Dream opens the door to wakeful witnessing.
Every true dream of the Prophet ﷺ is an invitation
to increase:
• ṣalawāt
• love
• presence
• obedience
• and inner purification
The more the seeker deepens his attachment,
the more likely Allāh opens the gate of waking vision.
And if one’s efforts fall short,
then the final fulfilment comes at death.
Either way, the Prophet ﷺ’s promise is true.
Every true dream of the Prophet ﷺ is an invitation
to increase:
• ṣalawāt
• love
• presence
• obedience
• and inner purification
The more the seeker deepens his attachment,
the more likely Allāh opens the gate of waking vision.
And if one’s efforts fall short,
then the final fulfilment comes at death.
Either way, the Prophet ﷺ’s promise is true.
❤4
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Corrupted “Theology”
A God Bound by Time, Ignorance, Emotional Reaction, and Physical Weight
The passage we are considering from Ibn Taymiyyah’s Talbis al-Jahmiyyah is one of the clearest proofs that his so-called “tawhid” is in fact pagan anthropomorphism, not the creed of Islam.
Here is the exact text he quotes and approves, word for word:
“Ibn Mas‘ud said: The length of each of your days with Him is twelve hours. Your deeds of yesterday are presented to Him at the beginning of today’s morning. He looks into them for three hours. He sees among them what He dislikes, so this angers Him. The first to know of His anger are those who carry the Throne, who feel it becoming heavy upon them, so they glorify Him. The Qadi said: Know that it is not impossible to take this report upon its apparent meaning.”
Ibn Taymiyyah approves this text, cites it approvingly, and explicitly supports taking the report on its apparent literal meaning.
Let us break down what this actually implies.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
1. A God who lives inside time
The report describes:
• days
• hours
• morning
• waiting
• reviewing deeds for three hours
This means:
• God has a day
• His day has twelve hours
• He has a morning
• He waits for a certain time
• He spends hours reviewing human deeds
This is not the Creator of time.
This is a deity controlled by time.
This is the language of mythology, not Islam.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2. A God who is ignorant then learns
The report says:
“He sees among them what He dislikes.”
Meaning:
• He did not know beforehand
• He discovers it during the review
Every Muslim theologian, Ash‘ari and Maturidi, agreed:
God’s knowledge does not change and does not increase.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s theology implies:
• waiting
• looking
• discovering
This is acquired knowledge, which implies previous ignorance.
Ignorance is impossible for God.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3. A God whose anger is a physical event with weight
The report says:
“The carriers of the Throne feel it become heavy upon them when He becomes angry.”
Meaning:
• divine anger has physical mass
• God’s essence becomes heavier
• angels detect that heaviness
This is not “without how.”
This is physical description.
It is identical to pagan myths where gods’ emotions produce physical effects.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
4. Ibn Taymiyyah endorses literalism
He quotes the Qadi saying:
“It is not impossible to take this report on its apparent meaning.”
And Ibn Taymiyyah approves this.
The apparent meaning is explicit:
• God has time periods
• God waits
• God reviews
• God discovers
• God has physical heaviness
• The Throne literally changes weight
This is not the God of Islam.
This is a physical deity, like the gods of Greece and Rome.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
5. This “tawhid” is pagan anthropomorphism
Compare:
Pagan gods:
• sit on thrones
• live in time
• wait for news
• get angry
• emit physical heaviness
• change with emotion
Ibn Taymiyyah’s god:
• sits on a throne
• lives in time
• waits for angels to bring reports
• becomes angry
• his anger has weight that burdens the Throne
There is no difference.
This is not divine transcendence.
It is mythology disguised as theology.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
6. Compare this with Sunni creed
Sunni theology teaches:
• God is not in space
• God is not in time
• God does not change
• God does not acquire knowledge
• God’s essence does not fluctuate
• God’s actions do not affect Him physically
Ibn Taymiyyah’s theology teaches:
• God is in a direction
• God is in time
• God waits
• God reacts
• God changes
• God becomes heavy
• God learns
This is not Islam.
This is anthropomorphic paganism.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Conclusion
The passage Ibn Taymiyyah endorses reveals the essence of his theology:
A God Bound by Time, Ignorance, Emotional Reaction, and Physical Weight
The passage we are considering from Ibn Taymiyyah’s Talbis al-Jahmiyyah is one of the clearest proofs that his so-called “tawhid” is in fact pagan anthropomorphism, not the creed of Islam.
Here is the exact text he quotes and approves, word for word:
“Ibn Mas‘ud said: The length of each of your days with Him is twelve hours. Your deeds of yesterday are presented to Him at the beginning of today’s morning. He looks into them for three hours. He sees among them what He dislikes, so this angers Him. The first to know of His anger are those who carry the Throne, who feel it becoming heavy upon them, so they glorify Him. The Qadi said: Know that it is not impossible to take this report upon its apparent meaning.”
Ibn Taymiyyah approves this text, cites it approvingly, and explicitly supports taking the report on its apparent literal meaning.
Let us break down what this actually implies.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
1. A God who lives inside time
The report describes:
• days
• hours
• morning
• waiting
• reviewing deeds for three hours
This means:
• God has a day
• His day has twelve hours
• He has a morning
• He waits for a certain time
• He spends hours reviewing human deeds
This is not the Creator of time.
This is a deity controlled by time.
This is the language of mythology, not Islam.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
2. A God who is ignorant then learns
The report says:
“He sees among them what He dislikes.”
Meaning:
• He did not know beforehand
• He discovers it during the review
Every Muslim theologian, Ash‘ari and Maturidi, agreed:
God’s knowledge does not change and does not increase.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s theology implies:
• waiting
• looking
• discovering
This is acquired knowledge, which implies previous ignorance.
Ignorance is impossible for God.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
3. A God whose anger is a physical event with weight
The report says:
“The carriers of the Throne feel it become heavy upon them when He becomes angry.”
Meaning:
• divine anger has physical mass
• God’s essence becomes heavier
• angels detect that heaviness
This is not “without how.”
This is physical description.
It is identical to pagan myths where gods’ emotions produce physical effects.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
4. Ibn Taymiyyah endorses literalism
He quotes the Qadi saying:
“It is not impossible to take this report on its apparent meaning.”
And Ibn Taymiyyah approves this.
The apparent meaning is explicit:
• God has time periods
• God waits
• God reviews
• God discovers
• God has physical heaviness
• The Throne literally changes weight
This is not the God of Islam.
This is a physical deity, like the gods of Greece and Rome.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
5. This “tawhid” is pagan anthropomorphism
Compare:
Pagan gods:
• sit on thrones
• live in time
• wait for news
• get angry
• emit physical heaviness
• change with emotion
Ibn Taymiyyah’s god:
• sits on a throne
• lives in time
• waits for angels to bring reports
• becomes angry
• his anger has weight that burdens the Throne
There is no difference.
This is not divine transcendence.
It is mythology disguised as theology.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
6. Compare this with Sunni creed
Sunni theology teaches:
• God is not in space
• God is not in time
• God does not change
• God does not acquire knowledge
• God’s essence does not fluctuate
• God’s actions do not affect Him physically
Ibn Taymiyyah’s theology teaches:
• God is in a direction
• God is in time
• God waits
• God reacts
• God changes
• God becomes heavy
• God learns
This is not Islam.
This is anthropomorphic paganism.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Conclusion
The passage Ibn Taymiyyah endorses reveals the essence of his theology:
💔1
a god who lives in time, waits for reports, learns what he did not know, becomes angry in a physical way that burdens his Throne, and operates on a schedule of hours.
This is a created being, not the Creator.
This is not the God of Islam, nor the God of the Qur’an, nor the God of Abraham.
It is pure pagan anthropomorphism wrapped in religious vocabulary.
This is the theological disaster Ibn Taymiyyah left behind.
This is a created being, not the Creator.
This is not the God of Islam, nor the God of the Qur’an, nor the God of Abraham.
It is pure pagan anthropomorphism wrapped in religious vocabulary.
This is the theological disaster Ibn Taymiyyah left behind.
💔1
**Qur’anic Distortion: Between Imami Heritage, the Classical Rapprochement Project, and al-Haydari’s Critique
And Its Impact on Sunni–Shia Reconciliation**
Introduction
Few topics are as sensitive in Sunni–Shia theological dialogue as the question of taḥrīf al-Qur’ān.
Although modern representatives of both traditions affirm that the Qur’an is fully preserved, the weight of inherited texts, polemical history, and political manipulation has kept this issue alive.
This article compares three major approaches:
1. The dominant contemporary Imami (Twelver Shia) position
2. The classical rapprochement school (al-Azhar and Dār al-Taqrīb)
3. The critical reformist approach of Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari
It then analyzes how these approaches affect the possibility of genuine Sunni–Shia rapprochement.
⸻
1. The Contemporary Imami Position
Modern Shia institutions officially uphold the following:
1. The Qur’an we possess today is exactly the Qur’an revealed to the Prophet, with no addition or deletion.
2. Reports of distortion appearing in early Shia works are viewed as:
• weak,
• disconnected (mursal),
• influenced by early political conflicts, or
• part of the unrefined heritage not relied upon today.
3. They affirm that literal textual distortion contradicts consensus and is rejected.
However, the Shia scholarly establishment avoids naming earlier scholars who held otherwise, in order to avoid internal conflict with revered early authorities whose opinions are still respected by many.
⸻
2. The Classical Rapprochement School (al-Azhar & Dār al-Taqrīb)
During the mid-20th century rapprochement attempts, major Shia scholars participating in Dār al-Taqrīb adopted a very clear stance:
1. Explicit denial of Qur’anic distortion.
2. Affirmation that all Muslims share one Qur’an.
3. Reinterpretation of distortion reports as:
• weak,
• products of the early civil strife,
• or part of the general pre-critical heritage found in all Islamic libraries.
This position reassured Azhar scholars such as Shaltūt and Abū Zuhra, who concluded that the issue was not an essential doctrinal divide.
Dār al-Taqrīb aimed to calm tensions, not to dissect Shia heritage in detail.
⸻
3. Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari’s Critical Approach
Al-Haydari diverges sharply from both the traditional Shia establishment and the classical rapprochement approach.
1) He opens the file boldly
Unlike the Imami institution that avoids specifics, al-Haydari openly states that:
• many early and medieval Shia scholars explicitly believed in distortion or omission,
• relevant reports are neither few nor peripheral,
• and they appear in major books such as Tafsīr al-Qummī, al-Kāfī, Tafsīr al-‘Ayyāshī, and Fasl al-Khiṭāb.
He argues that burying the issue harms, rather than protects, the school.
2) Yet he ends with the same doctrinal conclusion as the rapprochement school
Despite his candor, al-Haydari’s final theological conclusion is:
• The Qur’an is fully preserved,
• distortion is impossible rationally and scripturally,
• and any claim to the contrary contradicts the Qur’an itself.
