic, rolls up the seven heavens and the seven earths with His two Hands, or places the seas upon a finger, or places the mountains upon a finger. Refer to the end of Kitab al-Tawhid on this… until he mentioned five fingers… Yes, we affirm the fingers for Allah, Mighty and Majestic.” -Shaykh Al-Fawzan’
What are the Salafi (Athari) basing their theology on?
They are basing upon the statement of a Jewish scholar (al-ḥabr), where the Blessed Prophet (saw) laughed at what he said and then quoted a verse from the Qur’an in rebuke. However, due to their bizarre theology that relies heavily upon statements from Jews they have taken it as an evidence in regard to a grave matter!
“And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption (probablistic), and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” (Qur’an 53:28)
“O humanity! Eat from what is lawful and good on the earth and do not follow Satan’s footsteps. He is truly your sworn enemy. He only incites you to commit evil and indecency, and to claim against Allah what you do not know.” (Qur’an 2:168-169)
What is the source of this discord among the various shayks of this Salafi sect?
Dear readers this is crucial. Pay close attention to the following information. We want you to note the details.
Narrated `Abdullah:
A (Jewish) Rabbi came to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and he said, “O Muhammed! We learn that Allah will put all the heavens on one finger, and the earths on one finger, and the trees on one finger, and the water and the dust on one finger, and all the other created beings on one finger. Then He will say, ‘I am the King.’ Thereupon the Prophet (ﷺ) smiled so that his pre-molar teeth became visible, and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi. Then Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) recited: ‘They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him.’ (39.67)
A man from the People of the Book came to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and said: O Abu al-Qasim, God holds the heavens on one finger, the earths on one finger, the trees and the soil on one finger, and the creatures on one finger, then He says: I am the King, I am the King. I saw the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, laugh until his molars were visible, then he recited: {They have not appraised God with true appraisal} [Al-An’am: 91]
The [الأنعام: 91] reference in the Qur’an in the above quoted text is an editorial insertion by dorar.net—not part of the hadith wording itself. It is the website’s own cross-reference, added to tell the reader where they think the verse comes from.
The discrepencies between the two reports.
The Questioner: Who came to the Blessed Prophet (saw)?
“A (Jewish) Rabbi” — حَبْرٌ مِنَ الأَحْبَارِ or “A man from the People of the Book” — رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ
How does the questioner address the Blessed Prophet (saw)?
“O Muhammed!” — يَا مُحَمَّدُ or “O Abu al-Qasim!” — يَا أَبَا الْقَاسِمِ
This is also reflected here:
“Muhammed, or Abu al-Qasim.” Showing the uncertainty of the transmitter as well as the fluidity of the text.
The description of Allah (swt) putting/holding the creation.
4811: Lists heavens → earths → trees → water and dust(combined) → all other created beings. Five categories.
7415: Lists heavens → earths → trees AND soil (combined) → creatures. Four categories.
2786a: Lists heavens → earths → mountains and trees (combined)→ water and moist soil (combined) → rest of creation. Five categories.
Minor difference in wording: “put” (4811) vs. “holds” (7415)
What does Allah (swt) actually say?
Then He will say, ‘I am the King.’” (once)
“Then He says: ‘I am the King, I am the King.’” (twice — repeated)
How Much of the Qur’anic verse was recited?
Full verse: “They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him.”
Partial verse: “They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal” — {وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ}
Qur’an 39:67 (full verse)
Qur’an 6:91 (partial quote) ?
Both verses contain the phrase “وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ” — but they are in different surahs and have different full contexts. This could be a way that the narrators shortened the hadith.
The narrator’s framing.
“Thereupon the Prophet smiled… and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi. Then Allah’s Messenger recited…”
“I saw the Prophet laugh… then he recited…”
Analysis.
4811: The narrator inserts an interpretive comment (“that was the confirmation of the Rabbi”) before mentioning the recitation.
7415: The narrator simply reports what he saw and heard: the Prophet laughed, then recited. No interpretation.
The critical phrase: “In confirmation of the Rabbi.”
“and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi” — تَصْدِيقًا لِقَوْلِ الْحَبْرِ
NOT PRESENT — no equivalent phrase
Prima Qur’an comments:
This is a very crucial and important point.
Both websites are quoting from two different hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari. However sunnah.com also has the exact same transmission and wording as that found as the hadith used at dorar.net.
Narrated `Abdullah:
A man from the people of the scripture came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, “O Abal-Qasim! Allah will hold the Heavens upon a Finger, and the Earth on a Finger and the land on a Finger, and all the creation on a Finger, and will say, ‘I am the King! I am the King!’ ” I saw the Prophet (after hearing that), smiling till his premolar teeth became visible, and he then recited: — ‘No just estimate have they made of Allah such as due to him… (39.67)
A Jew came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, “O Muhammad! Allah will hold the heavens on a Finger, and the mountains on a Finger, and the trees on a Finger, and all the creation on a Finger, and then He will say, ‘I am the King.’ ” On that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) smiled till his premolar teeth became visible, and then recited:– ‘No just estimate have they made of Allah such as due to him….(39.67) `Abdullah added: Allah’s Apostle smiled (at the Jew’s statement) expressing his wonder and belief in what was said.
The crucial part of the Arabic text which is not translated into English:
قَالَ يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ وَزَادَ فِيهِ فُضَيْلُ بْنُ عِيَاضٍ عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ عَبِيدَةَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ فَضَحِكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَعَجُّبًا وَتَصْدِيقًا لَهُ
English translation:
Yahya ibn Sa’id said: Fudail ibn ‘Iyad added to it, from Mansur, from Ibrahim, from ‘Abidah, from ‘Abdullah: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) smiled out of amazement and in confirmation of him.”
The Blessed Prophet (saw) rejects the stament of the Jewish Man (Rabbi or not)
What is the evidence?
Now, without getting into the chains of transmission let us just take this phrase: “and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi“ as established.
What does this mean? That is not the statement of the Blessed Prophet (saw). That is the statement of a narrator or sub narrator.
The phrase “in confirmation of” claims to know why the Blessed Prophet (saw) laughed. It asserts that his inner intention was to confirm the rabbi’s statement.
This is a claim about the unseen (ghayb). No Companion, no narrator, and certainly no later transmitter has access to the Prophet’s (saw) internal thought process unless the Prophet (saw) himself stated it. The Prophet (saw) did not say “I am laughing to confirm what you said.” He simply laughed and then recited the verse.
The second evidence.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.’ “
This is a clear prohibition. The Prophet (saw) instructed his followers not to confirm what the People of the Book said. If the Prophet himself had then “confirmed” the rabbi’s statement, he would be doing the exact opposite of what he commanded his community to do. This is a logical contradiction that cannot stand.
The third evidence.
The verse itself says:
وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ-“And they did not appraise Allah with true appraisal”
“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) –Sahih International (Athari’s fav translation after Muhammed Muhsin Khan & Muhammed Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali)
This verse:
Rebukes those who fail to appraise Allah properly.
Replaces the rabbi’s finger-by-finger image with a total, simultaneous grasp.
Declares Allah exalted above what they associate with Him — which includes the anthropomorphic image the rabbi just presented.
So the Prophet’s recitation was a corrective, not a confirmation. The phrase taṣdīqan lahu (“in confirmation of him”) is a narrator’s insertion. One that those who fell victim to anthropomorphism sized upon.
They turned a rebuke into an endorsement!
The broader usage of the word “hand” in the Qur’an reinforces this:
“Be patient over what they say, and remember Our servant, David, the possessor of many hands; he was one who repeatedly turned back [to Us].” (Qur’an 38:17)
Plural in Arabic begins with three and not two! So, at the very least David had three hands. However, notice something from the following site:
It is unanimous that they all translate ‘many hands’ as strength! Even the Salafi/Athari/Saudi translations do! Even the translation that gives us the most literal word for word meaning possible was too shy to translate David as having many hands.
“Be patient over what they say and remember Our servant, David, the possessor of strength; indeed, he was one who repeatedly turned back [to Allah ].” (Qur’an 38:17 Sahih International)
“Be patient (O Muhammed SAW) of what they say, and remember Our slave Dawood (David), endued with power. Verily, he was ever oft-returning in all matters and in repentance (toward Allah).” (Qur’an 38:17 Muhsin Khan & Muhammed Al Hilal)
If you would like to explore more on issues in regard to aqidah(creed) and theology you may be interested in the following:
They will reply, ‘We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah.’ It will be said, ‘You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What: do you want (now)?’ They will say, ‘We want You to provide us with water.’ It will be said to them, ‘Drink,’ and they will fall down in Hell (instead). When there remain only those who used to worship Allah (Alone), both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, it will be said to them, ‘What keeps you here when all the people have gone?’ They will say, ‘We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, ‘Let every nation follow what they used to worship,’ and now we are waiting for our Lord.’ Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’ and they will say, ‘You are our Lord.’ And none will speak to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, ‘Do you know any sign by which you can recognize Him?’ They will say. ‘The Shin,’ and so Allah will then uncover His Shin whereupon every believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation. These people will try to prostrate but their backs will be rigid like one piece of a wood (and they will not be able to prostrate). Then the bridge will be laid across Hell.” We, the companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! What is the bridge?’
“Also among the narrations that contradict the verses of the Qur’an is that on the Day of Resurrection, people will be gathered on one plain. Then it will be said: then every nation will be commanded to follow what it used to worship. So the worshippers of the sun will follow the sun.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
“I don’t know where she is, the sun?! To protect the sun? Because the sun will be rolled up, so I don’t know who will protect the sun a second time. But the worshippers of the sun will follow the sun, and the worshippers of the moon will follow the moon. So each will follow what he used to worship.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
And this nation will remain, among them its hypocrites. Then Allah will come to them in a form other than the one in which they saw Him the first time — and in another narration, the one by which they knew Him the first time — and He will say to them, “What are you waiting for?” They will say, “We are waiting for our Lord; we will not leave our place until our Lord comes to us.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
“Then He will say, “I am your Lord.” They will say, “We seek refuge in Allah from you; you are not our Lord. We will not leave until our Lord comes to us.” Then He will go away from them, then come to them in another form and say to them, “I am your Lord.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
“In another narration, He says to them, “Is there a sign between you and Him?” They say, “Yes, the shin, the shin.” So He will uncover His shin for them, and they will all fall prostrate except those who did not pray in this world, for they will be prevented from prostrating. And this is His saying, the Most High: “On the Day when the shin shall be uncovered and they shall be called to prostrate, but they shall not be able.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
“This hadith I mean, it is more invalid than to be invalidated. And defining the known is not from the unknown.” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
“First, attributing coming and going invalidates the divinity of Allah entirely! Because Ibrahim what did he say when the star set and the sun set? He said, “I do not love those that set.” Every god that disappears and appears this cannot be a god. “I do not love those that set.” And a god in this hadith who disappears and appears is not a god. What is Allah?” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
“Then He has parts . He uncovers a shin. If you did not know, it is enough hmm. “On the Day when the shin shall be uncovered.” Okay, what was the barrier between Him and the shin? Is it an attribute of Allah, or something other than Allah? This is an issue. I mean, a dialectical, philosophical, theological matter.”-Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
“But this which was uncovered? He did not say “so the shin is uncovered” or “so His shin is uncovered” like this. Okay, this which was uncovered, is it from Allah, an attribute of Allah’s attributes, or something additional? What is this which was uncovered?” -Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
“And the shin. This means they do not know His face, they know His shin? They did not know Him by His face, they know Him by His shin? Something strange, this. And they saw Him the first time. Where did they see Him the first time?”-Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
“And in reality, Allah said, “No vision can grasp Him. No vision can grasp Him, but He grasps all vision, and He is the Subtle, the Aware.” And the discussion ended. The hadith is sealed on this topic — the topic of vision. It was cooked until it was done, until it burned. It needs no words about it. So it is impossible for Allah, glorified and exalted, to ever be seen, absolutely.”-Shaykh Masoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali
The Shaykh’s Critique: Point by Point
The Shaykh is analyzing the famous “hadith of the shin” / حديث الرؤية) and showing how it contradicts the Qur’an on multiple levels. Here is the breakdown:
The Narration Itself (Summary of the Hadith Being Critiqued)
The hadith describes the Day of Resurrection as follows:
People are gathered on one plain.
Every nation is told to follow what it used to worship.
Sun-worshippers follow the sun; moon-worshippers follow the moon.
The Muslim nation remains, including its hypocrites.
Allah comes to them in a form other than the one they first saw Him in.
They reject Him, saying: “We seek refuge in Allah from you — you are not our Lord.”
He leaves, then returns in a second form.
He says: “I am your Lord.”
They ask for a sign; He uncovers His shin.
They all prostrate except those who never prayed, who are prevented.
This is then linked to Qur’an 68:42: “On the day when it befalleth in earnest, and they are ordered to prostrate themselves but are not able.”
Point 2: The Sun Being “Rolled Up” Contradicts the Narration
The Shaykh’s argument:
The hadith says sun-worshippers will follow the sun on Judgment Day.
But the Qur’an says the sun will be “rolled up” (كُوِّرَتْ) — Qur’an 81:1.
So how can anyone “follow” the sun if it has already been extinguished/collapsed?
This is an internal contradiction in the narration itself.
Point 3: Coming and Going Invalidates Divinity
The Shaykh’s argument:
The hadith describes Allah as coming, leaving, then coming again in different forms.
But Ibrahim (Abraham) said about the star, moon, and sun when they set: “I do not love those that set” (Qur’an 6:76).
A god who disappears and reappears cannot be God.
If Allah “goes away” and “comes back,” He is subject to change, absence, and limitation — all of which contradict divine perfection.
Therefore, the very structure of the narration destroys Allah’s divinity.
Point 4: The “Shin” (Sāq) A Philosophical and Theological Problem
The Shaykh’s argument:
The hadith says Allah will “uncover His shin” as a sign.
The Shaykh asks: What was the barrier between them and the shin? Was the shin hidden? If so, why?
If the shin is an attribute of Allah, then Allah has body parts. Which contradicts His transcendence.
If the shin is something other than Allah, then what is it? And why would uncovering it serve as a sign of identity?
The people couldn’t recognize Him by His face, but they recognize Him by His shin? This is absurd.
The Qur’an says: “No vision can grasp Him, but He grasps all vision; and He is the Subtle, the Aware”(Qur’an 6:103).
This verse definitively closes the door on seeing Allah in any form.
