Tag Archives: zaydi

Response to Shi’i “You are to me as Aaron is to Moses”

(After rebuking his people) Moses turned to Aaron and said: “Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following my way? Have you disobeyed my command? Aaron answered: “Son of my mother! Do not seize me with my beard, nor by (the hair of) my head. I feared that on returning you might say: ‘You sowed discord among the Children of Israel, and did not pay heed to my words.” (Qur’an 20:91-93)

﷽ 

This is in response to other hadith that the Shi’i often use. They try to justify their claims of Ali being the correct or rightful Imam of the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw).

It is another example (of many) of them making a mountain out of a molehill.

The following hadith comes to mind:

Narrated Sa`d:

Allah’s Messenger (saw) set out for Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet (saw) said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”

Source: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4416

This hadith is about the honour of present trust and not future succession.

Alas, we also have the following:

Narrated ‘Uqbah bin ‘Amir:

That the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If there was to have a Prophet after me, it would have been ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab.”

Source: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3686

The hadith about Umar (ra) neutralizes any attempt to single out Ali for a uniquely elevated status.

This hadith (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4416) shows clear as daylight that Ali was not pleased being left to take charge of the affairs of the people of Medina. So how much more the whole Ummah?!

Rather than seeing this as an honor bestowed upon him as one being the most trustworthy to take care of the most vulnerable, Ali saw it as a slight.

So not being content with trusting his station to his Imam, which is none other than the Blessed Messenger (see), Ali quipped, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?”

Was Ali not aware of this verse of the Qur’an?

Whoever obeys the Messenger has truly obeyed Allah. But whoever turns away, then ˹know that˺ We have not sent you ˹O Prophet˺ as a keeper over them.” (Qur’an 4:80)

Because the Shi’i cannot prove their case for the concept of the Imamate of Ahl Bayt from the Qur’an, they must quickly pivot the conversation to Hadith, which they feel justifies their position.

The Blessed Prophet (saw) is said to have replied to the recalcitrant Ali,

Will you not be pleased that you will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”

Somehow, the Shi’i seemed to close their eyes over the fact that the Blessed Messenger (saw) was trying to console his otherwise temperamental cousin.

Perhaps Ali sought glory or standing on the battlefield? Allah (swt) knows best. Yet, the Blessed Messenger (saw) gave Ali a more noble task than what Ali could have longed for.

The Shi’i run wild.

So, the Shi’i became laser focused on the part: “You will be unto me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me.”

They start to surmise that this must be a strong indication that Ali, without a doubt, is the one who will lead the Muslims after the Blessed Messenger (saw) is gone.

So they start to imagine that the Blessed Messenger (saw) said things that he did not say. For example, the Hadith says, ‘no prophet after me’ but it does not say ‘no messenger after me’.

So perhaps Ali could be a Messenger after the Prophet Muhammed (saw) ?

The Shi’i who are known to be lovers of Qiyas (analogy) so well …maybe just this once.. 😉 🤫

So, with the above hadith in tow, we can quickly turn to the Qur’an and find:

“We made an appointment of thirty nights with Moses (On Mount Sinai), to which We added ten more; so the term set by the Lord was completed in forty nights. Moses said to Aaron, his brother: “Deputize for me ((ukh’luf’nī) among my people. Dispose rightly, and do not follow the way of the authors of evil.” (Qur’an 7:142)-Ahmed Ali

“And We treated with Musa thirty nights, and We completed them with ten; so the appointment of his Lord was completed by forty nights. And Musa said unto his brother Harun: act thou (ukh’luf’nī) in my place among my people, and rectify, and follow not the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)=Abdul Majid Daryabadi

As archaic and jumbled as Abdul Majid Daryabadi’s translation sounds to us, it best represents both the Arabic and the context. Although Ahmed Ali’s translation is good as well.

As always, because we are not here to tell you how to think or what to think, but for you to research and come to your own conclusions, please proceed to:

https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/7/142/

Even some of the more modern translations do a very horrible job of translating the verse:

For example, Sahih International has:

“And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights and perfected them by [the addition of] ten; so the term of his Lord was completed as forty nights. And Moses said to his brother Aaron, “Take my place among my people, do right [by them], and do not follow the way of the corrupters.” (Qur’an 7:142)


Take my place.” No. Moses was not going anywhere permanently. Moses went somewhere briefly.

The following translators translate (ukh’luf’nī) in a Shi’i friendly manner.


Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar-Iranian Christian translator
Muhammed Mahmoud Ghali -Al Ahzar
Ali Quli Qara’i -Shi’i translator
Ali Bakhtiari Nejad -Shi’ia translator
The Monotheist Group [2013 Edition]-Quranist

The following translates the verse that we feel best expresses the meaning of ukh’luf’nī given the context.

Abdul Majid Daryabadi
Ahmed Ali
Hamid S Aziz
A.L Bilal Muhammed et al
Mushraff Hussain
Mohammed Shafi

So we know that it cannot mean to “take my place” permanently because Moses came back. We also know that it cannot mean taking my place in succession. How do we know this?

The historical data does not support this.

“Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses.” (Deuteronomy 34:9)

The following, which is quite literally, is titled: Joshua to Succeed Moses.

Then Moses went out and spoke these words to all of Israel: “I am now a hundred and twenty years old, and I am no longer able to lead you. The Lord has said to me, ‘You shall not cross the Jordan.’ The Lord your God himself will cross over ahead of you. He will destroy these nations before you, and you will take possession of their land. Joshua also will cross over ahead of you, as the Lord said. And the Lord will do to them what he did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, whom he destroyed along with their land. The Lord will deliver them to you, and you must do to them all that I have commanded you. Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”

 Then Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the presence of all Israel, “Be strong and courageous, for you must go with this people into the land that the Lord swore to their ancestors to give them, and you must divide it among them as their inheritance.  The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”

Source: (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2031%3A1-8&version=NIV)

SHI’I HAVE NO TIME FOR CONTEXT ??