Thus he converges with Sunni belief and with the classical rapprochement school on the final doctrinal point.
3) The methodological difference
• The rapprochement school aimed for calm diplomacy.
• Al-Haydari aims for deep internal reform, even at the cost of internal backlash.
This is why, despite reaching a Sunni-friendly conclusion, his approach triggered hostility from the conservative Shia establishment.
⸻
4. How These Approaches Impact Sunni–Shia Rapprochement
1) The contemporary Imami stance
• reduces tension
• but leaves Sunni scholars uneasy, because:
• the problematic heritage remains mostly unaddressed
• the official position does not critically revise the sources that contain distortion claims.
2) The classical rapprochement school
Succeeded in academic circles, but not at the public level, because:
• popular Shia discourse still transmits unreviewed early traditions,
• and deep textual reform requires more than diplomatic declarations.
And Its Impact on Sunni–Shia Reconciliation**
Introduction
Few topics are as sensitive in Sunni–Shia theological dialogue as the question of taḥrīf al-Qur’ān.
Although modern representatives of both traditions affirm that the Qur’an is fully preserved, the weight of inherited texts, polemical history, and political manipulation has kept this issue alive.
This article compares three major approaches:
1. The dominant contemporary Imami (Twelver Shia) position
2. The classical rapprochement school (al-Azhar and Dār al-Taqrīb)
3. The critical reformist approach of Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari
It then analyzes how these approaches affect the possibility of genuine Sunni–Shia rapprochement.
⸻
1. The Contemporary Imami Position
Modern Shia institutions officially uphold the following:
1. The Qur’an we possess today is exactly the Qur’an revealed to the Prophet, with no addition or deletion.
2. Reports of distortion appearing in early Shia works are viewed as:
• weak,
• disconnected (mursal),
• influenced by early political conflicts, or
• part of the unrefined heritage not relied upon today.
3. They affirm that literal textual distortion contradicts consensus and is rejected.
However, the Shia scholarly establishment avoids naming earlier scholars who held otherwise, in order to avoid internal conflict with revered early authorities whose opinions are still respected by many.
⸻
2. The Classical Rapprochement School (al-Azhar & Dār al-Taqrīb)
During the mid-20th century rapprochement attempts, major Shia scholars participating in Dār al-Taqrīb adopted a very clear stance:
1. Explicit denial of Qur’anic distortion.
2. Affirmation that all Muslims share one Qur’an.
3. Reinterpretation of distortion reports as:
• weak,
• products of the early civil strife,
• or part of the general pre-critical heritage found in all Islamic libraries.
This position reassured Azhar scholars such as Shaltūt and Abū Zuhra, who concluded that the issue was not an essential doctrinal divide.
Dār al-Taqrīb aimed to calm tensions, not to dissect Shia heritage in detail.
⸻
3. Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari’s Critical Approach
Al-Haydari diverges sharply from both the traditional Shia establishment and the classical rapprochement approach.
1) He opens the file boldly
Unlike the Imami institution that avoids specifics, al-Haydari openly states that:
• many early and medieval Shia scholars explicitly believed in distortion or omission,
• relevant reports are neither few nor peripheral,
• and they appear in major books such as Tafsīr al-Qummī, al-Kāfī, Tafsīr al-‘Ayyāshī, and Fasl al-Khiṭāb.
He argues that burying the issue harms, rather than protects, the school.
2) Yet he ends with the same doctrinal conclusion as the rapprochement school
Despite his candor, al-Haydari’s final theological conclusion is:
• The Qur’an is fully preserved,
• distortion is impossible rationally and scripturally,
• and any claim to the contrary contradicts the Qur’an itself.
Thus he converges with Sunni belief and with the classical rapprochement school on the final doctrinal point.
3) The methodological difference
• The rapprochement school aimed for calm diplomacy.
• Al-Haydari aims for deep internal reform, even at the cost of internal backlash.
This is why, despite reaching a Sunni-friendly conclusion, his approach triggered hostility from the conservative Shia establishment.
⸻
4. How These Approaches Impact Sunni–Shia Rapprochement
1) The contemporary Imami stance
• reduces tension
• but leaves Sunni scholars uneasy, because:
• the problematic heritage remains mostly unaddressed
• the official position does not critically revise the sources that contain distortion claims.
2) The classical rapprochement school
Succeeded in academic circles, but not at the public level, because:
• popular Shia discourse still transmits unreviewed early traditions,
• and deep textual reform requires more than diplomatic declarations.
👌1
3) Al-Haydari’s approach
Paradoxically:
• He reaches the same conclusion as Sunnis (no distortion).
• He validates many Sunni criticisms of early Shia heritage.
Thus many Sunnis see strong overlap with their historical analysis.
Yet politically, his approach is explosive inside Shia institutions, leading to restrictions placed on him.
⸻
Conclusion
• The rapprochement school calmed the issue without revising the heritage.
• Al-Haydari critiqued the heritage thoroughly and reached the same doctrinal conclusion, but was punished internally.
• The modern Imami position rejects distortion but avoids confronting the heritage directly.
And the truth, from the standpoint of orthodox Sunni creed, is clear:
The Qur’an is preserved by the promise of God.
The claim of distortion is false regardless of who voices it.
And the unity of the Muslim Ummah cannot stand without this foundational principle.
Paradoxically:
• He reaches the same conclusion as Sunnis (no distortion).
• He validates many Sunni criticisms of early Shia heritage.
Thus many Sunnis see strong overlap with their historical analysis.
Yet politically, his approach is explosive inside Shia institutions, leading to restrictions placed on him.
⸻
Conclusion
• The rapprochement school calmed the issue without revising the heritage.
• Al-Haydari critiqued the heritage thoroughly and reached the same doctrinal conclusion, but was punished internally.
• The modern Imami position rejects distortion but avoids confronting the heritage directly.
And the truth, from the standpoint of orthodox Sunni creed, is clear:
The Qur’an is preserved by the promise of God.
The claim of distortion is false regardless of who voices it.
And the unity of the Muslim Ummah cannot stand without this foundational principle.
❤2
Cursing the Companions and Loving Ahl al-Bayt
How al-Haydari Exemplifies the Rule: The Peaks Converge Even When the Paths Differ
Introduction
The debate over cursing the Companions and the proper stance toward Ahl al-Bayt is one of the most sensitive historical points of contention between Sunnis and Shiʿa. While populist preachers on both sides turn it into fuel for sectarian conflict, the great scholars of both traditions approached the issue with a very different methodology.
In earlier posts, we explained a foundational principle:
The higher Sunni scholarship rises, the greater its love for Ahl al-Bayt.
The higher Shiʿi scholarship rises, the greater its fairness toward the Companions.
Where knowledge rises to its peaks, scholars converge.
Only the shallow ones scream from below.
This study shows how Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari exemplifies this principle in practice, compared with three frameworks:
1. Mainstream contemporary Imami Shiʿism
2. The classical “Taqreeb school” of al-Azhar and the Dar al-Taqreeb project
3. The traditional Sunni position
Finally, it shows why al-Haydari’s stance on the Companions became one of the main reasons for the backlash he faced within his own sectarian environment.
⸻
1. The Mainstream Imami Position on Cursing the Companions
The contemporary Shiʿi establishment presents a dual structure.
(a) The formal juristic stance
• Cursing believers in general is prohibited
• Offensive language is discouraged
• “Laʿn” is kept as a doctrinal category tied to interpretations of historical injustice
(b) The popular and narrative reality
• A large corpus of harsh narrations against many Companions
• Public sermons reinforcing a “Companions vs Ahl al-Bayt” dichotomy
• A widespread culture of collective cursing among lay audiences
This gap between juristic theory and popular practice is one of the major crises of the Shiʿi discourse today.
⸻
2. The Classical Sunni–Shiʿi Taqreeb School
The scholars of Dar al-Taqreeb (Shaltut and Abu Zahra from al-Azhar, and Sharaf al-Din and al-Broujerdi from the Shiʿi side) articulated a clear and balanced position:
1. Cursing the Companions is categorically forbidden
2. Historical criticism is allowed, but without abuse
3. Collective cursing is neither part of Islam nor of the path of Ahl al-Bayt
4. Wrongdoing in early Islamic history is analyzed academically, not through emotional or sectarian rhetoric
A noble model, but its effect on the general public remained limited.
⸻
3. The Traditional Sunni Stance
The Sunni position is firm and well established:
1. Cursing the Companions is haram without exception
2. All Companions are upright; individual actions may be evaluated as ijtihaad, not as attacks on their religion
3. Loving Ahl al-Bayt is an obligation, and does not contradict honoring the Companions
4. Sectarian provocation is not part of Islam
This explains why Sunnis are highly sensitive to any discourse that insults the Companions.
⸻
4. Where Does Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari Stand Between These Schools?
(a) His explicit stance
Al-Haydari openly states:
• Cursing the Companions is forbidden
• Cursing is not the method of Ahl al-Bayt
• The correct approach is “criticizing actions, not insulting persons”
• Reverence for Ahl al-Bayt does not require violating the dignity of others
• Imam Ali himself prohibited cursing
He frequently cites the well-known advice of Imam Ali at Siffin:
“I dislike that you should be people of abuse.
But if you describe their actions and mention their states, that would be more accurate.”
(b) Where he converges with the Sunni position
On four major points:
1. Absolute prohibition of cursing
2. Transition from cursing to academic criticism
3. Recognition of the virtue of many Companions
4. Rejection of sectarian populism
These converge with Sunni methodology, not with Sunni creed.
(c) Where he remains distinctly Shiʿi
• He continues to critique certain Companions within the Imami reading of early history
• He maintains belief in the doctrine of the Twelve Imams
How al-Haydari Exemplifies the Rule: The Peaks Converge Even When the Paths Differ
Introduction
The debate over cursing the Companions and the proper stance toward Ahl al-Bayt is one of the most sensitive historical points of contention between Sunnis and Shiʿa. While populist preachers on both sides turn it into fuel for sectarian conflict, the great scholars of both traditions approached the issue with a very different methodology.
In earlier posts, we explained a foundational principle:
The higher Sunni scholarship rises, the greater its love for Ahl al-Bayt.
The higher Shiʿi scholarship rises, the greater its fairness toward the Companions.
Where knowledge rises to its peaks, scholars converge.
Only the shallow ones scream from below.
This study shows how Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari exemplifies this principle in practice, compared with three frameworks:
1. Mainstream contemporary Imami Shiʿism
2. The classical “Taqreeb school” of al-Azhar and the Dar al-Taqreeb project
3. The traditional Sunni position
Finally, it shows why al-Haydari’s stance on the Companions became one of the main reasons for the backlash he faced within his own sectarian environment.
⸻
1. The Mainstream Imami Position on Cursing the Companions
The contemporary Shiʿi establishment presents a dual structure.