Point 5: “Where Did They See Him the First Time?”
The Shaykh’s argument:
The hadith assumes they saw Allah before — “in the form they first saw Him.”
But when did they see Him the first time?
If seeing Allah is impossible (Qur’an 6:103), then the entire premise of the hadith collapses.
The narration is built on an assumption that itself contradicts the Qur’an.
Point 6: The Topic of Ru’yah (Seeing Allah) Is Settled
The Shaykh’s conclusion:
The hadith has been “cooked until it burned” meaning: it has been analyzed to death.
The Qur’an is explicit: Allah cannot be seen, ever, absolutely.
No further discussion is needed on this point.
The hadith is “more invalid than to be invalidated” — i.e., it is so clearly false that it doesn’t even need a formal refutation.
Summary Table of Contradictions
#
The Hadith Says
The Qur’an / Reason Says
Contradiction
1
Sun-worshippers follow the sun
The sun will be rolled up (81:1)
How can they follow something already destroyed?
2
Allah comes, leaves, returns
“I do not love those that set” (6:76)
A god who disappears is not God
3
Allah uncovers His shin
“No vision can grasp Him” (6:103)
Allah has no body parts; He cannot be seen
4
They saw Him the first time
When? Seeing Allah is impossible
False premise
5
They recognize Him by His shin
They couldn’t recognize His face
Absurd and degrading
The Shaykh’s Core Thesis
The hadith of the shin (and similar narrations about seeing Allah) are fabricated or corrupted because:
They contradict explicit Qur’anic verses.
They describe Allah withhuman-like attributes(body parts, movement, change).
They undermine tawhid (the absolute oneness and transcendence of Allah).
The Qur’an’s statement “No vision can grasp Him” is final and definitive — no hadith can override it.
The Shaykh is pointing to four Qur’anic verses that he says the hadith contradicts:
1. Qur’an 81:1 (Sūrat al-Takwīr) — “When the sun is wrapped up”
This verse states that on the Day of Resurrection, the sun will be extinguished and folded away. The Shaykh argues this contradicts the hadith’s claim that sun-worshippers will “follow the sun.” If the sun is already destroyed, how can anyone follow it?
2. Qur’an 6:76 (Sūrat al-An’ām) — “I do not love those that set”
This is from the story of Ibrahim (Abraham), who declared that a god who disappears (sets) cannot be Allah. The Shaykh argues this directly contradicts the hadith’s description of Allah “coming and going” in different forms. A deity subject to absence and change is, by Ibrahim’s own criterion, not divine.
This verse states that eyes cannot perceive Allah, while He perceives all vision. The Shaykh argues this absolutely closes the door on any possibility of seeing Allah. Whether in this world or the next. The entire premise of the hadith (that people will see Allah, recognize Him by His shin, etc.) is therefore impossible.
4. Qur’an 68:42 (Sūrat al-Qalam) — “On the day when it befalleth in earnest, and they are ordered to prostrate themselves but are not able”
Look at how various disparate English translations render the text:
The hadith uses this verse to justify its claim that Allah will literally “uncover His shin.” The Shaykh argues this is a gross misinterpretation. The verse is an Arabic idiom meaning a day of extreme hardship and severity. It is not a description of Allah’s body parts.
Look at: https://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=68&verse=42#(68:42:1) The original Arabic word ساق which some translations render as ‘shin’ is in indefinite noun form. an-nakirah (النَّكِرَة). That is that it is not even a reference to Allah! That cannont be underscored enough!
If you enjoyed this article you may find the following articles useful:
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, their reward will be Hell—where they will stay indefinitely.Allah will be displeased with them, condemn them, and will prepare for them a tremendous punishment.” (Qur’an 4:93)
﷽
The following article is a translation of the wonderful presentation by the respected Shaykh
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and prayers and peace be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers, our master Muhammed, and upon his family and his righteous, guided companions. To proceed:
Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you.
Introduction: The Allegations Answered Once and For All.
My brothers, in this article we continue responding to a persistent allegation that the Ibadis declare the Companions to be disbelievers, that we excommunicate them from Islam. This accusation is repeated endlessly by those who either misunderstand our creed or deliberately misrepresent it.
As we have said before, this attack against the Ibadis is the result of these people’s ignorance regarding the principle of loyalty and disavowal (al-walāyah wa’l-barā’ah) among the Ibadis. Likewise, these people are trying to conceal what they themselves call the faults of some of the Companions. Namely, the events that occurred during the civil strife (fitnah). These events are what led those scholars to declare disavowal from some of the Companions.
These people are not only ignorant of the principle of loyalty and disavowal, but they are also trying to conceal and avoid discussing these events.
When these people throw this accusation at the Ibadis, they simply say directly: “The Ibadis declare the Companions disbelievers,” without discussing the reasons. There are reasons that led those scholars to declare disavowal regarding those Companions.
What Our Opponents Say: Documenting the Accusation
Let us document exactly what our opponents claim. Listen carefully to their own words:
“Look, regardless of my disagreement with them, they declare ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān to be a disbeliever, and they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, and Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī, and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Yet despite that, they do not openly state it. Rather, you find this in their major books. You find it in their books. They also have an element of taqiyyah (dissimulation). Even so, I do not know whether this expression will be understood properly or not, but I respect in them the absence of sectarianism. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. This is their creed: they declare the Prophet’s Companions disbelievers. Yes, we declare Muʿāwiyah a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare Marwān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿUthmān a disbeliever, but we still narrate from him. We declare ʿAlī and al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn disbelievers, but we still narrate from al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn. This is the Ibadi belief.”
Another says:
“Therefore we are not surprised by this stance, for the position of the early Ibadis regarding the Companions—especially the two caliphs—is contrary to the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamāʿah. It included criticism, takfīr, and false disavowal from the best of this nation. As for the other two Rightly Guided Caliphs, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān and ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may Allah be pleased with them, the Khawārij, including the Ibadis, remained deeply astray concerning them, attributing to them things from which Allah declared them innocent, and speaking grievously against them.”
And another:
“They called themselves the people of truth and uprightness, but they are the people of falsehood and misguidance. Hatred toward Ahl al-Sunnah. Let me add even more: they declare ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and ʿUthmān disbelievers and also al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, of course. As for Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, he exited Islam through its widest gates.”
As you have heard, these people claim that the Ibadis declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say that the Ibadis do not openly state this and that they practice a kind of taqiyyah. They say this is our creed.
The Reality: No Taqiyyah, No Doctrine of Takfīr
The reality is that this is not our creed, nor is there any taqiyyah. Rather, it is their ignorance. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension (wuqūf) among the Ibadis.
One of these opponents commented on an interview with one of our shaykhs. The interviewer asked the shaykh about Sayyidunā Abū Bakr and Sayyidunā ʿUmar, then afterwards about Sayyidunā ʿUthmān. They claim that he stuttered. The reality is that the shaykh did not stutter. Rather, he was avoiding reopening the fitnah and the events that occurred among the Companions. He did not want to stir up these matters, so he avoided them. Yet they claim he hesitated and faltered.
The shaykh did not hesitate or stutter. He answered. The problem is not with the shaykh the problem is with them. They are ignorant of the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. Anyone who understands this doctrine would know that the shaykh did answer the question.
The shaykh did not want to bring out what is found in their own books regarding the events that occurred among the Companions. He was avoiding this issue.
The shaykh said according to the meaning of his words that there were those who had one opinion and others who had another opinion. This is the reality. The issue returns to the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension. There are people with one opinion and others with another. That is the answer. The shaykh cannot specify which of those opinions is correct because the matter returns to our doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
They want the shaykh simply to say: “Disbeliever” or “not a disbeliever.” But the matter is not that simple. This black-and-white approach belongs to them. The shaykh is not obligated to adopt their methodology, nor are the Ibadis obligated to adopt their methodology in these issues. We Ibadis have our own methodology and doctrine: the doctrine of loyalty, disavowal, and suspension.
Now, these people claim that we declare ʿUthmān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and a group of the Prophet’s Companions to be disbelievers. Then they say we do not openly state it and that we practice taqiyyah. Then they say this is the creed of the Ibadis.
The reality is that there is neither taqiyyah nor a doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers. Declaring the Companions disbelievers is not a doctrine among the Ibadis. We do not have a chapter in our creed titled: “The Ibadi doctrine of declaring the Companions disbelievers.” This is their ignorance.
If we focus on their words and these responses and clips they produced, we find them constantly repeating the term takfīr, the term kufr. They say: “They declared disbelief,”“acts of disbelief,”“so-and-so is a disbeliever.”
One of them even distorted the shaykh’s words in that interview, lied, and played with expressions. Anyone who watches the interview and his commentary will find that he distorted the shaykh’s words and attributed to him statements he never made. The shaykh never uttered the term takfīr. Yet this man attributes to the Ibadis things they never said.
Did Ibadis invent using the term Kufr to apply to some of the companions actions??
Let us establish this. Let us speak and cite from the books that our opponents use themselves. We will not use Ibadi sources.
The Messenger is addressing whom in the above hadith? He is addressing the Companions.
If it is inconceivable that the companions would engage in acts that could be deemed kufr the Blessed Prophet (saw) would not have given them advise that would be redundant.
The Blessed Prophet (saw) also said:
al-Nabiyya ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam qāla: “Sibābu al-muslimi fusūq, wa qitāluhu kufr.”
“Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.” < Sunni translation.
“Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is ingratitude.” < Ibadi translation.
This is another ḥadīth proving the usage of the term kufr for actions committed by Muslims against other Muslims.
What Sunni Scholars Say About this Kufr
Now let us see what these people’s own scholars say regarding these ḥadīths and the term kufr.
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn, one of the most revered contemporary Sunni scholars, says in his commentary on Riyāḍ al-Ṣāliḥīn, volume 4, page 70:
“Then the author may Allah have mercy on him mentioned the hadith of Jarīr ibn ʿAbdillāh al-Bajalī (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him during the Farewell Pilgrimage: “Make the people listen” meaning: silence them so that they may hear what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is saying.” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
“Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned: “Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking the necks of one another.” The word “striking” (yaḍribu) here is in the nominative case (marfūʿ), and it is not permissible to place it in the jussive case (majzūm) as though it were the answer to the prohibition; rather, it is in the nominative because it is a circumstantial clause (ḥāl). Meaning: do not revert to disbelief after me in the state of some of you striking the necks of others. And in this there is evidence that the fighting of believers against one another is disbelief (kufr).” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
“And this hadith is supported by his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness (fusūq), and fighting him is disbelief (kufr).” However, it is a disbelief that does not expel one from the religion (millah). And the evidence that it does not expel one from the religion is the statement of Allah the Most High: “And if two parties of the believers fight one another, then make peace between them” up to His statement: “The believers are but brothers, so make peace between your brothers.” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn
“And in this there is evidence that the fighting of believers against one another is disbelief (kufr)” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn.
And notice he says:
“However, it is a disbelief that does not expel one from the religion (millah).” -Muhammed ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn.
So what exactly is your problem with some statements in some Ibadi sources? That such and such copmanions did actions that amount to kufr. This is for certain you will never find in any Ibadi sources where we have said that Ali, Uthman or Muaviya are mushrik or polytheist. Then this would be a problem.
However, you know what has happened to soften these Sunni positions in some English translations? They translate it as: “This indicates that believers fighting one constitutes some disbelief.”
Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
In Al-Thamar al-Mustatāb fī Fiqh al-Sunnah wa al-Kitāb, page 53, al-Albānī says:
“And on the Day of Resurrection he will be with Qārūn, Firʿawn, Hāmān, and Ubayy ibn Khalaf) (Muslim, Aḥmad, al-Ṭabarānī, al-Ḥākim in his Ṣaḥīḥ) And its chain of narration is good (ḥasan)”- Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
“But his disbelief is not of the type that Allah cannot forgive and admit him to Paradise; rather, that is possible. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Five prayers Allah has prescribed upon the servants. Whoever comes with them, not wasting any of them out of disdain for their right, then he has a covenant with Allah that He will admit him to Paradise. And whoever does not come with them, then he has no covenant with Allah — if He wills He punishes him, and if He wills He admits him to Paradise.” (Mālik, Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasāʾī, Muslim, al-Majmūʿ, Aḥmad, with an authentic chain).” -Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
“And know that many hadiths have come in which disbelief (kufr) is attributed to one who commits one of the major sins; indeed in some of them it is [called] disbelief and that he is a disbeliever. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.” And he said: “No man claims a father other than his own while knowing it, except that he has committed disbelief.” And: “Two things in people are disbelief in them: attacking lineage and wailing over the dead.” And: “Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking the necks of one another.” And: “Whichever slave flees from his masters has committed disbelief until he returns to them.” And: “Whoever says to his brother, ‘O disbeliever,’ it returns upon one of them. If it is as he said, then so; otherwise it returns upon him.” And all of these hadiths are in the Ṣaḥīḥ. So when we know that disbelief has degrees, and that some of it does not cause its doer to remain forever in the Fire, then there is no need at that point for reinterpretation from one whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) named.” -Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
“Know that many ḥadīths have come attributing kufr to those who commit major sins … among them: ‘Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr’… and ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’ All these ḥadīths are authentic. So if we know that kufr has levels (darajāt), and that some forms do not eternally condemn a person to Hell, then there is no need for reinterpretation.” –Muhammed Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī
“He will be punished in the Fire if Allah does not forgive him his sins; and for this reason some said: he is a believer through his faith, a sinner through his grave sin, or a believer deficient in faith. And those among Ahl al-Sunnah and the Muʿtazilah who do not call him a believer say: the name of wickedness (fusūq) negates the name of faith, because of His saying: “How evil is the name of wickedness after faith” [al-Ḥujurāt: 11], and His saying: “Is one who is a believer like one who is a sinner?” [al-Sajdah: 18]. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.” –Ibn Taymiyyah
“And upon this principle, some people have with them a branch of disbelief, and they also have faith. And upon this came reports from the Prophet (saw) in naming many sins as disbelief, even though the one doing them may have with him more than a speck of faith, so he will not remain forever in the Fire. Such as his saying: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief,” and his saying: “Do not revert to disbelief after me, striking the necks of one another.” And this is widely transmitted from the Prophet (saw) in the Ṣaḥīḥ through numerous chains. For he commanded during the Farewell Pilgrimage that it be proclaimed among the people. So he named those who strike the necks of one another without right as disbelievers, and he named this act disbelief. And despite this, Allah the Most High said: “And if two parties of the believers fight one another, then make peace between them” up to His saying: “The believers are but brothers” [al-Ḥujurāt: 9-10]. So He clarified that these did not exit from faith entirely, but there is in them what is disbelief namely this trait as some of the Companions said: disbelief below disbelief. Likewise his saying: “Whoever says to his brother, ‘O disbeliever,’ then it returns upon one of them.” For he called him his brother at the time of the saying, and he informed that one of them has incurred it. So if one of them had exited from Islam entirely, he would not be his brother; rather, there is in him disbelief.” –Ibn Taymiyyah
“If hatred is for worldly reasons only, then this is lesser disbelief and does not reach major disbelief. Hence the Prophet ﷺ said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.’”
Then on page 852 he says:
“The fact that some Companions fought other companions involves entering into traits of disbelief. Therefore he (saw) said: ‘Do not return after me as disbelievers.’” – Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh
ولهذا قال النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام: لا ترجعوا بعدي كفاراً يضرب بعضكم أعناق بعض. وكون بعض الصحابة قاتل بعضاً آخر هذا فيه دخول في خصال الكفار، لهذا قال: لا ترجعوا بعدي…
He then says this disbelief may be lesser or greater disbelief depending on the nature of the hatred.
«ولا شك أنه قد يكون الباعث على ذلك البغض والكره، لأن القتال يكون معه ما في النفس، لكن مع تقاتل الصحابة فإن بعضهم لم يسب بعضاً يعني بلسانه، والنفس قد يوجد فيها ما لا يسلم من البشر. فإذا الكفر هنا قد يكون كفراً أصغر وقد يكون كفراً أكبر بحسب نوع البغض…»
“And there is no doubt that the motive for that may be hatred and aversion, because fighting is accompanied by what is in the soul. However, despite the fighting among the Companions, some of them did not insult others. Meaning with their tongues. Though the soul may contain what no human being is free from. Thus, the disbelief here may be a lesser disbelief or may be a greater disbelief, according to the nature of their hatred.” -Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh
In his book: Al-Ruwāt al-Thiqāt al-Mutakallam Fīhim bimā Lā Yūjib Raddahum on page 23 he says:
“In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate”
“This is a beneficial chapter from the words of the Imām, the Ḥāfiẓ, the critic Abū ʿAbdillāh Muḥammed Ibn al-Dhahabī may Allah have mercy on him. He said: I have written in my work al-Mīzān a large number of reliable narrators whom al-Bukhārī, Muslim, or others used as evidence, because the name of one of them had been recorded in the works of criticism (al-jarḥ). I did not include them due to any weakness in them according to me, but rather so that this may be known. And a reliable narrator concerning whom there is a statement from one who is not to be given any weight would still pass by me. And if we were to open this door upon ourselves, a number of the Companions, the Successors, and the Imāms would enter into it. For some of the Companions declared others disbelievers based on interpretation and Allah is pleased with all of them and forgives them for they are not infallible. And their disagreement and fighting did not diminish them in our eyes at all. And it was because of the Khawārij’s declaring them disbelievers that their narrations declined; indeed the speech of the Khawārij and the Shīʿah concerning them became [a mark against them].” –Al-Dhahabī
“If we opened this door for ourselves, many Companions, Followers, and imams would enter into it. Some Companions declared others disbelievers based on interpretation.”
Al-Dhahabī affirms takfīr occurring among the Companions themselves based on interpretive ijtihād, not because the target of takfīr had actually left Islam.
Prima Qur’an comments: In fact in a recent back and forth on Twitter (X) the Sunni (traditional) beat a hasty retreat when it was asked point blank of them:
What did Dhahabi mean by the companions called each other kafir? فَبَعْضُ الصَّحَابَةِ كَفَّرَ بَعْضُهُمْ بِتَأْوِيلٍ مَا
So if Dhahabi means when the companions called each other kafir that it did not entail expulsion from the millat of Islam you have to wonder what your real problem is with us? This is what is meant when you find this in Ibadi books. No one believes Ali or Uthman left Islam.
Imam al-Nawawī
Imam al-Nawawī said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim:
Chapter: Clarification of the statement of the Prophet (saw): “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief”
64 Muḥammed ibn Bakkār ibn al-Rayyān and ʿAwn ibn Sallām narrated to us, both saying: Muḥammed ibn Ṭalḥah narrated to us. And Muḥammed ibn al-Muthannā narrated to us: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī narrated to us: Sufyān narrated to us. And Muḥammed ibn al-Muthannā narrated to us: Muḥammed ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us: Shuʿbah narrated to us. All of them from Zubayd, from Abū Wāʾil, from ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.” Zubayd said: So I said to Abū Wāʾil: Did you hear it from ʿAbdullāh narrating it from the Messenger of Allah, (saw)? He said: Yes. And in the hadith of Shuʿbah there is not the statement of Zubayd to Abū Wāʾil. Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah and Ibn al-Muthannā narrated to us, from Muḥammed ibn Jaʿfar, from Shuʿbah, from Manṣūr. And Ibn Numayr narrated to us: ʿAffān narrated to us: Shuʿbah narrated to us, from al-Aʿmash, both of them from Abū Wāʾil, from ʿAbdullāh, from the Prophet, (saw) the like of it.
Imam al-Nawawī puts his Ash’ari (Murji’ah) spin. However, some important points come through.
Chapter: Clarification of the statement of the Prophet (saw) : “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is disbelief.”
“Insult (sabb) in the language means reviling and speaking about a person’s honor in a way that faults him. And wickedness (fisq) in the language means going out. And what is meant by it in the religious law is going out from obedience. As for the meaning of the hadith, insulting a Muslim without right is forbidden by the consensus of the Ummah, and the one who does it is a sinner (fāsiq), as the Prophet (saw) himinformed.”-Imam al-Nawawī
“As for fighting him without right, it does not make one a disbeliever with a disbelief that takes him out of the religion according to the people of truth, as we have presented in many places, unless he considers it lawful. So when this is established, several statements have been said regarding the interpretation of the hadith.” -Imam al-Nawawī
“The first: that it is concerning the one who considers it lawful. The second: that what is meant is the disbelief of ingratitude and the denial of the blessing and the brotherhood of Islam, not the disbelief of outright rejection. The third: that it leads to disbelief through its ill omen. The fourth: that it is like the deed of the disbelievers. And Allah knows best. Then, the apparent meaning of “fighting him” is the well-known combat. The Qāḍī said: It is possible that what is meant is disputing and defending. And Allah knows best.” –Imam al-Nawawī
Prima Qur’an: We will comment on Imam al-Nawawī puts his Ash’ari (Murji’ah) spin.
The interpretation of the Murji’ah/Ash’ari is:
If you kill a fellow a Muslim but you don’t believe that it is lawful to do so then it is not kufr.
We wonder if the companions who killed each other thought that what they were doing was lawful or unlawful?
If it was unlawful then they participated in the unlawful in masse.
Second. It is meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah. Hence, kufr ni’ama. Welcome to the Ibadi view! Though we do not subscribe to the Murji’ah/Ash’ari misunderstanding and misguidance.
Third. It leads to disbelief due to its evil consequences.
Fourth. It resembles the actions of disbelievers.
Summary of Sunni Scholarly Consensus on the above matter.
Scholar
Affirmation
Ibn Taymiyyah
Kufr has levels; “kufr less than kufr” exists; a person can have a branch of kufr while still having faith.
Al-Dhahabī
Some Companions declared other Companions disbelievers based on interpretation (ta’wīl).
Al-ʿUthaymīn
Believers fighting one another is kufr—but they remain believers.
Al-Albānī
Kufr has levels (darajāt); some forms do not eternally condemn to Hell.
Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh
Lesser disbelief exists and does not reach major disbelief.
al-Nawawī
Meant as ingratitude for blessings and brotherhood in Islam, not as disbelief in Allah
The Sunni Understanding of Qur’anic Reconciliation vindicates the Ibadis
Now we do not share thier misunderstanding of the verse. We are simplly based upon their understanding it vindicates our perspective.
Now we return to the Qur’anic verse that seals this matter.
The Sunnis translate the verse as:
“And if two groups of the believers fight each other…” (Qur’an 49:9)
Allah did not say: “If two groups, one of which has left Islam…” He said: “of the believers.”
Therefore:
Statement
Implication
Allah calls fighting groups believers
They have not left the millah of Islam.
The Prophet calls fighting a Muslim kufr
The act is kufr in the lesser sense.
Conclusion
Kufr in the ḥadīth and in Ibadi usage does not mean expulsion from Islam.
This understanding of kufr that we Ibadis have did not come out of thin air. Rather, this term is established and has a basis in the explicit words of the Blessed Prophet (saw) and the explicit text of the Qur’an.
The Prophet said: “Insulting a Muslim is wickedness and fighting him is kufr.” And he also said: “Do not return after me as disbelievers, striking the necks of one another.”
The question is: did the Companions strike one another’s necks? No rational person can deny that this happened during the fitnah.
The Ibadi Doctrinal Framework: Walāyah, Barā’ah, and Wuqūf
Now that we have established the legitimacy of the term kufr in its lesser sense, let us explain the actual Ibadi doctrine. The framework our opponents either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent.
The issues related to the stance on historical events (the Great Fitnah) are among the most intricate topics in Ibadi theology, and they have witnessed significant methodological development while preserving their theoretical foundations.
First: The Three Doctrinal Concepts
These concepts represent a “system of analogy” that defines a Muslim’s relationship with others based on behavior and actions:
Walāyah (Loyalty): This is love for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for every Muslim whose outward conduct is in accordance with Allah’s commands. It is of two types: general walāyah (for all believers) and specific walāyah (for those known for their righteousness).
Barā’ah (Disavowal): This is hatred for the sake of Allah, and it is obligatory for anyone who openly commits a major sin, persists in a wrong, or introduces something into the religion that contradicts its fundamental principles (from the perspective of the school of thought). It is not a “curse” or “insult,” but rather a severing of religious allegiance from the action or innovation.
Wuqūf (Suspension): This refers to refraining from judging someone’s loyalty or innocence due to unclear evidence, conflicting reports, or because the person was unaware of the events and not legally obligated to pass judgment on them.
A Detailed Overview of Positions Throughout the Ages
Stage 1: The Prophetic Period.
Prevailing Position: Innocence of the events and those responsible for them. Early Ibadis did not hold the Companions (as a whole) responsible for the fitnah in a way that condemned them.
Estimated Percentage: Let us guestimate and say 95% innocence. The overwhelming majority of early Ibadi scholars maintained that the Companions (as a whole) were not to be held blameworthy for the civil strife.
Even if we granted a theoretical 5% Allowance for disavowal
The remaining 5% allows for the possibility that some Companions, as human beings, may have committed acts prior to the fitnah that deserved punishment under the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is not a blanket condemnation of any Companion, nor is it specific to the events of the fitnah. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that Companions like all humans were not infallible (ma’sūm) and could commit individual sins for which the Qur’an and Sunnah prescribe accountability. This is not unique to Ibadis; Sunni scholars also acknowledge that Companions were not infallible and could commit sins, though they are generally considered righteous overall.
Examples: What is mentioned in the letters of Imam Jābir ibn Zayd (although his letters are characterized by piety) and what biographers have reported about the position of the people of Nahrawān towards ʿUthmān (due to the issue of protected areas and positions) and towards ʿAlī (due to the arbitration).
Logic: The position was directly political and doctrinal. Early Ibadis considered certain actions during the fitnah to be innovations, but they did not translate that into condemning the Companions as individuals. Rather, their barā’ah (disavowal) was directed at the actions and innovations, not at the persons as polytheist or as having left the millah of Islam.
Stage 2: Establishing and Remaining Silent (5th–13th centuries AH)
Prevailing Stance: Expressions of “remaining silent” began to appear explicitly.
Estimated Ratio: Let us guestimate a 50% disavowal (in educational texts) and 50% wuqūf (in practical application).
A well-known saying: Imam Abū Saʿīd al-Kadāmī (one of the leading scholars of the 4th century AH) said: “We do not disavow ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib or ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān unless we have definitive proof that necessitates it, and silence is safer.”
Logic: The principle of “scholarly integrity” began to emerge, whereby statements of disavowal were transmitted as part of the heritage, but remaining silent was practiced out of respect for the status of these Companions.
Contemporary Phase (14th century AH – Present Day)
Prevailing Stance: Remaining silent and accepting (the principle of good faith).
Estimated Percentage: Let us guestimate 90% wuqūf and acceptance, 10% disavowal (historical transmission only).
Statements of Scholars:
Shaykh Nūr al-Dīn al-Sālimī: Despite his adherence to the fundamentals, he opened the door to wuqūf for those who were unaware of the fitnah, saying: “You may abstain from judgment regarding the people of the qiblah, for Allah will not question you about what they did.”
His Eminence Shaykh Aḥmad bin Ḥamad al-Khalīlī (Grand Mufti of Oman): He always emphasizes the unity of the Ummah and purity of heart. In his lessons and writings, he prays for mercy upon all the Companions and affirms that historical differences should not divide Muslims today.
The Principle of Purity of Heart: This is the principle adopted by the Ibadi school today, meaning that the contemporary Muslim is not obligated to investigate the bloodshed of the Companions, and it is safer for him to meet Allah with a pure heart towards everyone.
Why Do Classical Texts Continue to Contain Statements of Disavowal?
The continued presence of these statements in books does not necessarily mean they are being implemented today. Rather, it stems from methodological reasons:
Scholarly Integrity: Ibadi scholars consider the books of the early scholars an inheritance that should not be censored or deleted. Instead, it should be transmitted as is, with explanations within its historical context.
Preserving Historical Memory: Transmitting these statements aims to explain why the Ibadis differed from others initially (the political and legal reasons for the revival), not to incite hatred.
Distinguishing Between “Statement” and “Religious Practice”: The statement of disavowal exists “intellectually” in the books as an interpretation by earlier scholars, but wuqūf and acceptance are what are practiced “religiously” and as acts of worship today.
Should One Take a Doctrinal Stance Regarding the People of Nahrawān?
This is a fundamental question within the school of thought, and the answer can be summarized as follows:
The Ibadi position on their predecessors: The Ibadis believe that the people of Nahrawān were “people of righteousness” and that their disavowal of ʿUthmān and ʿAlī was based on a legitimate interpretation of Islamic law, which they considered justified in their time, to protect the core of the faith (as they perceived it).
Are you obligated to disavow them as they did? No. The principle among the Ibadis is: “There is no blame on one who remains neutral.” A contemporary Muslim who refrains from judging ʿUthmān and ʿAlī, while simultaneously respecting the people of Nahrawān as scholars and predecessors, is not considered an “innovator” or “outside the school.”
Conclusion of the Doctrinal Section
There is no religious obligation within the Ibadi school that compels you to disavow any of the Companions today. The required doctrinal stance is loyalty to the believers and hatred of oppressors in general. However, regarding specific historical events, the best and safest course is to remain neutral. (Wuqūf)
Accordingly, the Ibadi approach today is one of unity, not division, whereby the Companions (including ʿUthmān and ʿAlī) are treated with respect as a general virtue, while the interpretations of the early scholars who took strong stances are also respected, and this is considered part of the history of scholarly interpretation that does not preclude present-day harmony.
The early Muhakkima who fought at Nahrawān were responding to their historical moment with their ijtihād. There is no obligation for a Muslim 1,300 years later to inherit the same specific judgments, especially when the evidentiary record is disputed among Muslims.
Kufr in the Ibadi School Does Not Expel from the Millah
Let us state this as clearly as possible:
Kufr in the Ibadi school is not something that takes one out of the millah of Islam.
This is the fundamental distinction that our opponents either cannot grasp or deliberately conceal.
When early Ibadi scholars used the term kufr regarding certain actions during the fitnah, they did not mean:
That the person had left the millah of Islam.
That their shahādah was invalidated.
That they were forever condemned to Hell.
Rather, they meant precisely what Ibn Taymiyyah meant when he wrote “a person may possess a branch of disbelief while also possessing faith” and “kufr less than kufr.” They meant what al-Albānī meant when he wrote “kufr has levels.”
They meant that the action—fighting a fellow Muslim unjustly, or introducing innovation into the religion—is an act of kufr in the lesser sense: a grave violation that necessitates barā’ah (disavowal) but not the complete negation of faith.
Even in how we understand the word كفر or kufr in Arabic. This ensures us that we have a creed that is based upon the Qur’an, the primary source of Islam, the revelation Allah sent to his Blessed Prophet (saw). Allah (swt) never defined كفر as exit from the religion of Islam. This is concept is theologically superimposed upon the word. The proof of this is evident. In light of the clear text from the Prophetic Sunnah, Sunni scholars have provided an array of understandings and levels concering the word.
Why the Accusation of Taqiyyah for the Ibadi Is False
Our opponents also claim that we, the Ibadis practice taqiyyah—that we conceal our “true” belief that the Companions are disbelievers.
This is false for several reasons:
There is no concealment. We are explaining our doctrine openly in this very article, citing our sources and demonstrating our distinctions.
Wuqūf is not taqiyyah.Taqiyyah is concealing one’s true belief out of fear of harm. Wuqūf is a principled theological position: suspending judgment when evidence is unclear or when the matter does not affect one’s own religious obligation.
The accusation is ironic. Our opponents accuse us of taqiyyah while ignoring that we openly state: “We do not declare the Companions disbelievers in the sense of expulsion from Islam.” What are we supposedly concealing?
The burden of proof is on them. They claim we secretly believe something. But they provide no evidence—only misinterpretation of early texts that they refuse to read in light of their own understanding of Qur’an (49:9) and the distinction between lesser and major kufr.
The Rhetorical Question Our Opponents Cannot Answer
Let us conclude with a question for those who accuse the Ibadis of excommunicating the Companions:
According to their own undersatnding of Qur’an 49:9, when two groups of believers fight each other, are they still believers or not?
They cannot say “no” without contradicting the Qur’an.
And according to your own ḥadīth in Bukhārī and Muslim, fighting a Muslim is kufr. So how do you reconcile the Qur’an calling fighting believers ‘believers’ and the ḥadīth calling fighting ‘kufr’?
The only possible reconciliation is that kufr here does not mean apostasy. It means a lesser kufr, a grave sin, an act of major transgression but not expulsion from the millah of Islam.
That is exactly what we Ibadis have been saying all along.
This is not meant as a ‘gotcha’ for the Sunnis, but a call for sincere reflection, bridge-building, and moving forward as an Ummah
Final Summary
Accusation
Reality
“Ibadis declare Companions to be disbelievers (apostates).”
Ibadis use kufr in the lesser sense (kufr ni’ma), as affirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Albānī, al-ʿUthaymīn, and others.
“Ibadis declare companions to be mushrik (polytheist).”
Ibadis have not declared a single companion to be a mushrik.
“Ibadis practice taqiyyah to hide their true beliefs.”
There is no concealment. Wuqūf (suspension) is a principled theological position, not taqiyyah.
“Ibadis invented the term kufr for Muslims.”
The term comes from how Allah defined it in the Qur’an.
“Ibadis are Khawārij who excommunicate Muslims.”
Ibadis distinguish themselves from extremist Khawārij precisely by affirming that kufr does not always entail expulsion from the millah.
“Contemporary Ibadis still declare the Companions disbelievers.”
The contemporary Ibadi position is overwhelmingly wuqūf and acceptance, with scholars praying for mercy upon all Companions.
Conclusion and Call for Fairness
We Ibadis do not ask anyone to agree with our historical interpretations. We do not ask anyone to adopt our doctrine of barā’ah. What we ask for is fairness. That we be judged by what we actually believe, not by the distorted caricature our opponents present.
We ask that our accusers to read their own understasnding of Qur’an (49:9) and the authentic ḥadīth.
The inconsistency applied to the Ibadi school is real.
Sunni, Imami, and Zaydi traditions all maintain elaborate taxonomies of kufr.
Kufr al-ʿamal — disbelief of deed (action contradicting faith without denying it)
Kufr al-inkār — disbelief of denial
Kufr al-juhūd — disbelief of stubborn rejection after knowing
Kufr al-nifāq — disbelief of hypocrisy
Kufr bi’l-iʿrāḍ / al-irād — disbelief of turning away
Kufr al-niʿmah — disbelief of ingratitude for blessing
Kufr al-ʿinād — disbelief of obstinacy
Kufr al-takdhīb — disbelief of denial/contradiction
These categories are not fringe. They are taught in Sunni ʿaqīdah manuals, Imami kalām texts, and Zaydi uṣūl works. Even Ibn Taymiyyah’s Kitāb al-Īmān which we cited above is built on exactly this distinction. Al-Albānī’s “kufr has levels” is the same principle. Ṣāliḥ Āl al-Shaykh’s “lesser and greater kufr” is the same.
So the inconsistency is this:
When these same scholars encounter the term kufr applied to ʿAlī, ʿUthmān, or Muʿāwiyah in an Ibadi text, they immediately read it as kufr al-juhūd or kufr al-inkār and then declare the Ibadis to be Khawārij who excommunicate the Companions. But when their own scholars apply kufr to Muslims who fight each other, or to one who insults a Muslim, or to one who abandons prayer out of laziness, they read it as kufr al-niʿmah or kufr dūna kufr the lesser kufr. That which does not expel one form the millah kind.
The word is identical. The subject is different. The interpretive charity is applied inconsistently.
This is not a minor rhetorical point. It exposes that the accusation “Ibadis declare the Companions disbelievers” rests on a selective reading. The accusers are not applying their own taxonomy to Ibadi texts. If they did, they would have to ask: which kufr do the Ibadis mean? And the answer, as the article documents and as we have confirmed, is kufr al-niʿmah — ingratitude for blessing — not expulsion from the millah.
We ask that they stop accusing us of taqiyyah when we are explaining our doctrine openly.
If they insist that our definition of kufr means apostasy, they bear the burden of proof is upon the accuser—not us.
“And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with an even balance. That is the best [way] and best in result.” (Qur’an 17:35)
As the two recording-angel sitting to the right, and the left—note, not a word does a person utter without having a observer ready.” (Qur’an 50:17-18)
“While you are certainly observed by vigilant, honourable angels, recording. They know whatever you do. (Qur’an 82:10-12)
﷽
Three categories on the day of judgement.
And you shall be three kinds (three groups) on that day. the people of the right, how will they be; the people of the left, how will they be; and the foremost will be the foremost ˹in Paradise˺.They are the ones nearest, in the Gardens of Bliss. A multitude from earlier generations. and a few from later generations. (Qur’an 56:8-14)
The people of the right
The people of the left.
The foremost.
The foremost are understood to be the Prophets of Allah (swt) and the martyrs.
A multitude from earlier generations. and a few from later generations.
The multitude from previous generations and later generations is a reference to those who came before the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) and those who came after him.
The Righteous: Given their record in the right hand.
As for those given their records in their right hand, they will cry happily, ‘Here, everyone! Read my record!'””I truly believed I would face my reckoning.””So they will be in a life of bliss,””In a lofty Paradise,””With clusters of fruit hanging low and near at hand.” “It will be said to them, ‘Eat and drink joyfully for what you did in the days past.'” (Qur’an 69:19-24)
The Wicked: Given their record in the left hand.
“But as for him who is given his record in his left hand, he will say, ‘Oh, I wish I had not been given my record!'” “And that I had never known how my account turned out!” “Oh, I wish my death had been the final one!””My wealth has not availed me at all.” “Gone from me is my power and authority.” (Qur’an 69:25-29)
The Punishment
“Seize him and shackle him!” “Then cast him into the blazing Fire.” “Then fasten him with a chain seventy cubits long.” (Qur’an 69:30-32)
The Reasons for Punishment
“For he never had (yu’minu) faith in Allah, the Greatest,” (Qur’an 69:33)
“And then being among those who believed and advised one another to patience and advised one another to compassion.” “Those are the Companions of the Right.” “But those who (kafarū) disbelieve in Our signs, they are the Companions of the Left.” (Qur’an 90:17-19)
The Two Fates
Those Given their Record in the Right Hand
“As for those who are given their record in their right hand, they will have an easy reckoning, and will return to their people joyfully.” (Qur’an 84:7-9)
Those Given their Record Behind their Backs
“And as for those who are given their record from behind their backs, they will cry for destruction, and will burn in the blazing Fire. For they used to be prideful among their people, thinking they would never return.” (Qur’an 84:10-14)
You can see trusted Sunni tafsir telling us that ‘behind their back’ also is meant by receiving with their left hands.
It was narrated that Safwan bin Muhriz Al-Mazini said:
“We were with ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar when he was circumambulating the House; a man came up to him and said: ‘O Ibn ‘Umar, what did you hear the Messenger of Allah say about the Najwa?’ He said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘On the Day of Resurrection, the believer will be brought close to his Lord until He will cover him with His screen, then He will make him confess his sins. He will ask him: “Do you confess?” He will say: “O Lord, I confess.” This will continue as long as Allah wills, then He will say: “I concealed them for you in the world, and I forgive you for them today.” Then he will be given the scroll of his good deeds, or his record, in his right hand. But as for the (alkafir ‘aw almunafiq) disbeliever or the hypocrite, (his sins) will be announced before the witnesses.’ ” (One of the narrators) Khalid said: “At: ‘before the witnesses’ there is something missing.” “These are the ones who lied against their Lord!’ No doubt! The curse of Allah is on the wrongdoers.”
The question is asked: How will the sinful Muslim take his book of deeds on the day of Resurrection?
“As for the sinners among those who believed in Tawheed, who will enter Hell and then be brought forth from it, there is a difference of scholarly opinion concerning them. Some scholars say that they will take their books in their right hands and some say that they will take their books in their left hands.”
“Al-Safaareeni (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The kaafir will be given his book in his left hand from behind his back, and the sinful believer will be given his book in his left hand from in front of him, and the obedient believer will be given his book in his right hand from in front of him. Al-Maawirdi was certain that what is well known is that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repented from his evildoing will take his book in his right hand, then he narrated an opinion which suggests that we should not discuss this matter and said: No one says that he will take it in his left hand.”
“Yoosuf ibn ‘Umar narrated that the Maalikis differed concerning sinners among those who believe in Tawheed. It was said that they will take their books in their right hands, and it was said that they will take them in their left hands.”
“With regard to the view that they will take their books in their right hands, it was said that they will take them before they enter the Fire, and that will be a sign that they will not abide therein forever. And it was said that they will take them after they are brought out of the Fire. And Allah knows best.”(Lawaami’ al-Anwaar al-Bahiyyah, 2/183 )”
“Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: With regard to a believer who sins, will he take his book in his right hand or in his left hand? He replied: He will take it in his right hand.”(Al-As’ilah al-Mulhaqah bi Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah, p. 500).”
“It seems – and Allah knows best – that no one will take his book in his left hand except the kaafir, as is apparent from the verses quoted above.”
“What the Muslim should do is to strive hard to do acts of obedience and worship, and to do good deeds, so that he will be among those who are given their books in their right hands. May Allah make us among them.”
“And Allah knows best.”
Prima Qur’an comments:
We are not keen on what Al-Saffārīnī or ‘Uthaymeen of the Hanbali school say. We are not keen on what al-Mawardi, and the Shafi’i or the Maliki schools say. All of what has been stated by them is a far cry from the truth. It goes against the clear text of the Qur’an.
So let us look at what is claimed by Muhammed bin Ahmad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali.
“The kaafir will be given his book in his left hand from behind his back, and the sinful believer will be given his book in his left hand from in front of him, and the obedient believer will be given his book in his right hand from in front of him.”
However, the article itself says:
“These verses indicate that the believer who is destined for Paradise will take his book in his right hand, and that the kaafir who is doomed to Hell will take his book in his left hand, from behind his back.
The evidence that those who take their books in their left hands are the kaafirs is the verses in which Allah says:
“Verily, he used not to believe in Allah, the Most Great” [Al-Haaqqah 69:33]
“Verily, he thought that he would never come back (to Us)!” [Al-Inshiqaaq 84:14]
i.e., he thought that he would never return to Allah.
This is also indicated by the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But those who disbelieved in Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), they are those on the Left Hand (the dwellers of Hell)” [Al-Balad 90:19]
So the sinful believer cannot be the one who takes his book in his left hand from in front of him.
Let us look what is claimed by Alī ibn Muḥammed ibn Ḥabīb of the Shafi’i.
“Al-Maawirdi was certain that what is well known is that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repented from his evildoing will take his book in his right hand, then he narrated an opinion which suggests that we should not discuss this matter and said: No one says that he will take it in his left hand.”
You say what we highlighted in red? Why should no one discuss this matter? Because it is a red flag that is why. Not is not known that the (Muslim) evildoer who dies without having repenting takes his book in his right hand. That is not what the Qur’an says at all!
Of course no one will say left hand because it is established that those who take the book in the left hand are the kufar (ungrateful).
Muḥammed bin Ṣāliḥ al-‘Uthaymīn of the Hanbali school states:
“Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: With regard to a believer who sins, will he take his book in his right hand or in his left hand? He replied: He will take it in his right hand.“(Al-As’ilah al-Mulhaqah bi Sharh al-Safaareeniyyah, p. 500).”
Let us see how Allah (swt) describes the people of the right hand?
As for those given their records in their right hand, they will cry happily, ‘Here, everyone! Read my record!'””I truly believed I would face my reckoning.””So they will be in a life of bliss,””In a lofty Paradise,””With clusters of fruit hanging low and near at hand.” “It will be said to them, ‘Eat and drink joyfully for what you did in the days past.'” (Qur’an 69:19-24)
Does the above verse describe someone who knows they will burn in hellfire for an undisclosed period of time?
“As for those who are given their record in their right hand, they will have an easy reckoning, and will return to their people joyfully.” (Qur’an 84:7-9)
Can it truly be said of the one who is burned in hellfire for an undisclosed period of time that they will ‘have an easy reckoning’ ?
“(Then as for him who will be given his Record in his right hand, he surely, will receive an easy reckoning,) (84:7-8) meaning, easy without any difficulty. This means that he will not be investigated for all the minute details of his deeds. For verily, whoever is reckoned like that, he will certainly be destroyed.” –Ibn Kathir
“Then as for him who is given his book in his right hand,! he will receive an easy reckoning,That is, He forgives his sins and does not take him to account for them. Similarly it is related in a tradition that Allah, Exalted is He, if He wishes to conceal [the sins] of a servant on the Day of Resurrection, will show him only those sins which are known to Him and His servant, and then forgive him for them.”-Al Tustari.
Once again the position of the Ibadi school is clear.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that believers (mumin) enter the hellfire.
There is not a single verse anywhere in the Qur’an that the ungrateful (kafir) enter heaven.
The most sensible statement from the article above is the following:
“What the Muslim should do is to strive hard to do acts of obedience and worship, and to do good deeds, so that he will be among those who are given their books in their right hands. May Allah make us among them.”
Today we can only say: “Amin!” For this is what the Allah (swt) commanded of us.
The mainstream Sunni doctrine of temporary Hell for sinful Muslims relies on aḥādīth (e.g., intercession, removal of sinners from Hell) and interpretations that do their level best to harmonize aḥādīth with the Qur’an. But as we’ve demonstrated, the Qur’anic text itself makes no such provision.
Our conclusion is sound: the only safe course is to strive for the right hand, seek Allah’s forgiveness. Schools of thought can have thier disagreements However, the Qur’an’s clarity on the two fates is unmistakable.
“Joseph responded, “It was she who tried to seduce me.” And a witness from her own family testified: “If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth and he is a liar.” (Qur’an 12:26)
﷽
As Allah (swt) says, “washahida shāhidun min ahlihā” and a witness has witnessed from among themselves/folk/family.
One of the more insolent of the claimants of Salafiyya were visibly upset at the love and camaraderie that is often shown between the people of Oman and the people of Saudi Arabia. This individual is from among those who like the division and fighting among the people. So this individual had posted once more attacking the noble Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili as well as the good people of the Ibadi school.
So our reply was to remind this one that Ibn Baz himself was asked by Shaykh Khalili to have a public debate on the matter. This was in response to the interrogation and methods of Ibn Baz. It was pointed out to this man that he had his chance to prove the error of our creed and Ibn Baz backed down!
This is the link that was put in the reply to this individual:
Sometimes when you see these laughing emoji you pray within yourself that you are not dealing with a teenager. This is not something from serious individuals. Yet, the part he seemed most tickled about the following:
“Does Al-Khalili not know that polytheist and disbelievers cannot enter Mecca? So how does he expect non-Islamic news agencies to enter Mecca and broadcast the scenes?”
This shows you that this individual did not even bother to read the initial link for if he had he would have already found something quite shocking.
To our dismay the following showed up.
This ‘warrior’ of the supposed correct doctrine tucked tail and ran away. However, there is a day of reckoning in which we all be held accountable. For everything that our hands sent forth.
So let us address the part that tickled this individual.
“Does Al-Khalili not know that polytheist and disbelievers cannot enter Mecca? So how does he expect non-Islamic news agencies to enter Mecca and broadcast the scenes?”
Hmm. So the Mufti of a Muslim nation is not aware that polytheist and disbelievers cannot enter Mecca. How likely is this? This man must be unaware of the fact that Muslims themselves can be employed have been employed by Non Muslim media such as CNN and BBC.
Like how this non Muslim network documented the hajj?
The presence of world media does not equal to the presence of the world itself. Likewise the presence of non Muslim media does not equate to the presence of Non Muslims themselves.
But the deathblow to this rabble-rouser came not from Prima Qur’an, nor from any of the other Ibadi students or laypeople. The deathblow to this rabble rouser came from one of the students of Ibn Baz himself.
الشيخ عبد العزيز بن باز رحمه الله هذا الامام العجيب ارسل احد كبار المفتين في دوله عربيه وهو على مذهب الخوارج على مذهب الخوارج وهو مفتي تلك البلاد وهم ينكرون رؤيه الله جل وعلا كما تعلمون في الاخره ينكرون رؤيه الله كالمعتزلة [موسيقى] ولا نعلم في زمنه اعلم منه فقال لا لا ما ناقش قيل له لماذا يا شيخ قال طيب لما اناقشه قد يكون الحم بحجته مني فاكون سببا لضلال بعض الناس قد يكون الحم مني بالحجه والنقاش فيكون سبب يكون سبب لاظ بعض الناس فرفض الشيخ ناقش فان صاحب الحق لا يكون هيابا ولا جبانه بل صاحب الحق يجر على اظهار الحق الذي يعتقد
Which is translated:
“Shaykh Abdul Aziz ibn Baz, may Allah have mercy on him. This remarkable imam. Once received a message from one of the senior muftis in an Arab country, who follows the doctrine of the Khawarij. Yes, he follows the doctrine of the Khawarij, and he is the mufti of that country. They deny the seeing of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, in the Hereafter. They deny the seeing of Allah, just like the Mu’tazila. And we do not know of anyone in his time more knowledgeable than him. So he said, “No, no,” and did not engage in debate. He was asked, “Why, O Shaykh?”He said, “Well, if I debate him, it might be that he overcomes me with his argument,and I would then be a cause for the misguidance of some people. Or it might be that I overcome him with argument and de bate, and that would be a cause for the misguidance of some people.” So the Shaykh refused. Debate, for the one who is upon the truth, should not be timid or cowardly; rather, the one upon the truth should be eager to manifest the truth that he believes in.”
Nothing in there at all about Non Muslim media networks! Just a simple admission that Shaykh Ibn Baz felt that Shaykh Khalili could have strong arguments!
As Allah (swt) says, “washahida shāhidun min ahlihā” and a witness has witnessed from among themselves/folk/family.
If you would like to read more about the issue of the Qur’an being created and other aqidah matters we encourage you to read the following:
Surely those who say, “Our Lord is Allah,” and then remain steadfast, the angels descend upon them, “Do not fear, nor grieve. Rather, rejoice in the good news of Paradise, which you have been promised.” (Qur’an 41:30)
﷽
The Prophet (saw) said to Ali: Lā yadkhulu al-jannah illā nafs muʾminah” (لَا يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا نَفْسٌ مُؤْمِنَةٌ)
Zaid bin Yathi’ said: We asked Sayyiduna Ali: With what message did the Messenger of Allah (saw) send you? He replied: I was sent with four things. First, that only a believing soul will enter Paradise.
Belief in Islam is composed of three major elements.
To proclaim with the tongue there is no God except Allah and Muhammed (saw) is his Messenger.
Sincerity with Allah.
Actions. To do righteous deeds and to avoid evil deeds.
Surely those who say, “Our Lord is Allah,” and then remain steadfast, the angels descend upon them, “Do not fear, nor grieve. Rather, rejoice in the good news of Paradise, which you have been promised.” (Qur’an 41:30)
Does anyone understand from the above verse that a person can enter paradise simply by believing in Allah and Muhammed is his Messenger without the need to perform any actions?
Have you ever pondered on the message delivered in one of the shortest chapters in the Qur’an?
Surah Al-‘Asr.
By the time! Surely humanity is in loss, except those who have faith, do good, and enjoin on each other the truth, and enjoin on each other patience. (Qur’an 103:1-3)
Can you imagine, based upon your own understanding of this previously quoted chapter, that people are entitled to receive that great reward of paradise, of Al Jannah, without doing good deeds?
This chapter of the Qur’an delivers a clear message. The salvation of mankind is linked to both faith and actions. Good deeds are inseparable from true faith. True faith is necessarily linked to good deeds. The two are interlocked.
If we want to know the correct Islamic creed, the correct Islamic aqidah as taught by the Blessed Prophet (saw), make sure first and foremost you base your creed on the verses of the Qur’an that are clear with clear meanings. If you do so, you will be able to differentiate between the authentic traditons of the Blessed Prophet (saw) from the fabricated ones.
Muslims the world over, in all their denominations, believe that on the day of judgement no one will enter paradise without the intercession of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The debate comes down to the following:
Is this intercession for all those who testify that there is no god except Allah and Muhammed (saw) is his Messenger ?
A special honour and privilege for the Muslims who fear Allah.
“He knows what is before them, and what is behind them, and they cannot intercede except for him, with whom He is pleased. And they stand in awe for fear of Him.” (Qur’an 21:28)
Imagine an individual who, their whole life they miss the prayers, they commit fornication and adultery, and they die unrepentant.
Is Allah content or pleased with this person? The answer is no!
The above verse provides clear-cut evidence that whatever Shafa’at that there will be, it will be for those with whom Allah (swt) is pleased.
In Christianity, they have a theological position that Christ Jesus is their intercessor on the day of judgement.
“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” (1 John 2:1)
“Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.” (Romans 8:34)
“For, There is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
In Christianity, Faith in Jesus is enough. It is sufficient to enter into paradise.
In Islam, true faith is accompanied by righteous living, righteous action, and righteous deeds.
“He knows what is before them, and what is behind them, and they cannot intercede except for him, with whom He is pleased. And they stand in awe for fear of Him.” (Qur’an 21:28)
“Those who carry the Throne and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, have faith in Him, and seek forgiveness for the believers, Our Lord! You encompass everything in mercy and knowledge. So forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and protect them from the torment of Hellfire.” (Qur’an 40:7)
From this verse we can understand that there are three major pre-conditions for Allah (swt) to forgive your sins.
To believe in Islam.
To actually want to be forgiven. This happens via repentance.
Follow the way Allah (swt) has set out for us.
One of the most important methods of interpreting the Qur’an is to apply to it the rules and the principles of the Arabic language. As the Qur’an itself was sent down in Arabic.
Consider, for example, the following verse:
“And warn them, [O Muhammed], of the Approaching Day, when hearts are at the throats, filled [with distress]. For the wrongdoers there will be no devoted friend and no intercessor [who is] obeyed.” (Qur’an 40:18)
When you look at this verse you will see the مَا (mā) which is used in the Arabic language to negate. And then come two nouns. The first is ḥamīmin and the other is shafīʿin. Both are indefinite nouns. This means that this verse implies a general sense. Meaning that all intercessors and all friends will not be acceptable on the day of judgement to intercede for the wrong doers.
So there is a principle in the Arabic language and fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence known as uṣūl al-fiqh saying that if an indefinite noun is found in a negative context or prohibitive context or conditional context, it will produce a general sense.
So what we get from this is that no one will intercede for a person who did not repent in this temporal world.
We have seen that one of the most damnable articles of faith held by some Muslims is the belief that the sinners who died unrepentant will be admitted into paradise on the day of judgement.
Now contrast this belief with the following authentic tradition of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah revealed the verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” Allah’s Messenger (saw) got up and said, “O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Bani `Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah’s Messenger (saw)! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammed! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment.”
“And each one hath a goal toward which he turns; so contend with one another in good works. Wheresoever you may be, Allah will bring you all together. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.” (Qur’an 2:148)
“Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 22:69)
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
﷽
Insh’Allah the following section in the future will be found under the section above: Ahl Al-Qibla/Ahl Al-Khilaf.
Those of you who are used to seeing these people all over the internet and present on every social media platform available may come to the conclusion that their dawah is dominant. However, those of you who have access to the Arabic language, speak, read and write it will see that in the Arabic sphere these people (Wahhabis and Madkhalis) get absolutely pummelled by the Ibadi school. You will almost pity them (Wahhabis & Madkhalis). Though one should pity them and pray for their deliverance from the corruption and misguidance that they are upon.
The success of those who call themselves Salafi, Athari or those upon the Salafi Manhaj lies primarily in their ability into duping the masses to think that what they are upon is the view of the first three generation of Muslims.
They also feign the idea of taking the text by what they claim is the apparent meaning of a particular text. In fact, they apply ta’wil (interpretation) as do their opponents. Their opponents among Sunni Muslims (The Ash’ari & Maturidi) make the colossal mistake by granting a ‘default meaning’ to said words. Then turn around and say that they apply taʾwīl (interpretation). Whereas we (The Ibadi)say that if a word has a range of meanings and the context determines the meaning, then it becomes dishonest to claim the word can only have one possible meaning. The context based upon use of the Arabic language itself, and the culture that the revelation was revealed in.
Understand that not everyone who goes by the title of Salafi, Athari is adversarial or antagonistic to the Ibadi school. Many of them we can cooperate with on many issues of concern to our communities and respective countries that we live in. Cooperation is always a good thing for the Muslim Ummah.
The inconsistency and flawed theology can readily be seen by the inconsistency that it deploys. Examples abound but the following should suffice:
Demanding a default location for Allah (swt). Where neither the Qur’an or Sunnah give a ‘default’ location for Allah (swt). If one was to follow their literalist approach the Qur’an and Sunnah ascribe to Allah (swt) many locations. The Muslims believe that Allah exist without a place.
Using kalaam to speculate that Allah (swt) has two real eyes when we have no firm text on the matter.
The inconsistency in denying a gender for Allah (swt) when the apparent text clearly states: “There is nothing like Him, for He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11) They say the language determines the characteristic without realizing that Allah (swt) is the one that chose the rules for the language to begin with. The Muslims believe Allah has no gender.
Their bidʿah disclaimer when referencing what they claim are attributes of Allah (swt) with their bid’ah disclaimer “in a way that befits his majesty” as if there would be anything un-majestic about Allah (swt) having this or that to begin with!
The inconsistency in telling the people to believe in the attributes of Allah (swt) without asking ‘how’ and then the same people saying that the attributes of Allah (swt), are neither identical to the essence of Allah and yet not other than Allah! A deep dive into kalaam to speculate about the Creator what they have no evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
The inconsistency in affirming Allah as the All-Hearing(Qur’an 42:11) without having to have ears; while simultaneously demanding that if Allah exist it must be in a place.
Allah (swt) himself gave mankind the faculty of reasoning and the ability to understand majaaz (metaphor) when He (swt) says:
so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
But these people would have us to believe that the text is taken by the apparent and Allah (swt) does in some way becomes our hearing, our sight, our hand and our leg!
We have exposed the corruption in their misguided mis-understanding of the primary and secondary sources here:
Since they call us Ibadi as “Khawarij” let us see what Ibn Taymiyya has to say about the so called “Khawarij”.
“No one among the people who follow their desire, the more truthful and more just than the Khawarij. They do not intend to invent lies, indeed they are very famous for truthfulness to the extent that it has been said that the traditions narrated by them are the most authentic of all.”
Source: (Ibn Taymiyya Minhaj Al Sunnah Vol 3. p 3. Dr. Al-Sib’i Al-Sunna Wal Makanatuha Fii Al-Tashrii Al-Islami p. 99-101)
“No one of them has ever been known for lying.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Al Tafsiru Al Kabir Vol. 1, p. 124)
“Their religion is more correct because they do not say lies.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyya Mukhtasar Minhaji Al-Sunna Vol.2, p. 197)
“The Khawarij never says lies, indeed they are more truthful braver and more promise-keeping then the (Shi’ia)” Source: (Ibid Vol. 1 p. 393)
“The Khawarij are truthful, so their accounts are among the most correct ones.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Al Furqan p. 227)
“And what indicates that the Companions did not consider the Khawarij to be disbelievers is that they used to pray behind them. Abdullah ibn Umar -RA- and others[companions] used to pray behind Najda al-Haruri. They also used to engage in debates with them, as the Muslim would debate with a Muslim, as Abdullah ibn Abbas debated with Najda al-Haruri when he was sent to him to ask about certain issues, and his hadith is in Al-Bukhari. Likewise, Nafi’ ibn Al-Azraq debated on famous issues. Nafi’ used to debate on matters in the Quran, as any two Muslims would debate among themselves”
Source: (The Path of the Prophetic Sunnah-In Refutation of the Shiite Qadariyyah Doctrine By Ibn Taymiyya Abu Al Abbas Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim.-Edited by Dr. Muhammed Rashad Salim Volume 5)
This entry will be split into three sections:
Section one: This will be aimed at refuting the lies, deception and outright propaganda that they aim at Ahl al-Haqq wal-l istiqama (The Ibadi school).
Section two: This will be the Ibadi school exposing the bizarre beliefs and strange views of those who call themselves: Salafi, Athari etc..
Section three: Those who may loosely identify as Salafi, Athari etc that have had and do have cordial relations with our school. Because they simply see us as Muslims. Muslims perhaps they disagree with but Muslims none the less. Articles in relation to them will be posted under section three.
THE MORE ONE LEARNS SALAFI AQIDAH THE MORE CHRISTIANITY MAKES SENSE.
SALAFI-SAUDI SHAYKH DR. SAAD AL-HUMID PROFESSOR OF HADITH SCIENCES IN MEDINA FLEES FROM DEBATE WITH SHAYKH SAEED AL QANOUBI: IBADI HADITH MASTER, ON THE CREATION OF THE QUR’AN
MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IBADIS AND SALAFIS/ATHAIRS: IBADIS BELIEVE WE HAVE THE ENTIRE QUR’AN. SALAFIS/ATHARIS BELIEVE WE ONLY HAVE THE QUR’AN ALLAH INTENDED FOR US TO HAVE.
THE CLAIM THAT THE IBADIS CURSE AND REVILE THE COMPANIONS.THIS FALSE ALLEGATION IS TURNED ON IT’S HEAD! THE WAHHABI/MADHKALI/SALAFIYYA RELY UPON THOSE WHO SAY VILE THINGS ABOUT ALI
HADITHS THE SALAFIYYA AND AHL SUNNAH IN GENERAL RELY UPON TO CALL HUGE SWATHES OF THE PROPHET’S COMPANIONS DOGS OF HELLFIRE! (THE IBADIS RIP APART THESE CHAINS)
SECTION THREE: THOSE WHO MAY LOOSELY IDENTIFY AS SALAFI, ATHARI ETC THAT HAVE HAD AND DO HAVE CORDIAL RELATIONS WITH OUR SCHOOL. ARTICLES IN RELATION TO THEM WILL BE POSTED UNDER HERE.
MY EXPERIENCE WITH SALAFIS AND SUFIS (NOT ALWAYS CHALK AND CHEESE)
“Believe, then, in Allah and His apostles, and do not say, “Three” Desist from this assertion for your own good. Allah is but One God; far exalted is He above having a son; unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and none is as worthy of trust as Allah.’ (Qur’an 4:171)
“Indeed, they are ungrateful deniers of the truth Who say, “Behold, Allah is a third of three” – seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.” (Qur’an 5:73)
“And Behold! Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men, `Worship me and my mother as deities besides Allah’?” Jesus answered: “Limitless are You in Your glory! It would not have been possible for me to say what I had no right to! Had I said this, You would indeed have known it! You know all that is within me, whereas I know not what is in Thy Self. Verily, it is You alone who fully know all the things.” (Qur’an 5:116)
﷽
The above are the three texts that is used by Christian and Orientalist polemicists to assert that the Qur’an inaccurately describes ‘The Trinity‘.
The Third of Three?
If indeed they co-exist eternally all ‘persons‘ of the Triad are the third of three at any given time.
First point.
Why would the Qur’an describe ‘The Trinity’ when the Bible does not even describe ‘The Trinity‘?
Trinity [N]
a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these:That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deuteronomy ; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 44:6; Mark 12:39; Mark 12:32; John 10:30) That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.
“The New Testament contains no explicit trinitarian doctrine. However, many Christian theologians, apologists, and philosophers hold that the doctrine can be inferred from what the New Testament does teach about God. But how may it be inferred? Is the inference deductive, or is it an inference to the best explanation? And is it based on what is implicitly taught there, or on what is merely assumed there? Many Christian theologians and apologists seem to hold it is a deductive inference.”
Prima Qur’an comments: No reasonable or learned Christian will dispute these points. The word ‘Trinity‘ or the doctrine of ‘The Trinity’ is not explicitly stated in the Bible. Given this, why would we expect the Qur’an to define it?
Second Point.
Why would Allah (swt) expand upon something that is simply not true, to begin with?
It would be akin to expecting the Qur’an to expand upon or explain the idea that a circle has three corners. A person can assert that a circle has three corners but it does not make the claim true.
And say, “Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart.” (Qur’an 17:81)
Third Point.
Look at the Latin word ‘trinitas‘ and the Greek word ‘trias‘. Trinitas means triad and not tri-unity! Trias means triad. Triad means a group of three.
Note that Allah (swt) instructs us as Muslims in the following verse:
“And they say, “None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian.” That is [merely] their wishful thinking, Say, “Produce your proof, if you should be truthful.”(Qur’an 2:111)
Imagine Allah (swt) has told us to ask Christians: “Produce their proofs.”
What do you think they will produce? They will give us their theological arguments.
Which means further investigation on our behalf as regards the Christian claims.
We also note that Allah (swt) says, ‘Christians‘ without defining a particular group of Christians. Christians is a reference in the Qur’an to whole range of those who would identify themselves as Christians. No single or particular group of Christians is singled out in the Qur’an.
Allah (swt) is of course cognizant of the fact that the Christians are in schism.
The following verse is in recognition that Christians themselves have split into various theological camps.
“Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects – you, are not associated with them in anything. Their affair is only left to Allah; then He will inform them about what they used to do.”(Qur’an 6:159)
Thus in one’s research what will we fine?
We will find that those Christians who believe in the Athanasian Creed which states:
That we worship one God intrinity (triad) and thetrinity (triad) in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone. The Son was neither made nor created; he was begotten from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety, the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other.
Fourth Point. Which Trinity?
There is no such thing as ‘The Trinity’. That is just like saying there is only one understanding of Christianity or one understanding of Islam. It is simply fallacious.
When one researches into the various doctrines held among Christians it is not long until we find out about Sabellianism. Which is the belief that ‘The Father’, ‘The Son’, and ‘Holy Spirit‘ are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to the Athanasian view of three distinct persons within the ‘Godhead‘.
To appreciate the full scope of Christian theological diversity on this subject, it is helpful to set aside the labels of “orthodox” and “heretical” and simply catalog the distinct frameworks that different Christian groups have historically proposed to understand the so-called Triune God:
Social Trinitarianism. This model proposes Three distinct centers of consciousness united in one divine family/community. This view is defended by modern philosophers like William Lane Craig.
Latin (or Classical) Trinitarianism . This model proposes One single divine essence with three subsistences/relations. This is the dominant model in Western Catholicism and Protestantism, associated with Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism). This model proposes One God who manifests in three sequential modes or roles (Father in creation, Son in redemption, Spirit in sanctification). This persists today in movements like Oneness Pentecostalism.
Economic Trinitarianism. This model Focuses on God’s threefold activity in history without necessarily defining His internal ontology. This is often used as a pragmatic or minimalist approach, emphasizing what God does rather than speculating on His inner nature.
This diversity of models none of which are explicitly stated in the Bible demonstrates that when Christians speak of “The Trinity,” they are not referring to a single, universally agreed-upon concept but rather to a range of competing interpretations.
So on the third point, Allah (swt) doesn’t choose sides with the Christians and their contrived machinations about the divine nature.
Allah (swt) simply says,
“And do not say, “Three” Desist from this assertion, for your own good.” (Qur’an 4:171).
What we find is that Athanasian Christians and Sabellian Christians both need to define God with ‘Three‘ when speaking about Allah.
You will see that in the creeds of the Christians there are many differences.
A major difference between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox is the following:
“The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten; he proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
This is the statement of Protestants and Catholics whereas the Orthodox Christians say the following:
“At this point also it is necessary to note that the Roman and Protestant churches differ in their credal statement about God by adding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son” (filioque)—a doctrinal addition unacceptable to Orthodoxy since it is both unscriptural and inconsistent with the Orthodox vision of God.”
Imagine if Allah (swt) stated that the Holy Spirit proceeded from Jesus. The Orthodox Christians would claim it is a misrepresentation of their beliefs.
Now let us go back to the idea of a triad. Triad meaning a group of three.
“Indeed, they are ungrateful deniers of the truth Who say, “Behold, Allah is a third of three” – seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.” (Qur’an 5:73)
We found this to be quite a remarkable statement. If as the Athanasian creed states that God is a triad he has always existed as a group.
In fact the following is telling.
“The unity of God is not something we can grasp completely, yet it is woven into the fabric of the gospel. In order to understand, discuss, and preach the gospel, we need to have an understanding of the Trinity. The simplest way to explain it is to say that God is a Divine Team—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They work together in all of God’s works, but now particularly through the gospel for the salvation and sanctification of us needy sinners.”
So what We find interesting about ‘a third of three‘ is that it certainly is true that Christians believe that about God. They may not claim that with their mouths, however, Allah (swt) Is asserting the reality of their belief system.
They have yet to refute the fact that if Jesus is God in essence, and the Father is God in essence, and the Holy Spirit is God in essence, any one ‘person‘ of this Godhead would be a third of three at any given time.
It would be incorrect if the claim was that God was the first of three or that God was the second of three. God has always been in community, according to this particular theological persuasion. This is because Trinitarians reject Modalism.
Trinitarians cannot define the nature of God without asserting that God is one being who is three persons. The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. Because these three persons are not identical to one another, God has always been the third of three.
“Indeed, they are ungrateful deniers of the truth Who say, “Behold, Allah is a third of three” – seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.” (Qur’an 5:73)
Also note that Allah (swt) says of those who claim that Allah is the third of three will go to hell.
No perennialism. No, let’s hug and be friends. Absolutely uncompromising.
What We find interesting is the phrase ‘a third of three‘ rather than ‘a second of three’ or a ‘first of three’, because if God is a triad he would never be a first of three or a second of three ever.
We also believe upon further reflection of this text that it draws subtle attention and a very clever critique of the devastating schisms in Christian theology.
Namely, issues regarding the ‘economic trinity’.
The controversy of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
The idea of Jesus being born in time to which Christians can only reply by a saying ‘with their mouths‘ stating oxymoron’s such as, Jesus being the ‘eternally begotten‘.
Issues relating to subordination and hierarchy in the Trinity.
One of our colleagues once asked a Christian pastor if they could be baptized in the name of the ‘Holy Spirit‘ and ‘Father‘ and the ‘Son‘.
If a person bought a piece of candy and it cost sixteen cents as long as the person has a penny, a nickel and a dime, it shouldn’t matter the order they hand the currency to the cashier.
Remember the Athanasian creed states:
“Nothing is greater or smaller; in their entirety the three persons are coeternal and coequal with each other .”
The ‘ontological trinity‘ and the ‘economic trinity‘ are very much in conflict.
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)
Is the will of the Son the same in essence as the will of the Father? If the answer is yes they are not distinct persons.
If the will of the Son is distinct or different in essence from the will of the Father than the are not the same being.
Remember the Athanasian creed states:
That we worship one God intrinity (triad) and thetrinity (triad) in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence.
Saying that this isn’t Tri-theism doesn’t make it not Tri-theism.
Just as Allah (swt) tells us:
“That is their saying with their mouths.” – (Qur’an 9:30)
Simply making an assertion and repeating an assertion doesn’t make the assertion true.
Only a person who would ask a Christian for their evidence as per (Qur’an 2:111) would pick up on these things.
A perennialist like Frijoth Schuon, for example wouldn’t approach the Qur’an in that way.
MARY AS A PART OF THE TRINITY IN THE QUR’AN?
Now let us come to this powerful verse.
“And Behold! Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men, `Worship me and my mother as deities besides Allah’?” Jesus answered: “Limitless are You in Your glory! It would not have been possible for me to say what I had no right to! Had I said this, You would indeed have known it! You know all that is within me, whereas I know not what is in Thy Self. Verily, it is You alone who fully know all the things.”(Qur’an 5:116)
The Arabic words rendered as ‘three’, ‘Trinity’ or ‘Triad‘ from the word thalāthah appears twice in different case endings: thalathatun and thalathatin in the Qur’an.
In both verses where (thalathatun and thalathatin) is used, Mary is not mentioned at all!
Likewise, in the verse above neither do we find the terms ‘thalathatun‘ or ‘thalathatin‘ in the Arabic text.
It is incredible to suggest that this verse interacts with the so-called ‘Trinity’ at all.
There is not even a modicum of truth to this.
“Worship me and my mother as deities (ilāhayni) besides God (Allah).”
ilāhayni is the dual form (meaning “two gods”) of the root ilah which means a deity, a source of reverent worship to or other than Allah (swt).
From the sense of the Semitic root, ELH means something with power (i.e. a potential to control affairs, something to seek the help of).
Two examples from the Qur’an below:
“Have you seen he who has taken as his god (ilahahu) his own desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?”(Qur’an 45:23)
“Have you seen the one who takesas his god (ilahahu) his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?”(Qur’an 25:43)
In fact, let us assume that in some bizarre universe that the Qur’an was attempting to identify members of the Athanasian triad.
Let us say that instead of Mary it said, ‘The Holy Spirit’. Would this be satisfactory? No, it wouldn’t. It wouldn’t be satisfactory because the Christians influenced by the Athanasian triad would say, “We don’t worship the Holy Spirit, and Jesus as deities besides, Allah. That is because they are all Allah.”
Not only this but the Christians in general will never accept this verse as truthful because of the claim that Jesus is rejecting worship. Christians in general, believe that Jesus is to be worshiped.
No Muslim, academic, perennialist, or otherwise that is to be taken seriously is going to try to isolate this verse from the response of Jesus:
He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen.
Allah (swt) is proving a powerful point that Jesus and Mary are not to be worshiped. That worship is directed only to Allah (swt) and to Allah (swt) alone!
In that sense, this verse is arguing with the belief of somewhere in the order of about 1.3 billion of the world’s 2 billion Christians.
“Oh!”, but they say, “Catholics didn’t worship Mary until recent history!“.’
Is that true?
Let us consider the Sub Tuum Praesidium (Beneath Your Compassion), a prayer still used in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy that has existed since 250CE, at least.
“Beneath your compassion, We take refuge, O Mother of God: do not despise our petitions in time of trouble: but rescue us from dangers, only pure, only blessed one.”
The famous perennialist and author Frithjof Schuon made this huge blunder when he had the following to say:
“A consideration which calls for mention here, since we are speaking of parallels and of opposition, is the following: the Koran has been reproached for bringing the Virgin Mary into the Christian Trinity; we will answer this objection here, not only to explain the intention of the Koran, but also, at the same time, to clarify the problem of the Trinity by means of a particular metaphysical accentuation. According to the interpretation which is not theological in fact, but is so by right and finds support in the Scripturas, the “Father” is God in Himself, that is, as Meta-cosm; the “Son” is God insofar as He is manifested in the world, that is, in the Macrocosm; and the “Holy Ghost” is God insofar as He is manifested in the soul, that is, in the Microcosm. From another point of view, the Macrocosm itself is the “Son”, and the Microcosm itself in its primordial perfection is identified with the “Holy Ghost”; Jesus is equal to the Macrocosm, to the entire Creation as divine manifestation, and Mary is equal to the “pneumatic” Microcosm; and let us note in this connection the equation that has sometimes been made between the Holy Ghost and the divine Virgin, an equation which is linked to the feminization, in certain ancient texts, of the divine Pneuma.”
Source: (Page 95 Christianity/Islam Essays on Esoteric Ecumenicism)
He then quotes:
“The Hebrew word Ruah,”Spirit is feminine Let us likewise note that one finds in the Epistle to the Hebrews the expression “My Mother the Holy Ghost” (Mētēr mou tò Hagion Pneuma)”
Source: (Page 95 Christianity/Islam Essays on Esoteric Ecumenicism)
As we have already proven, these statements by Frithjof Schuon or anyone else are statements given by people who show such monstrous negligence of the Arabic text.
Not only that but there is not a single statement attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) where he equated Mary with being a part of any Trinitarian formulation.
Conclusion:
The Qur’an does not attempt to expand upon the idea that a circle has three corners because such a concept is false, to begin with.
The Qur’an advises us not to say ‘three’ when talking about the divine nature.
Instead, the Qur’an uses the one word that is common to the Torah of the Jews, the New Testament of the Christians and the Qur’an, that word being ‘one’.
Allah (swt) negates the idea of his essence or nature being a triad by negating that he is ‘a third of three’.
Allah (swt) negates the idea that Jesus asked anyone to worship him or his mother.
The Qur’an nowhere identifies Mary with the Athanasian Trinity, Sabellianism, or any creedal formula of the Christians.
Those who make such statements either seem to have an agenda to misrepresent or malign Islam, have completely neglected the text; or have run out of arguments against Islam so they have to pull some of the most desperate and far fetched arguments in their arsenal.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”(Qur’an 5:83)
May Allah guide the Christians to the truth so that they do not burn in the hellfire.
“We have sent you only as a mercy for the whole world.” (Qur’an 21:107)
“I did not create jinn and humans except to worship Me.” (Qur’an 51:56)
“And when your Lord brought forth from the loins of the children of Adam their descendants and had them testify regarding themselves. “Am I not your Lord?” They replied, “Yes, You are! We testify.” “Now you have no right to say on Judgment Day, ‘We were not aware of this.’ (Qur’an 7:172)
“Messengers of good cheer and of warning, in order that mankind might have no argument against Allah after the messengers. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.” (Qur’an 4:165)
“And We will extract from every nation a witness and say, “Produce your proof,” and they will know that the truth belongs to Allah , and lost from them is that which they used to invent.” (Qur’an 2:75)
﷽
There are several key differences between the Ibadi school of creed and the Ash’ari when it comes to the status of the Ahl Al Fatrah or those people who did not hear about the message of Islam.
We as Muslims take the Qur’an in total. We look at verses within their immediate context as well as look at verses in light of other verses. This helps give us an overall picture of what Allah (swt) is conveying to us.
The Ash’ari stance makes Islam into a curse and a burden.
The Ash’ari stance makes it more of a mercy to never hear about the Prophet (saw) than to hear about him. This is a damnable position.
The Ash’ari stance makes the objective of Da’wah redundant and illogical.
The Ash’ari admit that in many cases the kufar go to paradise!
Worse the Ash’ari have to admit that those who commit shirk go to paradise!
Before we proceed let us say that the following will look like this is a critique of Dr. Shadee El Masry, it is not.
You can replace him with any other Ash’ari and it would be the same message. This is a critique of that view. As regard Dr. Shadee El Masry (if you live in or around New Jersey) we would recommend you to be part of his community. The man talks the talk and walks the walk. In their community it is known they try and reach out to people who are struggling (both Muslim and not-yet-Muslim). They have soup kitchens and they are activist. We sincerely believe you are in safe hands with him and his community. May Allah bless him and that community.
Shadee El Masry an Ash’ari explains what happens to those Non Muslims who did hear about Islam.
“As a result of that nobody is Mukhalif. What is the aqidah of Muslims when someone can’t find the truth or there is no truth or no prophet? They go to janna right away. What’s the proof for that? wama kunna mu’adhibinia hatta nab’atha rasulan. (Qur’an 17:15) That’s the qati’i proof. What do you have to say? They get tested in the afterlife that’s an ahad hadith. That’s ahad hadith. Why is it rejected by most of the Ulemah? Because the Qur’an affirms ….huh? The people who will be tested on the day of judgement that is an opinion but I’ll tell you why it’s weak. The hadith basically says that people will be tested on the day of judgement if they never received a prophet. Or they were mentally incapacitated or something like that. Yeah, Senile when the Messenger came, things like that. The proof for that, the reason they hold that against that is that is that the Qur’an itself states that the akhira is not the abode of testing. This world is the abode of testing. And they don’t take an ahad hadith over a Qur’anic verse, in aqidah. That’s Ash’ari aqidah; if there’s a clear cut Quranic verse and there’s a solitary chain hadith, they’ll go with the Quranic verse as the proof. Not the solitary chain hadith. Yup.”
Prima Qur’an comments: Can you imagine that this is the belief of the Ash’ari? They don’t even believe that the person goes to hellfire to be purified of shirk!
Shadee El Masry discusses: Are the Prophet’s Parents in Hellfire?
“He said abi wabuka fi nar. O.k let me answer both of them. So the first one the mother of the Prophet (saw) to say that she’s in the hellfire because he asked to make du’a for her and that he was told no. The answer is this. There’s a category of people who never received the message they are by fiqh by sharia mulhaqq bil kufar hukam an sharan-in our law they are treated as kufar; but the message never reached them and hence they are people of paradise. Because we say:wa kinabata wa rasula( )this is the aqidah right? Of the Ashariya and Matrudiya and many of the Hanabila. We don’t punish until you get the message. So she didn’t get the message obviously. Right? There’s no message at that time. Right? So she didn’t get the message, so we must-they must be treated kufar mulhaqq bil kufar meaning what? Meaning when I go to Native American they never heard about Islam right? Can I go now and and make du’a at his grave? I can’t. Okay? If a person comes to me and brings me a person and tells me they never heard about Islam. I said to her on her deathbed have you ever heard anything called Islam? Allah? Muhammed? She said no I never heard of that and before I could speak another word she died. So we say is Min Ahl Fatrah, she never heard the message she goes to jannah. But we bury her in the Non-Muslim grave yard. By law she’s not a Muslim but with Allah she’s forgiven; goes to paradise. That’s number one.“
The rest of the discussion he addresses the issue of the parents of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Our position in regard to this is outlined by Dr. Shaykh Abdullah al-Mu’ammari here:
The Ash’ari stance makes Islam into a curse and a burden.
Let us think about this. If you had to choose between one of two options which would you choose.
Hear about Islam, embrace Islam, eventually choose the wrong sect and go to hellfire, and/or commit major sins and go to hell-fire for a while (maybe a few billion years who knows) and than enter paradise.
Never hear about Islam and enter into paradise no questions asked.
The choose is rather obvious. The position of the Ash’ari turns Islam into some type of curse. Allah-forbid anyone hear about Islam!
The Ash’ari stance makes it more of a mercy to never hear about the Blessed Prophet (saw) than to hear about him.
“We have sent you only as a mercy for the whole world.” (Qur’an 21:107)
Let us think about this. How does it make sense that not hear about the mercy for the whole world is more of a mercy than hearing about the mercy sent to mankind? In the Ash’ari aqidah not hearing about rahmatan lil’alamin becomes more a mercy for the person than hearing about him! Assuredly this is a damnable position!
The Ash’ari stance makes the objective of Da’wah redundant and illogical.
What is the point of da’wah? Is it not to invite people to ‘the’ truth. So that they may be rightly guided and obtain salvation?
“Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner. Surely your Lord knows best who has strayed from His Way and who is guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
This verse is rendered moot in the Ash’ari position. Allah already knows who is rightly guided and since Allah (swt) already knows he will forgive those who do not encounter the guidance than we are in a situation with circular reasoning.
The Ash’ari admit that in many cases the kufar go to paradise!
You heard the Shaykh above state the following:
“in our law they are treated as kufar; but the message never reached them and hence they are people of paradise.“
“But we bury her in the Non-Muslim grave yard. By law she’s not a Muslim but with Allah she’s forgiven; goes to paradise.”
Allah (swt) has stated:
“Indeed, they who are kafaru-ungrateful among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6)
“Indeed, those who are ungrateful-kafaruand die while they are ungrateful-kuffarun– upon them will be the curse of Allah and of the angels and the people, all together.” (Qur’an 2:161)
“Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.” (Qur’an 4:48)
What is the Ibadi Aqidah position on Ahl Al Fatrah?
It is important to understand that for our school there are two types of information one may utilize to come to knowledge about the existence of Allah.
Where we differ with the Mu’tazilah is that human reason and intellect is insufficient in and of itself to determine if an action is inherently good or evil a part from divine guidance.
1) Sama’ -Hearing arguments from the Qur’an, Sunnah, Prophets. 2) Al Aql-The Mind, reasoning.
It is also important to note that we take the following hadith as authentically transmitted:
It was narrated from ‘Aishah that the Prophet (saw) said:
“The pen has been lifted from three: From the sleeper until he wakes up, from the minor until he grows up, and from the insane until he comes back to his senses or recovers.”
That the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “The pen has been lifted from three; for the sleeping person until he awakens, for the boy until he becomes a young man and for the mentally insane until he regains sanity.”
What we do in our sleep we are not held accountable for it.
The young of all people who have ever lived on the face of the earth, rather they are from tribes that are polytheist, animist etc. If they die before they become mukhalif -the are not held accountable.
The person mentally insane -until they regain sanity (if ever).
So imagine the worse possible oppressor ever. This person is drunk with the blood of the Muslim believers. This person kills the Muslim man, women and children. If this person (the evil doer) has children that die before they become mukhalif -those children go to paradise.
The people of Fatrah. Do we say they are excused?
Are they are excused in their kufr and worship of idols or are they not excused? The popular opinion with us is that they are not excused. They are not excused for their disbelief of shirk or worship of idols because the proof of Allah’s existence is established by the mind. So for as long as they have gone through puberty and have their minds, then the proof has been established by their minds. Every human knows this by his natural disposition even if no messenger has reached him. The evidence for this is the fact that Allah (swt) directed his speech to the mind to establish the proof of his existence by the observation of the signs of Allah:
“Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the day and night there are signs for people of reason.” (Qur’an 3:190)
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth; the alternation of the day and the night; the ships that sail the sea for the benefit of humanity; the rain sent down by Allah from the skies, reviving the earth after its death; the scattering of all kinds of creatures throughout; the shifting of the winds; and the clouds drifting between the heavens and the earth—are surely signs for people of understanding. (Qur’an 2:164)
“In the earth, there are diverse regions side by side and gardens of grapes and cultivated fields, and palm-trees sharing one root and others with individual roots, all watered with the same water. And We make some things better to eat than others. There are Signs in that for people who use their intellect.” (Qur’an 13:4)
“Those who remember Allah while standing, sitting, and lying on their sides, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth, “Our Lord! You have not created this without purpose. Glory be to You! Protect us from the torment of the Fire.” (Qur’an 3:191)
“There is also evidence of the Truth within your own selves. Will you then not see?” (Qur’an 51:21)
Every person of sound intellect reaches this conclusion, it is not necessary to know that this particular creator is called Allah, for the mind doesn’t give such information.
“Say, “Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Compassionate—whichever you call, He has the Most Beautiful Names.” (Qur’an 17:110)
In fact Allah (swt) tells about those who do not use their faculty of reason and intellect:
“Notwithstanding that no human being can ever attain to faith otherwise than by Allah’s leave, and it is He who cast uncleanliness upon those who will not use -their reason!” (Qur’an 10:100)
Allah has condemned the polytheist for worshipping idols, for the mind knows that such things cannot be gods. This is a proof that Ibrahim was able to establish to his people.
“He said, “Then do you worship instead of Allah that which does not benefit you at all or harm you? Uff to you and to what you worship instead of Allah. Then will you not use reason?” (Qur’an 21:66-67)
Them worshipping something that neither benefits nor harms them proves they are not using reason. Thus not using their brains and making them upon misguidance. And it is not said that this only applies to polytheist living in the time of the Prophet (saw) and remained on their misguidance.
Even in the case of those polytheist they were not people without any clue. There were vestiges of the truth among them. In fact, the most important point was already established among them.
“And if you asked them, “Who created the heavens and earth?” they would surely say, ” Allah.” Say, “[All] praise is [due] to Allah “; but most of them do not know.” (Qur’an 31:25)
“And if you asked them, “Who created the heavens and the earth?” they would surely say, ” Allah.” Say, “Then have you considered what you invoke besides Allah ? If Allah intended me harm, are they removers of His harm; or if He intended me mercy, are they withholders of His mercy?” Say, “Sufficient for me is Allah ; upon Him rely the wise.” (Qur’an 39:38)
“If you ask them who created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon , they will certainly say, “Allah!” How can they then be deluded ˹from the truth˺?” (Qur’an 29:61)
Allah (swt) also reprended them for following the footsteps of their predecessors
“But when they are told, Follow what Allah has sent down, they answer, We will follow the ways of our fathers, even though their fathers did not use their reason, and were devoid of all guidance.” (Qur’an 2:170)
What did Allah say? He says, “Even though their fathers did not use their reason, and were devoid of all guidance?”
He (swt) described them as not having reason, and described them as being misguided. If they were not guided, if they were excused how could he describe them as possessing no minds? If they had minds then they will be guided by their intellects to the monotheism of Allah (swt). And if they were upon guidance it would be impossible for Him to denounce their right to it, if they were excused believers.
More thoughts on what Dr. Shadee El Masry said.
Notice that the Shaykh said: “We don’t punish until you get the message.” That is a huge twist. The actual text says: “And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.”
There is a huge difference between saying:
“We don’t punish until you get the message.”
“And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.”
What Dr. Shadee El Masry said in the red implicitly states passivity. As if one can sit at home and a messenger has to knock on their door (like the Jehovah’s Witness) and ask for their time and attention.
Where as the verse in the Qur’an does not imply in any shape or form passivity at all.
In fact, the very verse that Dr. Shadee El Masry quoted is a proof against him. Has not Allah (swt) sent a Messenger? Many in fact, so what onus is upon an individual to actually actively seek out that message?
Allah has sent prophets and messengers to every people -the whole of humanity.
The Message of the Fitra and why reason is a proof against us for denying the Creator.
“And when your Lord brought forth from the loins of the children of Adam their descendants and had them testify regarding themselves. “Am I not your Lord?” They replied, “Yes, You are! We testify.” “Now YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY on Judgment Day, ‘WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THIS.’ (Qur’an 7:172)
“They will further say: “Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!” (Qur’an 67:10)
Notice the above listened OR used intelligence.
1) Sama’ -Hearing arguments from the Qur’an, Sunnah, Prophets. 2) Al Aql-The Mind, reasoning.
The progenitor of the human race-Adam (as) was a monotheist that believed in Allah. So that is the basis of the tribes of humanity. Default position are people who are aware of Allah (swt).
“We said, “Descend all of you! Then when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows it, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.” (Qur’an 2:38)
“Allah said, “Descend, both of you, from here together as enemies to each other. Then when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance will neither go astray nor suffer.” (Qur’an 20:123)
In both of the above verses Allah (swt) is using a rhetorical device to foreshadow the coming of guidance to you(humanity).
“For every community We appointed a code of life to follow. So do not let them dispute with you in this matter. And invite to your Lord, for you are truly on the Right Guidance.” (Qur’an 22:67)
“And [mention] the Day when We will resurrect among every nation a witness over them from themselves. And We will bring you, [O Muhammed], as a witness over your nation. And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things and as guidance and mercy and good tidings for the Muslims.” (Qur’an 16:89)
“Have they not traveled through the earth and observed how was the end of those before them? They were greater than them in power, and they plowed the earth and built it up more than they have built it up, and their messengers came to them with clear evidence. And Allah would not have wronged them, but they were wronging themselves.” (Qur’an 30:9)
Examining the Ash’ari positin in light of the Qur’an.
The Ash’ari love to quote the following verse:
“Whoever is guided is only guided for the benefit of his own soul. And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.” (Qur’an 17:15)
So the question has to be asked. Is there anyone on this Earth that has not received a messenger?
“For We assuredly sent among every People a Messenger, (with the Command), “Serve Allah, and eschew Evil”: of the People were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth).” (Qur’an 16:36)
So the Ash’ari claim is moot. It is bunk.
Their misunderstanding also clashes with the following:
“If Allah were to punish people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left a single living being on earth. But He delays them for an appointed term. And when their time arrives, they cannot delay it for a moment, nor could they advance it.” (Qur’an 16:61)
At the very least the Ash’ari see the force of the verse. At the very least the wrongdoing that can be ascribed to such people is shirk.
It is very clear that Allah (swt) has already sent a messenger. So he most assuredly can punish.
It is also very clear that Allah (swt) has sent a messenger to every people.
So that this has been established we have to look at the follow scenarios.
In Diagram A a Messenger has come. What obligation do the people around this messenger have to ascertain the truth of his message? Note there will be people who will call to haqq and people who will call to batil. There were detractors. So the fact that there are people who try and distort the message does that lift the obligation upon the people to discern the truth?
“And [there are] those [hypocrites] who took for themselves a mosque for causing harm and disbelief and division among the believers and as a station for whoever had warred against Allah and His Messenger before. And they will surely swear, “We intended only the best.” And Allah testifies that indeed they are liars.” (Qur’an 9:107)
In Diagram B the messenger has passed away. There is no current messenger. The message of the messenger has been distorted. Does this now lift the obligation of the people to ascertain the truth? To discern between distortion and authenticity?
Up until what generation are said people under obligation to learn the truth or lifted from that obligation?
In Diagram C Islam (in its current manifestation) came and there were detractors. There were people who called to the haqq and those who called to batil. So the fact that there are people who try and distort the message does that lift the obligation upon the people to discern the truth?
In Diagram D Islam (in its current manifestation) being debated over by 73 (or more) different sects and groups. There are those who call to the haqq and those who call to batil. So the fact that there are people who try and distort the message does that lift the obligation upon people to discern the truth? What about the adherents of the religion themselves. Is there any obligation upon them to discern the facts about their religion?
On what consistent basis do the Ash’ari claim that a Muslim who could be following one of the 72 misguided sects will be in hell while the rest of the world who did not hear about Islam will be granted paradise?
“Then will We treat the Muslims like the criminals?What is [the matter] with you? How do you judge?” (Qur’an 68: 35-36)
People are only accountable for the legal codes that were revealed to them.
“Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear.” (Qur’an 2:286)
All that can be deduced from this is that if a legal code and/or moral law is not revealed to a particular people they cannot be held accountable for that. However, they are held accountable to that which was revealed to them.
The Example of the Prophet Ibrahim (as)
“He has made night and day subservient to you, and the sun and moon and stars, all subject to His command. There are certainly Signs in that for people who use their intellect.” (Qur’an 16:12)
This is exactly what Ibrahim (as) did.
“We also showed Ibrahim the wonders of the heavens and the earth, so he would be certain (l-muqinina) in faith. When the night grew dark upon him, he saw a star and said, “This is my Lord!” But when it set, he said, “I do not love things that set.” Then when he saw the moon rising, he said, “This one is my Lord!” But when it disappeared, he said, “If my Lord does not guide me, I will certainly be one of the misguided people.” Then when he saw the sun shining, he said, “This must be my Lord—it is the greatest!” But again when it set, he declared, “O my people! I totally reject whatever you associate. I have turned my face towards the One Who has originated the heavens and the earth—being upright—and I am not one of the polytheists.” (Qur’an 6:75-79)
Ibrahim (as) was observing that the stars, moon and sun are all following an order. Or they were all subject to some phenomena. Thus, Ibrahim (as) reasoned that which follows laws and patterns can not be the law giver or the pattern maker.
Thus the verse above:
“He has made night and day subservient to you, and the sun and moon and stars, all subject to His command. There are certainly Signs in that for people who use their intellect.” (Qur’an 16:12)
Notice that at that point Ibrahim (as) had not received any formal revelation (wahyu) from Allah (swt). Ibrahim (as) is even known as the friend of Allah. So this millat (creed) of Ibrahim that was so basic and fundamental which was not to associate anything as equal to Allah (swt). It was to worship the ultimate source of all.
If that is sufficient for Ibrahim (as) that is sufficient enough for all the Ahl Al Fatara. Allah (swt) knows best.
“Then We revealed to you, [O Muhammed], to follow the creed (millata) Ibrahim, inclining toward truth; and he was not of (l-mush’rikina) those who associate with Allah.” (Qur’an 16:123)
“And who is better in their way of life (dinan) than those who (aslama) submit themselves fully to Allah, do good, and follow the millata (creed) Ibrahim, the upright? Allah chose Ibrahim as a close friend.” (Qur’an 4:125)
Among societies that became predominantly polytheist or animist one can still come to the conclusion that Allah is one. Human beings have been given intellect and with this intellect, a person would realize that they were created. As this Creator has created me it is a right of the Creator that I believe in him.
“We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?” (Qur’an 41:53)
For the Ash’ari simply to claim that all these people will go to heaven belies the fact that they were sent Messengers, and if it is unnecessary for these people to reflect and research due to the distortion of the message than the same can be said of the Muslims today, even though ironically we have our sources.
Second, it believes the justice of Allah (swt) concerning any evil these people may/may not have done. At the very least to not suggest that among them will be judged based upon how they lived their lives in the same way Muslims will be judged based upon how we lived our lives would is folly.
“And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that upon which we found our fathers.” Even if Satan was inviting them to the punishment of the Blaze?” (Qur’an 31:21)
This verse is crystal clear that during the period of distortion and corruption or when no messenger was sent it was still likely for Satan to suggest things to their base selves that would lead them to hellfire.
“On a Day when their tongues, their hands, and their feet will bear witness against them as to what they used to do.” (Qur’an 24:24)
This is a very powerful verse.
Everywhere one travels on this Earth there is certainly an understanding of selfishness, injustice, cruelty, and malice towards others. One’s own consciousness is a witness against his/her self.
“And the earth shines bright with the light of her Lord, and the Book is set up, and the prophets and the witnesses are brought, and it is judged between them with truth, and they are not wronged. And every soul shall be paid back fully what it has done, and He knows best what they do.” (Qur’an 39:70)
“And We will set up a just balance on the day of resurrection, so no soul shall be dealt with unjustly in the least; and though there be the weight of a grain of mustard seed, (yet) will We bring it, and sufficient are We to take account.” (Qur’an 21:47)
The most that can be said is that those among them who committed shirk they will be in the hellfire. The least that can be said is that we suspend judgement (wuqoof) and leave their matter to Allah (swt).
“Notwithstanding that no human being can ever attain to faith otherwise than by Allah’s leave, and it is He who cast uncleanliness upon those who will not use -their reason!” (Qur’an 10:100)
Yet to grant paradise to every person that they claim has not heard the undistorted message of Islam is fallacious for the many reasons that have been given.
Even if messengers reach people it does not guarantee guidance.
As one of the sages have said:
“The person who is seeking the truth, one evidence will be enough for him. A person who is upon their desires, a thousand clues will still not be clear for him.”
“And if you invite them to guidance, they do not hear; and you see them looking at you while they do not see.” (Qur’an 7:198)
“[Even] if you should strive for their guidance, [O Muhammed], indeed, Allah does not guide those He sends astray, and they will have no helpers.” (Qur’an 16:37)
“And who does more wrong than those who, when reminded of their Lord’s revelations, turn away from them and forget what their own hands have done? We have certainly cast veils over their hearts—leaving them unable to comprehend this and deafness in their ears. And if you invite them to guidance, they will never be guided.” (Qur’an 18:57)
So just as Messengers, and Revelations and Miracles can be sent to people it does not mean that they will be guided just as the inverse is true. By this we mean just because a messenger, or revelation or miracle was not sent to a people it does not mean they will not be guided. [Even though Allah has stated he sent to every people a Prophet].
Lastly, guidance is the purview of Allah (swt).
“It is certainly upon Us to show guidance.” (Qur’an 92:12)
Conclusion: Guidance is a blessing and not a curse. Guidance is both for serenity, safety, stability and peace in this life as well as increases the certainty of those who obey Allah of entering into ever lasting paradise in the next.
The Ash’ari say the believers go to hell (possibly for billions or trillions of years) and non believers go to paradise just on not hearing about Islam.
The Ibadi school based upon the Qur’an and Sunnah say that the believers do not enter hell and that the disbelievers do not enter into paradise.
“Tell them, “I do not claim to have all the treasures of Allah in my hands, nor to know the unseen, nor do I claim to be an angel. I follow only what is revealed to me.” Say to them, “Are the blind and the seeing equal?” Will, you not reflect? (Qur’an 6:50)
“Those blind and those who can see are not equal, nor are those who believe and do good to those who do evil. Yet you are hardly mindful.” (Qu’ran 40:58)
Rather, in the Ash’ari aqidah the blind are those who are the inheritors of paradise.
If you are interested to read more we would suggest the following:
