Nouman Ali Khan, please stay in your lane.


Sh. Ul Islam Ibn Taymeeyah said: “As for the Tafseers that are in people’s hands then the most correct is the Tafseer of Muhammad Ibn Jareer At Tabari. This is because it mentions the statements from the Salaf with its established chains of narration and it doesn’t have innovations. And it does not relay from those who are accused of lying such as Muqatil Ibn Bukair and Al Kalbi.”

The one that says that Imam Ibn Jareer was not a scholar of Tafseer but just a historian who simply collected everything under the sun either does not know the station of this Imam in terms of tafseer or has never read his full tafseer regarding one of the verses. But for those who may not know, think they know or are simply misinformed the following is a summary of the methodology of Ibn Jareer in his tafseer (regarding the statements of the Salaf and the tabi’een).

1. Putting forth the different opinions of the scholars. In some cases the differences may contradict each other but in most cases they complement each other.

2. He gives his opinion regarding the most authentic statement regarding the particular verse.

So yes, in a way it is an encyclopedia of statements regarding the verse but at the same instance Imam At Tabari displayed his expertise in Tafseer when he distinguished the sound opinions from the weak opinions according to the foundations and principles of the aforementioned science.

Furthermore, from those who benefited from such a Tafseer was Imam Ibn Katheer who summarized much of what Imam At Tabari said and employed his methodology in treating with the statements of the Salaf.

Now, as I said in posts regarding Yasir Qadhi, I know where my lane is. I am not an expert in the field of Tafseer and upon taking from the wisdom of the scholars I have relegated myself to Al Jalalayn (with the checking of Safi Ur Rahmaan Al Mubarakfuri) and Tafseer As Sa’di at this point in time. However, to speak of Imam At Tabari’s excellent Tafseer in that manner is nothing but high handed disrespect for the science of tafseer, its principles and its commentators.

May Allah guide us all.

Yasir Qadhi, please bat in your crease

 الحمد لله رب العالمين و العاقبة للمتقين و لا عدوان الا على الظالمين و اصلى و اسلم على عبده و رسوله محمد و على اله و صحبه و سلم

Upon seeing the issues that Yasir Qadhi has regarding the Qur’an initially I thought that I had woken up from an unreal nightmare. But when I saw the posts one by one regarding this individual and verified it I saw it was indeed reality that hit me straight in my face.

After Yasir’s speech about Salafiyah, his blatant lies on Salafiyah and its scholars (Sh. Ibn ‘Uthaimeen & Sh. Al Albani and others) and his statements regarding ‘Umar Ibn Khattab I was still in utter shock regarding his statements about the Qur’an which are tantamount to clear Zandaqah (heresy). As a brother who studied in Madeenah while Yasir was there I would have never imagined that 15 years later he would have such an atrocious understanding regarding the preservation of the Qur’an.

Now, to further clarify as to why Yasir’s speech is clear heresy we must look at what Ahlus Sunnah say, what the deviants have said and what Yasir says, then from that standpoint one would find that Yasir’s speech is completely reprehensible.

As for the belief of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah; we believe that the Qur’an is the words of Allah sent by him and is not created. From him it originates and to him it returns and that it is Allah’s true speech in reality and it is not the speech of anyone else. If it is read, written or memorized it is still the speech of Allah in terms of its letters, its words and its meanings.(Summary of Ibn Taymeeyah’s speech in Waasiteeyah)

The Mu’tazilah, who Imam Ahmad and many of the Imams of that time have classified as disbelievers, believe that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah but created. Their principle regarding this is that the attributes of Allah are created and this led them to clear heresy since if one says that Allah’s descriptions are created he is in fact saying that Allah himself is created which is disbelief.

The Asharis (the Kulabeeyah) believe that the Qur’an is an expression of Allah’s eternal speech as they believe that Allah speaks without letters and voice and doesn’t speak whenever he wants at whatever time he wants hence nullifying Allah’s will and ability from his actions and speech. This is also clear falsehood since Allah spoke to Musa saying: “Verily I am Allah there is nothing worthy of worship but me…”, and it is impossible that the fire or an Angel said this to Musa (غليه السلام)

Now, the rhetoric of these groups DOES NOT contest the issue of the word by word preservation of the Qur’an. Rather, their intention through this rhetoric was to distance Allah from having the qualities of the creation. And although these intentions were good they still ended up in misguidance since they deviated from the Prophetic methodology.

Now, Yasir Qadhi said:

“In conclusion; the Qur’an cannot be then a letter for letter, tashkeel for tashkeel narrative that the later scholars verbalize and the Muslim Ummah is taught. Therefore the preservation must be interpreted in another manner.”

He also said:

“Problem: How can we then understand the Qur’an as being Kalaam Allah (the speech of Allah) when clearly there are human aspects to it.”

He also said that the issue of the Qur’an being the speech of Allah has to be rethought. 

Now, look at that speech and compare it to the Mu’tazilah and the ‘Asharis (who Yasir does not care about being classified with) and we would see that the deviants from the  Mu’tazilah and the ‘Asharis still believe in the divine nature Qur’an (i.e being the speech of Allah). As for Yasir, he questions the very preservation of the Qur’an and its divinity.

Yasir Qadhi’s methodology is reminiscent of that of Jahm Ibn Safwan’s. Instead of acceptance and submission he resorted to dispute, rhetoric and argumentation. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the Imam who was famous for his knowledge and his fortitude, said in his book; “Refutation of the Heretics” about Jahm:

“And from that which that has reached us is that Jahm, the enemy of Allah, was from those of Khurasan, from Tirmidh, and he was a person of argumentation and rhetoric” (Refutation of the Heretics: 7)

Now although there are many verses in the Qur’an which refute Yasir’s speech and which clearly state that it is the speech of Allah sent to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) the following two verses are those which I think would render Yasir’s arguments null and void.

Allah has said about the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم):

And he does not speak from his desires. It is only a revelation unto him.”  Surah Najm {53:3-4}

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said regarding this verse:

He (Allah) says that verily Muhammad didn’t speak of this Qur’an from himself. He therefore said “It is”- meaning the Qur’an- “only a revelation unto him.” Therefore Allah has negated that the Qur’an be other than revelation” (Refutation of the Heretics: 11)

Likewise Allah has said in Surah Haaqah (69 :43-47)

” This is the Revelation sent down from the Lord of the Worlds. And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning us. We surely would have seized him with the right hand. And we certainly would have cut off his life artery. And none of you could have witheld us from (punishing him).”

Therefore, if it is a revelation  sent by Allah and didn’t come from Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and even he; the greatest man to ever walk on this earth, could not invent any statement regarding Allah’s revelation then what evidence of human interference (human element as he calls it) is Yasir speaking about exactly?

In conclusion, my advice to Yasir is to take some time and read the Qur’an and avoid fruitless debate and rhetoric which would put one into clear disbelief. Additionally, after he has fed the Western Masses the perception that the real scholars are unable to deal with contemporary matters I think that since he has doubts about the Qur’an (although he claims to be a theologian) it is about time that he bat in his crease, humble himself and sit under the scholars of Islam rather than Tony Blair.

و صلى الله على نبينا محمد و على اله و صحبه و سلم

NOT in defense of Erdogan but in defense of Salafiyah

My dear brothers and sisters,

We must realize that Allah and his Messenger have clarified the methodology that we are supposed to traverse upon. In this no stone was left unturned and as the Qur’an, Hadeeth and our History has been preserved likewise out ‘Aqeedah and Manhaj have been preserved within books such as ‘Usool Ul Ittiqaad Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, Al Ibaanah, Ash Sharee’ah etc.

Regarding the rulers, once the ruler is MUSLIM it is Haraam to do the following:

  • Expose him in public by humiliating him or mocking him.
  • Revolt against him by the sword/gun etc.
  • Disobey the ruler except in that which opposes the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

This is manifest in the above aforementioned books and the primary texts such as ‘Aqeedah Al Waasiteeyah, Lam’ah Al Ittiqaad, ‘Aqeedah At Tahaweeyah and ‘Aqeedah Ar Raaziyain etc. This obedience to the Muslim ruler is obligatory and it rendered to him even if he is treacherous, oppressive and sinful.

Now, it is saddening that brothers who are supposed to uphold these principles seem to apply them conveniently. When a coup was attempted in Turkey by the military some brothers expressed their unabated joy on social media. This was done due to the fact that the Turkish ruler is from the Ikhwaan Al Muslimeen and that some scholars spoke against him.

I wish to re-iterate a previous point. Once the ruler is MUSLIM whether he is the Saudi ruler, the Egyptian ruler, the Kuwaiti ruler etc. it is unlawful to speak ill of him even if he is treacherous, evil, deviant etc. Eras came and went wherein the Muslim ruler was even aiding and supporting the heretic creed of the Mu’tazilah to the point that scholars were killed and tortured for upholding the creed of Ahlus Sunnah. But although this was the case NOT ONE of these great scholars deviated from the clear Usool of Ahlus Sunnah.

May Allah ta’ala aid us in adhering to the principles of Ahlus Sunnah.


Important Clarification.

In this treatise

… there’s an error regarding the issue of Irjaa wherein I said:

“Therefore, someone who does not make Takfeer of a person who does not leave off actions cannot be considered as a Murji’ since in order for Irjaa to be ascribed to someone he has to put actions outside of Imaan.”

From two angles this is incorrect:

1. Saying that a person who leaves off all actions is a believer with reduced Imaan is from the Madhab of the Murji’ah.

2. That the one who says that the one who leaves off all actions is a believer is mistaken since actions are a pillar of Imaan and is therefore needed to establish it.

3. What should have been said is that the individual may have fallen into an error and cannot AUTOMATICALLY be ascribed to the Murji’ah. As to that which occured with Sh. Rabee as the Grand Mufti clarified. As for Imam Nasir Ud Deen Al Albani he believed that the one who leaves off all actions is a Kaafir as Sh. Suhaimi mentioned and as I mentioned in my rebuttal of Yasir Qadhi in the final pages (page 44) found here:

Please do make sure to read this important treatise which I posted on a later date.

May Allah bless the one who pointed this out to me. And if there are any concerns please feel free to e-mail me.

استغفر الله و اتوب اليه.


Salafi without…

Assalamu Alaikum my dear brothers and sisters,

Alhamdu Lillah Allah has guided us to understand that following the way of the Salaf (being Salafi) is the correct way to follow Islam. The evidence regarding this matter such as the Hadeeth of ‘Irbaadh and the Hadeeth referring to the separation within the Ummah are clear and well known hence for the sake of brevity I would not reiterate them.

However, there is an important matter which needs clarification. Do we REALLY want to follow the Salaf or do we want to be Salafi on OUR terms or the terms of a particular individual or group?

This is why the book Siyar ‘Alaam An Nubala is so important. Of course clarifying our ‘Aqeedah, standing firm against falsehood and refuting the people of innovation is the foundation of our Salafiyyah and this is manifest in the aforementioned book. But also other matters such as their manners, their worship, their methodology in seeking knowledge (through memorization, implementation, travelling to seek knowledge etc.) should also be of major importance to us.

Why? Because we would see the faults we would have within ourselves and reach higher. We wouldn’t try to be a salafi/rudeboy or a salafi/playboy. We would truly try to be like the Salaf in all aspects of the religion. We would try to treat the people as they did, worship Allah as they did, read the Qur’an like they did, seek knowledge like they did and in the end die upon true Islam as they did as Allah said after mentioning the Muhajirun and the Ansaar:

و الذين اتبعوهم باحسان رضي الله و رضوا عنه

And those who follow them in goodness Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Allah.

So let us not just brandish the name left and right as a slogan. Let us truly BE Salafi.