(a) The formal juristic stance
• Cursing believers in general is prohibited
• Offensive language is discouraged
• “Laʿn” is kept as a doctrinal category tied to interpretations of historical injustice
(b) The popular and narrative reality
• A large corpus of harsh narrations against many Companions
• Public sermons reinforcing a “Companions vs Ahl al-Bayt” dichotomy
• A widespread culture of collective cursing among lay audiences
This gap between juristic theory and popular practice is one of the major crises of the Shiʿi discourse today.
⸻
2. The Classical Sunni–Shiʿi Taqreeb School
The scholars of Dar al-Taqreeb (Shaltut and Abu Zahra from al-Azhar, and Sharaf al-Din and al-Broujerdi from the Shiʿi side) articulated a clear and balanced position:
1. Cursing the Companions is categorically forbidden
2. Historical criticism is allowed, but without abuse
3. Collective cursing is neither part of Islam nor of the path of Ahl al-Bayt
4. Wrongdoing in early Islamic history is analyzed academically, not through emotional or sectarian rhetoric
A noble model, but its effect on the general public remained limited.
⸻
3. The Traditional Sunni Stance
The Sunni position is firm and well established:
1. Cursing the Companions is haram without exception
2. All Companions are upright; individual actions may be evaluated as ijtihaad, not as attacks on their religion
3. Loving Ahl al-Bayt is an obligation, and does not contradict honoring the Companions
4. Sectarian provocation is not part of Islam
This explains why Sunnis are highly sensitive to any discourse that insults the Companions.
⸻
4. Where Does Sayyid Kamal al-Haydari Stand Between These Schools?
(a) His explicit stance
Al-Haydari openly states:
• Cursing the Companions is forbidden
• Cursing is not the method of Ahl al-Bayt
• The correct approach is “criticizing actions, not insulting persons”
• Reverence for Ahl al-Bayt does not require violating the dignity of others
• Imam Ali himself prohibited cursing
He frequently cites the well-known advice of Imam Ali at Siffin:
“I dislike that you should be people of abuse.
But if you describe their actions and mention their states, that would be more accurate.”
(b) Where he converges with the Sunni position
On four major points:
1. Absolute prohibition of cursing
2. Transition from cursing to academic criticism
3. Recognition of the virtue of many Companions
4. Rejection of sectarian populism
These converge with Sunni methodology, not with Sunni creed.
(c) Where he remains distinctly Shiʿi
• He continues to critique certain Companions within the Imami reading of early history
• He maintains belief in the doctrine of the Twelve Imams
👍1
But this does not stop him from distancing himself from the emotional version of popular Shiʿism.
This is why shallow Shiʿi voices accuse him of “becoming Sunni.”
⸻
5. A Practical Demonstration of the Rule: The Peaks Converge and the Slopes Scream
(a) Al-Haydari’s convergence with Sunnis is scholarly, not political
He is not seeking Sunni approval. He is simply:
• Reassessing narrations
• Refining doctrinal language
• Rebalancing between devotion to Ahl al-Bayt and fairness toward the Companions
(b) Reaction of shallow Shiʿa
He was accused of:
• “Surrendering to Sunni thought”
• “Using Sunni rhetoric”
• “Betraying Shiʿism”
Because they only understand faith through the lens of cursing.
(c) Reaction of shallow Sunnis
He was accused of:
• “Being a disguised Rafidi”
• “Softening his language while staying Shiʿi”
Because they cannot imagine a Shiʿi who respects the Companions without leaving his sect.
(d) The peaks truly converge
A major Shiʿi scholar who:
• Deeply loves Ahl al-Bayt
• Authentically critiques certain historical episodes
• Sincerely respects the Companions
• Cleanses the discourse from sectarianism
naturally converges with Sunni scholars who:
• Love Ahl al-Bayt
• Honor the Companions
• Reject vulgarity and sectarian hate
The meeting point is truth, not sect.
And only the people at the bottom of the mountain scream.
⸻
6. The Impact of His Position on Sunni–Shiʿi Rapprochement
1. He pushes rapprochement into an academic domain
Not superficial pleasantries, but real review of narrations and assumptions.
2. He opens the door for honest critique of inherited traditions
Both sides need to filter their books from narrations that fuel hatred.
3. His stance threatens the Shiʿi establishment politically
Because reducing sectarian tension:
• reduces popular mobilization
• weakens the control of certain clerical factions over their audiences
• undermines identity politics built around perpetual grievance
And this is one of the reasons he faced suppression.
⸻
Conclusion
Al-Haydari is not a Sunni in disguise.
He is not a traditional “rapprochement” figure either.
He is a critical Shiʿi scholar who, the deeper he studies history and scripture:
• Shows more respect for the Companions
• Strengthens his devotion to Ahl al-Bayt
• Cleanses the rhetoric of hatred
• Moves the discourse toward truth instead of sectarianism
He thus becomes a living example of the principle:
Great scholars meet on the peaks of truth.
Only the noisy crowds at the slopes shout accusations.
This is why shallow Shiʿi voices accuse him of “becoming Sunni.”
⸻
5. A Practical Demonstration of the Rule: The Peaks Converge and the Slopes Scream
(a) Al-Haydari’s convergence with Sunnis is scholarly, not political
He is not seeking Sunni approval. He is simply:
• Reassessing narrations
• Refining doctrinal language
• Rebalancing between devotion to Ahl al-Bayt and fairness toward the Companions
(b) Reaction of shallow Shiʿa
He was accused of:
• “Surrendering to Sunni thought”
• “Using Sunni rhetoric”
• “Betraying Shiʿism”
Because they only understand faith through the lens of cursing.
(c) Reaction of shallow Sunnis
He was accused of:
• “Being a disguised Rafidi”
• “Softening his language while staying Shiʿi”
Because they cannot imagine a Shiʿi who respects the Companions without leaving his sect.
(d) The peaks truly converge
A major Shiʿi scholar who:
• Deeply loves Ahl al-Bayt
• Authentically critiques certain historical episodes
• Sincerely respects the Companions
• Cleanses the discourse from sectarianism
naturally converges with Sunni scholars who:
• Love Ahl al-Bayt
• Honor the Companions
• Reject vulgarity and sectarian hate
The meeting point is truth, not sect.
And only the people at the bottom of the mountain scream.
⸻
6. The Impact of His Position on Sunni–Shiʿi Rapprochement
1. He pushes rapprochement into an academic domain
Not superficial pleasantries, but real review of narrations and assumptions.
2. He opens the door for honest critique of inherited traditions
Both sides need to filter their books from narrations that fuel hatred.
3. His stance threatens the Shiʿi establishment politically
Because reducing sectarian tension:
• reduces popular mobilization
• weakens the control of certain clerical factions over their audiences
• undermines identity politics built around perpetual grievance
And this is one of the reasons he faced suppression.
⸻
Conclusion
Al-Haydari is not a Sunni in disguise.
He is not a traditional “rapprochement” figure either.
He is a critical Shiʿi scholar who, the deeper he studies history and scripture:
• Shows more respect for the Companions
• Strengthens his devotion to Ahl al-Bayt
• Cleanses the rhetoric of hatred
• Moves the discourse toward truth instead of sectarianism
He thus becomes a living example of the principle:
Great scholars meet on the peaks of truth.
Only the noisy crowds at the slopes shout accusations.
❤1👍1
***Question received on the channel***
——In Kitāb al-Tanwīr, Shaykh Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh al-Iskandarī writes (Pg 17, Ch 4):
“For before the existence of the slave, the slave was already managed in the foreknowledge of Allah جل جلاله, and the slave has no independent existence of his own that he should pretentiously claim any tadbīr for himself, and thus fall into fooling himself. And if you said: ‘When he was previously nothing, how could tadbīr be applied to him?’ know that things have a certain being in the foreknowledge of Allah (as archetypal essences), even if they cannot be said to possess any existence of their own in their essences. And the Real takes charge and regulates its affairs while it is in His foreknowledge. In this question there is great deception, and this book is not for it.”
I couldn’t understand the latter part related to the term “archetypal essences” and why it says there is “great deception” in this question.————-
The proper passage (Arabic) for the specific lines in question
ولأَنَّه قبلَ وجودِ العبدِ كانَ العبدُ مُدَبَّرًا بعِلمِ اللهِ، وليسَ للعبدِ حينئذٍ وجودٌ يقعُ معه ادّعاءُ التدبيرِ منهُ لنفسِه، فيقعُ الخِذلانُ لأجلِ ذلك.
فإن قلتَ: فإنَّه في حينِ لم يكنْ عدمٌ، فكيفَ يَتعلَّقُ التدبيرُ؟
فاعلمْ أنَّ للأشياءِ وجودًا في عِلمِ اللهِ، وإنْ لم يكنْ لها وجودٌ في أعيانِها، فالحقُّ سبحانهُ وتعالى يتولَّى تدبيرَها من حيثُ إنَّها موجودةٌ في علمِه.
وفي هذه المسألةِ غورٌ عظيمٌ، ليسَ هذا الموضوعُ محلًّا لبسطِه.
Translation note (important)
The final phrase is “غَوْرٌ عظيم”, which means great depth, not “great deception.”
غَوْر = depth, profound subtlety
“Deception” would be closer to غرور or خداع
So the meaning is: this issue is profoundly subtle, and this book is not the place to expand it.
Answer: what is meant by “archetypal essences”?
Some translators use “archetypal essences” trying to convey an idea, but the label can confuse readers. The core meaning here, in sound Sunni terms, is straightforward:
Before anything is created, it is fully known to Allah eternally.
This “being” is not external existence in the world.
It is thubūt in divine knowledge, meaning: the thing is “established” as an object of Allah’s knowledge, not a self-existing entity.
So when Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh says:
“Things have an existence in Allah’s knowledge even if they have no existence in their concrete realities,”
he means:
Your entire affair is encompassed by Allah’s eternal knowledge before you are created.
Therefore it is meaningful to say: Allah’s tadbīr applies “before” your creation, because divine tadbīr is rooted in Allah’s eternal knowledge, will, power, and creating at the appointed times, not in the presence of an independently existing object.
A safer paraphrase than “archetypal essences” is:
“things as known to Allah in His eternal knowledge.”
Why does he answer: “How can tadbīr apply when he was nothing?”
The objection assumes: management only applies to something that already exists externally.
Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh is pointing out that Allah’s tadbīr is not like human planning.
Humans plan because we are ignorant of outcomes and lack total control.
Allah’s tadbīr proceeds from His eternal attributes and His act of creating events at their appointed times.
So “Allah managed you before your existence” means:
Your affair was already encompassed by Allah’s eternal knowledge and decree, and it would be brought into created existence exactly as He willed.
Why does he say this issue has “great depth”?
Because without careful grounding, people slip into major misunderstandings, such as:
1) Imagining a “realm of pre-existent entities” alongside Allah
As if “things in knowledge” are independently real. They are not. Allah alone is eternal, and created things are created. “Existence in knowledge” is not “external existence.”
2) Falling into fatalism that cancels responsibility
Some read “Allah manages everything” as “my choices and actions don’t matter.” Sunni teaching preserves both: Allah creates, and humans are accountable for their choices and deeds.
3) Getting lost in speculative metaphysics
——In Kitāb al-Tanwīr, Shaykh Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh al-Iskandarī writes (Pg 17, Ch 4):
“For before the existence of the slave, the slave was already managed in the foreknowledge of Allah جل جلاله, and the slave has no independent existence of his own that he should pretentiously claim any tadbīr for himself, and thus fall into fooling himself. And if you said: ‘When he was previously nothing, how could tadbīr be applied to him?’ know that things have a certain being in the foreknowledge of Allah (as archetypal essences), even if they cannot be said to possess any existence of their own in their essences. And the Real takes charge and regulates its affairs while it is in His foreknowledge. In this question there is great deception, and this book is not for it.”
I couldn’t understand the latter part related to the term “archetypal essences” and why it says there is “great deception” in this question.————-
The proper passage (Arabic) for the specific lines in question
ولأَنَّه قبلَ وجودِ العبدِ كانَ العبدُ مُدَبَّرًا بعِلمِ اللهِ، وليسَ للعبدِ حينئذٍ وجودٌ يقعُ معه ادّعاءُ التدبيرِ منهُ لنفسِه، فيقعُ الخِذلانُ لأجلِ ذلك.
فإن قلتَ: فإنَّه في حينِ لم يكنْ عدمٌ، فكيفَ يَتعلَّقُ التدبيرُ؟
فاعلمْ أنَّ للأشياءِ وجودًا في عِلمِ اللهِ، وإنْ لم يكنْ لها وجودٌ في أعيانِها، فالحقُّ سبحانهُ وتعالى يتولَّى تدبيرَها من حيثُ إنَّها موجودةٌ في علمِه.
وفي هذه المسألةِ غورٌ عظيمٌ، ليسَ هذا الموضوعُ محلًّا لبسطِه.
Translation note (important)
The final phrase is “غَوْرٌ عظيم”, which means great depth, not “great deception.”
غَوْر = depth, profound subtlety
“Deception” would be closer to غرور or خداع
So the meaning is: this issue is profoundly subtle, and this book is not the place to expand it.
Answer: what is meant by “archetypal essences”?
Some translators use “archetypal essences” trying to convey an idea, but the label can confuse readers. The core meaning here, in sound Sunni terms, is straightforward:
Before anything is created, it is fully known to Allah eternally.
This “being” is not external existence in the world.
It is thubūt in divine knowledge, meaning: the thing is “established” as an object of Allah’s knowledge, not a self-existing entity.
So when Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh says:
“Things have an existence in Allah’s knowledge even if they have no existence in their concrete realities,”
he means:
Your entire affair is encompassed by Allah’s eternal knowledge before you are created.
Therefore it is meaningful to say: Allah’s tadbīr applies “before” your creation, because divine tadbīr is rooted in Allah’s eternal knowledge, will, power, and creating at the appointed times, not in the presence of an independently existing object.
A safer paraphrase than “archetypal essences” is:
“things as known to Allah in His eternal knowledge.”
Why does he answer: “How can tadbīr apply when he was nothing?”
The objection assumes: management only applies to something that already exists externally.
Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh is pointing out that Allah’s tadbīr is not like human planning.
Humans plan because we are ignorant of outcomes and lack total control.
Allah’s tadbīr proceeds from His eternal attributes and His act of creating events at their appointed times.
So “Allah managed you before your existence” means:
Your affair was already encompassed by Allah’s eternal knowledge and decree, and it would be brought into created existence exactly as He willed.
Why does he say this issue has “great depth”?
Because without careful grounding, people slip into major misunderstandings, such as:
1) Imagining a “realm of pre-existent entities” alongside Allah
As if “things in knowledge” are independently real. They are not. Allah alone is eternal, and created things are created. “Existence in knowledge” is not “external existence.”
2) Falling into fatalism that cancels responsibility
Some read “Allah manages everything” as “my choices and actions don’t matter.” Sunni teaching preserves both: Allah creates, and humans are accountable for their choices and deeds.
3) Getting lost in speculative metaphysics
❤2
This is a spiritual book about tawakkul and purification of the heart, not a place for long technical debates. Hence: “great depth, not the place to expand it.”
That is precisely what “غور عظيم” does: it marks a boundary and protects the reader from confusion.
The intended spiritual takeaway
The author’s purpose is practical and spiritual: curing the heart’s claim of control.
Before you existed, Allah took care of you without your planning.
After you exist, Allah is still the One governing your affair.
So do not cling inwardly to your own tadbīr as if outcomes are in your hands.
This does not mean “do nothing.” It means:
Take lawful means, work responsibly, and make duʿā.
But surrender outcomes to Allah and stop worshipping control.
—— Full passage (English) for readers who want the complete context
Section: Know that what leads you to drop self-management (tadbīr) alongside God and to relinquish choosing matters for yourself is this:
First: Your knowledge of God’s prior governance of you. That is, you should know that God was for you before you were for yourself. Just as He was managing you before you existed, when none of your own managing existed alongside His, so too is He, glorified and exalted, the One managing you after your existence. So be for Him as you were for Him, and He will be for you as He was for you.
For this reason al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥallāj said: “Be for me as You were for me, at the time when I was not.”
He asked God to be for him, in arranging and governing him after his existence, just as He was for him in arranging and governing him before his existence, because before the servant exists, the servant is governed by God’s knowledge. And there is no existence for the servant then, such that he could claim governance for himself. It is for this reason that failure and abandonment occur.
If you say: “But at the time when he was not, there was nonexistence, so how can governance relate to it?” then know that things have an existence in God’s knowledge, even if they have no existence in their concrete realities. So the Real, exalted is He, undertakes their governance insofar as they exist in His knowledge. In this issue there is great depth, and this topic is not the place to expand it fully.
That is precisely what “غور عظيم” does: it marks a boundary and protects the reader from confusion.
The intended spiritual takeaway
The author’s purpose is practical and spiritual: curing the heart’s claim of control.
Before you existed, Allah took care of you without your planning.
After you exist, Allah is still the One governing your affair.
So do not cling inwardly to your own tadbīr as if outcomes are in your hands.
This does not mean “do nothing.” It means:
Take lawful means, work responsibly, and make duʿā.
But surrender outcomes to Allah and stop worshipping control.
—— Full passage (English) for readers who want the complete context
Section: Know that what leads you to drop self-management (tadbīr) alongside God and to relinquish choosing matters for yourself is this:
First: Your knowledge of God’s prior governance of you. That is, you should know that God was for you before you were for yourself. Just as He was managing you before you existed, when none of your own managing existed alongside His, so too is He, glorified and exalted, the One managing you after your existence. So be for Him as you were for Him, and He will be for you as He was for you.
For this reason al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥallāj said: “Be for me as You were for me, at the time when I was not.”
He asked God to be for him, in arranging and governing him after his existence, just as He was for him in arranging and governing him before his existence, because before the servant exists, the servant is governed by God’s knowledge. And there is no existence for the servant then, such that he could claim governance for himself. It is for this reason that failure and abandonment occur.
If you say: “But at the time when he was not, there was nonexistence, so how can governance relate to it?” then know that things have an existence in God’s knowledge, even if they have no existence in their concrete realities. So the Real, exalted is He, undertakes their governance insofar as they exist in His knowledge. In this issue there is great depth, and this topic is not the place to expand it fully.
❤2
***Question received on the channel***
⸻
As-salāmu ʿalaykum wa raḥmatullāh. Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions. My questions are:
1. What is the evidence for tawajjuh rūḥī from the Shaykh, such that the shaykh is able to do tawajjuh to a person in his absence and benefit the person thereby, and through this tawajjuh the murīd is able to ascend to higher levels of certainty and sanctity?
2. Why do mashāyikh of tasawwuf sometimes seem to lack waraʿ, while the norm among the righteous predecessors was waraʿ? For example: the shaykh allows a lot of praise in gatherings, people speak about his rank, and this feels different from the Salaf who embodied humility, fled praise, feared their end, and made no claims.
⸻
Answer (Part 1): Tawajjuh rūḥī, the Prophetic Nūr, and benefiting in absence
1) The Prophetic Nūr and how hearts receive openings
Allah سبحانه وتعالى described the Messenger ﷺ as a light (nūr). The people of tazkiyah use this Qur’anic language to explain a lived reality:
• The Prophet ﷺ illuminated the Companions directly through suhbah, tarbiyah, and presence.
• That Prophetic nūr continues to benefit this ummah: sometimes directly by Allah’s mercy, and often through the true, established waratha Muḥammadiyya, the inheritors of Prophetic tarbiyah.
One necessary protection in wording:
This nūr is a divine gift and a created opening in hearts. It is not divinity, not incarnation, and not an independent power. The One who opens hearts is Allah, and He grants openings through causes He chooses.
2) The Companions were elevated by Prophetic presence and state
The Companions were transformed by the Prophet ﷺ through suhbah, tarbiyah, and Prophetic attention. The Prophetic nūr reached their hearts and illuminated them. The well known report of Ḥanzalah points to the extraordinary state they experienced with him, to the point that if they remained upon that state, angels would greet them openly. In meaning, the Prophet ﷺ said: if you remained on the same state you have with me, the angels would shake your hands in the roads.
This teaches a key principle for seekers:
The heart is affected not only by information, but by ḥāl and nūr by Allah’s permission.
3) What tawajjuh means in this path, and what the seeker must not get distracted by
This is why the people of the path speak of tawajjuh: a focused himmah and spiritual orientation from the shaykh to the murīd, by which Allah opens the murīd’s heart.
The true shaykh of tazkiyah is a wārith Muḥammadī, an inheritor of Prophetic tarbiyah, and a conduit through which the Prophetic nūr reaches the murīd’s heart. The shaykh does not “own” openings. He is a means through which Allah grants openings, and a mirror that helps the murīd see himself.
This also explains why benefit can occur even in absence: not as a “force” that must be systematized, but as an opening Allah grants through duʿā, himmah, sincerity, and the bond of tarbiyah.
A very important distinction:
Not every spiritual “unveiling” is beneficial. There is a difference between:
• kashf related to the unseen, which can become a distraction and a source of temptation,
• and kashf of one’s own faults, which is what truly benefits with Allah, because it pushes you to repentance and purification.
Many people become impressed by the effects of obedience, sweetness in worship, early openings, or even unusual experiences, then they stop there, and their journey to Allah gets cut off.
This is one of the strongest reasons a true murabbī is valuable: he prevents you from mistaking “effects” for “arrival.”
4) No monopoly: Allah opens by many doors, sometimes directly through the Prophet ﷺ
Even while affirming tawajjuh and the need for التربية, it is a mistake to imagine spiritual ascent has only one gatekeeper. The shaykh-murabbī is a tremendous door for many seekers, but it is not a monopoly.
On the path:
• Allah may open directly for a servant through attachment to the Prophet ﷺ, ṣalawāt, sincere duʿā, Qur’an, and repentance.
• And Allah may open through the means of a true warith Muḥammadī.
⸻
As-salāmu ʿalaykum wa raḥmatullāh. Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions. My questions are:
1. What is the evidence for tawajjuh rūḥī from the Shaykh, such that the shaykh is able to do tawajjuh to a person in his absence and benefit the person thereby, and through this tawajjuh the murīd is able to ascend to higher levels of certainty and sanctity?
2. Why do mashāyikh of tasawwuf sometimes seem to lack waraʿ, while the norm among the righteous predecessors was waraʿ? For example: the shaykh allows a lot of praise in gatherings, people speak about his rank, and this feels different from the Salaf who embodied humility, fled praise, feared their end, and made no claims.
⸻
Answer (Part 1): Tawajjuh rūḥī, the Prophetic Nūr, and benefiting in absence
1) The Prophetic Nūr and how hearts receive openings
Allah سبحانه وتعالى described the Messenger ﷺ as a light (nūr). The people of tazkiyah use this Qur’anic language to explain a lived reality:
• The Prophet ﷺ illuminated the Companions directly through suhbah, tarbiyah, and presence.
• That Prophetic nūr continues to benefit this ummah: sometimes directly by Allah’s mercy, and often through the true, established waratha Muḥammadiyya, the inheritors of Prophetic tarbiyah.
One necessary protection in wording:
This nūr is a divine gift and a created opening in hearts. It is not divinity, not incarnation, and not an independent power. The One who opens hearts is Allah, and He grants openings through causes He chooses.
2) The Companions were elevated by Prophetic presence and state
The Companions were transformed by the Prophet ﷺ through suhbah, tarbiyah, and Prophetic attention. The Prophetic nūr reached their hearts and illuminated them. The well known report of Ḥanzalah points to the extraordinary state they experienced with him, to the point that if they remained upon that state, angels would greet them openly. In meaning, the Prophet ﷺ said: if you remained on the same state you have with me, the angels would shake your hands in the roads.
This teaches a key principle for seekers:
The heart is affected not only by information, but by ḥāl and nūr by Allah’s permission.
3) What tawajjuh means in this path, and what the seeker must not get distracted by
This is why the people of the path speak of tawajjuh: a focused himmah and spiritual orientation from the shaykh to the murīd, by which Allah opens the murīd’s heart.
The true shaykh of tazkiyah is a wārith Muḥammadī, an inheritor of Prophetic tarbiyah, and a conduit through which the Prophetic nūr reaches the murīd’s heart. The shaykh does not “own” openings. He is a means through which Allah grants openings, and a mirror that helps the murīd see himself.
This also explains why benefit can occur even in absence: not as a “force” that must be systematized, but as an opening Allah grants through duʿā, himmah, sincerity, and the bond of tarbiyah.
A very important distinction:
Not every spiritual “unveiling” is beneficial. There is a difference between:
• kashf related to the unseen, which can become a distraction and a source of temptation,
• and kashf of one’s own faults, which is what truly benefits with Allah, because it pushes you to repentance and purification.
Many people become impressed by the effects of obedience, sweetness in worship, early openings, or even unusual experiences, then they stop there, and their journey to Allah gets cut off.
This is one of the strongest reasons a true murabbī is valuable: he prevents you from mistaking “effects” for “arrival.”
4) No monopoly: Allah opens by many doors, sometimes directly through the Prophet ﷺ
Even while affirming tawajjuh and the need for التربية, it is a mistake to imagine spiritual ascent has only one gatekeeper. The shaykh-murabbī is a tremendous door for many seekers, but it is not a monopoly.
On the path:
• Allah may open directly for a servant through attachment to the Prophet ﷺ, ṣalawāt, sincere duʿā, Qur’an, and repentance.
• And Allah may open through the means of a true warith Muḥammadī.
❤1
Examples of openings without a present shaykh
Across the lived history of Muslims, you find sincere seekers who could not locate a true warith Muḥammadī in their place or time, yet Allah opened for them through help connected to the Prophet ﷺ. This can happen in forms such as:
• A true dream that strengthens repentance and steadiness.
• A powerful inner turning after prayer, Qur’an, ṣalawāt, or a night of duʿā.
• A decisive repentance that breaks attachment to sin and changes the direction of life.
• A rescue from confusion, where Allah guides the person to sound books, sound companions, and steady practice until a teacher appears later.
The point is not to reject teachers. The point is to affirm mercy:
The Prophetic nūr benefits the ummah by Allah’s permission, sometimes directly, and often through inheritors.
Two modern metaphors (life coach + dietitian)
To make this easier to relate to, think of two common modern roles:
1) A life coach (non-spiritual):
A life coach helps someone get their life in order: routines, priorities, financials, decision-making, confidence, career direction, relationships, discipline, and getting unstuck. The coach does not “live your life for you,” and doesn’t replace your responsibility. But a good coach shortens the learning curve, exposes blind spots, and keeps you accountable.
2) A dietitian or nutrition specialist:
A dietitian helps you lose weight or fix health habits. You can absolutely do it alone by reading and trying, but most people fail because of hidden mistakes, inconsistency, or lack of accountability. A specialist makes the path clearer, safer, and faster.
Now link this to the shaykh murabbī:
The shaykh of tazkiyah is like a heart coach. He helps you organize and discipline the inner life: intentions, repentance, ego patterns, heedlessness, attachment, anger, showing-off, fear, reliance, and love. You still have to pray, repent, and struggle. He does not replace your work, but he helps you see what you cannot see in yourself, and he accelerates progress by Allah’s permission.
And just like life coaching or dieting:
• You can improve without a coach, but it is usually harder, slower, and you are more likely to repeat mistakes.
• Having a true murabbī is a major advantage, but not a monopoly on Allah’s openings.
Across the lived history of Muslims, you find sincere seekers who could not locate a true warith Muḥammadī in their place or time, yet Allah opened for them through help connected to the Prophet ﷺ. This can happen in forms such as:
• A true dream that strengthens repentance and steadiness.
• A powerful inner turning after prayer, Qur’an, ṣalawāt, or a night of duʿā.
• A decisive repentance that breaks attachment to sin and changes the direction of life.
• A rescue from confusion, where Allah guides the person to sound books, sound companions, and steady practice until a teacher appears later.
The point is not to reject teachers. The point is to affirm mercy:
The Prophetic nūr benefits the ummah by Allah’s permission, sometimes directly, and often through inheritors.
Two modern metaphors (life coach + dietitian)
To make this easier to relate to, think of two common modern roles:
1) A life coach (non-spiritual):
A life coach helps someone get their life in order: routines, priorities, financials, decision-making, confidence, career direction, relationships, discipline, and getting unstuck. The coach does not “live your life for you,” and doesn’t replace your responsibility. But a good coach shortens the learning curve, exposes blind spots, and keeps you accountable.
2) A dietitian or nutrition specialist:
A dietitian helps you lose weight or fix health habits. You can absolutely do it alone by reading and trying, but most people fail because of hidden mistakes, inconsistency, or lack of accountability. A specialist makes the path clearer, safer, and faster.
Now link this to the shaykh murabbī:
The shaykh of tazkiyah is like a heart coach. He helps you organize and discipline the inner life: intentions, repentance, ego patterns, heedlessness, attachment, anger, showing-off, fear, reliance, and love. You still have to pray, repent, and struggle. He does not replace your work, but he helps you see what you cannot see in yourself, and he accelerates progress by Allah’s permission.
And just like life coaching or dieting:
• You can improve without a coach, but it is usually harder, slower, and you are more likely to repeat mistakes.
• Having a true murabbī is a major advantage, but not a monopoly on Allah’s openings.
❤1
Answer (Part 2): Why do some mashāyikh seem to lack waraʿ?
1) The word “seem” matters
A lot of this confusion comes from mixing two things:
• waraʿ as an inner reality (pious caution),and
• waraʿ as an outward style (clothing, public self-effacement, refusing praise, etc.).
The early righteous generations often expressed waraʿ through visible austerity and fleeing praise, but outward style is not one fixed mould across all times and places. So sometimes the issue is simply misreading what you see. At the end of the day, wara’ is a state of the heart.
2) Different roles produce different exposure
Many of the early righteous were not leading large public circles with disciples and gatherings in the same way later teaching circles developed. A public teacher will inevitably face:
• people praising him,
• crowds gathering,
• students becoming attached.
This does not automatically mean he lacks waraʿ. It means his test is different. His waraʿ may be in how he manages attention, redirects hearts to Allah, maintains proper boundaries, and avoids corruption.
3) Custom changes the meaning of outward signs
Not every age reads symbols the same way. In one context, rough clothing signals humility. In another, it can become a performance. This is why the masters warned against reducing the path to outward symbols.
The story of Jaʿfar al Ṣādiq
It is related in books of spiritual etiquette that Jaʿfar al Ṣādiq was criticized for wearing a fine outer garment. He showed that he wore rough wool underneath, then said in meaning:
“What is for Allah we conceal, and what is for people we display.”
So the lesson is not about fabric. The lesson is: you cannot always read inner pious caution from outward appearance. Sometimes the outward is managed with wisdom while the inner struggle is hidden.
The story of Imām Abū al Ḥasan al Shādhilī
Likewise, it is reported that Imām Abū al Ḥasan al Shādhilī was criticized by some who assumed the path is defined by rough garments. He corrected them with a strong training-style response, with a meaning like:
“My clothing tells people I do not need them, while your clothing tells them you are needy.”
Meaning: the goal is not to advertise poverty or spirituality. The goal is to purify the heart from reliance on people. Sometimes a dignified outward protects the seeker from begging, showing off, or attracting attention for the wrong reasons.
So your comparison is answered directly:
• the humility of the early righteous is true,
• but humility does not always wear the same uniform.
4) Praise has etiquette and limits
Praise is not automatically wrong, but it has rules:
• It can be acceptable when it is truthful, limited, and does not lead to exaggeration.
• It becomes harmful when it turns into excess, when gatherings revolve around a person rather than Allah and His Messenger ﷺ, and when it predictably creates confusion and harm.
We do not need to judge hearts to say this. We judge the limits and the effects.
5) Practical advice to the questioner
Here is the simple etiquette:
If you do not like a shaykh’s style, move on and look for a teacher and environment where your heart feels more at peace and your religion is protected.
Those you criticize could be:
• imposters,
• sincere people but not true inheritors of Prophetic training, so their method is incomplete,
• or a true inheritor who has his own reasons, teaching style, and ways of training his students.
In any case, it is not your role to pass verdicts about inner spiritual ranks. No one is forcing you to become his student or follow that path. Choose what is more aligned with your temperament and helps you practice with steadiness.
6) The balanced conclusion
Some mashāyikh only seem to lack waraʿ because outward forms differ by context and custom. And some truly do lack it, because every age contains imposters and people of ego. The seeker protects himself by evaluating outcomes and fruits, not by guessing hidden states.
1) The word “seem” matters
A lot of this confusion comes from mixing two things:
• waraʿ as an inner reality (pious caution),and
• waraʿ as an outward style (clothing, public self-effacement, refusing praise, etc.).
The early righteous generations often expressed waraʿ through visible austerity and fleeing praise, but outward style is not one fixed mould across all times and places. So sometimes the issue is simply misreading what you see. At the end of the day, wara’ is a state of the heart.
2) Different roles produce different exposure
Many of the early righteous were not leading large public circles with disciples and gatherings in the same way later teaching circles developed. A public teacher will inevitably face:
• people praising him,
• crowds gathering,
• students becoming attached.
This does not automatically mean he lacks waraʿ. It means his test is different. His waraʿ may be in how he manages attention, redirects hearts to Allah, maintains proper boundaries, and avoids corruption.
3) Custom changes the meaning of outward signs
Not every age reads symbols the same way. In one context, rough clothing signals humility. In another, it can become a performance. This is why the masters warned against reducing the path to outward symbols.
The story of Jaʿfar al Ṣādiq
It is related in books of spiritual etiquette that Jaʿfar al Ṣādiq was criticized for wearing a fine outer garment. He showed that he wore rough wool underneath, then said in meaning:
“What is for Allah we conceal, and what is for people we display.”
So the lesson is not about fabric. The lesson is: you cannot always read inner pious caution from outward appearance. Sometimes the outward is managed with wisdom while the inner struggle is hidden.
The story of Imām Abū al Ḥasan al Shādhilī
Likewise, it is reported that Imām Abū al Ḥasan al Shādhilī was criticized by some who assumed the path is defined by rough garments. He corrected them with a strong training-style response, with a meaning like:
“My clothing tells people I do not need them, while your clothing tells them you are needy.”
Meaning: the goal is not to advertise poverty or spirituality. The goal is to purify the heart from reliance on people. Sometimes a dignified outward protects the seeker from begging, showing off, or attracting attention for the wrong reasons.
So your comparison is answered directly:
• the humility of the early righteous is true,
• but humility does not always wear the same uniform.
4) Praise has etiquette and limits
Praise is not automatically wrong, but it has rules:
• It can be acceptable when it is truthful, limited, and does not lead to exaggeration.
• It becomes harmful when it turns into excess, when gatherings revolve around a person rather than Allah and His Messenger ﷺ, and when it predictably creates confusion and harm.
We do not need to judge hearts to say this. We judge the limits and the effects.
5) Practical advice to the questioner
Here is the simple etiquette:
If you do not like a shaykh’s style, move on and look for a teacher and environment where your heart feels more at peace and your religion is protected.
Those you criticize could be:
• imposters,
• sincere people but not true inheritors of Prophetic training, so their method is incomplete,
• or a true inheritor who has his own reasons, teaching style, and ways of training his students.
In any case, it is not your role to pass verdicts about inner spiritual ranks. No one is forcing you to become his student or follow that path. Choose what is more aligned with your temperament and helps you practice with steadiness.
6) The balanced conclusion
Some mashāyikh only seem to lack waraʿ because outward forms differ by context and custom. And some truly do lack it, because every age contains imposters and people of ego. The seeker protects himself by evaluating outcomes and fruits, not by guessing hidden states.
❤5
Question received on the channel
⸻
⸻
Answer:
In Sunni creed, Shayṭān does not know the unseen. He does not know the future, and he does not have direct access to what is hidden in the heart the way Allah does. So he cannot “read your mind” with certainty the way people imagine.
What Shayṭān can do is waswasa: he whispers suggestions, stirs desires, and exploits patterns. He watches your habits, your reactions, your weak points, your routine, and your environment, then keeps trying doors until one opens. That can feel like “he knew what I was thinking,” but it is not knowledge of the unseen. It is temptation, repetition, and psychological pressure.
If you expect a psychologist to learn your triggers after a 50 minute session, then what about Shayṭān who observes your patterns for years, watching what you click, crave, fear, and repeat? That still isn’t knowledge of the unseen. It’s pattern reading and persistence.
This is exactly why Allah says:
“Indeed, the plot of Shayṭān is weak.” (Qur’an 4:76)
His plot is weak because it is not proof, not certainty, and not control. It is only invitation and agitation. The moment you refuse to engage, seek refuge in Allah, and return to dhikr and sound action, the whisper loses momentum.
Types of “inner talk”, and what Shayṭān can and cannot touch:
1. Normal inner dialogue (self talk, daydreaming, mental rehearsal)
This is your mind processing. Shayṭān can try to interrupt it with suggestions, doubts, fears, or desires, but he does not “own” it.
2. Nafs impulses (cravings, anger, ego, anxiety)
This is where the whisper often lands, because the nafs already leans. Shayṭān pushes, decorates, and rushes you.
3. Passing thoughts (khaṭir)
A thought that appears and disappears. Not every thought is Shayṭān. Many are just mental noise. In fact, treating every thought as “a sign” is one of the traps.
4. Firm intention (niyya) and the secret between Allah and the servant
This is deeper than mental chatter. It is the settled resolve that Allah knows fully, and it is not something Shayṭān can access as unseen knowledge. He can only try to influence you before the intention settles, or tempt you after it settles, but he does not possess the unseen of hearts.
And remember: Shayṭān is an enemy, but the nafs can be more dangerous because it is inside the house.
⸻
What is the Ashʿarī–Māturīdī, Ahl al-Sunna position on whether Shayṭān can know what is in our minds?
⸻
Answer:
In Sunni creed, Shayṭān does not know the unseen. He does not know the future, and he does not have direct access to what is hidden in the heart the way Allah does. So he cannot “read your mind” with certainty the way people imagine.
What Shayṭān can do is waswasa: he whispers suggestions, stirs desires, and exploits patterns. He watches your habits, your reactions, your weak points, your routine, and your environment, then keeps trying doors until one opens. That can feel like “he knew what I was thinking,” but it is not knowledge of the unseen. It is temptation, repetition, and psychological pressure.
If you expect a psychologist to learn your triggers after a 50 minute session, then what about Shayṭān who observes your patterns for years, watching what you click, crave, fear, and repeat? That still isn’t knowledge of the unseen. It’s pattern reading and persistence.
This is exactly why Allah says:
“Indeed, the plot of Shayṭān is weak.” (Qur’an 4:76)
His plot is weak because it is not proof, not certainty, and not control. It is only invitation and agitation. The moment you refuse to engage, seek refuge in Allah, and return to dhikr and sound action, the whisper loses momentum.
Types of “inner talk”, and what Shayṭān can and cannot touch:
1. Normal inner dialogue (self talk, daydreaming, mental rehearsal)
This is your mind processing. Shayṭān can try to interrupt it with suggestions, doubts, fears, or desires, but he does not “own” it.
2. Nafs impulses (cravings, anger, ego, anxiety)
This is where the whisper often lands, because the nafs already leans. Shayṭān pushes, decorates, and rushes you.
3. Passing thoughts (khaṭir)
A thought that appears and disappears. Not every thought is Shayṭān. Many are just mental noise. In fact, treating every thought as “a sign” is one of the traps.
4. Firm intention (niyya) and the secret between Allah and the servant
This is deeper than mental chatter. It is the settled resolve that Allah knows fully, and it is not something Shayṭān can access as unseen knowledge. He can only try to influence you before the intention settles, or tempt you after it settles, but he does not possess the unseen of hearts.
And remember: Shayṭān is an enemy, but the nafs can be more dangerous because it is inside the house.
❤1
***Question received on the channel***
⸻
⸻
Answer:
In Sunni creed, these labels have precise meanings and dangerous misuses. So we separate between: the reality in Allah’s knowledge, and what humans can judge outwardly.
1. Types of nifāq (hypocrisy)
A) Major nifāq (nifāq iʿtiqādī)
This is inward disbelief while showing Islam outwardly. This is the nifāq of the Qur’an’s harsh warnings. Its reality is in the heart, and hearts are not accessible to us.
B) Minor nifāq (nifāq ʿamalī)
This is hypocrisy in behaviour: lying, betraying trusts, breaking promises, فجور في الخصومة, and similar traits. A person may have some of these traits and still be a Muslim, but they are in spiritual danger and must repent.
2. Types of fisq (sinful rebellion)
Fisq means departing from obedience through sin.
A) Fisq by action
Major sins, public immorality, persistent wrongdoing, and open violation of Sharia limits.
B) Fisq by ideology or stance
Holding or promoting a deviant position that clashes with clear fundamentals, especially if it leads to corrupting others. This is not for random people to declare. It needs knowledge, proof, and careful application.
3. Who can declare a person “fāsiq” or “munāfiq”?
• The general Muslim can and should judge actions: “This act is sinful”, “This claim is false”, “This behaviour is ظلم”, and advise with adab.
• Declaring an individual with a fixed label is not a casual right. It is for qualified scholarship and, in public matters, lawful authority, because it requires:
• establishing proof
• removing ambiguity
• understanding context
• weighing consequences (fitna, injustice, slander)
As for major nifāq specifically: it is not a playground for people, because it is ultimately tied to what is hidden.
4. A needed balance: yes, some scholars applied these rulings on specific figures
There are cases where scholars judged certain individuals as being from “the hypocrites” or as “fāsiq” due to strong, explicit evidence, including sound reports and clear patterns of harm. But this is precisely why it must remain:
• evidence-based
• strict in conditions
• limited to people qualified to do it
• and never turned into a populist slogan
5. Practical guidance
If you’re asking “Can I call someone a munāfiq or fāsiq?”
Most of the time: no.
Speak about the act, not the unseen of the person.
Nifāq of belief is a heart matter.
Fisq and minor nifāq can be seen in actions.
Labels on individuals require scholarship, proof, and responsibility, not zeal or arguments.
⸻
What are the types of Munāfiqīn and Fāsiqīn and who has the right to declare one a Fāsiq or a Munāfiq?
⸻
Answer:
In Sunni creed, these labels have precise meanings and dangerous misuses. So we separate between: the reality in Allah’s knowledge, and what humans can judge outwardly.
1. Types of nifāq (hypocrisy)
A) Major nifāq (nifāq iʿtiqādī)
This is inward disbelief while showing Islam outwardly. This is the nifāq of the Qur’an’s harsh warnings. Its reality is in the heart, and hearts are not accessible to us.
B) Minor nifāq (nifāq ʿamalī)
This is hypocrisy in behaviour: lying, betraying trusts, breaking promises, فجور في الخصومة, and similar traits. A person may have some of these traits and still be a Muslim, but they are in spiritual danger and must repent.
2. Types of fisq (sinful rebellion)
Fisq means departing from obedience through sin.
A) Fisq by action
Major sins, public immorality, persistent wrongdoing, and open violation of Sharia limits.
B) Fisq by ideology or stance
Holding or promoting a deviant position that clashes with clear fundamentals, especially if it leads to corrupting others. This is not for random people to declare. It needs knowledge, proof, and careful application.
3. Who can declare a person “fāsiq” or “munāfiq”?
• The general Muslim can and should judge actions: “This act is sinful”, “This claim is false”, “This behaviour is ظلم”, and advise with adab.
• Declaring an individual with a fixed label is not a casual right. It is for qualified scholarship and, in public matters, lawful authority, because it requires:
• establishing proof
• removing ambiguity
• understanding context
• weighing consequences (fitna, injustice, slander)
As for major nifāq specifically: it is not a playground for people, because it is ultimately tied to what is hidden.
4. A needed balance: yes, some scholars applied these rulings on specific figures
There are cases where scholars judged certain individuals as being from “the hypocrites” or as “fāsiq” due to strong, explicit evidence, including sound reports and clear patterns of harm. But this is precisely why it must remain:
• evidence-based
• strict in conditions
• limited to people qualified to do it
• and never turned into a populist slogan
5. Practical guidance
If you’re asking “Can I call someone a munāfiq or fāsiq?”
Most of the time: no.
Speak about the act, not the unseen of the person.
Nifāq of belief is a heart matter.
Fisq and minor nifāq can be seen in actions.
Labels on individuals require scholarship, proof, and responsibility, not zeal or arguments.
❤1
I think I answered all questions. If there are more questions, please type them as comments to this message.
❤2
***Question Received on the Channel***
____
As-salām ʿalaykum, Shaykh.
I have two questions.
Question no 1:
A certain sect often claims that all women possess “half the intellect” or have some inherent defect. This has caused considerable confusion among people. They present this as the view of the early generations and argue that certain ḥadīths support such an idea. Others even go further and insist that women should not study the rational sciences or higher fields of knowledge.
These statements have had a harmful impact on many women, leading to doubt and distress.
Kindly clarify the sound Sunni position on this issue.
_
Answer
Wa ʿalaykum as-salām wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh.
1) The Sunni foundation
In Islam, men and women share the same human dignity, the same moral responsibility before Allah, and the same path to the highest ranks through īmān and taqwā. Superiority is by righteousness, not by gender.
Therefore, the blanket claim that women have an inherent defect or are “half minded by nature” is not the correct understanding. And the Prophet ﷺ said: النساء شقائق الرجال (Women are the counterparts of men), meaning they equally share the foundations of religious responsibility.
2) The ḥadīth of “nuqṣān al ʿaql wa al dīn” is not a statement of inferiority
This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ, but its meaning is often abused and taken out of context to serve a chauvinistic narrative in some communities and used as an excuse to mistreat women. This is non-Islamic. The correct Islamic reading is that it explains specific rulings, not that women are inferior.
To show the context, the Prophet ﷺ said to the women:
ما رأيتُ من ناقصاتِ عقلٍ ودينٍ أذهبَ لِلُبِّ الرَّجُلِ الحازمِ من إحداكُنَّ
Notice the part people often ignore: “أذهب للب الرجل الحازم”, meaning: “more capable of overpowering the composure and judgment of a firm, decisive man.” This is not teaching contempt. It is the Prophet ﷺ addressing women directly and acknowledging a real strength Allah has placed in them: the ability to deeply influence even strong-minded men. The guidance here is to use every gift with taqwā, modesty, and responsibility, and never against the Sharīʿah.
Then the ḥadīth itself clarifies what is meant by “nuqṣān”, so it must not be turned into a slogan.
A) “Nuqṣān al ʿaql” is tied to a specific legal context
In the narration itself, the Prophet ﷺ links this meaning to a particular context of testimony arrangements in certain financial dealings, where one supports the other if forgetfulness occurs. This is a legal safeguard in a specific domain. It is not a statement about a woman’s general intelligence or her worth.
So it is a mistake to turn it into a sweeping slogan about “women’s intellect” as such.
B) “Nuqṣān al dīn” refers to legal concessions, not piety
The same ḥadīth clarifies that this refers to menstruation related rulings, where prayer is not performed and fasting is paused then made up later. This is not sin, not blame, and not spiritual inferiority. It is obedience and mercy.
3) Why two women in some testimony contexts?
The Qurʾān mentions two women witnesses in the context of debt documentation so that if one forgets or errs, the other can remind her. The wisdom is to safeguard people’s rights in a high stakes area where disputes are common, and they’re usually men domains.
Scholars also mention practical legal wisdoms behind this type of arrangement, such as:
• strengthening accuracy in formal documentation,
• protecting witnesses from intimidation or pressure in contentious disputes,
• reflecting typical exposure and experience in that specific domain in many societies.
This is a courtroom safeguard, not a claim that women are “less human” or “half intelligent.”
4) And yes: in other situations, women’s testimony is accepted on its own
Islamic evidentiary rules are not one flat rule. They vary by subject matter and legal purpose. There are situations where only women can meaningfully testify, especially in matters tied to women’s private, direct knowledge.
____
As-salām ʿalaykum, Shaykh.
I have two questions.
Question no 1:
A certain sect often claims that all women possess “half the intellect” or have some inherent defect. This has caused considerable confusion among people. They present this as the view of the early generations and argue that certain ḥadīths support such an idea. Others even go further and insist that women should not study the rational sciences or higher fields of knowledge.
These statements have had a harmful impact on many women, leading to doubt and distress.
Kindly clarify the sound Sunni position on this issue.
_
Answer
Wa ʿalaykum as-salām wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh.
1) The Sunni foundation
In Islam, men and women share the same human dignity, the same moral responsibility before Allah, and the same path to the highest ranks through īmān and taqwā. Superiority is by righteousness, not by gender.
Therefore, the blanket claim that women have an inherent defect or are “half minded by nature” is not the correct understanding. And the Prophet ﷺ said: النساء شقائق الرجال (Women are the counterparts of men), meaning they equally share the foundations of religious responsibility.
2) The ḥadīth of “nuqṣān al ʿaql wa al dīn” is not a statement of inferiority
This ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ, but its meaning is often abused and taken out of context to serve a chauvinistic narrative in some communities and used as an excuse to mistreat women. This is non-Islamic. The correct Islamic reading is that it explains specific rulings, not that women are inferior.
To show the context, the Prophet ﷺ said to the women:
ما رأيتُ من ناقصاتِ عقلٍ ودينٍ أذهبَ لِلُبِّ الرَّجُلِ الحازمِ من إحداكُنَّ
Notice the part people often ignore: “أذهب للب الرجل الحازم”, meaning: “more capable of overpowering the composure and judgment of a firm, decisive man.” This is not teaching contempt. It is the Prophet ﷺ addressing women directly and acknowledging a real strength Allah has placed in them: the ability to deeply influence even strong-minded men. The guidance here is to use every gift with taqwā, modesty, and responsibility, and never against the Sharīʿah.
Then the ḥadīth itself clarifies what is meant by “nuqṣān”, so it must not be turned into a slogan.
A) “Nuqṣān al ʿaql” is tied to a specific legal context
In the narration itself, the Prophet ﷺ links this meaning to a particular context of testimony arrangements in certain financial dealings, where one supports the other if forgetfulness occurs. This is a legal safeguard in a specific domain. It is not a statement about a woman’s general intelligence or her worth.
So it is a mistake to turn it into a sweeping slogan about “women’s intellect” as such.
B) “Nuqṣān al dīn” refers to legal concessions, not piety
The same ḥadīth clarifies that this refers to menstruation related rulings, where prayer is not performed and fasting is paused then made up later. This is not sin, not blame, and not spiritual inferiority. It is obedience and mercy.
3) Why two women in some testimony contexts?
The Qurʾān mentions two women witnesses in the context of debt documentation so that if one forgets or errs, the other can remind her. The wisdom is to safeguard people’s rights in a high stakes area where disputes are common, and they’re usually men domains.
Scholars also mention practical legal wisdoms behind this type of arrangement, such as:
• strengthening accuracy in formal documentation,
• protecting witnesses from intimidation or pressure in contentious disputes,
• reflecting typical exposure and experience in that specific domain in many societies.
This is a courtroom safeguard, not a claim that women are “less human” or “half intelligent.”
4) And yes: in other situations, women’s testimony is accepted on its own
Islamic evidentiary rules are not one flat rule. They vary by subject matter and legal purpose. There are situations where only women can meaningfully testify, especially in matters tied to women’s private, direct knowledge.
❤2
5) A Sufi reminder: Sayyidah Rābiʿah al-ʿAdawiyyah
The Sunni spiritual inheritance rejects contempt. The early Sufi masters openly acknowledged that Allah grants deep understanding and maʿrifah to whom He wills, male or female. Sayyidah Rābiʿah’s station and words are a living refutation of those who try to turn religion into belittlement.
6) Sayyidah Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها
From Sunni fundamentals is love and reverence for the Ahl al-Bayt. Sayyidah Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها has an immensely high rank, and several Sunni scholars consider her right after the Prophet ﷺ in status, higher than all the Ṣaḥābah.
7) Two final corrections people also need to hear
First, attributing the slogan “women are half intellect” to the early generations is not their methodology. The Salaf understood texts with their intended meanings and contexts, and they did not turn the Sunnah into an insult against half of the Ummah.
Second, it is false to claim from Sunni Islam that women should be barred from beneficial knowledge, rational sciences, or higher fields. The Ummah has always had learned women, and beneficial knowledge remains beneficial knowledge. What is required is Islamic adab and proper Sharʿī boundaries, not banning women from learning and excellence.
The reality itself is a clear proof against that misreading. We have seen, and continue to see, many women excel over many men in intelligence, precision, scholarship, leadership, and wisdom. So whoever insists on interpreting the Prophet’s words ﷺ as a blanket claim of female inferiority ends up placing the ḥadīth in direct conflict with reality, making it appear as though the ḥadīth is false. But the problem is not the Prophet ﷺ. The problem is their misunderstanding. Either their interpretation is wrong, or one would have to claim the Prophet ﷺ was wrong, and that is impossible. Allah says: وما ينطق عن الهوى. Therefore, the correct conclusion is that the slogan reading is false, and the ḥadīth must be understood as the Prophet ﷺ himself explained it, within its context and intended meaning.
And Allah knows best.
The Sunni spiritual inheritance rejects contempt. The early Sufi masters openly acknowledged that Allah grants deep understanding and maʿrifah to whom He wills, male or female. Sayyidah Rābiʿah’s station and words are a living refutation of those who try to turn religion into belittlement.
6) Sayyidah Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها
From Sunni fundamentals is love and reverence for the Ahl al-Bayt. Sayyidah Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها has an immensely high rank, and several Sunni scholars consider her right after the Prophet ﷺ in status, higher than all the Ṣaḥābah.
7) Two final corrections people also need to hear
First, attributing the slogan “women are half intellect” to the early generations is not their methodology. The Salaf understood texts with their intended meanings and contexts, and they did not turn the Sunnah into an insult against half of the Ummah.
Second, it is false to claim from Sunni Islam that women should be barred from beneficial knowledge, rational sciences, or higher fields. The Ummah has always had learned women, and beneficial knowledge remains beneficial knowledge. What is required is Islamic adab and proper Sharʿī boundaries, not banning women from learning and excellence.
The reality itself is a clear proof against that misreading. We have seen, and continue to see, many women excel over many men in intelligence, precision, scholarship, leadership, and wisdom. So whoever insists on interpreting the Prophet’s words ﷺ as a blanket claim of female inferiority ends up placing the ḥadīth in direct conflict with reality, making it appear as though the ḥadīth is false. But the problem is not the Prophet ﷺ. The problem is their misunderstanding. Either their interpretation is wrong, or one would have to claim the Prophet ﷺ was wrong, and that is impossible. Allah says: وما ينطق عن الهوى. Therefore, the correct conclusion is that the slogan reading is false, and the ḥadīth must be understood as the Prophet ﷺ himself explained it, within its context and intended meaning.
And Allah knows best.
❤3
Summary for those who will not read the full post
The claim that Sunni Islam unanimously agreed that virtue follows the order of the caliphate is false. It is a political doctrine that originated under Umayyad and later Abbasid rule and spread through repetition, not verification.
Major Sunni authorities explicitly contradict it:
• Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal stated clearly that
“Ali belongs to the Household of the Prophet; no one is comparable to them.”
Meaning that Ali is outside the competitive ranking of the Companions altogether.
• The hadith master Ahmad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari stated explicitly:
“In my belief, the best of people after the Messenger of God ﷺ is his daughter Fatima, then Ali, then al-Hasan and al-Husayn, then the wives of the Prophet ﷺ, then the Companions.”
This establishes that Ahl al-Bayt constitute a distinct rank of virtue, preceding the Companions, after which Abu Bakr is the most virtuous of the Companions.
The claim that virtue must mirror political succession and that this represents a Sunni consensus is therefore unsustainable.
⸻
The claim of a Sunni consensus equating virtue with the order of the caliphate is false
One of the most repeated assertions in modern Sunni discourse is that the Sunni tradition unanimously agreed that virtue follows the political succession: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then Ali.
This claim is neither historically nor academically sound. Its origin lies in Umayyad and later Abbasid political theology, and its persistence is the result of imitation and uncritical transmission of a supposed consensus that was never rigorously established.
1. “Consensus” here is a claim, not a reality
In Sunni legal theory, consensus requires:
• Agreement of the scholars of the era
• Absence of any معتبر (recognized) disagreement
• Clear, reliable transmission
None of these conditions are met in the issue of comparative virtue, which was widely disputed from the earliest generations.
2. Preference for Ali among the Companions was widespread
Preference for Ali ibn Abi Talib was not a marginal view.
Ibn Hazm and others transmitted, with sound chains, the preference of more than twenty Companions who held Ali to be superior to others. This is critical:
• This does not mean only those twenty held this view
• Rather, such breadth of transmission indicates a dominant early perception
• No comparable body of early reports exists, in number and distribution, explicitly preferring Abu Bakr over Ali in the same manner
3. This does not negate Abu Bakr’s virtue
Affirming Ali’s precedence does not deny Abu Bakr’s excellence.
The key distinction is rank:
• Ahl al-Bayt occupy a different category altogether
• Reports ranking Companions do not apply to them
This is like saying:
“The top student in the class is X.”
This does not mean X is superior to the teacher.
Different categories invalidate the comparison.
4. This is exactly what Imam Ahmad intended
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal famously said:
“The Household of the Prophet cannot be compared to anyone.”
Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn al-Farra’ narrate that Abdullah ibn Ahmad asked his father:
• Who is the best of people after the Messenger of God?
• Abu Bakr
• Then Umar
• Then Uthman
• Then Ali?
• Imam Ahmad replied:
“My son, Ali is from the Household of the Prophet; no one is comparable to them.”
This statement explicitly removes Ali from the ranking of the Companions.
5. Revelation places Ahl al-Bayt in a distinct rank
This is established by:
• The Verse of Purification
• The Verse of Mutual Invocation, where the Prophet ﷺ brought Ali as “our selves”
• The Hadith of Ghadir
• The Hadith of Position (Manzilah)
Even the Abrahamic prayer, taught by the Prophet ﷺ and required in every prayer, places the family of Muhammad alongside the family of Abraham, i.e., in the rank of prophetic households.
How then can Companion-level rankings be imposed upon them?
6. Imam al-Shafi‘i’s explicit position
Imam al-Shafi‘i said:
They said: You have become a Rafidi
I said: No, rejection is neither my creed nor belief
The claim that Sunni Islam unanimously agreed that virtue follows the order of the caliphate is false. It is a political doctrine that originated under Umayyad and later Abbasid rule and spread through repetition, not verification.
Major Sunni authorities explicitly contradict it:
• Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal stated clearly that
“Ali belongs to the Household of the Prophet; no one is comparable to them.”
Meaning that Ali is outside the competitive ranking of the Companions altogether.
• The hadith master Ahmad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari stated explicitly:
“In my belief, the best of people after the Messenger of God ﷺ is his daughter Fatima, then Ali, then al-Hasan and al-Husayn, then the wives of the Prophet ﷺ, then the Companions.”
This establishes that Ahl al-Bayt constitute a distinct rank of virtue, preceding the Companions, after which Abu Bakr is the most virtuous of the Companions.
The claim that virtue must mirror political succession and that this represents a Sunni consensus is therefore unsustainable.
⸻
The claim of a Sunni consensus equating virtue with the order of the caliphate is false
One of the most repeated assertions in modern Sunni discourse is that the Sunni tradition unanimously agreed that virtue follows the political succession: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then Uthman, then Ali.
This claim is neither historically nor academically sound. Its origin lies in Umayyad and later Abbasid political theology, and its persistence is the result of imitation and uncritical transmission of a supposed consensus that was never rigorously established.
1. “Consensus” here is a claim, not a reality
In Sunni legal theory, consensus requires:
• Agreement of the scholars of the era
• Absence of any معتبر (recognized) disagreement
• Clear, reliable transmission
None of these conditions are met in the issue of comparative virtue, which was widely disputed from the earliest generations.
2. Preference for Ali among the Companions was widespread
Preference for Ali ibn Abi Talib was not a marginal view.
Ibn Hazm and others transmitted, with sound chains, the preference of more than twenty Companions who held Ali to be superior to others. This is critical:
• This does not mean only those twenty held this view
• Rather, such breadth of transmission indicates a dominant early perception
• No comparable body of early reports exists, in number and distribution, explicitly preferring Abu Bakr over Ali in the same manner
3. This does not negate Abu Bakr’s virtue
Affirming Ali’s precedence does not deny Abu Bakr’s excellence.
The key distinction is rank:
• Ahl al-Bayt occupy a different category altogether
• Reports ranking Companions do not apply to them
This is like saying:
“The top student in the class is X.”
This does not mean X is superior to the teacher.
Different categories invalidate the comparison.
4. This is exactly what Imam Ahmad intended
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal famously said:
“The Household of the Prophet cannot be compared to anyone.”
Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn al-Farra’ narrate that Abdullah ibn Ahmad asked his father:
• Who is the best of people after the Messenger of God?
• Abu Bakr
• Then Umar
• Then Uthman
• Then Ali?
• Imam Ahmad replied:
“My son, Ali is from the Household of the Prophet; no one is comparable to them.”
This statement explicitly removes Ali from the ranking of the Companions.
5. Revelation places Ahl al-Bayt in a distinct rank
This is established by:
• The Verse of Purification
• The Verse of Mutual Invocation, where the Prophet ﷺ brought Ali as “our selves”
• The Hadith of Ghadir
• The Hadith of Position (Manzilah)
Even the Abrahamic prayer, taught by the Prophet ﷺ and required in every prayer, places the family of Muhammad alongside the family of Abraham, i.e., in the rank of prophetic households.
How then can Companion-level rankings be imposed upon them?
6. Imam al-Shafi‘i’s explicit position
Imam al-Shafi‘i said:
They said: You have become a Rafidi
I said: No, rejection is neither my creed nor belief
❤1
But I pledged loyalty, without doubt, to the best Imam and guide
If loving the guardian is Rafidism, then I am a Rafidi before mankind
This poetry is authentically attributed to him and affirms that devotion to Ali and Ahl al-Bayt is not deviation, but religion.
7. The explicit statement of Ahmad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari
Among the clearest articulations is that of the Sunni hadith master Ahmad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari, who stated:
“In my belief, the best of people after the Messenger of God ﷺ is his daughter Fatima, then Ali, then al-Hasan and al-Husayn, then the wives of the Prophet ﷺ, then the Companions.”
(al-Jawab al-Mufid li-l-Sa’il al-Mustafid)
This statement is unequivocal. It establishes:
• The precedence of Ahl al-Bayt as a category
• The ranking of the Companions occurring after them
Conclusion
• Ranking virtue according to political succession is not a Sunni consensus
• It is a politically generated doctrine, later normalized through repetition
• The authentic Sunni methodology affirms:
• Ahl al-Bayt as a distinct, incomparable rank
• The Companions ranked after them
• Abu Bakr as the best of the Companions
Loving Ali, preferring him, and affirming his unique station is not Rafidism.
It is a forgotten Sunni tradition, restored through evidence, not ideology.
If loving the guardian is Rafidism, then I am a Rafidi before mankind
This poetry is authentically attributed to him and affirms that devotion to Ali and Ahl al-Bayt is not deviation, but religion.
7. The explicit statement of Ahmad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari
Among the clearest articulations is that of the Sunni hadith master Ahmad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari, who stated:
“In my belief, the best of people after the Messenger of God ﷺ is his daughter Fatima, then Ali, then al-Hasan and al-Husayn, then the wives of the Prophet ﷺ, then the Companions.”
(al-Jawab al-Mufid li-l-Sa’il al-Mustafid)
This statement is unequivocal. It establishes:
• The precedence of Ahl al-Bayt as a category
• The ranking of the Companions occurring after them
Conclusion
• Ranking virtue according to political succession is not a Sunni consensus
• It is a politically generated doctrine, later normalized through repetition
• The authentic Sunni methodology affirms:
• Ahl al-Bayt as a distinct, incomparable rank
• The Companions ranked after them
• Abu Bakr as the best of the Companions
Loving Ali, preferring him, and affirming his unique station is not Rafidism.
It is a forgotten Sunni tradition, restored through evidence, not ideology.
❤1😐1