Next time your overly excited Shi’a friend starts to tell you about the above Hadith and quotes the above verse of the (Qur’an 7:142), inform them what it says just 8 verses later.

“And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by his head, pulling him toward him. [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 7:150)

“And recall when We summoned Moses for a term of forty nights, and then you set up the calf as your god in his absence. You indeed committed a grave wrong.” (Qur’an 2:51)

Moses scolded, “O Aaron! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following after me? How could you disobey my orders? Aaron pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” (Qur’an 20:92-94)

So, if the Shi’i want to make Ali analogous to Harun (as) in a very literal way, we have some real problems.

Let us replace the words Moses (as) with the Prophet Muhammed (saw) and wewill replace Aaron (as) with Ali and let us see how this works.

“And when Muhammed returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized Ali by his head, pulling him toward him. [Ali] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” (Qur’an 7:150)

Muhammed scolded, “O Ali! What prevented you, when you saw them going astray, from following after me? How could you disobey my orders? Ali pleaded, “O son of my mother! Do not seize me by my beard or my head. I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’” (Qur’an 20:92-94)

Are we to believe that it only takes the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to be gone for 40 days as Ali, fearing for his life, allows the people to fall into blatant shirk?

Are we to believe there could be a scenario where the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) is so furious with Ali that he snatches him up by his beard?!

Are we to believe there is a scenario where the Blessed Prophet (saw) scolded Ali for disobeying his orders? Even to the point where Ali feared that the Blessed Prophet (saw) would say that he (Ali) caused division among the Muslims?


Keep in mind that Moses (as), like the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) would have been given knowledge by Allah (swt) that Aaron (as) was not, in any way shape or form, in dereliction of his duties. Yet Musa (as) snatched Aaron (as) up!

We do not believe these are things the Shi’i are willing to entertain regarding Ali.

The Moses Aaron comparison is also devastating to Shi’i claims.

Why? Because they do not have equal authority.

“When there comes to them some matter touching (public) safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the Messenger, or to those charged with (ulī l-amri) authority among them, the proper investigators would have tested it for them (direct). Were it not for the Grace and Mercy of Allah unto you, all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan.” (Qur’an 4:83)

Aaron did not have the knowledge of the divine will that Moses had.

I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.’

“And [recall] when Moses said to his people, “O my people, indeed you have wronged yourselves by your taking of the calf [for worship]. So repent to your Creator and kill yourselves [i.e., the guilty among you]. That is best for [all of] you in the sight of your Creator.” Then He accepted your repentance; indeed, He is the Accepting of Repentance, the Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:54)

This line: “I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.” This absolutely does not refer to Ali ibn Abi Talib at all! This was a man who, instead of pursuing the killers of Uthman, wasted no time in collecting his army to go fight the people of Sham!


Translation of the above:

“This year of his caliphate, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib, assumed leadership and appointed governors over the regions. He appointed Abdullah ibn Abbas over Yemen, Samurah ibn Jundab over Basra, Imarah ibn Shihab over Kufa, Qays ibn Sa’d ibn Ubadah over Egypt, and over Syria, Sahl ibn Hunayf in place of Muawiyah. Sahl marched until he reached Tabuk, when the close associates of Muawiyah met him and said, “We want to say…” It was said, “He knows.” They said, “We want to say…” It was said, “He knows.” They then said, “If Uthman sent you in his capacity [as the rightful caliph, then proceed], but if it was someone else, then go back.” They said, “Have you not heard what happened?” They replied, “Yes.” So he returned to Ali.”

“As for Qays ibn Sa’d, the people of Egypt differed concerning him. The majority pledged allegiance to him, but a group said, “We will not pledge allegiance until the killers of Uthman are brought to us.” The situation was similar in Basra. As for Imarah ibn Shihab, who was sent as governor to Kufa, Talhah ibn Khuwaylid prevented him from entering out of anger for Uthman. He returned to Ali and informed him. The strife intensified, the matter became grave, and opinions differed. Abu Musa wrote to Ali informing him of the obedience and pledge of allegiance of the people of Kufa, except for a few. Ali sent many letters to Muawiyah, but he did not receive any reply. This continued repeatedly until the third month after the murder of Uthman, in Safar.”

Then Muawiyah sent a scroll with a man who came to Ali. Ali asked, “What news do you bring?” The man replied, “I come to you from people who desire nothing but revenge, deeply aggrieved. I left seventy thousand elderly men gathered under the shirt of Uthman, which is displayed on the pulpit of Damascus.” Ali said, “O Allah, I declare myself innocent before You of the blood of Uthman.” Then the messenger of Muawiyah left Ali’s presence, and those Kharijites who had killed Uthman intended to kill him, but he barely escaped after much effort.”

Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, resolved to fight the people of Syria. He wrote to Qays ibn Sa’d in Egypt, urging the people to mobilize for fighting them, and to Abu Musa in Kufa. He also sent word to Uthman ibn Hunayf about this. He addressed the people, inciting them for that purpose. He was determined to prepare and depart from Medina, appointing Qutham ibn Abbas as his deputy over it. He was resolved to fight, with those who obeyed him, against those who disobeyed him, rebelled against his command, and did not pledge allegiance to him along with the people.”

His son, Al-Hasan ibn Ali, came to him and said, “O my father, abandon this, for it involves the shedding of Muslim blood and the occurrence of division among them.” But he did not accept that from him; rather, he insisted on fighting and organized the army. He gave the standard to Muhammed ibn al-Hanafiyyah, appointed Ibn Abbas to be in charge of important matters, and Umar ibn Abi Salama over the vanguard. It is also said he appointed Umar ibn Sufyan ibn Abd al-Assad over the vanguard. He appointed as the commander of his advance guard Abu Layla ibn Amr ibn al-Jarrah, the nephew of Abu Ubaydah. He appointed Qutham ibn Abbas as his deputy over Medina. Nothing remained except for him to depart from Medina heading towards Syria, until there came to him what diverted him from all of that, which we will mention.”

Source: Al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (البداية والنهاية) by Ibn Kathir Volume: around Vol. 7 or 8 (depending on the edition)

Prima Qur’an comments:

  1. Ali claimed that he is in Bara’ah with those who killed Uthman.
  2. He did not spend his time looking for these killers. Ali did not seem concerned at all about finding the killers of Uthman.
  3. Trying to find the killers of Uthman could have easily disuaded the tension or at the very least exposed Muawiyah as a hypocrite.
  4. Rather, Ali wasted no time in raising an army for the continued fighting, and killing and slaughter among the Muslims.
  5. Al Hasan ibn Ali was much wiser than his father (Ali), who was spoiling for a fight.

Look at the words of Al Hasan ibn Ali.

“O my father, abandon this, for it involves the shedding of Muslim blood and the occurrence of division among them.” But he (Ali) did not accept that from him.”

So try to apply the following statement of Aaron (as) to Ali : “I really feared that you would say, ‘You have caused division among the Children of Israel, and did not observe my word.” This absolutely does not apply to Ali.

In addition to that, we have the following:

Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin Abbas

“Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of Allah’s Apostle during his fatal illness. The people asked, “O Abu Hasan (i.e. Ali)! How is the health of Allah’s Apostle this morning?” ‘Ali replied, “He has recovered with the Grace of Allah.” ‘Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, “In three days you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else), And by Allah, I feel that Allah’s Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of ‘Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah’s Apostle and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us.” ‘Ali said, “By Allah, if we asked Allah’s Apostle for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah’s Apostle for it.”

Source: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4447

  1. It is quite clear that Ibn Abbas was not aware of any Shi’i interpretations that Ali should be the one to lead the Muslims after the death of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
  2. Ali himself was not of the understanding that it was something that was his to take simply by being related to the Blessed Prophet (saw).
  3. This is another reason why it is best to make the Qur’an the pillar of our theology and faith, as the hadith themselves have narrations that the Shi’i themselves wince at.

Then there is this straight from Nahjul balagha itself. Straight from a Shi’i website:

“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it. When the caliphate came to me, I kept the Book of Allah in my view and all that Allah had put therein for us, and all that according to which He has commanded us to take decisions; and I followed it, and also acted on whatever the Prophet – may Allah bless him and his descendants – had laid down as his sunnah. In this matter I did not need your advice or the advice of anyone else, nor has there been any order of which I was ignorant so that I ought to have consulted you or my Muslim brethren. If it were so I would not have turned away from you or from others.”

Source: https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-205-both-you-frown-over-small-matter

This sermon is said to have happened long after the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) died. This sermon itself proves that Ali never considered that he was already the appointed Khilafa of the Muslims.

He said, “When the Caliphate came to me.” This means he was not the Caliph at the time, he recognized it as such and nor did he want it. Someone who is divinely appointed by Allah (swt) to the Khilafa of the Muslims takes pride in it, claims it and upholds that as a great trust.

It shows Ali himself viewed the caliphate as something that came to him by people’s invitation after Uthman’s death, not as a pre-appointed right he was claiming.

Someone who recognizes they are not divinely appointed but that people have chosen who will lead them and then gets pushed into a position of leadership makes the kind of statements that Ali made above.

May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Are we to follow Infallible Imams according to the Qur’an?

﷽ 

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result. (Qur’an 4:59)

1) In this clear verse, we find that in matters of disagreement between those in authority and those under authority, we need to refer back to Allah and the Messenger.

Had it been that those in authority were infallible or divinely appointed then, Allah wouldn’t have given any scope to disagree with them.

The fact that there is disagreement proves that “those in authority, aka the Ulil Amr”, are neither an absolute nor an infallible authority.

It means that Ali Ibn Abu Talib and Ibn Abbas can disagree with one another. Yet, if they have a disagreement, they would refer the matter back to Allah (swt) and his Blessed Messenger.

2) If their authority was infallible, Allah(swt) wouldn’t have put authority above them. (.i.e) Allah and His Prophet.

3) If “those in authority, aka the Ulil Amr” were divinely appointed, then Allah would have asked the believers to refer them along with Allah and the Prophet in matters of disagreement.

But Allah(swt), giving the possibility of disagreement with those in authority, asked us to refer back to Allah (swt) and the Blessed Messenger; which is clear evidence that “those in authority aka the Ulil Amr” were not divinely appointed.


The huge advantage that the Sunni have over the Imami Shi’i’ is as follows:

Since in Sunni Islam they do not believe that their Imams are infallible or above reproach, a mistake in jurisprudence, reasoning, deduction or logic does not entail disaster for Sunni Islam. However, just one mistake in jurisprudence, reasoning, deduction or logic would be absolutely disastrous for the Imami Shi’i’.


“You see, then the Imamate goes from the Imam to his first cousin, and when the first cousin dies, then the Imamate goes to his first cousin and so on. Because that is the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).”

Huh?

The battle of Siffin and practical implications of the above verse.

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result. (Qur’an 4:59)

The battle of Siffin gives us a demonstration of how some of the companions understood the above verse. If we are to believe the historical narrative as told by Shi’i and Sunni sources.

If we are to believe the Shi’i narrative.

 Ali agreed to arbitration with Muaviya on the basis that they would judge by the Qur’an. If Ali understood that he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw) he would not have submitted to arbitration. He would have been on the same page as those in his army who wanted to continue the fight.  However, if he did think he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw), then he would be a hypocrite for going against what he himself believed. Or he was not sincere in submitting to the authority of the Qur’an. 

If we are to believe the Sunni narrative. 

If those in Muaviya’s camp believed that the Shi’i held any of the views about Ali that Imami Shi’i held, namely that he (Ali) was maʿṣūm (معصوم) and he (Ali) held ʿiṣmah (عصمة) they themselves would have never asked for arbitration as it too would have simply been a ruse. This becomes very clear that these concepts were not among the followers of Ali because Muaviya’s camp would have known this and would have never cooked up the idea of raising the Mushafs as it would have easily backfired

May Allah (swt) guide us all to what is beloved to Allah (swt).

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah Guide the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ibadi Stance on Ali bin Abi Talib

“Wherever you are ˹O Prophet˺, turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque. And wherever you ˹believers˺ are, face towards it, so that people will have no argument against you, except the wrongdoers among them. Do not fear them; fear Me, so that I may ˹continue to˺ perfect My favour upon you and so you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.” (Qur’an 2:150)

﷽ 

Logic and facts will always rule over feelings and fallacy.

First it should be known that the default position of all the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) is Wilayat al dhahir. Which means they are known to follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and they are known for their piety. This is the default position for all companions.


Now, if anyone of them did a major sin and did not make tauba to Allah (swt) up until his death, you can put that companion in Bara’ah al Dhahir.

So, in regard to Ali, there are three positions held among the Ibadi.

  1. Wuqoof. Suspend judgement. That is not to put Ali in wilayah or bara’ah. To leave his matter to Allah.
  2. Bara’ah al-Dhahir – The apparent dissociation. This is a matter of jurisprudence. Ali committed kufr ni’ma and there is no indication that he repented of his sins.
  3. Walayah al-Dhahir – The apparent friendship. This is a matter of jurisprudence. Ali was remorseful and repented of his sins.

Bara’ah and Wilayah are a huge part of Islam of which many Muslims are ignorant of. If you want to know how it is understood. We would suggest you read the following:

Wuqoof is to pause if there is khilaf on the person. Wuqoof is to stop at everyone you don’t know. You do not make a judgement on him/her to be in Walayah or Bara’ah. This is a very safe path to take.

Bara’ah al DhahirThe Apparent disassociation. This to perform Bara’ah to whoever you see disobeying the commandments of his Lord. Be it in the Quran or Sunnah- whether you’ve seen him by yourself or by him admitting to committing that sin or by the famous/infamous act that he did. They can return to Walayah if they repent and reform.

Walayah al-Dhahir – The Apparent Friendship. This means to show walayah (loyalty/friendship) to anyone you see following the commandments of Allah—whether from the Qur’an or Sunnah. Even those who have committed sins and repented of the sins.

Shaykh Massoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (hafidullah) gives the range of the Ibadi views regarding Ali bin Abi Talib. We did our best to clean up the subtitles below. The Shaykh is giving a reply to one of the Salafi detractors.

The Ibadi stance regarding Ali bin Abi Talib.

“The Ibadis have different positions on Ali bin Abi Talib. And it cannot be said that Ibadis takfir Imam Ali (kufr ni’amah) and it cannot be said that they associate with him (wilayah), and it can not also be said that Ibadis stop on him (Wuqoof). Rather, all three positions exist.”

“So it cannot be said that it is only one of these sayings that the Ibadi adopt.”


“And those that stated he was a kafir by that didn’t mean to remove him out of the fold of Islam. Rather, they looked upon the events and clashes that occurred in Siffin, and they built upon it a judgement. And it’s a Godly judgement. They see that Ali is alike to the people, alike to anyone else. For him, it is that for others, and for him, it is that for others, and he is obligated by what they’re obligated to.”

“So, if it falls on that which obligates deviance, he is considered a deviant, tafseeq he is considered a fasiq, kufr he is takfeered. And this is the madhab of the sahaba which you narrate. The companions who had insulted, killed and cursed him. Was it out whim? Or by a religious obligation?”

“Without a doubt, the madhab of the sahaba (and you claim you follow the salaf, and you say that you’re salafiyyah). This is the madhab of the salaf, where whoever falls on kufr is takfeered, and whoever falls on that which obligates cursing is cursed, and whoever falls on what obligates criticism is criticized. This is the madhab of the salaf, rather it is the madhab of the Qur’an and the honest Prophet (saw). This is the madhab that we adopt.”

“And we do not, after that, believe that if it’s permissible to takfir him, that he’s out of the fold of Islam. No! We say that kufr is split into two. Kufr Shirk and Kufr ni’ama. (That doesn’t take him out of Islam). To make this simple: all mushriks are kafirs, but not all kafirs are mushriks. This is with those that adopted the madhab of takfir, but there are those that didn’t adopt it. And there’s him who stopped.”

“And if you have knowledge just like they have, then it is permissible for you to judge like they have. And if you’re a jahi (not learned), then stopping on him is enough for you, and that is a known way with us.”

“And they say that a monotheist isn’t takfeered except for shirk, and this is a false saying. Here are the texts of the shari’ah and its infallible proof that the takfir doesn’t take its committer out of islam.”

“It is the duty of all men towards Allah to come to the House a pilgrim, if he is able to make his way there. As for the (kafara) ungrateful, Allah is All-sufficient nor needs any being.” (Qur’an 3:97)

“This is a favor from my Lord by which He wants to test whether I am grateful or ungrateful.” (Qur’an 27:40)

Narrated ‘Abdullah:

The Prophet (saw) said, “Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq (an evil doing) and killing him is Kufr (disbelief).” Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:48)

Narrated Ibn `Umar:

I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, “Do not revert to disbelief (kuffaran) after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7077)

“Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet (saw) said: “Whoever engages in sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, or a woman in her anus, consults a soothsayer, then he has disbelieved (kafar) in what was revealed to Muhammed.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:135)

You may read more about that here:

“All of these texts show clearly that there is from kufr which doesn’t take its committer out of Islam. Rather, it’s a synonym to fusooqi, fujoori, isyaani. So trying to distort the picture of the Ibadi madhab is a miserable and desperate and unsuccessful try. And I said that there are those that said he (Ali) repented, and that narration has been denied by the other group.”

“This narration exists within our books, and if we hated and considered him (Ali) a kafir for personal reasons, we wouldn’t have mentioned this narration, which acquits his position.”

“We have in our athars and books like Bayan al-Shar‘ (بيان الشرع) — written by Muhammed b. Ibrahim al-Kindi, which was written in the 5th century, shows evidence of him (Ali) repenting. And this repenting narration maybe it is something that only the Ibadis have. It doesn’t exist with others. So if they were opposing him (Ali) personally, they wouldn’t have narrated his repentance.”

“But they (The Ibadi scholars) are the just ummah, the righteous ummah, they narrate all that is for them, and they narrate all that is against them. There is no opposition between them and the truth.”

“So we take the truth whenever we see it, even if it’s a hater that brought it, and the false is the rejected by us, even if it was brought by a friend who is taken highly.”

“We accept what Allah accepts from his deen, and reject what He rejects. Our biography is that of Ahmed (saw) companions. We do not accept people of injustice as models. This is the Minhaj that we walked upon. We narrate that which is for us, and narrate that which is against us, and it’s not really our concern about the pleasure of whoever is pleased and the anger of whoever is angry.”

First: From the outset, one must understand that our predecessors were what one may call the Shiat Ali. They were in the battles of the Camel and Siffin and fought hard on behalf of Ali Ibn Abu Talib. Losing life and limbs and relatives. Which is more than what those who claim to profess him can claim.

Second: The disappointment comes with his decision at Siffin, and his injustice in taking the life of the believers at Nahrawan. It becomes abundantly clear that his followers never had even any concept of the terms maʿṣūm (معصوم) and ʿiṣmah (عصمة) being applied to him. If that were the case, they would not have left his camp. Nor were these concepts used by Ibn Abbas (ra) in his debate with the people of the river. (Nahrawan).

Third: The issue surrounding Ali Ibn Abu Talib is similar to that of Uthman ibn Affan, in that
they are political in nature. No one from our school accuses either Ali Ibn Abu Talib or Uthman ibn Affan of being a mushrik. Far from it.

Fourth: Just like a group of companions were the ones to rise up against Uthman ibn Affan, likewise, a group of companions differed with Ali’s decision of arbitration.

All Muslim groups today are formed on the basis of political events in the early period of Islamic history.

There are a few things in the video a person should take away.

The differences in the types of kufr. Kufr ni’ma doesn’t put the person out of the fold of Islam.

The other point is that those who have knowledge of this subject may form a particular opinion on it. Those who do not have knowledge of this subject can and should refrain from having any opinion on it. (wuqoof)

The fact that he (Ali) went against the Qur’an-based ruling at Siffin and killed the Muslims at Nahrawan put him in the state of kufr ni’ma (which doesn’t take the person out of Islam).

However, that person would still need to repent of their kufr before they died. To us, Ali is like others. He can make mistakes.

Indeed, major sins nullify obedient acts, no matter how great. In the case of Ali, he committed major sins. So the point of difference in the school is on rather or not he repented before he met his end.

Those who do not believe he repented before death can say that Ali would be in Bara’ah-al dhahir. The apparent disassociation.

For those that believe Ali repented before he died. Ali would be in Walayah al dhahir. The apparent association.

So, basically to sum up, the Ibadi position. There are three positions regarding Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

Anyone who refuses to mention this (three views) or relates only one view is either willfully ignorant or a deceiver and a liar.

Background into some of the reasons for the opposition of the companions against Ali bin Abi Talib

The main cause of fierce opposition to Ali was the perceived failure or reluctance to punish the culprits, including his stepson, Muhammed bin Abu Bakr, who was involved in the killing of Uthman. Ali married his (Abi Bakar’s) mother, Asma (ra), after the death of Abu Bakr (ra). So there was a marriage relationship between Ali and Muhammed bin Abu Bakr, although, as we have seen, Muhammed bin Abu Bakr did not actually kill Uthman, at best he aided and abetted the assassins. (This for another article).

What might have strengthened people’s suspicion on Ali was that Ali appointed Muhammed bin Abi Bakar as governor of Egypt, which his opponents may have interpreted (right or wrong) as a type of reward for his hand in the matter of killing Uthman.

Furthermore, Ali’s own brother Aqil ibn Abi Talib fought on the side of Muawiya. Aqil ibn Abi Talib is the cousin of the Blessed Prophet (saw) and elder brother of Ali. So, as one can see, these were quite chaotic times.

Prior to this, there was the whole incident of Ali bin Abi Talib burying Fatima (ra) in secret and people were not pleased about it. You may read about this here:

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4240

Ali bin Abi Talib disappeared from the scene of events throughout the caliphate of the three Shaykhs: Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), and Uthman. For a total of 25 years (a quarter of a century), the man was absent, completely out of sight. No one knew what he was doing. It is said that he did not participate in a single Muslim battle, neither with himself, nor with his children, nor with his money. While the chieftains of the Arabs were crushing the apostates and toppling the thrones of the Caesars, not a single inch did he conquer for Islam!

To many, the greatest of shocks came. When he finally ascended to power after what many saw as the conspiracy to kill Uthman, the momentum of the conquests was paralyzed, the flame of victories of tawhid was extinguished, so that the sword that “slept” on the enemies of the Ummah would awaken suddenly in the breasts of the Muslims!

Furthermore, what set the people against Ali are the various conflicting narratives about how he dealt with Aisha (ra), a member of the purified household according to (Qur’an 33:30-34) as well as “Mother of the Believers” as per (Qur’an 33:6).

They ask how Ali bin Abi Talib would face the Messenger of Allah, (saw) when he fought his wife!! And he sent his helpers against her until they hamstrung her camel and she fell from her litter, and her enemies paraded her around like a captive? This is a sign of humiliation for the man’s family, her violation, her captivity, and the foreigners’ force to subjugate, humiliate, and degrade her!

The test of Aisha (ra) and the test of Ali.

Thus, the case of Ali with us, Ibadi, is similar to the case of Aisha (ra) with many Shi’i. Consider the following:

Aisha (ra) was a test on rather the believers will follow her or the Imam. Ali Ibn Abu Talib himself became a test for the believers at Siffin; to see whether or not people would follow what Allah (swt) ordered in the Qur’an, or Ali’s decision.

Narrated by Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Aasadi:

“When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and Hasan bin `Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. Al-Hasan bin `Ali was at the top of the pulpit and `Ammar was below Al-Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard `Ammar saying, “`Aisha has moved to Al-Busra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him (Allah) or her (`Aisha).”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7100)

So even though Aisha (ra) is acknowledged by Ammar bin Yasir to be the ‘wife of the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter‘, he was not about to leave the dhahir (the apparent) evidence.

Which is that Ali was the rightful 4th Imam of the Muslims. One who is to be obeyed as long as he obeys the Qur’an and Sunnah. 

The idea that a particular blood tie, clan or family affiliation exempted one from the Sharī’ah is absolutely foreign to the Blessed Prophet (saw).

Narrated `Aisha:

Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft). The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6787)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Allah revealed the verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” Allah’s Messenger (saw) got up and said, “O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Bani `Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah’s Messenger (saw)! I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammed! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah’s Punishment.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2753)

Likewise, whatever alleged superiority that Ali enjoyed and is claimed to have had does not eclipse one’s obedience to the Qur’an and Sunnah.

As Aisha (ra) was abandoned in favour of the apparent, likewise Ali was abandoned in favour of the apparent. In our madhab, Jabir Bin Zaid (ra) informed us that Ayesha (ra) repented from her sins before she died. The sin being to make war against the legitimate Imam of the Muslims.

This must be the case because Allah (swt) has confirmed this.

Aisha (ra) mother of the believers.

“The Prophet is more worthy of the believers than themselves, and his wives are their mothers (ummahatuhum). And those of relationship are more entitled in the decree of Allah than the] believers and the emigrants, except that you may do to your close associates a kindness. That was in the Book inscribed.” (Qur’an 33:6)

So Aisha (ra) is in Walayah al Haqiqah -The real friendship or friendship that is with Allah (swt). 

The Three views among Ibadis regarding Ali Ibn Abu Talib.

1. Bara’ah al Dhahir- The Apparent disassociation. Disavowed.

This view is that Ali Ibn Abi Talib did not repent of his sins and, therefore, the one who dies without repenting of major sins is doomed. What happens to the one who does not repent from major sins is no secret in Islam.

We must understand that disavowing a person who commits major sins (even if they are a companion) is actually a Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw).

Narrated Salim’s father:

The Prophet (saw) sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (saw) raised both his hands and said twice, “O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done.” ‏ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَبْرَأُ إِلَيْكَ مِمَّا صَنَعَ خَالِدٌ

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4339)

Loyalty to the Qur’an and Sunnah takes primacy over any other affiliation, or perceived rank or status of an individual.

“You will not find those who believe in Allah and in the Hereafter having (yuwadduna) love/affection with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even though they may be their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their clan. They are such that Allah has inscribed faith on their hearts, and has supported them with a spirit from Him. He will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, in which they will live forever. Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Allah. Those are the party of Allah. Be assured that it is (the members of) the party of Allah that are the successful.” (Qur’an 58:22)

Imami Shi’i would take issue with this because of the doctrine of ‘Iṣmah 

Todays Sunnis would take issue with this because of they under went aa Shi’ification under the Abbasid empire and developed the doctrine of Adalat al-Sahaba.

2. Walayah al-Dhahir – The Apparent Friendship.

This view is that Ali Ibn Abi Talib, possibly after seeing that the arbitration with Muaviya did not bring any good for the Muslim ummah, and seeing the world crumble around him and possibly at the prompting of Ibn Abbas (ra), he repented to Allah (swt) and therefore his ending was a good ending.

The evidence that Imam Ali was remorseful and repented is found at the end of this article:

Under the section: Evidence used by the Ibadi school to show that Ali Ibn Abu Talib had repented for his sins.

https://primaquran.com/2024/09/12/the-battle-of-nahrawan-the-ibadi-perspective/

Often these Ibadi’ may say, Karram-Allah-u Wajhah, meaning: “Allah honored his face” as a statement of fact, rather than a du’a.  Meaning that he embraced Islam and was not known to have worshiped idols. Also, the statement: “Allah honored his face” is almost said with a tinge of disappointment, as if to recall what could have been and what sadly was not.

These Ibadi will not do Taraddi. This is a technical term which refers to invoking Allah’s pleasure upon someone by saying Radiy Allahu ‘Anh

May Allāh be pleased with him”. That is because it is not possible to say May Allah be pleased with the deeds of the one who went against the word of Allah and killed the Muslims without right.

For example: The Mufti of Oman, Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) is not known to say “May Allah be pleased with him” after mentioning the name of Ali. So some of the detractors point this out. Trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. We share with you because nothing is hidden about our school. Cards are on the table!


So one of them, this @ahmedalanzi1 (who blocked many Ibadi who tried to engage with him) his claim is that saying Radiy Allahu ‘Anh : meaning: May Allah be pleased with him is higher and better than saying: Karram-Allah-u Wajhah: meaning Allah honoured his face.

The following is where our teacher: Shaykh Juma Al Mazruii explained this is not necessarily the case:

So Shaykh Juma Al Mazruii mentioned that this Salafi agitator (which is what he is) wants to have some issue about it than he can take it up with Ibn Kathir. Ibn Kathir was not happy that people say, “Allah honuored his face” after mentioning Ali, but not when mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) or Umar (ra). So he (Ibn Kathir) actually feels that statement is higher than saying, “May Allah be pleased with him.”

Likewise, Shaykh Juma mentions that Ibn Taymiyyah himself felt Ali was inferior to other companions. So this Salafi agitator can go and sort out his own house before he tries to knock on our door or the door of anyone else, for that matter.

To this, our beloved Shaykh Juma Al Mazrui gave a very befitting reply (the audio above).

3. Ambivalence (Wuqoof) towards Ali Ibn Abu Talib. An individual does not have enough data or information to put Ali in Bara’ah or Walayah.

Wuqoof is to pause iif there is khilaf on the person. Wuqoof is to stop at everyone you don’t know. You do not make a judgement on him to be in Walayah or Bara’ah. This is by far the position of the vast majority, as they are layman and do not bother to look into these matters..

Those who are ambivalent as they just do not have enough data to give a conclusive answer. They hold their tongues regarding companions like Ali Ibn Abi Talib. They do not say radhiallahu anhu for those who are possibly under Allah’s wrath. Nor do they say this one met doom when they may have repented for their sins and met a good end under Allah’s spacious grace. This regards students of knowledge and the masses of Muslims in particular who have not investigated these matters. This is a recommended and safe road.

Do not be surprised to find none other than Shaykh Khamis bin Saeed Al-Shaqsi (r) say, “May Allah be pleased with him” after mentioning the name of Muaviya!

Do not be surprised to find none other than Shaykh Khamis bin Saeed Al-Shaqsi (خميس بن سعيد الشقصي) (r) say, “May Allah be pleased with him” after mentioning the name of Muaviya! He is a highly significant and foundational scholar in the Ibadi school of Islam. He is best known for his monumental encyclopedia, Manhaj al-Talibin wa Balagh al-Raghibin (منهج الطالبين وبلاغ الراغبين).

Sources: (Manhaj Al Talibeen and Balagh Al-Raghibhin)

Do the Ibadi hate Ali because of his actions at Siffin and Nahrawan?

As we have seen, there are three views of the Ibadi. We ask you to imagine that if you were among those companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw) that personally suffered loss at the hands of Ali and his soldiers, you would not have a high or favourable view of him. This is human nature. However, those people would not be Ibadi in a technical sense. As they were the companions and successors who disengaged from Ali. The term ‘Ibadi’ or the school was simply non-existent at that point. This could be a reason why Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam took revenge. Allah knows best.

You must hate those whom you apply the judgement of Allah (swt) to? No, not necessarily.

Based upon mantiq (logic) and the fact that this particular statement of the narration would clash with the qati’i (decisive) nature of Qur’an, such that a particular understanding of being infallible or not accountable becomes null and void.

Secondly. There is a story which you can read here full of grandiose verbiage that many are familiar with. Ali fights a man and the man spits in Ali’s face. Ali is said to have sheathed his sword. You can read that here: https://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/n-I-3721.html

The point is that just because you oppose someone does not necessarily entail hatred.

An example is this:

Narrated `Aisha:

Usama approached the Prophet (saw) on behalf of a woman (who had committed theft).
The Prophet (saw) said, “The people before you were destroyed because they used to inflict legal punishments on the poor and forgive the rich. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! If Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet (saw) did that (i.e. stole), I would cut off her hand.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6787)

So let us imagine a scenario where Fatima (ra) did steal, and she did get caught. Would one necessarily have to have hatred in his/her heart towards Fatima (ra) when executing the punishment?


That means that every judge or Qadi would need to hate the person they pass sentence on?


Would it mean that Ali, as an Amir, any time he inflicted a punishment upon anyone who transgressed, means he would need hatred in his heart as a prerequisite?

However, does one need to necessarily hate an individual that has gone against Allah (swt) and his Messenger (saw)?

Lastly, if someone loves or hates someone or something for the sake of Allah (swt), then there is no harm in this.

Narrated Abu Umamah: The Prophet (saw) said: “If anyone loves for Allah’s sake, hates for Allah’s sake, gives for Allah’s sake and withholds for Allah’s sake, he will have perfect faith.”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4681)

First point. As Shaykh Massoud bin Muhammed Al Miqbali (hafidullah) has mentioned in the video, if the matter of Ali was based upon whims and personal grudges you would not have found in our books that he (Ali) repented..

Second point.

Third point.

Ali Ibn Abi Talib is quoted as a transmitter of hadith in our Musnad Al-Imam Ar-Rabee’.

Ali Ibn Abi Talib is used as a transmitter of hadith in the Musnad Al- Imam Ar-Rabee’

Parting thoughts.

So let us be practical for a moment. Whatever feelings may have been stirred up by you reading this entry, think of the feelings that may be stirred up among Sunni Muslims when they know of your view concerning some of the companions? Yet, you want to be on cordial terms with them? Then do the same with us.

What amazes and perplexes the thinking individual is that there are among the Shi’i who hold very unfavorable views of Muviyah, Abu Bakr (ra), Umar(ra), Aisha (ra) and other companions, and they expect, no! They almost demand unity with Sunni Muslims.

So, if there are Sunnis who want unity with Shi’i, knowing full well that they (Shi’i) hold unfavourable views of Talha, Zubair, Muaviya and others, then they should have no issues wanting unity with Ibadi, who holds three distinct positions concerning Ali.

So, those who are thinking about following the Ibadi school and have reservations due to certain positions in regard to Ali Ibn Abu Talib. This is not something fundamental to our school. Our school is not about digging up the graves of the people of the past or cursing anyone. We simply give our account of how things were and what that may entail. Practice Wuqoof and focus on your relationship with Allah (swt). Simple.

“We take the truth even from a man of hatred, and we reject falsehood even from a chosen friend. We have no respect for a man, however exalted, if from the truth he has deflected.”-Shaykh Abdullah bin Humeid Al Salmy.

You may also wish to read the following:

There is a very moving poem by the eloquent poet, the Sufi, Abu Muslim al-Bahlani expressing his remorse and admonishment over the actions of Ali at Siffin.

https://primaquran.com/2023/02/11/the-genius-of-mufti-abu-layth-can-we-criticize-the-companions

May Allah guide the Ummah

May Allah Forgive the Ummah.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Do Salafiyya truly believe that Allah chuckles and laughs at the despair of the Palestinians?

Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33) 

ALLAH LAUGHS AT THE DESPAIR OF HIS SLAVES?

Waki’ bin Hudus narrated that his paternal uncle Abu Razin said:

“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Allah laughs at the despair of His slaves although He soon changes it.’ I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, does the Lord laugh?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘We shall never be deprived of good by a Lord Who laughs.'”

Source: (https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:181)

“The Messenger of Allah said: Allah chuckles at the despair of His slaves although He soon changes it.’
I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, does the Lord chuckle?’ ‘He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘We shall never be deprived of good by a Lord Who chuckles.”

Now if we take this hadith alone it is challenging to suggest that chuckling/laughing can be interpreted as Mercy. Because, even the companion ask, ‘Does Allah chuckle?’ and it would be difficult to imagine the companion asking, ‘Does the Lord show Mercy’. I mean we recite the Qur’an as bismillah ir rahman ir raheem. Most Merciful and Most Compassionate.

However, this is a lone narrator report. We in Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqamah (The Ibadi School) we do not make lone narrator reports as a basis for our faith. What we do is look at other ahadith where these idioms are used to show if there is other meanings.

If we are to take this lone narrator report at the apparent meaning as the Salafi -Athari suggest than it means that Allah (swt) is laughing, chuckling etc at the despair and pain that humanity undergoes.

It takes a depraved human being and a twisted imagination to suggest that Allah (swt) would have a hearty chuckle at the despair and misery of humanity.

Children being sexually abused by their parents.

People starting to death in this world.

You going to say that Allah (swt) is laughing/chuckling at this?!

Furthermore does this laughing and chuckling produce a sound such that we can say that it is uncreated? Such that one can imagine an eternal chuckling and laughing at the despair, torture and pain of a creation that has yet to be created?

We wonder why people are Atheist?

Either the people who invent such falsehoods have a very low estimation of the Divine, or the Creator they worship is more horribly morbid than the darkest corner of human imagination could fathom.

However, because this hadith is graded as ‘Hasan’ those who take the lone narrator reports will insist,

We believe that Allah chuckles/laughs …with the disclaimer (in a way that befits his majesty!

“It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:  Allah chuckles at the two men both of whom will enter Paradise (though) one of them kills the other. They said: Messenger of Allah, how is it? He said: One of them fights in the way of Allah, the Almighty, and Exalted. and dies a martyr. Then Allah turns in mercy to the murderer who embraces Islam, fights in the way of Allah, the Almighty, and Exalted, and dies a martyr.”  (‘Sahih’ Muslim Kitab Al-Imara hadith number 4658)

Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:1890a)

If we understand the mention about Allah (swt) chuckling as his act of Mercy than this is not a problem. It is an idiom or an expression.

However, if as some in the Muslim community do (ever ready to kick every one else out of Islam), insist that we have to take this at the apparent meaning it is very dark.

These kinds of hadiths are reminiscent of the stuff attributed to Allah (swt) in the Bible.

“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (Exodus 32:14)

“The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.” (Genesis 6:6)

So we would take the two hadith and combine them and our understanding would be the laughing/chuckling as an idiom or expression of Allah’s mercy that is soon to follow any act of despair, as long as the people put their tawakkul (trust) in Allah (swt).

“Say, “O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.” (Qur’an 39:53)

May Allah (swt) Forgive the Ummah.

May Allah (swt) Guide the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized