Archive for the ‘Rebuttals’ Category

Arabic Quran for non-Arabic Speakers?

Posted: June 24, 2016 by millatibraheem in Arabic, Bid'ah, History, Rebuttals
Tags: , , , , ,

Much discussion has transpired regarding the language of the Quran and the Muslims claim for it to be a universal guide, which leads mankind from the day one is cultured til the day he dies.  Many have professed discontent and are bewildered with the followers of the recital, who advocate the exclusiveness of the Quran being the last testament for humanity.

After all, the Quran is in Arabic, revealed to an Arabic speaker, who ministered to a people in Arabia. These are irrefutable facts which no believer and disbeliever would deny.

إِنّا أَنزَلناهُ قُرآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لَعَلَّكُم تَعقِلونَ

Indeed We have sent it down an Arabic Qurʾaan so that you may understand

(Surah Yusuf 12:2)

The polytheists had accused Muhammad Rasulullaah of learning the Quran from a foreign man who was a servant of the Quraish.  The Quran then refutes their claim,

وَلَقَد نَعلَمُ أَنَّهُم يَقولونَ إِنَّما يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ ۗ لِسانُ الَّذي يُلحِدونَ إِلَيهِ أَعجَمِيٌّ وَهٰذا لِسانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُبينٌ

And We certainly know that they say, ‘It is only a human that teaches him.’ The tongue/language of the one they refer to is foreign/non-Arabic/‘Ajamiyon, while this is a clear Arabic tongue/language.

(Surah an-Nahl 16:103)

The Arabic Quran reinforces itself repeatedly as being clear, detailed, and comprehensive in Arabic,

كِتابٌ فُصِّلَت آياتُهُ قُرآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِقَومٍ يَعلَمونَ

A Book, its verses detailed, an Arabic Qur’aan, for people who know

(Surah Fussilat 41:3)

 In consideration of these verses, and others, questions arise as to how can it be for all of mankind when majority of the world does not know Arabic?

How does a non-Arabic speaker, whose mother tongue is foreign, suppose to comprehend and understand a Book that is not in their language and not revealed to a non-Arab audience?

Even more, the Quranic Arabic is from the seventh century that most present-day Arabs do not even speak.

They say, “why should I be held accountable for what I don’t understand?”

Translations of the Quran do not do justice to the Arabic language and are merely an interpretation, trapped into the translators bias beliefs.

In Muhammad Rasulullaah’s time, there were two major superpowers that battled each other; the Persians and the Romans.  These empires had extensive land conquests and included people from all walks of life under their rule.  It would have been reasonable for the Quran to be revealed in Latin (Roman) or Persian (Farsi) as they were the dominant languages that time and not Arabic.  The Arabs were seen as a worthless minority and their language mostly remaining in Arabia.

So, why was the Quran sent in Arabic?

The question may be answered in the following verse, which was revealed after the polytheists accused the Messenger of fabrication, or making it up himself and not receiving it from Allah,

أَم يَقولونَ افتَراهُ ۚ بَل هُوَ الحَقُّ مِن رَبِّكَ لِتُنذِرَ قَومًا ما أَتاهُم مِن نَذيرٍ مِن قَبلِكَ لَعَلَّهُم يَهتَدونَ

Or they say: ‘He has fabricated it’ Nay, it is the truth from your Lord, so that you may warn a people to whom no warner has come before you, in order that they may be guided

(Surah al-Sajdah 32:3)

The people did not receive a warner before Muhammad Rasulullaah, and it was their time for guidance.  They spoke Arabic and it would be unusual to send them a Messenger, or warner, who spoke a foreign language they did not understand.

وَما أَرسَلنا مِن رَسولٍ إِلّا بِلِسانِ قَومِهِ لِيُبَيِّنَ لَهُم ۖ فَيُضِلُّ اللَّهُ مَن يَشاءُ وَيَهدي مَن يَشاءُ ۚ وَهُوَ العَزيزُ الحَكيمُ

And We sent not a Messenger except with the language/tongue of his kinsfolk/people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise

(Surah Ibraaheem 14:4)

Muhammad Rasulullaah was sent to the Arabs speaking Arabic.  The Quran was sent in Arabic as a guidance for those people who understood the language and were able to follow it, since the Messenger they were given was well-known from among them.

End of Part One.

Sunni Tampering of the Months of Hajj

Posted: March 23, 2016 by millatibraheem in Bid'ah, Current Affairs, Rebuttals, Sunni

For centuries, many Muslims have been mislead by the so-called ‘Ahl ul-Sunnah’ and their changing of Allah’s Deen.  One of numerous things they had tampered with are the months of Hajj.  Yes, months of Hajj, as in more than one month for Hajj.

Allah says:

الحَجُّ أَشهُرٌ مَعلوماتٌ ۚ فَمَن فَرَضَ فيهِنَّ الحَجَّ فَلا رَفَثَ وَلا فُسوقَ وَلا جِدالَ فِي الحَجِّ ۗ وَما تَفعَلوا مِن خَيرٍ يَعلَمهُ اللَّهُ ۗ وَتَزَوَّدوا فَإِنَّ خَيرَ الزّادِ التَّقوىٰ ۚ وَاتَّقونِ يا أُولِي الأَلبابِ

Hajj months are well-known, so whoever has made Hajj obligatory upon himself therein, there is no sexual relations and no disobedience and no disputing during Hajj. And whatever good you do – Allah knows it. And take provisions, but indeed, the best provision is fear of Allah . And fear Me, O you of understanding.
(al-Baqarah 2:197)

Allah explicitly says “أَشهُرٌAshorun” in which Hajj can be performed, and they are well-known.  “أَشهُرٌAshorun” means three or more months.  The duality of the term would be Sharayn, or two months, and Shahr(un) means one month.

We are clearly told Hajj months are well-known.  Now, are the Hajj months three or more?

Allah says:

إِنَّ عِدَّةَ الشُّهورِ عِندَ اللَّهِ اثنا عَشَرَ شَهرًا في كِتابِ اللَّهِ يَومَ خَلَقَ السَّماواتِ وَالأَرضَ مِنها أَربَعَةٌ حُرُمٌ ۚ ذٰلِكَ الدّينُ القَيِّمُ ۚ فَلا تَظلِموا فيهِنَّ أَنفُسَكُم ۚ وَقاتِلُوا المُشرِكينَ كافَّةً كَما يُقاتِلونَكُم كافَّةً ۚ وَاعلَموا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ المُتَّقينَ

Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve months in the book of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the upright deen, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous.
(at-Touba 9:36)

In this ayah, Allah tells us there are 12 months, in which four are sacred.  And another ayah in the same Surah 9:2, speaks of four months, 9:3 the day of the greater pilgrimage, and when the sacred months have passed 9:5.

What are these four sacred months?  Allah says Hajj months are well-known/m’aloomaat, therefore, these months must have been familiar to the people during the time of Allah’s Messenger.

To be continued…

Stoning the Prophets of Allah and Believers

Posted: January 20, 2016 by millatibraheem in Bid'ah, Rebuttals
Tags: ,

Stoning was a threat made by the Kuffar against the Prophets of Allah and other believers.  Allah tells us in the following verses:

قالوا يا شُعَيبُ ما نَفقَهُ كَثيرًا مِمّا تَقولُ وَإِنّا لَنَراكَ فينا ضَعيفًا ۖ وَلَولا رَهطُكَ لَرَجَمناكَ ۖ وَما أَنتَ عَلَينا بِعَزيزٍ

qālū yā-shuʿaybu mā nafqahu kathīran mimmā taqūlu wa-ʾinnā la-narāka fīnā ḍaʿīfan wa-law-lā rahṭuka la-rajamnāka wa-mā ʾanta ʿalaynā bi-ʿazīz

They said, “Oh Shoaib! We do not understand much of what you say. However, we do find you weak among us. Had it not been for the family ties, we would have stoned you to death! You are not precious among us!” (Surah Hud 11:91)

إِنَّهُم إِن يَظهَروا عَلَيكُم يَرجُموكُم أَو يُعيدوكُم في مِلَّتِهِم وَلَن تُفلِحوا إِذًا أَبَدًا

ʾinnahum ʾin yaẓharū ʿalaykum yarjumūkum ʾaw yuʿīdūkum fī millatihim wa-lan tufliḥū ʾidhan ʾabada

“If they overcome you they may stone you to death, or compel you to rejoin their way. In the later case, you will never ever be successful.” (Surah al-Kahf 18:20)

قالَ أَراغِبٌ أَنتَ عَن آلِهَتي يا إِبراهيمُ ۖ لَئِن لَم تَنتَهِ لَأَرجُمَنَّكَ ۖ وَاهجُرني مَلِيًّا

qāla ʾa-rāghibun ʾanta ʿan ʾālihatī yā-ʾibrāhīmu la-ʾin lam tantahi la-ʾarjumannaka wa-hjurnī maliyya

He said, “Have you turned away from your gods, oh Ibraheem? Desist, for if you do not, I shall stone you to death. Out of my sight, now!” (Surah Mariam 19:46)

قالوا لَئِن لَم تَنتَهِ يا نوحُ لَتَكونَنَّ مِنَ المَرجومينَ
 qālū la-ʾin lam tantahi yā-nūḥu la-takūnanna mina l-marjūmīn
They said, ‘Ya Noah, if you do not relinquish, you will certainly be stoned.’ (Surah ash-Shu’ara 26:116)
قالوا إِنّا تَطَيَّرنا بِكُم ۖ لَئِن لَم تَنتَهوا لَنَرجُمَنَّكُم وَلَيَمَسَّنَّكُم مِنّا عَذابٌ أَليمٌ
 qālū ʾinnā taṭayyarnā bikum la-ʾin lam tantahū la-narjumannakum wa-la-yamassannakum minnā ʿadhābun ʾalīm

They said, ‘Indeed we take you for a bad omen. If you do not relinquish we will stone you, and surely a painful punishment will visit you from us.’ (Surah YaSeen 36:18)

Jibreel was not an Angel?

Posted: December 21, 2015 by millatibraheem in Bid'ah, Rebuttals

The Quran does not teach the belief that Jibreel (Gabriel) was an angel.  Jibreel is mentioned three times in the Quran by name, and twice he is mentioned separately from the angels:

مَن كانَ عَدُوًّا لِلَّهِ وَمَلائِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبريلَ وَميكالَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِلكافِرينَ

man kaana ʿaduwwan li-llaahi wa-malaaʾikatihī wa-rusulihī wa-jibrīla wa-mīkaala fa-ʾinna llaaha ʿaduwwun li-l-kaafirīn

‘Whoever is an enemy of Allah, His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael; Allah is indeed the enemy to the disbelievers.’

(al-Baqara 2:98)

And in Surah at-Tahrim 66:4:

إِن تَتوبا إِلَى اللَّهِ فَقَد صَغَت قُلوبُكُما ۖ وَإِن تَظاهَرا عَلَيهِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ مَولاهُ وَجِبريلُ وَصالِحُ المُؤمِنينَ ۖ وَالمَلائِكَةُ بَعدَ ذٰلِكَ ظَهيرٌ

ʾin tatūbā ʾilā llāhi fa-qad ṣaghat qulūbukumā wa-ʾin taẓāharā ʿalayhi fa-ʾinna llāha huwa mawlāhu wa-jibrīlu wa-ṣāliḥu l-muʾminīna wa-l-malāʾikatu baʿda dhālika ẓahīr

If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined; and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah it is who is his Guardian, and Jibreel and -the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the aiders.

Both of these ayaat isolate Jibreel from the angels.  However, one can say to mention Jibreel separately shows his special status.  This could be true if there was support for this statement.

Also, we should note in other verses, Allah differentiates between “Ruh” and “al-Malaikat” or the Angels:

يَومَ يَقومُ الرّوحُ وَالمَلائِكَةُ صَفًّا ۖ لا يَتَكَلَّمونَ إِلّا مَن أَذِنَ لَهُ الرَّحمٰنُ وَقالَ صَوابًا

yawma yaqūmu r-rūḥu wa-l-malāʾikatu ṣaffan lā yatakallamūna ʾillā man ʾadhina lahu r-raḥmānu wa-qāla ṣawāba

The Day that the Spirit/ar-Ruh and the angels/al-Malaaikat will stand in rows, they will not speak except for one whom the Most Merciful permits, and he will say what is correct.

(an-Naba 78:38)

This distinction between “Ruh” and the angels can be read in other parts of the Quran = an-Nahl 16:2, al-Ma’arij 70:4, al-Qadr 97:4.  So we have four verses as evidence of “Ruh” not being from the angels.

Now, a well-known belief exists among certain sects that Jibreel is indeed “Ruh al-Qudus;” since Allah mentions in Surah al-Baqara 2:97 that “…Jibreel…brought/nazzala (the revelation?) to your heart…” and also in Surah an-Nahl 16:102 in similar wording except “nazzala” is connected to “Ruh al-Qudus

If this is true -Jibreel is Ruh al-Qudus- then this further shows Jibreel “Ruh al-Qudus” was not an angel but in fact something different.

In Sahih Muslim there is a single narrative attributed to ‘Aaisha reporting Rasolullah allegedly said:

…خُلِقَتِ الْمَلاَئِكَةُ مِنْ نُورٍ

“The angels were created from light/noor…”

Allah says about the “Ruh”:

وَيَسأَلونَكَ عَنِ الرّوحِ ۖ قُلِ الرّوحُ مِن أَمرِ رَبّي وَما أوتيتُم مِنَ العِلمِ إِلّا قَليلًا
wa-yasʾalūnaka ʾani r-rūḥi quli r-rūḥu min ʾamri rabbī wa-mā ʾūtītum mina l-ʿilmi ʾillā qalīla[n]
And they ask you concerning ar-Ruh; Say: “The Ruh, it is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you have been given only a little.”
(al-Israa 17:85)
Hence, we do not know much about the “Ruh” and what it is created from.  It would be conjecture to say angels and the Ruh are created from “noor.”
Therefore, we have Jibreel being isolated from the angels; the angels being mentioned separate from “ar-Ruh”; Both Jibreel and “Ruh al-Qudus” brought/revealed things with Allah’s permission.

Taraweeh during Ramadhaan is held worldwide in the masaajid.  Despite its popularity and claims of being from the ‘sunnah,’ Muhammad Rasoolullaah never actually sanctioned it.  The evidence against Taraweeh in the masjid is as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الأَعْلَى بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا وُهَيْبٌ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ عُقْبَةَ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ أَبِي النَّضْرِ، عَنْ بُسْرِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم اتَّخَذَ حُجْرَةً ـ قَالَ حَسِبْتُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ ـ مِنْ حَصِيرٍ فِي رَمَضَانَ فَصَلَّى فِيهَا لَيَالِيَ، فَصَلَّى بِصَلاَتِهِ نَاسٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِهِ، فَلَمَّا عَلِمَ بِهِمْ جَعَلَ يَقْعُدُ، فَخَرَجَ إِلَيْهِمْ فَقَالَ ‏ “‏ قَدْ عَرَفْتُ الَّذِي رَأَيْتُ مِنْ صَنِيعِكُمْ، فَصَلُّوا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ فِي بُيُوتِكُمْ، فَإِنَّ أَفْضَلَ الصَّلاَةِ صَلاَةُ الْمَرْءِ فِي بَيْتِهِ إِلاَّ الْمَكْتُوبَةَ ‏”‏‏.‏ قَالَ عَفَّانُ حَدَّثَنَا وُهَيْبٌ، حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى، سَمِعْتُ أَبَا النَّضْرِ، عَنْ بُسْرٍ، عَنْ زَيْدٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Allah’s Messenger made a small room in the month of Ramadan (Sa’id said, “I think that Zaid bin Thabit said that it was made of a mat”) and he prayed there for a few nights, and so some of his companions prayed behind him. When he came to know about it, he kept on sitting. In the morning, he went out to them and said, “I have seen and understood what you did. You should pray in your houses, for the best prayer of a person is that which he prays in his house except the compulsory prayers.”

This narration is recorded in Sahihayn and the books of Sunan.

Saying of a Sahaabi is not Proof

Posted: January 29, 2015 by millatibraheem in Bid'ah, Rebuttals, Ulum ul Hadeeth
Tags: ,

There are people who take a saying of a Sahaabi, or companion, of the Prophet as evidence in Deen, even if this saying has no support from Allaah ar-Rahmaan and His revelation.  No doubt this is a dangerous and an abhorrent innovation [Bid’ah dalala] that contradicts what Allaah al-Hakam has commanded us to do:

اتَّبِعُوا مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُم مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ ۗ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَذَكَّرُونَ

Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow other than Him any Awliya. Little do you remember.

(al-‘A’araf 7:3)

We as Muslims – those who are submissive to Allaah – are required to only follow revelation.  Whatever Allaah al-Wahhab sent down, it is considered as Deen and must be followed.  Anything that was not revealed by Allaah, then it is not Deen and can never be considered as part of it.

Henceforth, even the Prophet himself and some of his  companions were careful in accepting something that was attributed to the Deen.  Here will be discussed a few authentic narrations just to give some light on the topic.  You will see that neither the Prophet, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, nor ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab blindly accepted a saying of a Sahaabi until it was verified.

Narration of the Prophet

Wording from Malik’s Muwatta:

حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ بْنِ أَبِي تَمِيمَةَ السَّخْتِيَانِيِّ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سِيرِينَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم انْصَرَفَ مِنَ اثْنَتَيْنِ فَقَالَ لَهُ ذُو الْيَدَيْنِ أَقَصُرَتِ الصَّلاَةُ أَمْ نَسِيتَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ  ‏“‏ أَصَدَقَ ذُو الْيَدَيْنِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ النَّاسُ نَعَمْ ‏.‏ فَقَامَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ  فَصَلَّى رَكْعَتَيْنِ أُخْرَيَيْنِ ثُمَّ سَلَّمَ ثُمَّ كَبَّرَ فَسَجَدَ مِثْلَ سُجُودِهِ أَوْ أَطْوَلَ ثُمَّ رَفَعَ ثُمَّ كَبَّرَ فَسَجَدَ مِثْلَ سُجُودِهِ أَوْ أَطْوَلَ ثُمَّ رَفَعَ

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ayyub ibn Abi Tamima as-Sakhtayani from Muhammad ibn Sirin from Abu Hurayra that:

Allaah’s Messenger finished the prayer after two rakats and Dhul-Yadayn said to him, “Has the prayer been shortened or have you forgotten, O Allaah’s Messenger?”

Allaah’s Messenger said, “Has Dhul-Yadayn spoken the truth?”

The people said, “Yes,” and Allaah’s Messenger stood and prayed the other two rakats and then said, “Peace be upon you.” Then he said, “Allaah is greater” and went into a sadja as long as his usual prostrations or longer. Then he came up and said, “Allaah is greater” and went into a sajda as long as his usual prostrations or longer and then came up.

[It was also collected by Ahmad, al-Bukhaari, Muslim, at-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, an-Nisa’i, and Ibn Majah in their books]

There is nothing complex in this hadeeth.  A Sahaabi called Dhul-Yadayn questioned the Prophet in a manner as if the ruling changed or he may have made a mistake.  Hence, Allaah’s Messenger did not just take his word and prayed the rest of the prayer.  The Prophet actually asked other people if Dhul-Yadayn spoke the truth “أَصَدَقَ ذُو الْيَدَيْنِ“.  This by no means implies that Dhul-Yadayn was untrustworthy.

Narration of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq

Wording from Malik’s Muwatta:

حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ خَرَشَةَ، عَنْ قَبِيصَةَ بْنِ ذُؤَيْبٍ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ جَاءَتِ الْجَدَّةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقِ تَسْأَلُهُ مِيرَاثَهَا فَقَالَ لَهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ مَا لَكِ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ شَىْءٌ وَمَا عَلِمْتُ لَكِ فِي سُنَّةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ  شَيْئًا فَارْجِعِي حَتَّى أَسْأَلَ النَّاسَ فَسَأَلَ النَّاسَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ الْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ شُعْبَةَ حَضَرْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ  أَعْطَاهَا السُّدُسَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ هَلْ مَعَكَ غَيْرُكَ فَقَامَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ الأَنْصَارِيُّ فَقَالَ مِثْلَ مَا قَالَ الْمُغِيرَةُ فَأَنْفَذَهُ لَهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقُ ثُمَّ جَاءَتِ الْجَدَّةُ الأُخْرَى إِلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ تَسْأَلُهُ مِيرَاثَهَا فَقَالَ لَهَا مَا لَكِ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ شَىْءٌ وَمَا كَانَ الْقَضَاءُ الَّذِي قُضِيَ بِهِ إِلاَّ لِغَيْرِكِ وَمَا أَنَا بِزَائِدٍ فِي الْفَرَائِضِ شَيْئًا وَلَكِنَّهُ ذَلِكَ السُّدُسُ فَإِنِ اجْتَمَعْتُمَا فَهُوَ بَيْنَكُمَا وَأَيَّتُكُمَا خَلَتْ بِهِ فَهُوَ لَهَا

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Uthman ibn Ishaq ibn Kharasha that Qabisa ibn Dhu’ayb said,

“A grandmother came to Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and asked him for her inheritance. Abu Bakr said to her, ‘You have nothing in the Book of Allaah, and I do not know that you have anything in the sunnah of the Allaah’s Messenger. Go away therefore, until I have questioned the people.’

He questioned the people, and al-Mughira ibn Shuba said, ‘I was present with Allaah’s Messenger when he gave the grandmother a sixth.’

Abu Bakr said, ‘Was there anybody else with you?’

Muhammad ibn Maslama al-Ansari stood up and said the like of what al-Mughira said.  Abu Bakr as-Siddiq gave it to her.

Then the other grandmother came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and asked him for her inheritance. He said to her, “You have nothing in the Book of Allaah, and what has been decided is only for other than you, and I am not one to add to the fixed shares, other than that sixth. If there are two of you together, it is between you. If either of you is left alone with it, it is hers.”

[This narration was also transmitted by at-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and Ibn Majah in their collections.]

As we can see here, first, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq did not just do whatever he thought was correct, rather he questioned the people about this matter if there was anything coming from the Prophet. When a Sahaabi named al-Mughira stood up and told Abu Bakr as-Siddiq what he saw Allaah’s Messenger doing, Abu Bakr did not blindly accept al-Mughira’s saying, even though al-Mughaira was a trustworthy person.

Narration of Umar bin al-Khattab

Wording from al-Bukhaari:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَلاَمٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا مَخْلَدُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي عَطَاءٌ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ، أَنَّ أَبَا مُوسَى الأَشْعَرِيَّ، اسْتَأْذَنَ عَلَى عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ فَلَمْ يُؤْذَنْ لَهُ، وَكَأَنَّهُ كَانَ مَشْغُولاً فَرَجَعَ أَبُو مُوسَى، فَفَرَغَ عُمَرُ فَقَالَ أَلَمْ أَسْمَعْ صَوْتَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ ائْذَنُوا لَهُ قِيلَ قَدْ رَجَعَ‏.‏ فَدَعَاهُ‏.‏ فَقَالَ كُنَّا نُؤْمَرُ بِذَلِكَ‏.‏ فَقَالَ تَأْتِينِي عَلَى ذَلِكَ بِالْبَيِّنَةِ‏.‏ فَانْطَلَقَ إِلَى مَجْلِسِ الأَنْصَارِ، فَسَأَلَهُمْ‏.‏ فَقَالُوا لاَ يَشْهَدُ لَكَ عَلَى هَذَا إِلاَّ أَصْغَرُنَا أَبُو سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيُّ‏.‏ فَذَهَبَ بِأَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ أَخَفِيَ عَلَىَّ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ  أَلْهَانِي الصَّفْقُ بِالأَسْوَاقِ‏.‏ يَعْنِي الْخُرُوجَ إِلَى تِجَارَةٍ‏.

‘Ubaid bin Umair reported:

 Abu Musa asked Umar to admit him but he was not admitted as Umar was busy, so Abu Musa went back. When Umar finished his job he said, “Didn’t I hear the voice of Abdullaah bin Qais? Let him come in.”

Umar was told that he had left. So, he sent for him and on his arrival, he [Abu Musa] said, “We were ordered to do so [i.e. to leave if not admitted after asking permission thrice].

Umar told him, “Bring witness in proof of your statement.”

Abu Musa went to the Ansar’s meeting places and asked them. They said, “None amongst us will give this witness except the youngest of us, Abu Sa’ed al-Khudri. Abu Musa then took Abu Sa’ed al-Khudri and Umar said, surprisingly, “Has this order of Allah’s Messenger been hidden from me?” (Then he added), “I used to be busy trading in markets.”

[Also recorded by Malik, Ahmad, Muslim, and Abu Dawud]

Abu Dawud transmits:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ بْنِ أَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ غَيْرِ، وَاحِدٍ، مِنْ عُلَمَائِهِمْ فِي هَذَا فَقَالَ عُمَرُ لأَبِي مُوسَى أَمَا إِنِّي لَمْ أَتَّهِمْكَ وَلَكِنْ خَشِيتُ أَنْ يَتَقَوَّلَ النَّاسُ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ

Umar said to Abd Musa: I do not blame you, but I am afraid that the people may talk carelessly about Allaah’s Messenger.

These narrations clearly show Umar did not accept Abu Musa’s testimony just because he said it was from the Prophet despite being a well-known Sahaabi and a reliable person.

Narration of Ibn Shaqiq [a Taabi’]

Wording from Muslim:

وَحَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الرَّبِيعِ الزَّهْرَانِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادٌ، عَنِ الزُّبَيْرِ بْنِ الْخِرِّيتِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ شَقِيقٍ، قَالَ خَطَبَنَا ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ يَوْمًا بَعْدَ الْعَصْرِ حَتَّى غَرَبَتِ الشَّمْسُ وَبَدَتِ النُّجُومُ وَجَعَلَ النَّاسُ يَقُولُونَ الصَّلاَةَ الصَّلاَةَ – قَالَ – فَجَاءَهُ رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي تَمِيمٍ لاَ يَفْتُرُ وَلاَ يَنْثَنِي الصَّلاَةَ الصَّلاَةَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ أَتُعَلِّمُنِي بِالسُّنَّةِ لاَ أُمَّ لَكَ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ قَالَ رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ جَمَعَ بَيْنَ الظُّهْرِ وَالْعَصْرِ وَالْمَغْرِبِ وَالْعِشَاءِ ‏.‏ قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ شَقِيقٍ فَحَاكَ فِي صَدْرِي مِنْ ذَلِكَ شَىْءٌ فَأَتَيْتُ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ فَسَأَلْتُهُ فَصَدَّقَ مَقَالَتَهُ

Abdullaah ibn Shaqiq reported:

Ibn Abbas one day addressed us in the afternoon till the sun disappeared and the stars appeared, and the people began to say: Prayer, prayer.
A person from Banu Tamim came there. He neither slackened nor turned away, but (continued crying): Prayer, prayer.
Ibn Abbas said: May you be deprived of your mother, do you teach me Sunnah?  And then he said: I saw Allaah’s Messenger combining the noon and afternoon prayers and the sunset and ‘Isha’ prayers.
Abdullaah ibn Shaqiq said: Some doubt was created in my mind about it. So I came to Abu Hurayra and asked him and he testified his assertion.
Abdullaah ibn Shaqiq al-Uqayli was from the students of the companions and learned directly from them.  Even he wanted to verify a report when it caused him some doubts, despite directly hearing it from Ibn Abbas.
So from these narrations, we learn several things:
  • It is allowed to doubt a Sahaabis words even if he is trustworthy
  • It is allowed to not accept his saying until proof has been brought to support him
  • No one is obligated to accepting a hadeeth that was reported by a single Sahaabi – this supports those who reject ahad or khabar wahid
  • There cannot be any Hukm derived from a Sahaabis saying unless it is backed by revelation, which makes the Sahaabi irrelevant anyways since revelation is required

Hence we are seeing only a few examples that show us not even the holy Prophet Muhammad Rasolullaah, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, and Umar ibn al-Khattab blindly accepted a saying of a Sahaabi as proof just because he said so.  They always verified even if it was said by a trustworthy person.  Also, these reports are helpful in refuting the innovation of people who use the Sahaabah as evidence, even though they may have gone against the Shari’ah of Allaah aza wajal.

A wide variety of misjudgments are being given regarding homosexuals and their punishment in Islaam.  First, let it be known that homosexuality is dispraised by Allaah al-Ahad and it is forbidden to indulge sexually with the same gender, whether you are married to them or not.

It is a perversion that is from a persons own inclinations and it is not something inborn or natural as many are claiming.  This belief has been scientifically discredited by Dr. Neil Whitehead, when he provided evidence that the “gay gene” is not from genetics, by studying identical twins. What is more important and greater, is what Allaah as-Samad tells us about Prophet Lot’s sermon to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah:

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُم بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِّنَ الْعَالَمِينَ

And Lot when he said to his people, “Do you commit such immorality [faaHishat] as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds?”

(al-A’araaf 7:80)

Therefore, they were the first ones to practice this behaviour.

But even so if it was part of the human body and is considered innate, we are still required to have it under control as Allaah aza wajal has said narrating the saying of Prophet Lot:

إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِّن دُونِ النِّسَاءِ ۚ بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُّسْرِفُونَ

Indeed, you approach men with desire [shahwat], instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.

(al-A’araaf 7:81)

Shahwat [شَهْوَةً] is sexual desire that is connected to the libido.  The consequence of approaching other men with such a desire makes a person a transgressor, or someone who is immoderate and excessive with his lusts.

Now what if someone has fallen into their extreme desires and indulged into homosexuality?  No doubt the person should repent, ask Allaah’s forgiveness, conceal their sin, and do their best to never get into it again.  However, if a person openly admits to this sin and wants to be penalized, what would be the worldly punishment for them?  Oddly enough, there are at least seven different opinions reported on what the actual punishment for homosexuality should be, and this alone disproves the idea of a divine punishment.  These seven opinions are:

  1. Anyone involved in sodomy, the doer and the one being done upon, should be burnt alive.
  2. The doer and the one done upon should be thrown down from the highest point and then be stoned.
  3. They should be stoned to death.
  4. They should be executed [sword].
  5. The one being sodomized should be stoned, but the doer should only be stoned if he was married.  Otherwise he is to be lashed like a fornicator.
  6. If both men are married, they should be stoned.  If they are not, then they should be lashed similar to fornicators.
  7. They both should be given non-capital punishments [up to 10 lashes].

Without even getting too technical, we can see numbers 1 through 6 are wrong since they are not even derived from Allaah’s revelation.  They are taken from views related to some of the companions, whose opinions are not Islaam.  However, even the reports related to the companions are all inauthentic, with doubtful isnaad. So we will only briefly go over their weaknesses due to their irrelevance and having no backing from Qur’aan and Sahih Sunnah.

NOTE: Death penalty for sodomy exists only in Jewish and Christian scriptures, but not in the Qur’aan.  There is a high possibility that many Muslims have adopted Judaic-Christian beliefs and expressed them to be from Islaam.

1) Anyone involved in sodomy, the doer and the one being done upon, should be burnt alive

It was said to be given by Ibn Sam’an who reported it from someone [unknown] he heard saying that Khalid bin al-Walid was told by Abu Bakr as-Siddiq from ‘Ali to burn alive men who “took the way a woman was taken” i.e. sexually.

Ibn Sam’an was a known liar (ref. Malik) and had never met Khalid nor Abu Bakr.   He claimed to have heard it from someone without mentioning his name. So this person is unknown and the report is unreliable.

It is also reported by al-Bayhaqi in Shu’ab al-Imaan with ‘Ali saying “Only one nation disobeyed Allaah by committing such a sin and you know how Allaah dealt with them. I see that we should burn the man with fire.”

This is also weak.

If someone claims its soundness and decides to use it as evidence, it can easily be countered.  First, from the obvious, no mention was made about the Prophet.  Second, none of the companions knew what to do until ‘Ali spoke, and despite his ruling, he never attributed it to the Prophet.  Third, punishing with fire is believed by many to be prohibited, therefore, contradicting another judgment.

2) The doer and the one done upon should be thrown down from the highest point and then be stoned

3) They should be stoned to death

Opinions 2 and 3 will be looked at together since they are both related.

Opinion 2 was reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musunnaf and attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas.

Opinion 3 was reported by Abu Dawud also attributing it to Ibn ‘Abbas, and Malik in his Muwatta attributed it to Ibn Shihab.

The proponents for these views also attempt to further their opinion by using the Qur’aan.  They say since Allaah destroyed the people of Lot because of homosexuality, then we should too.

This is an extremely flawed and dangerous argument, as it can be Shirk.  They are equaling, or comparing, themselves with Allaah.  Just think about it, Allaah doing something does not mean we can do it also.  Allaah creates and takes life does not mean we can do similar.  Allaah is the legislature and makes whatever He wants forbidden and permissible, we cannot do that.  Allaah calls for his worship and we cannot.  And to add to that, there is no evidence to use what Allaah does as proof to kill people.

Another thing is, they also mistakenly concluded that people of Prophet Lot were destroyed solely due to homosexuality.  This is wrong.  In fact it is very clear their crimes were more than just homosexuality,  they were also punished for denying the Prophet and his message, that being Kufr.  Allaah says:

كَذَّبَتْ قَوْمُ لُوطٍ الْمُرْسَلِينَ

The people of Lot denied the messengers

(ash-Shu’ara 26:160)

Also,  keep in mind there is no authentic proof that Muhammad Rasoolullaah ever killed homosexuals, or that he gave such a judgement to be implemented during his lifetime.

4) They should be executed

This is once again attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas.  One wonders how many opinions did Ibn ‘Abbas have or at least are said to be his?

Unlike the other opinions, the following narration is used as evidence, narrated ibn ‘Abbas who reported Allaah’s Messenger said:

مَنْ وَجَدْتُمُوهُ يَعْمَلُ عَمَلَ قَوْمِ لُوطٍ فَاقْتُلُوا الْفَاعِلَ وَالْمَفْعُولَ بِهِ

“Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lot, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”

(Musnad Ahmed, Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan ibn Maajah, Jami’ at-Tirmidhi & others)

This hadeeth is clearly weak and does not hold up to the level of authenticity.

The chain from Musnad Ahmed: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو سَلَمَةَ الْخُزَاعِيُّ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ

It is reported through ambiguity [‘An] and there are three individuals that are problematic: عبد العزيز بن محمدعمرو بن أبي عمرو, and عكرمة مولى ابن عباس, but عبد العزيز بن محمد is not as serious as the other two.

عمرو بن أبي عمرو Both Malik bin Anas and Yahya bin Ma’en said he was weak.  His main problem was making mistakes and this harmed his reliability.

عكرمة is a disputed person due to him belonging to a “Khariji” sect and reporting contradicting narrations.  So the safest thing to do is not take from his narrations unless they are free of any doubt.

Abu Dawud in his Sunan gives three isnaad:

1)حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ النُّفَيْلِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ

2) رَوَاهُ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ بِلَالٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو مِثْلَهُ، وَرَوَاهُ عَبَّادُ بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ

3)ُ ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ الْحُصَيْنِ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ

The bold names are the weakness and have been briefly mentioned above, with the exception of the one underlined.

عباد بن منصور has been declared weak by pretty much all the major scholars, ‘Ali al-Madani, an-Nasa’i, Abu Hatim, Abu Ja’far, and he was also a convicted mudallis as mentioned by al-Bokhaari.

Chain from Sunan bin Maajah: حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الصَّبَّاحِ، وَأَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ خَلَّادٍ، قَالَا: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيرِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ

Same problem as the others.

Chain from Jami’ at-Tirmidh: حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو السَّوَّاقُ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ

Once again, the same issues.

There is a similar hadeeth from Abu Hurayrah that mentions to stone the one on top and the one on the bottom.

The isnaad is عَاصِمِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنْ سُهَيْلِ بْنِ أَبِي صَالِحٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ

عَاصِمِ بْنِ عُمَرَ al-Bokhaari said he was munkar al-hadeeth and an-Nasa’i said he was abandoned.

The isnaad from Musnad Ahmed: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْقَاسِمِ بْنُ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي حَبِيبَةَ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ الْحُصَيْنِ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ

ابْنُ أَبِي حَبِيبَةَ al-Bokhaari, an-Nasa’i, ad-Daaraqutni, and at-Tirmidhi all declared him to be weak in hadeeth.

 

[to be continued InshaAllaah…]