Tag Archives: theology

Ahl Al Khilaf- Engaging with The Madkhalis & Self Proclaimed Salafis.

“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:

  1. 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.
  2. Using kalaam to speculate that Allah (swt) has two real eyes when we have no firm text on the matter.
  3. 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.
  4. 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!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6502)

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.

SECTION ONE: REFUTING THE LIES, DECEPTION AND OUTRIGHT PROPAGANDA THAT IS AIMED AT AHL AL-HAQQ WAL-ISTIQAMA (THE IBADI SCHOOL)

A REPLY TO THE CLAIMS OF THE SALAFI: MUHAMMED BIN SHAMS AL-DIN

THE QUR’AN CREATED OR UNCREATED: SHAYKH ABD AL-AZIZ BIN BAZ REFUSED TO DEBATE SHAYKH AHMED BIN HAMAD AL KHALILI (H)

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

SHAYKH SALIIH AL-FAWZAN DID NOT REFUTE THE IBADI

SALAFIS DEBATE THE PEOPLE OF TRUTH, THE MUSLIMS, ON THE ISSUE OF SEEING ALLAH IN THE HEREAFTER.

RESPONSE TO SALAFI SHAYKH ASSIM AL-HAKEEM ON PRAYING BEHIND AN IBADI

SECTION TWO: THIS WILL BE THE IBADI SCHOOL EXSPOSING THE BIZARRE BELIEFS AND STRANGE VIEWS OF THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVSE: SALAFI, ATHARI, ETC..

IBN TAYMIYYA AND HIS SECT ARE READY TO SLAUGHTER ALL MUSLIMS IN THE WORLD: WHO IS TRULY THE KHAWARIJ?

THE BID’AH OF IBN TAYMIYYAH AND TWO TAWHIDS.

IBN TAYMIYYAH AND CLEAR TAMTHIL: LIKENING ALLAH TO THE MOON!

IBN TAYMIYYAH CLAIMS THE SALAAF DID TA’WIL OF ALLAH’S ATTRIBUTES (EVERYTHING PERISHES EXCEPT HIS FACE!)

MADHKALI SALAFI: FARIS AL HAMMADI ON THE 60 CUBIT TALL ALLAH!

IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THE SALAFI GOD IS ONE THAT TAKES HUMAN FORM

THE ATHARI HANBALI CLAIM THAT ALLAH WAS RIDING A WHALE MADE OUT OF LIGHT “BEFORE THE CREATION”

THE SALAFI (WAHHABI) VIEW THAT ALLAH GETS BORED (IN A WAY THAT BEFITS HIS MAJESTY)

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.

TWO PROMINIENT SALAFI PREACHERS: BILAL PHILIPS & ASSIM AL HAKEEM LIKE ABOUT IMAM MALIK AND THE PRAYER.

SALAFI SHAYKH ASSIM AL-HAKEEM: YOU CAN PRAY WITH ARMS TO THE SIDE

SALAFI SHAYKH: SALEH AL UTHAYMEEN AND HIS CONTROVERSIAL BEER DRINKING FATWA

SALAFI SHAYKH SALEH AL UTHAYMEEN WAS ASKED ABOUT ALLAH’S BLANKET

SALAFI SHAYKH NASIRUDDIN AL-ABANI ADMITS: BUKHARI HAS WEAK HADITH AND MISTAKES!

SALAFI SHAYKH MUQBIL AL WADI’I: HADITH IN SAHIH MUSLIM ON SEEING ALLAH IS ACTUALLY WEAK!

A TEACHER OF THE SALAFI SECT-DR.MUHAMMED SALAH LIES ABOUT MOSES (AS) SEEING ALLAH

SALAFI PREACHER: WE WILL SEE ALLAH’S FACE IN PARADISE!

SALAFI CREED TEACHES US : ALLAH HAS TWO HANDS AND BOTH HIS HANDS ARE RIGHT HANDS (AND ONE OF THOSE RIGHT HANDS IS A LEFT HAND)

SHAYKH SALIH AL-FAWZAN ATTRIBUTES LIES TO ALLAH (OVER QURAN 4:157) & SALAFIS ATTACK IMRAN HOSEIN OVER JESUS. TWO PEANUTS!

SALAFI SHAYKH SALIH AL-FAWZAN:CASTRATE THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO KEEP THE BEARD.

WAHHABI MADHKALI TRY AND CREATE FITNA BETWEEN MALIKI AND IBADI AND ARE SHUT DOWN

SALAFI IMMIGRANTS TRY TO BRING SECTARIANISM TO OMAN: ACCESS DENIED!

SPEECH OF ALLAH? IS THE QUR’AN CREATED? ASH’ARI & SALAFI PERSPECTIVES.

HADITH OF THE SLAVE GIRL. WHERE IS ALLAH?

WHEN IS ALLAH/WHERE IS ALLAH? REFUTING SALAFI KALAAM ARGUMENTS

DO SALAFIYYAH TRULY BELIEVE THAT ALLAH CHUCKLES AND LAUGHS AT THE DESPAIR OF THE PALESTINIANS?

SALAFI PREACHER OFFERS ZIONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF THE QUR’AN 17:7

MUSLIMS SHOULD BOYCOTT STARBUCKS IN SPITE OF PALESTINE (INCLUDING MADHKALIS)

https://primaquran.com/2023/11/16/muslims-should-boycott-starbucks-in-spite-of-palestine-including-madhkalis/

MADHKALI SALAFIYYAH: THE SCOURGE OF THE UMMAH?

AHMED IBN HANBALI SAYS IKRIMA (RA) WAS UPON THE VIEW OF THE IBADI

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

THE CLAIM THAT IBADIS DISAVOW UTHMAN, MUAVIYA AND ALI: ABOUT THAT! THE ARTICLE THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO READ!

SALAFI PREACHER INSULTS KNOWN COMPANION THAT STABBED UTHMAN IN THE CHEST 9 TIMES!

SALAFIYYA & AHL SUNNAH IN GENERAL ATTACK THE NOBLE COMPANION HURQUS IBN ZUHAIR!

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)

WHAT IS TAWHID? DEBATE BETWEEN NIZARI ISMAILI SHI’A & ATHARI-SALAFI

SALAFIYYAH USING MANTIQ (LOGIC) AND AQL (REASONING) TO DENY ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAH?

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)

MOHAMED HIJAB INVITATION TO LEARN ABOUT THE IBADI SCHOOL

SHAYKH YASIR QADHI SPEAKS ON THE IBADI SCHOOL: THREE LEVELS OF AQIDAH (THEOLOGY)

HAMZA ANDREAS TZORTZIS TO SPEAK IN OMAN

DR. ZAKIR NAIK IN OMAN

SHAYKH YUSUF ESTES IN OMAN FOR RAMADAN

IMAM KHALID YASIN ON THE IBADI PERSPECTIVE

More articles to come -Allah willing.

Shaykh Fawzan’s view that the Sun goes around the Earth!

Ahmed Ibn Hanbal’s view that one can call out (do istigatha) to angels and jinn for assistance and help.

May Allah guide those who claim to be upon the way of the first three generations to the correct understaniding.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does the Qur’an inaccurately describe ‘The’ Trinity?

“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. 

Sourcehttps://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/eastons-bible-dictionary/trinity.html

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.”

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

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 in trinity (triad) and the trinity (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.

Sourcehttps://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine-scripture/the-symbol-of-faith/holy-spirit

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.”

Source: https://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/bible-answers/theology/what-does-it-mean-that-god-is-three-in-one.html

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 in trinity (triad) and the trinity (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 takes as 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.”


Sourcehttps://aleteia.org/2016/07/08/let-us-pray-the-earliest-known-marian-prayer/


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.

You may be interested in reading the following:


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.

May Allah guide the Ummah.

May Allah forgive the Ummah.

17 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Ash’ari Aqidah & Ibadi Aqidah on Ahl Al Fatrah

“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.

  1. The Ash’ari stance makes Islam into a curse and a burden.
  2. 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.
  3. The Ash’ari stance makes the objective of Da’wah redundant and illogical.
  4. The Ash’ari admit that in many cases the kufar go to paradise!
  5. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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-kafaru and 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.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/nasai:3432)

Narrated ‘Ali:

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.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1423)

  1. What we do in our sleep we are not held accountable for it.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  1. It is very clear that Allah (swt) has already sent a messenger. So he most assuredly can punish.
  2. 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:

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah to what is beloved to Allah (swt).

May Allah forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Development in the Ibadi Theology during the 18th and 19th Centuries -Dr. Saleh Ahmed Al-Busaidi

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

﷽ 

The following is taken from:

Introduction

Thanks are due to Allah, Al Aziz Al Hakim (the Might & the Wise) and prayers and peace be upon the Prophet Muhammed who has followed the righteous path and had the purist mind, and upon all his companions and followers till the Day of Judgment.

The Ibadis as a school have contributed greatly to the Islamic ‘Aqidah studies as they share schools with Sunnah, Shi’ah and Mu’tazilah. Even though many consider Ibadism as a Fiqh or a political movement, what make Ibadis so special are their “Aqidahh foundations and principles. All their political and Fiqh opinions are only reflections of their ‘Aqidah and convictions that have been established long ago on a solid ground. The disagreements between classic and modern scholars and between the Mashariqa and Maghariba (Ibadies of the east and west) are minor; most of these disagreements fall under the second or third degree ‘Aqidah issues such as the torment of the grave or Createdness of the Quran. Moreover, in many cases these disagreements stem from linguistic choices and do not touch core principles.

In the 18th and 19th centuries AD, a number of Omani scholars emerged with a qualitative shift in ‘Aqidah writing be it in presentation or content. Most notably of these scholars are four: Shaykh Abu Nabhan Ja’ed bin Khamis Al Kharousi, Al Mohaqiq Said bin Khalfan Al Khalili, Shaykh Nasser bin Abi Nabhan Al Kharousi and Shaykh Nasser Abu Muslim Nasser bin Salim bin Adai’em Al Rawahi. The writings of those scholars were relatively contemporary in terms of the ‘Aqidah issues they tackle and the interrelated sciences they use. Their predecessors would not have touched on such issues or if they did, they would do that superficially. The efforts of those four led to an intellectual movement that remained strong till today, even if with less momentum.

In this brief paper, the researcher will try to highlight the role of those scholars in renovating the intellectual movement of the late centuries. The researcher will try to highlight the impact of their movement and how they were influenced by and did in turn influence the ‘Aqidah and intellectual principles of the Ibadi School in general.

Preface: Introduction of the scholars:

1.Shaykh Abu Nabhan Jai’ed bin Khamis bin Mubarak Al Kharousi (1147-1237 AH/ 1734-1822 AD)1, also known as Al Rais (the president). He was born in Al Aliya town in Wadi Bani Kharus, and was responsible for an intellectual revolution by writing more than twenty books in different disciplines:Tafseer, Fiqh, ‘Aqidah, Nahw & Saraf (interpretation, jurisprudence, faith, syntax and morphology). He mentored a number of famous scholars such as his son Nasser bin Ja’ed and Shaykh Said bin Khalfan Al Khalili. Most notable of his books are: Maqaleed AlTanzeel, Al Diqqaq li’Ahl AnNifaq, Sharh Hayat Al Muhaj & Kitab Al Haj. He passed away mid-day Thursday 3rd of Thi Al Hija 1237, aged more than 90 years, and was buried in his hometown Al Aliya.

2.Shaykh Nasser bin Abi Nabhan Ja’ed bin Khamis bin Mubarak Al Kharusi (1192-1262 AH/ 1778-1847 AD)2. He was born in Al Aliya town, Al Awabi, to an educated family; his father is a well-known figure in Islamic studies. He wrote many well-known books such as: Kitab Al Ikhlas, Mubtada Al Asfar an AtTahtheeb and has a good question-answer collection in different issues mentioned by the author of Oamoos Al Sharia. He also wrote Tarf Al Altaf and Diwan Al Mustafa, a poetic piece organized in the chronology of the dictionary alphabet, and touches on philosophy and the wisdom of the Almighty Allah.

3. Shaikh Said bin Khalfan bin Ahmed bin Saleh Al Khalili (1231-1287 AH/ 1816-1870 AD)3, whose lineage goes back to Imam Al Khalil bin Shathan bin Al Imam Al Salt bin Malik Al Kharusi. He is considered one of the most well-known figures in the 13th century AH in religion and politics. He lived in Izki then moved to Baushar and finally settled in Samail. He was best known as Al Muhaqiq, for his dedication to Tahqeeq and assigning evidence and principle to different issues. He was a key member of the cabinet of Imam Azzan bin Qais in his revolution (1869-1871 AD), along with Saleh bin Ali Al Harthi and Muhammed bin Saleem Al Gharbi. He wrote many books and combined poetry with science and thus was known as the most knowledgeable of poets and the most poetic of scholars. Some of his key books are: Orjoozat Ilm AsSarf and he wrote a commentary for it called Al Maqaleed. He wrote another poem in Aroodh called Al Madhar Al khafi fil Arood wal Qawafi, another orjooza in Zakat, Al Nawamees Al Rahmaniya fi Tasheel Al Turuq Ela Al Olum Al Rabbaniyya, Al Saif Al Muthaker fil Amer bil Maroof wan Nahi anl Munkar, and a collection of Fatwa. He was killed together with his son in 1287 AH.

4. Scholar and poet Abu Muslim Nasser bin Salim bin Adai’em Al Rawahi (1273-1339 AH/ 1867-1920 AD). He grew up initially in Mahram town, where he studied at the hands of Shaykh Ahmed bin Said bin Khalfan Al Khalili. He later moved to Zanzibar with his father who was appointed judge at that time. He returned to Oman for five years and went back again to Zanzibar to take up his father’s role. In Zanzibar he dedicated his time to teaching and authoring. He combined mastery of Sharia sciences, literature and poetry. He was considered a genius of his time and deserved the title “The poet of scholars and the scholar of poets”. He died in Zanzibar in 1339 AH/ 1920 AD. He wrote many books most notably of which are: Nithar Al Jawhar fi Ilm Al Shara Al Zahar, Al Nashat Al Mohamadiya, Al Noor Al Mohammadi and Al Nafs Al Rahmani. He has a big collection of poetic works4.

The Development in the Ibadi Theology during the 18th and 19th Centuries can be summed up in the following:

First: Development in Authoring:

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries AD witnessed a considerable development in Ibadi ‘Aqidah authoring and writing in Oman. This development can be summed up in the following:

Writing style: A considerable development has been witnessed in the style of scientific writing in general and more notably in ‘Aqidah issues. ‘Aqidah writing featured more expressive force and attention to rhetoric, especially when refuting opposing opinions. A closer look at the Ajwiybah (Questions-Answers) of AlMohaqia Al Khalili will notice a great deal of rhetoric styles, especially Saj’a (rhymed phrase endings).

Use of poetry in authoring: The time of those scholars saw a new trend of authoring in different ‘Aqidah issues using poetry as a vehicle. A good example of this trend is the poem written by Abu Muslim Al Bahlani in the issue of seeing Allah, in which he starts with:

Realize Allah’s Transcendence from being seen to know Him. Would you be able to know Him and prove so?

Know your capacity in what you are attempting. What you are attempting is what will hurt you.

In fact, Abu Muslim used poetry a lot in expressing his ‘Aqidah and political opinions, whether for contemporary or classic issues. One famous example of classic political issues is the Nahrawania poem in which he expressed his opinion in the battles of Sifeen and Al Nahrawan.

Another common way of using poetry in authoring is the question-answer books, a trend which expanded on later stages5. The aim was to use a rhetoric appealing way of expressing Fiqh opinions. Full fiqh books were written in this style such as Kitab Bahjat Al Majalis by Shaykh Khlfan bin Jumayel Al Siyabi and Al Fiqh fi Itar Al Adab by Abi Surour Abdullah bin Humaid Al Jami’e.

Commentary expansion in ‘Aqidah issues: It is found that those four scholars (Shaykh Ja’ed bin Khamis, his son Nasser, Al Mohaqiq Al Khalili and Abu Muslim Al Bahlani) expanded commentary in some ‘Aqidah issues as a response to the Wahabi invasion of Oman and the conversion of many Omanis to Wahabism as a result of fear and desire. A lot of debates took place and much skepticism was casted on the foundation of Ibadi ‘Aqidah principles. Those four scholars took it on them to explain and counter the sceptics of Ibadi ‘Aqidah principles.

ShaykhSaid bin Khalfan Al Khalili for example expanded commentary on the issue of seeing Allah and his commentary runs to about thirty pages. He stated the evidences used by the opposition from the Quran and Sunnah and refuted every single claim of them6. Shaykh Abu Muslim Al Bahlani on the other hand expanded commentary on the issue of Quran createdness in his Nithar Al Jawhar using many Quranic and Hadith evidence to support his opinion that the Quran is created.7

Second: Tendency toward Rationalism:

There is no doubt that Islamic Sharia, especially in ‘Aqidah issues, is based on conclusive evidence from Quran and Sunnah. Rational is used only on what is perceivable such as knowing the existence of Allah and His attributes. Sheikh Al Khalili emphasized this opinion and said: “One thing that must be believed in once it occurs to the mind is knowing the existence of Allah and knowing His attributes after knowing His existence . . .”.8

During the 18th and 19th centuries AD, those scholars expanded on the use of rational evidence ‘Aqidah issues driven and supported by extensive reading in philosophical sciences, besides their strong mental capabilities. They critically read and scrutinized what other Muslim philosophers wrote such as Abu Hamid Al Gazali. Al Khalili for example after reading Al Gazali’s book rejected al-Gazali’s attempt to prove the possibility of seeing Allah by using a claimed incident of angel Jibril being seen in the picture of Dihyat Al Khalbi, and said: “This man compared Allah with angels which is wrong, as Allah is not a comparable entity9.

This rational trend helped those scholars to reject some stories that were attributed to the Prophet (MPBUH) whenever they felt they contradict logic reasoning. Shaykh Nasser bin Abi Nabhan for example denied the idea of the torment of the grave and blessings10 despite many evidences from the Sunnah. In fact, the abundance of evidence on the torment of the grave led some scholars to categorize the idea as Mutawatir Manawi (successive reporting of the same concept over time), and one of those was Al Imam Noor Al Deen Al Salmi in his Anwar Al ‘Uqul, where he said:

and then the torment of the grave, you shall understand that stories have been successfully reported . . . and you shall believe in it as a truth and do not look at other possibilities1 1

Shaykh Nasser’s denial of the torment of the grave, besides being difficult to imagine, was the absence of evidence from the Quran or absolute evidence from the Sunnah. Furthermore he thinks that Quranic evidence actually says the opposite; a dead person is resurrected only on the Day of Judgment as per the verse: “They will say, “Our Lord, You made us lifeless twice and gave us life twice, and we have confessed our sins. So, is there to an exit anyway?” Ghafer:11. The common opinion of Ibadi scholars though is that the torment of the grave is true, but they don’t shun opposing opinions12.

Another example of rational justification is Shaykh Nasser bin Abi Nabhan’s rejection of the Hadith that says some Prophets are alive in the heavens and that Adam is alive in the heaven of this life and is presented with the deeds of his descendants. Shaykh Nasser said: “This is not possible. They are dead in this earth and they are not different than the prophet Mohammed MPBUH”.

Shaykh Nasser also rejected the story of prophet Issa’s (Jesus) second coming at the end of time, and the Mahdi’s prophecy, despite the narrated hadiths such as the one narrated by Al Bukhari and others from Abu Huraira that the Prophet Muhammed (saw)said:

“The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).”13

There is also another Hadith narrated by Abi Said Al Khudari that the Prophet Muhammed (saw) said: “The Hour shall not be established until the earth is filled with injustice and tyranny, and then a man from my house will rise up and fill the earth with as much justice as there was injustice”14.

However, ShaykhNassr rejected these Hadiths casting doubt on their credibility and said: “I believe that the second coming of Jesus and the rise of the Mahdi are not true and there is no explicit or implicit evidence on that from the Quran, Sunnah or logic. After all, why would they be resurrected? Why would they be resurrected together?

The teachings of the prophet are clear like the sun. If the resurrection is meant to distinguish between the right and the wrong and if the right is not possible to be identified without their guidance, how would Allah leave the followers of Prophet Mohammed (saw) in their divide and chaos since the day the companions disagreed till the day of Jesus and Mahdi resurrection?

Many of Allah’s servants want to worship Him with the right religion and Allah leaves them in their aberrance. The benefit of resurrecting the prophet Mohammed (saw) becomes pointless except for himself and his companions who died before the divide of the companions. And if the right truth is clear and known why would Jesus and the Mahdi be resurrected?

From whatever angle you look at it, you find it wrong. And Allah knows better.15

Third: Tendency toward Sufism:

Sufism emerged in the second century after Hijra as an independent and established movement with its own principles and terminology, focusing on cleansing one’s self, drawing closer to Allah and dedicating worship for Him. Like most widespread movements, Sufism branched out to other sub-schools and despite sharing common objectives; some practices were overtaken by extremism.

There is no doubt that Sufism’s ultimate goal is the cleansing of the soul and dedication of self to Allah, which is the essence of Islam that has been narrated in both Quran and Sunnah. For example, in the Hadith Qudsi: “…And the most beloved thing with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (voluntary prayers or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) until I love him, (so much so that) I become his hearing with which he hears, and his sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he strikes, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me something, I will surely give him, and if he seeks My Protection (refuge), I will surely protect him …”l6, and this Hadith is at the core foundation of Sufism.

If we also go back to what the prophet’s (saw) companions were described with, we find that they were described as “monks of the night”, apart from being knights of the day, and this became the essence of Sufism. Ibadis however define Sufism in a different original way such as what Abu Hamza AI Shari described his companions: “… young but followed the path of the wise elders, their eyes blinded from evil, their feet are heavy to walk the path of wrong doings, dedicated to worship and in love with late hours of the night. They gave away their souls that may die tomorrow in exchange for eternal souls. Allah looks upon them in the hollowness of the night and sees their bodies leaning over their copies of the Quran, and if they happen to read any verse about heaven, they would cry longing for it, and if they read a verse bout hell they would gasp as if the hellish fires are breathing in their ears. Earth has eaten their knees, hands, noses and foreheads, and they know no rest whether at day or night, their bodies have turned yellow and withered from long standing and fasting. They do all this for the sake of their promise to Allah. However, if they see the arrows, spears and swords of the enemy approaching and the thunder of war calls out, they take the fear of legions lightly for the sake of their reward from Allah; they never take the promise of Allah lightly in fear of legions of the enemy. They take spears and arrows heads on with their chests and faces. A young man (such as them) moves ahead with his head high and when he falls down and the earth dirties his handsome face and the birds and predators prey on his body …”17

However, the relation between Ibadis and Sufism was barely notable with the early Ibadi scholars; there are no books on Sufism and they didn’t use Sufi terminology in their books. This relationship thrived though in the 18th century with many scholars such as Shaykh Ja’ed and his son Nasser, Al Mohaqiq Al Khalili and Abu Muslim Al Bahlani embracing Sufism and producing some of the most influential and hard-core writings on Sufism. The contributions of those scholars can be summed up in the following:

Books: Those four scholars added a number of rich books in Sufism and behavioral science (‘ilm al-suluk), most famous of which are:

1. Commentary on Hayat Al Mohaj poem and the poem itself by Shaykh Ja’ed bin Khamis Al Kharusi: Hayat Al Mohaj poem is a lengthy poem in Sufism and behaviors, and starts with:

My brothers in Allah listen to me,

as I am always advising for the Sake of Allah till He is pleased.

2. Other poems of Shaykh Ja’ed: He wrote other poems in Sufism, and one of them starts with:

The sun of the enlightened is above all,

and they are abstinent from the love of anything but Allah

3.Al Nawamees Al Rahmaniya fi Tasheel Turuq Ela oloum ArRabaniya, a book by Shaykh Said bin Khalfan Al Khalili. This book was described by Shaykh Khalfan Al Harthi as: “This book tackles issues of knowledge acquisition tools. He started by talking about the brain and the beneficial food and drugs. After that the book talks about the secrets of verses, prayers and divine names of Allah. In doing so, Shaykh Said quotes Al Antaki, Al Ghazali Al Bani and others18.

4.Lydah Nudum AsSoluk Ela Hadarat Malik AlMolok by Shaykh Nasser bin Ja’ed Al Kharusi in which he gives extensive commentary on Ibn Al Faridh’s “T rhyming” poem in Sufism, a lengthy poem that runs to about 759 lines, and starts with:

Yes, my heart has longed for my beloved

This book was printed in 2011 in 786 pages with an introduction by Dr. Waleed Mahmood Khalis. This is a valuable and unique book that reflects deep understanding and knowledge of ShaykhNasser.

5.Poems of Shaykh Said bin Khalfan Al Khalili in Sufism and behavior: Shaykh Said Al Harthi says: “He wrote many poems in the divine love, supplication, prayer, motivation and guidance to the path of the enlightened”19. Some of the poems are very lengthy; one of them runs to 220 lines. Shaykh Abu Muslim Al Bahlani did Takhmis (extension of a poem line by adding one and a half line to an existing line) of one of those poems.

6. Poems of Abu Muslim Al Bahlani in Sufism: Lengthy poems that can reach to 1000 lines. The total number of lines in prayer poems of Abu Muslim reached about 5500 lines20, which can be considered a full book on their own. Dr. Mohamed Nasser says about these poems: “All these poems can be categorized under the supplication, because they were simply written for this purpose as can be seen in the introductions. The author puts forward a certain behavior before and during the poems which means he used to practice a certain ritual. He would prepare himself by Ablution, supplication and prayer at midnight. The poem lines would flow in his tongue and he uses them to call upon his creator in moments of spiritual highness and emotional fulfillment”21

Uniqueness of Ibadis Sufism: Despite embracing, practicing and writing in Sufism, those scholars did not follow that path blindly without critique. In fact, they created their own Sufism as Dr. Waleed Khalis says: “It is important to note that, in embracing Sufism, those Omani scholars and poets chose only what aligns with their ‘Aqidah and their sects principles. We did hint to this earlier. That is why they used the concept of Soluk not Holol or Wihdat AlWojood (unity of existence) or other concepts embraced by some Sufis. Ibn Al Faridh in fact himself falls under a conservative group that keeps the Quran and Sunnah always as a super guide. Omani scholars and poets expressed interest in Al Faridh’s works because they share common foundations objectives”22

This uniqueness can be summed up in the following:

Their definition of Ibadi Sufism: Those scholars defined Sufism in a unique way that moves away from extremism, trying to repel the stereotype that had become a norm. They stressed that Sufism in its essence calls for good and virtue, and all impurities have to be ruled out. Shaykh Nasser bin Ja’ed said: “A person shall not overlook Sufism; even if he couldn’t reach its peak he should pray and supplicate with whatever is possible to him. Sufism cannot be achieved by roaming the lands, but by the dedication to Allah in everything and following the straight path. Then a person needs to ask Allah and supplicate by abandoning bad habits and traits and embracing the steps of Iman after completing the mandatory prayers and worships…”23

Sufism doesn’t mean solitude and escape from other religious duties, and it doesn’t mean monasticism; it is rather a state of the heart that a Muslim tries to deepen by drawing closer to Allah through prayers and supplications. This is clearly noted by Shaykh Nasser bin Abi Nabhan when he said: “You should know that supplications to Allah is the tool of Sufism and it works even if a person sleeps with four women at night, righteously fight the infidels during the day, helps people and works in Sharia; all of this can’t spoil Sufism. No one knows that a person is Sufi without a revelation from Allah or by direct hearing from the mouth of a Prophet as Sufism is a hidden state in the heart. Naming someone ‘Sufi’ on the basis of outlooks is allowed …”24

This precise understanding of the essence of religion and Sufism is what is clearly referred to by many verses of the Holy Quran and many Hadiths. In the days of the Prophet Mohammed (saw) some people misunderstood religion for monasticism but the prophet explained to them that religion is not about solitude and worship only. Anas bin Malik said: “Thus, it has been narrated that a group of three men came to the houses of the wives of The Prophet (saw) asking how the Prophet (MPBUH) worshipped (Allah), and when they were informed about that, they considered their worship insufficient and said: “Where are we in comprise to The Prophet as his past and future sins have been forgiven.” Then one of them said: “I will offer the prayer throughout the night forever.” The other said: “I will fast throughout the year and will not break my fast.” The third said: “I will keep away from the women and will not marry forever.” Allah’s Messenger (saw) came to them and said: “Are you the same people who said so-and-so? By Allah, I am more submissive to Allah and more afraid of Him than you; yet I fast and break my fast, I do sleep and I also many women. So, he who does not follow my tradition in religion, is not from me (not one of my followers).”25

This definition and conception of Sufism by these scholars is not theoretical but had been their way of living, despite having been very active in political, social and intellectual life. Sufism didn’t restrain them from engaging in life activities. Shaykh Said bin Khalfan AI Khalili was the strongest pillar of the Imamate of Azzan bin Qais AI Busaidi; he was the one backing the Imam, the one who appointed him and the one who fought his wars and battles until he got killed for the sake of his principles.

Shaykh Ja’ed bin Khamis and his son were very active in political, social and intellectual life in their days. This is evident in their multidisciplinary books; Shaykh Ja’ed himself left behind more than 20 books.

On the other hand, Abu Muslim Al Bahlani played a critical role in the intellectual renaissance in Zanzibar and his newspaper (Al Falaq) was one of the first Arabic newspapers at that time. He printed a number of books and his deep devotion to Sufism didn’t withhold him from writing poetry in other fields such as praise, ghazal, humor and obituary.

Sufism terminology: Those four scholars used in their books and poems many Sufi terms. Dr. Sharifa Al Yahyai said: “The pioneering of Al Khalili in Sufi poetry made his poems a reservoir of Sufi terminology, a rich pool for research on Sufi language. Moreover, his poems acquired some linguistic alienness as a result of the deep connection with Sufi literature and this influence is demonstrated in complex structures, a common feature of Sufi poetry. He was also influenced by Ibn Al Faridh, one of the most prominent Sufi poets”26. However, they also tried to avoid misleading terms, such as the word ‘Sufi’ itself and replaced it with ‘Soluk’ which denotes the objective of this movement, to reach to the ultimate understanding of Allah and His attributes and get His blessings.

Holding on to the Ibadi ‘Aqidah: The Sufi movement emerged and grew in non-Ibadi cultures and no Ibadi scholar wrote on this field before those four who remained rooted and firmly holding their Ibadi ‘Aqidah principles. Whenever they felt something contradicting the Ibadi ‘Aqidah, they would promptly reject it and rectify it. Two examples of this are:

The meaning of (unity) with Allah in Sufism: One of the extreme thoughts of Sufism is the actual unity between the creator and the created, which is claimed to happen when a person rises high in love and closeness to Allah. However, Shaykh Nasser bin Ja’ed explains that Sufism (or the correct Sufism) doesn’t actually mean so27. What it actually means is not a unity of entities but rather of attributes, as a believer takes on the attributes of Allah when he draws closer to Him. With this explanation, ShaykhNasser may be referring to the hadith: “And the most beloved thing with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (voluntary prayers or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) until I love him, (so much so that) I become his hearing with which he hears, and his sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he strikes, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me something, I will surely give him, and if he seeks My Protection (refuge), I will surely protect him”28

Seeing Allah: Ibadis believe that Allah cannot be seen by the eye sight in this world or in the afterlife. The common Sunni opinion is that Allah can be seen, and most of them agree that this seeing happen only in the afterlife as a reward for believers. When Ibadis faced the paradox of seeing Allah with the eye sight, they were firm about their opinion and emphasized that whatever revelation happens is only a revelation of His attributes. Shaykh Nasser bin Ja’ed said in the context of explaining the concept of seeing Allah in this life and the life after: “It is not Allah’s entity that will be seen, it is only His attributes. In the afterlife, paradise dwellers will have Allah always with them, and they will feel His mighty presence and His attributes, but they won’t be seeing His entity. In the same context, Shaykh Abu Nabhan said: “they feel His attributes in their hearts. In the afterlife the sighting of Allah’s attributes is conceived by the mind just like the Prophet (saw) sees Allah in his mind by His attributes not His entity… and some people believe in seeing Allah’s entity which is not possible and not right to believe. Allah’s entity is and will not be conceived or seen by anyone but Allah only, and not even prophets or angels can do that. It is just impossible and believing otherwise is a delusion”29.

·And he also said: “I swear that ultimate joy in paradise is to comprehend the attributes of Allah not seeing Him by the eye. Seeing Allah is something that we reject anyway. When we say ‘seeing’ we mean the presence of the mind with Allah and seeing his attributes”30.

Conclusion

This paper concludes with the following findings:

1.A considerable development has been witnessed in theology (‘Ilm Al Kalam) with the Ibadis in the 18th and 19th centuries AD, in terms of the style or writing and expansion in the issues that have not been touched by other Ibadi scholars in Oman before.

2. The authoring style in Ilm Al Kalam saw some development with the use of more expressive and rhetoric force.

3. Poetry was used to refute the opinions of the opposition in ‘Aqidah issues.

4. Some scholars expanded their commentary in some ‘Aqidah issues and in response to opposing opinions.

5. Many scholars wrote on Ilm Al Suluk (Sufism) whether in poetry or in prose.

6. The writing on Suluk (Sufism) was done with due consideration of Ibadi ‘Aqidah principles, and without deviating from the founding principles of the Ibadi school.

_________________________

1 See his biography: Mujam Alaam Al Ibadiyah (Mashriq Scholars) p. 43-44, Daleel Alam Oman 45, Al Khusaibi, Shaqaiq Al Numan 1/139-154.

 See his biography: Al Salmi, Abdullah, Tuhfat Al Aayan 2/172-175, Daleel Aalam Oman p.159, Al Sadi, Fahad, Muajam Al Fuqaha wal Mutaklmeen Al Ibadia 3/240-247.

3 See his biography: Daleel Alaam Al Ibadiay (Mashriq Scholars) p. 132-133, Al Harthi, Khalfan, Fiqh of Shaykh Said bin Khalfan Al Khalili p.35-60, Al Yahyaiya, Sharifa, Shaykh Said bin khalfan Al Khalili, Pioneer of Sufi Poetry in Oman p1.

Shariaf bin Khalfan AI Yahyai Al Saadi, Fahad, Mujam AI Fuqaha wal Mutaklmeen Al Ibadiay 3/240-247.

4 See his biography in Daleel Alam Oman 159-160, Al Khusaibi, Shaqaiq Al Numan 2/347, Al Bahlani, Nithar Al Jawhar 1/15-20, Al Sadi, Fahad, Mujam AI Fuqaha AI Mutaklmeen AI Ibadiay 3/252-259.

5 See for example: Al Khalili, Said, Ajwibat AI Mohaqiq AI Khalili 1/165, 1/187.

6 Al Khalili, Said, Ajwibat Al Mohaqiq Al Khalili 1/165, 1/187. See also: Al Khalili, Said, Tamheed Qawa’ed Al lyman, 1/262-286.

7 Al Bahlani, Abu Muslim, Nithar Al jawhar, 1/92-98.

8 Al Kkalili, Said, Ajwibat Al Mohaqiq Al Khalili, 1/79.

9 Al Khalili, Said, Ajwibat Al Mohaqiq Al Khalili, 1/163.

10 Al Khalili, Said, Ajwibat Al Mohaqiq Al Khalili, 1/216.

11 Al Salmi, Noor Al Deen, Mashariq Anwar AI Oqool, p.355.

12 See: Al Salmi, Noor Al Deen, Mashariq Anwar Al Oqool, p.358, Al Khalili, Said, Ajwibat Al Mohaqiq Al Khalili 1/220.

13 Al Bukari, Mohammed, Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 2476.

14 Ibn Habban, Abu Hatim, Sahih Ibn Habban, Hadith No. 6823.

15 Al Khalili, Said, Ajwibat Al Mohaqiq Al Khalili, 1/202.

16 Al Bukhari, Mohammed, Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 6502.

17 Safwat, Ahmed Zaki, Jamharat Khutab Al Arab, 2/469-476.

18 AI Harthi, Khalfan, Fiqh Said bin Khalfan AI Khalili p.56.

19 Al Harthi Khalfan, Fiqh Said bin Khalfan Al Khalili p.69.

20 Nasser Dr Mohammed, Abu Muslim AI Rawahi Hassan Oman p.39.

21 Nasser, Dr. Mohammed, Abu Muslim Al Rawahi Hassan Oman p.39-40.

22 Khalis, Dr. Waleed, Iydah Nudum Al Soluk, p.32.

23 Al Kharusi, Nasser, Iydah Nudum Al Soluk, p.482.

24 Al Kharusi, Nasser, Iydah Nudum AI Soluk, p.485.

25 Al Bukhari, Mohammed, Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 5063.

26 Al Yahyaiya, Sharifa, Al ShaykhSaid bin Khalfan AI Khalili, Doyen of Sufi Poetry in Oman,p.3

Sharifa bint Khalfan Al yahiyai for Saidi, Fahad, Mujam AI Fuqaha wal Mutaklmeen AI Ibadia 3/240-247.

27 Al Kharusi, Nasser, Iydah Nudum AI Soluk, p.315.

28 Al Bukhari, Mohammed, Sahih Al Bukhari, Hadith No. 6502.

29 Al Kharusi, Nasser, Iydah Nudum Al Soluk, p.328-329.

30 Al Kharusi, Nasser, Iydah Nudum AI Soluk, p.136.

You may wish to read more here:

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Miscellaneous Subjects

“Alif-Lãm-Mĩm” (Qur’an 2:1)

﷽ 

This section will be miscellaneous information on a wide range of topics. This section does not necessarily reflect the views or attitudes of either the Ibadi school or adherents of the school.

Do note some links are broken. We are in the process of restoring those links.

Allah willing we will continue to update this section and organize it accordingly as well:

THE MERCY, LOVE AND FORGIVENSS OF ALLAH

INSPIRATIONAL SHORT CLIPS ABOUT ISLAM TO INSPIRE, MOTIVATE AND CAUSE REFLECTION

MINI GALLERY AT SULTAN MASJID SINGAPORE

https://primaquran.com/2024/01/24/mini-gallery-at-sultan-mosque-singapore/

THE QUR’AN NEVER INDICATES THAT THE MAJORITY ARE UPON THE TRUTH-EVER.

ADVISE TO NEW MUSLIM CONVERTS/REVERTS

WHY DO WE AS MUSLIMS FACE TOWARDS THE KAABA?

https://primaquran.com/2023/04/01/why-do-we-as-muslims-face-towards-the-kaaba

KHIMAR (HEAD COVERING) IS AN INJUNCTION WITH IN THE QUR’AN

WHERE IN THE QUR’AN DOES THE TESTIMONY OF A WOMAN OVER RULE THAT OF A MAN?

https://primaquran.com/2024/06/24/where-in-the-quran-does-the-testimony-of-a-woman-over-rule-that-of-a-man

BLOWING ON KNOTS: SAVING MUSLM MARRIAGES.

REDUNDANT REVELATION? THE QUESTION OF POLYGYNY IN ISLAM

THE HYPOCRISY OF BID’I TALAQ: INNOVATED DIVORCES WEIGHED AGAINST THE WISDOM OF THE QUR’AN

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/the-hypocrisy-of-bidi-talaq-innovated-divorces-weighed-against-the-wisdom-of-the-quran

ISLAM TEACHES JUSTICE NOT EGALITARIANISM

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/islam-teaches-justice-not-egalitarianism/

SAME SEX MARRIAGES IN LIGHT OF THE QUR’AN

APOSTASY.

WILL OIL EVER REALLY RUN OUT?

THE DINOSAURS NEVER EXISTED?

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/the-dinosaurs-never-existed

THE MEN WHO NEVER BECAME MUSLIMS: THE CASES OF DR. KEITH MOORE & DR. MAURICE BUCAILLE.

https://primaquran.com/2023/01/19/the-men-who-never-became-muslims-the-cases-of-dr-keith-moore-dr-maurice-bucaille/

SUNNISM, IMAMI SHI’I, ZAYDI ARE THEIR PROMOTION OF SUPERIOR BLOOD LINES, CLANS, AND TRIBES BASED UPON THE QUR’AN AND SUNNAH?

TRIBALISM AND ISLAM

BUT THEY ARE DESCENDANTS OF PROPHETS

THE IBADI VIEW: BEING FROM THE QURAYSH IS NOT NECESSARY FOR LEADERSHIP

THE IBADI SCHOOL REFUTES THE CLAIMS OF ARAB SUPERIORITY.

AFTAB MALIK: THE BROKEN CHAIN-PREPERATION FOR ARAB RACIAL SUPERIORITY IN ISLAM?

https://primaquran.com/2025/01/23/aftab-malik-the-broken-chain-preparation-for-arab-racial-superiority-in-islam/

SOME SHI’A VIWES ON THE ORIGINS OF BLACK PEOPLE

WHO EVER SAYS THE PROPHET IS BLACK KILL HIM

DOGS ARE PURE IN ISLAM, ACCORDING TO THE QUR’AN

DASTARDLY BOWL LICKING DOGS AND THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF SOME MUSLIMS

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

MATTER: THE OTHER NAME FOR ILLUSION.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/05/matter-the-other-name-for-illusion/

ATHEISM BETWEEN LAWRENCE KRAUSS AND ELON MUSK.

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/atheism-between-lawrence-krauss-and-elon-musk/

KETO, PRIMAL, VEGAN, VEGETARIANISM & ISLAM

https://primaquran.com/2023/05/04/keto-primal-vegan-vegetarianism-islam/

ALIENS, UFO’s, THE JINN & ISLAM

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE WAS BETRAYED BY DESCENDANTS OF PROPHET MUHAMMED (SAW)

COLLECTION OF ARTICLES ON SUFISM

SHAYKH HAMZA YUSUF: COLLECTION OF ARTICLES

https://primaquran.com/2022/10/04/shaykh-hamza-yusuf-collection-of-articles/

THE QUR’AN IS SUBLIME.

DHUL AL-QARNAYN: THE NOTHINGBURGER

THE QUR’AN AND THE SETTING OF THE SUN IN A MURKY SPRING

NOTHING CAN CHANGE THE WORDS OF ALLAH.

THE SO CALLED SATANIC VERSES: (QISSA GHARANIQ-THE STORY OF THE INTERMEIDARY CRANES)

https://primaquran.com/2024/10/26/the-so-called-satanic-verses-qissa-gharaniq-the-story-of-intermediary-cranes/

CLAIMS OF APOCRYPHAL SOURCES IN THE QUR’AN?

QUR’AN CONTRADICITON? WHAT BURDENS DO WE BEAR?

ABU LAHAB: WEAK ARGUMENT UESD BY MUSLIMS TO PROVE ISLAM

https://primaquran.com/2024/05/24/abu-lahab-weak-argument-used-by-muslims-to-prove-islam/

WILL THE DAJJAL BE A PERSON?

https://primaquran.com/2024/10/28/will-the-dajjal-be-a-person/

THE MUSLIM WORLD LEAGUE DAJJAL LOGO: IN NEED OF BETTER OPTICS?

https://primaquran.com/2024/08/14/the-muslim-world-league-dajjal-logo-in-need-of-better-optics/

DO WE THINK ITS WEIRD THAT SAUDI ARABIA PUT A STATUE (IDOL) OF THE MORNING STAR (VENUS) OR SATAN JUST NORTH OF MEDINA?

https://primaquran.com/2024/09/29/do-i-think-its-weird-that-saudi-arabia-put-a-statue-idol-of-the-morning-star-venus-or-satan-just-north-of-medina/

OUR THOUGHTS ON PUBLIC DEBATES

IBADI TRADERS OF BILAD AL-SUDAN -JASON VAN RIEL

AL-ISTIQAMA INSTITUTION FOR QUR’AN & ITS SCIENCES IN LIBYA

ISTIQAAMA MUSLIM ORGANISATION GHANA

https://primaquran.com/2025/01/05/istiqaama-muslim-organisation-ghana/

NEITHER SHIA NOR SUNNI: AN INERVIEW WITH A MOZABITE

https://primaquran.com/2024/02/05/neither-shia-nor-sunni-an-interview-with-a-mozabite-anthony-t-fiscella/

DR. KHALID ABDULLAH TARIQ AL-MANSOUR: INTELLECTUAL JUGGERNAUT AND TREASURE OF THE UMMAH.

https://primaquran.com/2024/12/29/dr-khalid-abdullah-tariq-al-mansour-intellectual-juggernaut-and-treasure-of-the-ummah/

SULAYMAN IBN DAWUD IBN BASAID IBN YUSUF A PAN ISLAMIST IBADI SCHOLAR.

https://primaquran.com/2024/11/13/sulayman-ibn-dawud-ibn-basaid-ibn-yusuf-a-pan-islamist-ibadi-scholar/

THE SCHOLARS OF ISLAM: BETWEEN BLIND ALLEGIANCE AND UNGAURDED DISDAIN

https://primaquran.com/2025/01/07/the-scholars-of-islam-between-blind-allegiance-and-unguarded-disdain/

G.I JOE A REAL AMERICAN HERO

https://primaquran.com/2023/09/27/g-i-joe-a-real-american-hero/

ACCORDING TO THE IBADI SCHOOL: SMOKING IS HARAM

PRAGMATIC VIEW ON MUSLIM UNITY IN THE FACE OF A COMMON FOE- BY USTADH SHIBLI ZAMAN

https://primaquran.com/2024/01/11/pragmatic-view-on-muslim-unity-in-the-face-of-a-common-foe-shibli-zaman/

MUSLIMS SHOULD BOYCOTT STARBUCKS IN SPITE OF PALESTINE (INCLUDING MADHKALIS)

https://primaquran.com/2023/11/16/muslims-should-boycott-starbucks-in-spite-of-palestine-including-madhkalis/

4D CHESS? SHOULD PALESTINE JOIN THE ZIONIST ENTITY?

https://primaquran.com/2023/11/14/4d-chess-should-palestine-join-the-zionist-entity/

WHAT ARE THE SIGNS THAT WE HAVE FAITH?

TWO AI BOTS HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE IBADI SCHOOL.

Insh’Allah this will continue to be updated. Allah-willing.

THE FOUR TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS EVERY MUSLIM SOULD BE AWARE OF.

WHAT DOES SHAYKH UTHMAN IBN FAROOQ REALLY BELIEVE? MURDERERS AND RAPIST GOING TO HEAVEN?

MONOTHEISM (TAWHID) ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR HIS DEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED.

HEAVEN IS FOR THE RIGHTEOUS SOLEY! -HIS EMINENCE SHAYKH MASOUD AL-MIQBALI.

WHO KNEW THE DREAM BETTER? IBN AL-ARABI VS PROPHET IBRAHIM (AS) -AND WHY MUSTAFA AKYOL GETS IT WRONG.

THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY & MILK AL YAMIN IN ISLAM.

WHY HAJJ IS SO IMPORTANT IN ISLAM. WHY MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT DELAY THE HAJJ. SHAYKH HATIM & FIRDAUS AZIZ.

THE VIRTUE OF THE FIRST TEN DAYS OF DHU AL-HIJJAH.

ARE MUSLIMS TO DRINK CAMEL URINE?

The WAY OF LIFE THAT EXISTED BEFORE CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Eternal Word of Allah? Did Jesus pre-exist in Islam?

“Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is.(Qur’an 2:117)

“And when your Lord took from the children of Adam – from their loins – their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying], ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They said, ‘Yes, we have testified.’ [This] – lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed, we were of this unaware.'” (Qur’an 7:172)

﷽ 

Jesus (as) pre-exists in Islam the same way that you, the dear readers, pre-exist in Islam. Allah has knowledge of all things; However, eternal knowledge of a thing does not include the thing being eternal itself.

Jesus (as) is singled out as a word from Him due to the nature of his birth.

“Truly, the likeness of Jesus, in God’s sight, is as Adam’s likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Qur’an 3:59)

In other words, Jesus is a created word of Allah. “Be and it is” is an idiom for the expediency by which Allah brings something from non being into being.

Is Jesus the created word of Allah or the uncreated word of Allah?

“When the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word (bi-kalimatin) from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. (Qur’an 3:45)

Jesus (as) is a word from Him.

“And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into through Our angel, and she believed in the words (bi-kalimati) of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)

Mary (as) is believing in the Lord and his words. Meaning they are not identical.

“O People of the Scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)

Jesus (as) is a word from Him.

“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalam al-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)

“Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)

All these words come from the same Arabic trilateral root.

ك ل م (kaf) (lam) (mim) Jesus is the created word of Allah (swt) just as The Qur’an is the created word of Allah (swt).  If someone were to believe that Jesus (as) is the uncreated word of Allah (swt), then that would be Christianity.  If someone were to believe that Jesus (as) is the created word of Allah (swt), that would be Islam and the path of safety.

One of our teachers has known people who left Islam for Christianity.

We have never heard of a Muslim who believes Allah (swt) alone is the Creator and everything else (including The Qur’an as being created) become a Christian. 

We do not doubt, respected reader, that after your acquaintance with the arguments and debates presented in this discussion on the issue of the Creation of The Qur’an, you will have realized that the correctness and safety lie in the belief that it is, like all other existing things, something other than Allah. It came into existence after it had not been. Whatever is like that, it is without doubt created. You will have realized also that this belief in its being eternal opens the door for those who believe in the possibility of multiplicity of the eternal to the extent that it leads to belief in the world’s being eternal.

Sunni Muslims often assume that everyone operates with the same definition and understanding of an attribute, even though these definitions were not explicitly given by the Blessed Prophet (saw) nor laid out in The Qur’an.

Sunni concept & Ibadi concept.


Sunni/Salafi: Attributes ascribed to His Self (Sifat Dhatiyyah).

Attributes ascribed to His Actions (Sifat Fi’liyyah).

Attributes ascribed to both His Self and His Actions. (Sifat Dhatiyyah Fi’liyyah).


Ibadi: Attributes are of two types: essential (dhatiyyah) and active (fi’liyya).

Sunni: Speech is an eternal attribute.
Ibadi: The power to produce is eternal (essential); the spoken revelation is created (active).

Sunni: The Qur’an is the attribute of speech.
Ibadi: The Qur’an is the product of the attribute of speech, not the attribute itself.

Sunni: “Attribute of Speech” = eternal, uncreated.”
Ibadi: “Attribute of Speech” = relates to Allah’s eternal power. Just like Allah’s ability to create = relates to Allah’s eternal power. However, Allah’s creation is temporal.

So when Sunnis say: “Either you believe one of Allah’s attributes is created and have likened him to creation, or you deny it being an attribute and reject Allah’s ability to truly speak.

We reply:

“We do not believe the attribute (power to speak) is created. We believe the product of that attribute (The Qur’an) is created. You have conflated the two. Your dilemma does not apply.

This is why we are not bothered when The Qur’an is referenced as the word of Muhammed (saw) or Gabriel (as) depending on the interpretation.”That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger.” (Qur’an 69:40)

“Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger.” (Qur’an 81:19)

Nor do we have problems with Jesus (as) being the Created word of Allah, as The Qur’an is the Created word of Allah.:

“The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him”. (Qur’an 4:171)

If Jesus is called a “word” and is clearly created, then being designated as a “word of Allah” does not by itself imply eternality or uncreatedness. Therefore, the Qur’an can also be understood as a created word proceeding from Allah’s eternal power to speak.

Jesus is called ‘a word’ but no Muslim says Jesus is an attribute of Allah. Likewise, the Qur’an as a recited, sequential, Arabic text is a creation. What is uncreated is Allah’s eternal ability to speak, not any particular spoken thing.

Has that attribute of Allah entered into Creation?

Since the recited, audible, sequential Qur’an does exist in creation, it cannot be the eternal attribute itself. Therefore, what entered creation is created. The eternal attribute is simply Allah’s power to speak — which never “enters” anywhere, as it is not a thing but a capacity.

Honoured messenger.

By contrast, when Jesus is called “a word from Him” (kalimatun minhu) in Qur’an 3:45 or “His word which He cast unto Mary” in Qur’an 4:171. .The Qur’an too is a word from Him, either cast into Gabriel or Muhammed. Look at the verse of the Qur’an: “That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger” (Qur’an 69:40); see also Qur’an 81:19.

Thus, the disagreement is not really over whether 69:40 calls the Qur’an the word of a messenger. Both sides acknowledge the verse. The disagreement is over what follows from that fact.

The Sunni tradition says the verse concerns transmission, not ontology; the Ibadi argument says that once speech is spoken, revealed, and directed to creation, it is already an act and therefore created.

For example:

“And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you did not throw when you threw, but it was Allah who threw.” (Qur’an 8:17)

Key implications of this verse:

  1. The apparent human action is real — Muhammed (saw) did physically throw.
  2. But the creative origin is Allah’s — Allah created the act of throwing.
  3. The act itself is temporal and created — no one claims “the throw” is eternal.
  4. Attribution to the human does not negate creation — saying “Muhammed threw” is true in one sense, but ontologically the act is Allah’s creation.

“That this is verily the word of an honoured messenger.” (Qur’an 69:40)

Key implications of this verse:

  1. The apparent human/angelic speech is real — The messenger (understood by classical exegetes as Muhammed (saw) in Qur’an 69:40, and as Jibril (as) in Qur’an 81:19) did physically utter or convey these words.
  2. But the creative origin is Allah’s — Allah created the act of speech and the words themselves, just as He created the act of throwing in Qur’an 8:17.
  3. The act itself is temporal and created — No one claims “the utterance” or “the conveyed speech” is eternal. The messenger spoke it in time; it was heard, recited, and transmitted in time.
  4. Attribution to the messenger does not negate creation — Saying “this is the word of a messenger” is true in one sense (the messenger conveyed it), but ontologically the speech is Allah’s creation, just as the throw in Qur’an 8:17 is Allah’s creation despite being attributed to Muhammed.

You may also wish to read the following:

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ibadi follow the evidence that the Qur’an is created.

“He has created you (all) from a single soul; then made its mate from it. He has sent down (wa-anzala)eight types of livestock for you. He creates you in your mothers´ wombs, one creation following upon another creation in three [stages of] darkness. Such is Allah, your Lord. Control belongs to Him; there is no god except for Him. Yet you disregard [Him]!” (Qur’an 39:6)

“He has (nazzala) sent down upon you, [O Muhammed], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:3)

﷽ 

Shaykh Khalid Al Abdali (h) explains.

The Ibadi say that the Qur’an is created. What is your opinion on this, and what does it mean? What is the issue here? I hear people asking me: the Ibadi say that Allah brought the Qur’an into existence. So what is your opinion? It’s as if they are saying there are two groups: one group says that Allah Almighty brought the Qur’an into existence, and another group says that Allah did not bring the Qur’an into existence. So what is your view?

My view is that He brought it into existence, because creation — some people think creation means [something like] hair and blood. He created death. You know that death is a created thing among the created beings. Death, death, death, death is created. Alright.

Then he says: Is the Qur’an created or uncreated? What kind of question is this? This is a wrong question. Say to me: Did Allah send down the Qur’an or did He not send it down? I say to you: He sent it down, because we all believe that He sent it down, and it is His speech and His revelation, clearly.

Alright, let us focus on this issue: The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, without doubt. No one has a problem with that. I say that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah; Allah sent it down. Correct or not?

Do you have camels, cattle, sheep, goats in your country? Alright, did Allah send them down or create them? A little child, this young one, this offspring — did Allah create them or send them down? Look, if someone asks like this, what would you say? He would say, “He created them.” May Allah bless you. Since you answered, you first — Allah willing, you will read the verse for us. Give us the mushaf (Quran). He knows it by heart.

“I seek refuge with Allah from Satan the accursed. He created you from one soul, then made from it its mate, and sent down for you of the cattle eight pairs.” — Once with “sent down” and once with “created”? “Of the cattle eight pairs” — “sent down”? Or “created”? “Sent down, sent down, sent down” — or “created”? Let’s see. “Sent down” — “sent down” — “sent down.” He focuses on the question: “sent down” or “created”? “Of the cattle” — so He sent them down. When did you see this verse? First time you see it today? First time you focus on it, yes. Because I told you, many Muslims hear but do not read. Not him, but this is an example so you understand.

“Send down” — therefore, Ibn Kathir said regarding this verse: “Send down” means “created.” Something — the interpretation of Ibn Kathir here. Whoever wants to read: “And He sent down for you of the cattle eight pairs” — meaning He created for them from the cattle eight pairs. Enough, enough. “Send down” means “created.” Do you understand? Yes. Therefore, he is amazed at people who do not want to understand this issue. They may become fanatical — “not allowed,” “disbelief,” “not allowed,” “no way.” You say the truth, but you do not know. Emotion has taken you because so-and-so was imprisoned and beaten, then released. While so-and-so who said the opposite was imprisoned, beaten, slaughtered, and killed, yet you did not grieve for him, even though he was the one with the truth — you grieved for this one. Do you understand? Therefore, focus well.

The Qur’an — Allah Almighty brought it into existence. It did not exist, so He brought it into existence. Is it possible for Allah Almighty to have His life go away? Can a attribute of Him go away?

Some people say: The speech of Allah is an attribute of Him. Who told you — from your destruction? Listen. One day I ask: Do you know that one whose attribute is from his destruction? His speech — is it his speech or not his speech? He says: “It is an attribute of Him, from His attributes.” From his destruction, from His attributes. Why did he say? Because of His speech. And who told you that speech can be an attribute? Do you understand? Therefore, I give you advice: Most Muslims on earth say that the Qur’an is created, except a small group that terrorizes Muslims. They say “no,” and they clothe falsehood for people. Why? Because the Ash’aris — according to them — either the internal speech or the Qur’an. The internal speech is uncreated, but this Qur’an is created. They write this in their books. So this small group that dominates the world says to people regarding these Ash’aris: Are there two Qur’ans? Why? Because they say: “Internal speech” and “Qur’an” — internal speech is uncreated, and the Qur’an is created. Do you understand it? Cut.

Look, the issue of the creation of the Qur’an is not, meaning, of great benefit. Unfortunately, Muslims made it bigger than its actual worth. Had they remained silent and all said: “The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, Allah sent it down, His revelation” — enough, Almighty Allah speaks the truth — enough. But do not come and say to people: “Say ‘uncreated,’ and it is not allowed to say ‘created.’ No, no, I do not agree with you.” Let us agree together: “The Qur’an is the speech of Allah, His revelation, and His sending down. He sent it down, revealed it, and it is Allah’s speech.” Agreed? No problem. We stop here, and this belief accommodates all Muslims. Beware of saying to the one who speaks the truth that you are upon falsehood. Do you understand? Yes.

What is the reason? It is said: It was a Jew or a Christian — Abu Shakir al-Daysani — it is said it was one of them who said that Jesus is the word of Allah. So they said: If it (the word) is uncreated, then Jesus is uncreated. Thus, they confused the Islamic world.

Prima Qur’an comments: Online reference for Ibn Kahtir is the following:

https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/39.6

((And He has sent down for you of cattle eight pairs.) means, He has created for you from among the cattles, eight pairs. These are the ones that are mentioned in Surat Al-An`am, eight kinds — a pair of sheep, a pair of goats, a pair of camels and a pair of oxen.) -Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

For those who would like to read more on this subject you may enjoy the following:

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dismantling the Trinity: Jesus was never the only son.

“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is indepenent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor was he from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)

﷽ 

We will demonstrate in this article (Allah-willing) that the New Testament never presents Jesus as the only Son of God. Where the New Testament cross references the Old Testament we will bring forth those texts.

This textual reality cuts straight to the heart of how the Trinity was formulated in the early Church. If the New Testament leaves room for other “sons of God” (whether angels, kings, or cosmic beings) and never uses mathematically exclusive language to isolate Jesus as the solitary son, it creates a massive structural and linguistic problem for Trinitarian theology.

It Explodes the “Eternal Generation” Framework

To protect the Trinity, early Church theologians (like those at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) had to invent a philosophical concept called “Eternal Generation.”

They argued that Jesus is a Son not because he was created, but because he eternally “flows” from the Father, sharing the exact same divine substance (homoousios). To make this work, Jesus had to be the only one.

The Trinitarian Dilemma: If the text allows for other natural or heavenly beings to hold the status of “a son” without distinct legal qualifiers like adoption, then “Son of God” ceases to be a title of exclusive divine essence.

If an angel or a human king in the Old Testament is called a “Son of God” using the same basic Hebrew or Greek categories, then the title “Son” no longer automatically proves that Jesus is God. It lowers the title from an ontological statement (what Jesus is by nature) to a functional statement (the role Jesus plays).

This of course does not mean the end of Christianity. Allah (swt) tells us that they (along with the Jews) will be in schism until the day of judgement.

“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)

Christianity has three last stages until it is completely irrelevant.

  1. A shift in the West from Protestant tradition to Catholic Orthodox and Eastern Churches.
  2. Marcionism we are entering that stage. By attacking Islam many Christians are essentially attacking the Old Testament.
  3. Full Marcionism. Eventually a complete break with the Old Testament. This serves a number of purposes. It makes Christianity easier to defend from a moral and ethical angle. Also, it will distance themselves from any grip that Jews or Judaism (Zionism) has over them.

The first four pieces of evidence we will advance to show that Jesus was never the only son.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only (monogenē) Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

“…because he has not believed in the name of the only (monogenē) Son of God.” (John 3:18)

“In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only (monogenē) Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” (1 John 4:9)

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only (monogenē) Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

At first blush one may be excused to think that these texts argue that Jesus is the only Son of God. However, there is a descriptor that precludes this altogether. He is the monogenē. Which is one of a kind.

To give an example. A father could have three sons. Two of the sons are twins. Therefore the son who does not have a twin is unique. He is one of a genes. He is one of a kind. He is never the only kind. He is never the only one.

Further evidence.

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only (monogenē) son.” (Hebrews 11:17)

The example of Isaac being called Abraham’s monogenēs despite Abraham having other sons (Ishmael and Keturah’s sons) proves that monogenēs does not mean “only one numerically.” It means “unique” or “one of a kind.” The Trinitarian attempt to use monogenēs as proof of exclusive, solitary divine sonship collapses once we see that the same Greek word is used of Isaac, who was plainly not an only child.

The case of John 1:18

“No one has seen God at any time. The only (monogenēs) Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.(John 1:18)

The above text has a variant reading. Christians are not sure which is the original. The variant reading would be: “No one has seen God at any time. The only (monogenēs) God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Neither reading would be strange knowing what we know about henotheism.

One reading is that a unique Son of God made known the Father. The other reading would be one of the many gods made known the Father (god).

Our second set of evidence from John.

“Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’ (John 10:36)

Context.

“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:31-36)

Let us deal with the major problem of the error of Jesus. Jesus is making a blunder by misquoting the Tanakh. There is no such statement written ‘in your law’. It is found in the Psalms.

“I had taken you for divine beings, attendants *attendants Lit. “sons.” of the Most High, all of you;

Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Psalms.82.6)

“I said, “You are angelic creatures, and all of you are angels of the Most High.”

Source: (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16303/jewish/Chapter-82.htm)

Obviously Judaism trying to pretend that it is a monotheistic tradition. Instead of henotheism which it plainly is. It is struggling with how to render the above text.

Jesus here is trying to reason with this particular group of Jews. That there are many in the divine assembly called gods. The Jewish god is simply the chief god among them. In this worldview if there are many gods or many called gods then there is no problem if Jesus is a son among sons.

Jesus and the blind man. Son of God/Son of Man.

“Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.” (John 9:17)

The variant reading of John 9:35

 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (John 9:35)

In other variant readings it has ‘Son of God’.

So given our proof initial evidence that we have laid out from the five proof text it must then follow that this is the case for everything that is ascribed to the author called ‘John’.

This would include the following text:

1 John 3:8
1 John 4:15
1 John 5:5
1 John 5:10-13
1 John 5:20
John 20:31
John 11:27
John 1:49
John 1:34
John 11:4
John 5:25
Revelation 2:18

“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31)

Given what we have shown — that Jesus is a son of God, and that John’s Gospel never presents Jesus as the only son of God — we should then expect if the New Testament is theologically in harmony then this should be the position of the entire New Testament.

Is there any text in the New Testament that explicitly describes Jesus as the exclusive, singular Son of God, to the total exclusion of all others?

To find that, we have to move away from the word monogenēs and look at how the Greek language handles the definite article (“the”) and the concept of absolute singular inheritance.

In Greek grammar, when a writer wants to emphasize absolute exclusivity—that someone is the specific, singular entity to the exclusion of all others—they use a structure called the “double article.”

We see this explicitly in the confessions of Peter and Martha, and during Jesus’ trial. They do not say “a Son of God.” They use the Greek definite article ho (the) before both “Son” and “God.”

“You are the Christ, the Son of the God, the living [One].” (Greek: Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος) –(Matthew 16:16)

“You are the Christ, the Son of God, the [One] coming into the world.” (Greek: λέγει αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε· ἐγὼ πεπίστευκα ὅτι σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος)-(John 11:27)

By placing the definite article (ho / “the”) directly before “Son,” the Greek text moves from an indefinite category (“a son”) to an exclusive, particular title (“the Son”).

However, recall what we have already received from John. That Jesus is one of a kind and not the only of his kind. So John 11:27 has to be harmonized with this. Given that Matthew 16:16 is given a similar example it too has to be harmonized with this.

Let us say that the father’s name is David. So let us say that one of those sons is named Tommy. Tommy is handicapped. So if we say, “You are the Handicapped the Son of the living David.” This in and of itself does not deny other sons. It means the other sons do not have this descriptor.

By adding a unique descriptor (the Christ) or a unique modifier (handicapped) isolates that specific individual within their role, but it does absolutely nothing to grammatically eliminate the existence of other sons.

The evidence of Hebrews 1:5

“For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have (gennaō) begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says.”

This shows that the author is addressing what must have been a prevalent belief that angels are sons of God.

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6)

Source: (https://biblehub.com/job/1-6.htm)

This author still has not addressed how Jesus is the only Son of God. The author is simply saying how this particular son is special. Even in the text itself is a glaring admission. “I will be to him A Father and he will be to me A son.”

This is a quote from

“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” (2 Samuel 7:14)

This text establishes four points.

That God will be the father of Jesus. Not that currently is or has been from eternity past.

That this God is ‘a’ father to Jesus. Not his only one. This is why Jesus had at times to distinguish which father he was talking about. “the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21)

That Jesus will be a son. Not that Jesus currently is or has been from eternity past.

That Jesus is ‘a’ son. Not that Jesus is the only son. The New Testament never once claims that Jesus is the only Son of God.

Not only is the text in Hebrew 1:5 quoting (2 Samuel 7:14) but it also quotes Psalms 2:7.

“I will tell of the decree: The lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have (yə·liḏ·tî·ḵā.) begotten you.” (Psalm 2:7)

This text does not mean that Jesus is ontologically the Son of God. Rather he gets taken or adopted as a Son of God. Saying Jesus is ontologically the Son of God means he is the same nature, being, and essence as God

That Hebrew word in Pslams 2:7 is yalad.

yalad: To bear, bring forth, beget

Source: (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3205.htm)

“Say, He Allah is Absolute. That which is independent of all but which all things are dependent upon. He does not bring forth like kind nor was he from like kind. And there is no equivalent to His being Absolute.” (Qur’an 112:1-4)

Originally this text was addressed to king David who was a grown man. King David is not ontologically the Son of God.

So ask any Christian if David is not ontologically the Son of God what does it mean when it says that God has begotten him to a grown man?

Because an adult king cannot be metaphysically born on his coronation day, the word “begotten” (yalad in Hebrew, gennaō in Greek) in royal contexts means exaltation to an office, not the generation of a nature.

They say:’ ‘The All-merciful has taken to Him a son.‘ Glory be to Him! Nay, but they are honoured slaves.” (Qur’an 21:26)

“And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39)

“The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.(Luke 23:47)

The variant reading of Acts 3:26.

“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 King James Version)

“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3:26 New King James Version)

Notice that the King James Version calls Jesus “his Son”,Whereas the New King James Version calls Jesus “His Servant” and whenever you see that word “servant” in the New Testament, it means slave.

So we have established from the theology of Hebrews 1:5 the following:

Jesus was never the only Son of God.

Jesus was never the Son of God from eternity past.

The text undermines the classic Trinitarian concept of “Eternal Sonship.”

If Hebrews is to be a theologically consistent text then this must be the theology for the following text:

Hebrews 4:14
Hebrews 6:6
Hebrews 10:29

We have established using the four proof text in John’s Gospel as well as the statement in Hebrew 1:5 to prove that the New Testament never calls Jesus, monos huios (only son).

Psalms 2:7 when does Jesus actually become a Son of God in the New Testament?

Paul believed that Jesus was declared to be a Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.

There is no evidence that Paul believed in the virgin birth of Jesus.

Paul did not believe that Jesus was a Son of God from eternity past.

We will assume that Paul is the author of the following text under discussion.

“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed (spermatos) of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:3-4)

“…τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει… ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν…”

Literal Translation: “…the [one] designated/decreed/appointed Son of God in power… by the resurrection from the dead…”

Paul believed that Jesus was the literal seed (spermatos) of David. The mention of ‘sperm’ (spermatos) is difficult to reconcile with a virgin birth narrative. Paul also did not believe that Jesus was an eternal Son of God. Jesus becomes adopted as a Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son [singular, definite], born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” (Galatians 4:4-5)

Again. Paul mentions Jesus born of a woman. No mention of a virgin birth.

At first glance, a Trinitarian reading jumps to the conclusion that “God sent forth his Son” means a pre-existent divine being was sent down from heaven. However, when we apply the legal, covenantal framework of Davidic sonship, a completely different, highly unified picture emerges.

In biblical language, when God “sends” or “sends forth” someone, it routinely describes the functional commissioning of a human agent or prophet to a specific task. It does not imply that the person existed in heaven before they were born.

Consider how the Gospel of John uses the exact same concept:

“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John [the Baptist].” (John 1:6)

Nobody reads John 1:6 and concludes that John the Baptist was a pre-existent eternal being who descended from heaven. He was “sent” because he was given a divine mission.

Once again look how Paul applies Psalm 2:7. He applies it to the resurrection of Jesus.

“And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.'” (Acts 13:32-33)

Just as Jesus is an adopted son of God Christians can also become adopted sons/daughters of God.

“He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will.” (Ephesians 1:5)

“And: “I will be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”
(2 Corinthians 6:18)

Given what we know from Pauls theology concerning Jesus and his sonship this would apply to the following text:

Galatians 2:20
2 Corinthians 1:19
Ephesians 4:13

We further see that Jesus is not the only Son of God but rather an older brother in a larger divine family. We will discuss this now.

The Problem of “Firstborn” (Prōtotokos)

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokonamong many brothers and sisters.” (Romans 8:29)

“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn (prōtotokosfrom among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” (Colossians 1:18)

Because the New Testament avoids calling Jesus the monos (mathematically only) son, it frequently uses another word that causes immense trouble for Trinitarian theology: Prōtotokos meaning “Firstborn.”

For a Trinitarian, “Firstborn” has to be heavily explained away as a metaphor meaning “supreme ruler” or “preeminent.” But if you pair prōtotokos with the grammatical reality we discussed—that the New Testament doesn’t textually isolate Jesus as the only son—the natural, plain reading of the text shifts dramatically. He looks less like a member of a co-equal Trinity and more like the elder brother or the first son in a larger divine family.

When you read the Nicene Creed (the definitive formula for the Trinity), the language shifts radically away from the flexible, conversational style of the New Testament into rigid, Western, mathematical exclusivity:

“…And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds… Very God of Very God… being of one substance with the Father…”

By noticing that the New Testament itself doesn’t actually say this, you expose a massive historical gap. The Trinity cannot be read straight off the pages of the Bible using strict grammar; it requires a massive philosophical overlay that was forced onto the text centuries later to make the language exclusive.

Psalms 2:7 when does Jesus actually become a Son of God in the New Testament?

The baptismal announcement.

“And behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ (Matthew 3:17)

Note: Matthew records the voice speaking in the third person, as a public declaration to the crowd.

“And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)

Note: Mark records the voice speaking in the second person, addressing Jesus directly.

“And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.’ (Luke 3:22)

Note: Found in the oldest Alexandrian codices like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, matching Mark exactly.

The Western Textual Variant for Luke 3:22

In a major ancient textual branch known as the Western Text—most famously preserved in the 5th-century Greek/Latin manuscript Codex Bezae (Manuscript D)—the voice from heaven does not say “with you I am well pleased.” Instead, it quotes Psalm 2:7 word-for-word:

“…and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.'” (Greek: υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε)

“And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.” (Luke 3:22)

Prima Qur’an comments: First it should be noted that none of the above text speak about an only son. They are texts that talk about a particular son.

The case of Matthew.

Matthew begins his gospel with a detailed genealogy and a virgin birth narrative (Matthew 1:18–25). In Matthew’s theology, Jesus’ identity as a Son of God is established biologically and ontologically from the very moment of his conception by the Holy Spirit.

Because Jesus’ identity is already a settled, historical fact before he ever reaches the Jordan River, Matthew subtly alters the baptism text:

Matthew 3:17: “This is my beloved Son…”

The voice does not address Jesus (“You are”). It addresses the bystanders (“This is”). It is a public revelation to the crowd, confirming what the narrative has already established to the reader: this man is the miraculous, virgin-born Son. Jesus does not need to be informed; the audience does.

The case of Mark.

Mark’s Gospel has no virgin birth narrative and no childhood stories. It begins abruptly with Jesus as an adult walking out of Nazareth to be baptized.

Because Mark lacks a biological explanation for Jesus’ sonship, the baptism scene carries the entire theological weight of his identity. And as we pointed out, the grammar reflects a completely different, highly personal experience:

  • Mark 1:11: You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

In Mark’s presentation, the voice speaks directly and exclusively to Jesus. Textually, this reads as a personal awakening or an official investment of an office.

If Mark intended his readers to believe Jesus was the uncreated, pre-existent Son from all eternity, starting the book with an adult man who needs to be personally told by a voice from heaven, “You are my Son,” is a highly counterproductive way to write. It perfectly aligns with an Adoptionist framework, where Jesus is chosen and appointed at this exact moment.

The text of Mark 1:1.

Textual critics have discovered that the phrase “the Son of God” (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) is entirely missing from some of our oldest, most important uncial manuscripts, most notably Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Koridethi

Source: (Codex Sinaiticus column detail of Mark 1:1. Source: ZU_09 / Getty Images)

Scribes were notorious for “orthodox corruption”—adding titles of high christology to verses to combat heresies. It is highly likely that an early scribe looked at Mark’s abrupt opening, realized it lacked a virgin birth or any explicit declaration of divine sonship until the baptism, and “corrected” verse 1 by adding “the Son of God” to make the book sound safer and more orthodox from the very first line.

If the original text of Mark simply read, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” then Mark does not introduce Jesus as the Son of God until the voice tells him so at his baptism.

Luke’s Harmonizing Strategy

Luke presents the final piece of the puzzle. Like Matthew, Luke includes a virgin birth narrative (Luke 1:35), where the angel explicitly tells Mary that the child will be called a Son of God because of the Holy Spirit’s oversight.

Yet, when Luke gets to the baptism, he preserves the second-person address from Mark (“You are my beloved Son”).

This creates the exact structural tension that led to the creation of the Western Text variant we discussed earlier (“Today I have begotten you”). Early scribes working on Luke’s text recognized that if Luke already had a virgin birth narrative, keeping the baptismal formula as a time-stamped coronation (“Today I have begotten you”) created a blatant contradiction.

How can he be begotten at birth and begotten at baptism? To smooth this over, the Alexandrian textual line likely scrubbed the “Today” variant out of Luke to align it with Matthew’s safer, static theological framework.

The text of Acts 8:37.

“And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38)

“Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”  Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” (Acts 8:36-38)

There are two different manuscript traditions. Christians are not certain as to which of these are more correct.

The text of Matthew 16:16 and the parallel accounts.

“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God(Matthew 16:16).

Notice his response in the parallel accounts.

“You are the Christ,’ Peter answered.” (Mark 8:29)

“Peter answered, ‘The Christ of God.” (Luke 9:20)

Here is the logical syllogism:

  1. The three accounts describe the exact same historical conversation.
  2. Mark and Luke record Peter saying only “The Christ” or “The Christ of God.”
  3. Matthew expands this to “The Christ, the Son of the living God.”
  4. Therefore, either the gospels flatly contradict each other on what Peter actually muttered, OR “Christ” and “Son of God” are being used as functional synonyms.

And since “Christ” (Christos / Mashiach) literally means “Anointed One”—a political, royal title for an appointed human king—then “Son of God” in Matthew’s confession must mean exactly the same thing: the anointed one.

If anyone doubts our reconciliation—that “Christ” and “Son of God” are simply synonyms for an appointed ruler—Matthew himself proves our point later during Jesus’ trial.

Look at the exact wording the High Priest uses to force Jesus under oath:

“I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” (Matthew 26:63)

The High Priest is not a Christian. He does not believe in the Trinity, nor is he asking Jesus a metaphysical question about his eternal divine essence. He is a Jewish judge asking a political, messianic question: “Are you claiming to be the Anointed Davidic King (the Christ), who is entitled to the royal title ‘Son of God’ via the covenant of David?

Lastly, as a bonus, we want to discuss Isaiah 9:6 

The popular Christian version of Isaiah 9:6 is not even in Septuagint!

“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

Source: (https://biblehub.com/isaiah/9-6.htm)

This is what you are used to seeing, correct? Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

https://biblehub.com/sep/isaiah/9.htm

“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”(Isaiah 9:6 -The Septuagint The Holy Spirit’s Fav Version)

Where are all these other names?

So who is upon the truth? Are Latin Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox upon guidance for trusting a text that does not make Christological claims about Jesus, such as calling him (Jesus) ‘The Everlasting Father’? Claims that contradict the idea that Jesus is not the Father?

Or are those Protestants who trust in the Masoretic text (although they still give it a Christological bent) upon the truth?

Only one person in the Jewish scriptures is referred to as “mighty god” and his name is Hizkiyyahu or, Hezekiah (mighty god). Jewish names, like many Muslims’ names, are what one may call a theophoric name.   The 1st century Christians did not use Isaiah 9:6 for Christological purposes. Latter ones did, though. Changing the Hebrew perfect tense to future tense. 

In conclusion, the New Testament never says Jesus is the only Son of God.

It calls Him monogenēs (unique), prōtotokos (firstborn), huios (son) with the definite article, but never monos huios (only son). The Trinitarian reading requires importing a philosophical exclusivity that the text does not supply.

It does not take a genius to tell you this breaks the Trinity.

If you enjoyed this article you may be interested in the following:

May Allah Guide the Christians to the truth so that they do not burn in hellfire.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

What does Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq really believe? Murderers and Rapist going to heaven?

“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)

﷽ 

Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq doing what he does best which is giving the Daw’ah on the streets of America. Cannot underscore how important this is. Calling people to Islam IS the work of the Prophets. It is the best way. It is a collective obligation upon the Muslims. So may Allah (swt) continue to bless Shaykh Uthman in that regards.

However, equally important is to call them to the Qur’an and Sunnah. To call them to sound doctrine.

Listen to the interaction in the video above:

Shaykh Uthman says: “Let me ask you a question o.k? If you don’t accept Jesus can you go to heaven?”
The woman replies, “No.”

Shaykh Uthman says, ‘O.K Let me ask you a scenario, right?” “And, and so. There’s a girl doesn’t believe in Jesus. Let’s say she’s Hindu right? 14,15, 18 year old girl, and a man, a Christian man rapes and murders her. Rapes her cuts her up cuts her throat but he believes in Jesus. Who goes to heaven?”

Woman inquires, “She does not believe in Jesus?”  Shaykh Uthman reiterates: “She does not believe in Jesus.”

The woman states: “If she has not like received or trusted (Shaykh Uthman inputs “yes”) due to the fact (unintelligible).”

Shaykh Uthman says, “She does not believe in Jesus she’s Hindu.”

The woman responds: “Than she is eternally separated from (unintelligible)”

Shaykh Uthman says, “she’s gonna go to hell, and he, the murderer, rapist is gonna go to heaven?” “You guys, you guys I can’t believe your telling me this. I cannot believe you’re saying this. And I’m really sad.” “You’re saying that rapist, murderer is gonna go to heaven and the poor innocent girl that got raped and murdered is gonna go to hell, going to be separated from hell/heaven and go to hell!?”

The woman responds: “She doesn’t know the Lord, yes.”

Shaykh Uthman responds: “That is that is you can’t believe that?!”

However, what would his response be if someone asked him, “What would your response be if a Muslim did that?”

What is the Shaykh response to his belief if this rapist/murderer was a Muslim?

Now for the Christian who likes to speak about the justice of God Shaykh Uthman’s question does present a conundrum for them. Now the more learned Christian may try and reply using the following text:

“For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” (Jude 1:4)

But the point still stands. No one is saying that grace is a license for immorality; however, this Christian man in a moment of passion being weak in the flesh raped this woman and killed her. However, according to the Christian woman’s reasoning that man will go to heaven.

Now, the best Shaykh Uthman can do is say that the Muslim rapist and murderer will take a detour to hell (for an unspecified period of time) however, he too enters heaven.

Now what would have made this more interesting is if it was asked what happened if the murderer/rapist died immediately after the incident (as a Christian/ as a Muslim). The Christian response has been given. However, the Muslim response?

You may wish to read the following:

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Qur’an contradiction? What burdens do we bear?

“Say: What! shall I seek a Lord other than Allah? And He is the Lord of all things; and no soul earns (evil) but against itself, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another; then to your Lord is your return, so He will inform you of that in which you differed.” (Qur’an 6:164)

No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And if a sin-burdened soul cries for help with its burden, none of it will be carried—even by a close relative.” (Qur’an 35:18)

“And most certainly they shall carry their own burdens, and other burdens with their own burdens, and most certainly they shall be questioned on the resurrection day as to what they forged.” (Qur’an 29:13)

“That no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another, and that man shall have nothing but what he strives for.” (Qur’an 53:38-39)

﷽ 

Before we dive into this it is helpful for us to bring some additional verses of the Qur’an as well as a sacred transmission reported from the Blessed Prophet (saw).

“And fear the Day when you shall be brought back to Allah. Then shall every soul be paid what it earned, and none shall be dealt with unjustly.” (Qur’an 2:281)

“Verily We! We shall raise the dead. And We write down that which they send before and their footsteps. And everything We have counted up in a Book luminous.” (Qur’an 36:12)

Two additional translations of Qur’an 36:12

“Truly, We give life to the dead and We write down what they put forward and their effects. We counted everything in a clear record.” (Qur’an 36:12)

“Surely We will give new life to the dead, and We are recording whatever (deeds) they send before them and whatever effects they leave behind. Every thing is fully computed by Us in a manifest book of record.” (Qur’an 36:12)

It was narrated from Mundhir bin Jarir that his father said:

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Whoever introduces a good practice that is followed, he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.. And whoever introduces a bad practice that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:203)

1) Fear the day that you will be returned to Allah.

This is the first information we should know. On this Earth, we are living and breathing, and one day we will die. When we die our body dies. However, the soul remains and that soul will return to Allah (swt). Whether you like it or not. Whether you believe it or not.

2) Then every soul will be compensated for what it has earned. Good earnings or bad earnings.

3) They will not be treated unjustly. This should make us happy as well as absolutely terrify us simultaneously.

Why is that? It makes us happy because now we know that Allah (swt) does not want only to punish us. Allah (swt) is not looking for an excuse just to throw us in hellfire. So this is very comforting to the believers.

Now it is also terrifying to know He is treating us justly because if Allah (swt) accounts for every single thing that we do—all mistakes, infractions, shortfalls—it is frightening., it is frightening.

4) Surely we give life to the dead. On the day of resurrection all the dead will be brought back to life. We will be reunited with our bodies, flesh and all. We will be waiting for the decree of Allah.

5) We write down what they have sent before and their footprints.

When you die your record goes before Allah and your footprints

What is meant by the footprints (or traces) as other translations put it?

Imagine if you will someone walking in the desert and they are just passing by and the people coming after him they do not see the man but they see the footprints on the sand. They can see that someone has passed by here. They will acknowledge that someone has passed by.

This has to do with our deeds!

Example: Someone is selling drugs to young kids and this drug dealer dies. So in his record it is recorded that this person was drug dealer and sold drugs (end of story).

However, there is something added to the book which is the footprints (traces).

Now those small boys whom the drug dealer sold the drugs to they became addicted they became criminals they grew up to become drug dealers themselves.

So guess what? Who takes that burden who takes that responsibility? The initial drug dealer.

Of course those people are responsible for their own actions that they have acquired, yet, we cannot forget the initial drug dealer is responsible for this cascading chain of events and so the initial drug dealer shares in the evil that his actions wrought!

So this should make every one of us extremely cautious about what we do, what we say, and our influence upon others. So don’t think when you die you will only be rewarded for what you did. You will be rewarded for all the good that you initiated and others followed and were encouraged by. Likewise you will be punished for all the evil, wrongdoing, misguidance, lies, cheating etc. that others emulated, followed and in turn encouraged others to emulate.

If you make a video and post it on YouTube showing people how to break into a house, how to crack an encryption, and then, look, it goes viral.

Look at that word, viral! It now spreads and multiplies how evil is the return.

It was narrated from Mundhir bin Jarir that his father said:

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘Whoever introduces a good practice that is followed, he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.And whoever introduces a bad practice that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:203)

Jarir b. Abdullah reported that some desert Arabs clad in woollen clothes came to Allah’s Messenger (saw). He saw them in sad plight as they had been hard pressed by need. He (the Holy Prophet) exhorted people to give charity, but they showed some reluctance until (signs) of anger could be seen on his face. Then a person from the Ansar came with a purse containing silver. Then came another person and then other persons followed them in succession until signs of happiness could be seen on his (sacred) face. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) said:

He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil practice in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their’s being diminished in any respect.

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1017e)

“And most certainly they shall carry their own burdens, and other burdens with their own burdens, and most certainly they shall be questioned on the resurrection day as to what they forged.” (Qur’an 29:13)

“Truly, We give life to the dead and We write down what they put forward and their effects. We counted everything in a clear record.” (Qur’an 36:12)

So in simple terms none of us will get rewarded for the good that others do or punished for the evil that others do. However, we can have shared reward and shared punishment based upon the influence of good or evil that we have upon others.

May Allah (swt) rectify our condition and cause us to be examples of good for others to emulate!

The fact that Allah (swt) does not cause us to bare the burdens of the sins of others is an established fact that even the Jews and Christians can find remnants of in their teachings:

“And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah, confirming what was with them, a faction of those who were given the Scripture threw the Scripture of Allah behind their backs, as though they didn’t know.” (Qur’an 2:101)

“And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.” (Deuteronomy 1:39)

“And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

All little children are those to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs. Therefore, all little children are persons without sin.

“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” (Ezekiel 18:20)

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)

“Yet he did not put the children of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.” (2 Kings 14:6)

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:3)

The above texts record that the child will not bear the sin of their father. Therefore, all men are not born totally depraved.

At the very least this position as outlined in Islam, Judaism, and some interpretations of Christianity such as: Eastern Orthodox, and those Christian Churches and Churches of Christ often called: “Campbellites” have this as a common perspective.

In short:
No one is punished for another’s sin.
Everyone is rewarded or punished for their own deeds.
And additionally, one is held accountable for the chain of influence they initiate—good or evil.

May Allah make us among those who leave behind good footprints (athar hasan) and protect us from being a means of misguidance. Amin.

You may wish to read the following:

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized