The Sharing Group Discussion on “The Study Qur’an”

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

The following was posted by me, on The Sharing Group, on the 29^th February 2016: “This book is recommended by many of our Sunni scholars who have spoken about it, and every Wahhabi heretic from the scholars at Saudi Arabia to Abu Amar Yasir Qadhi have cautioned against it.  That is a strong endorsement for me.”  The article is this: The American Qur’an Pissing Off the Saudis. 

Brother Sri Nahar: If it pisseth off the Sa’udis, it is verily good. 

Brother Firaz Nawaz: I think this was opposed to Sunni classical scholars too. 

Brother David Rosser Owen: From where?  I have reservations about those from Pakistan and parts of India. 

Brother Firaz Nawaz: I think, a scholar from Mauritania. 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: Yasir Qadhi actually provided a very intelligent and balanced view: “the rigour of ‘The Study Quran’ is apparent after even a cursory reading,” but nonetheless it “is an academic and educational work, and as such includes commentaries from sources that may not be considered orthodox depending on one’s denominational orientation.” 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The same Yasir Qadhi who came to Singapore last year and essentially made takfir of the entire Ash’ari school, including such luminaries as Imam Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (r.a.)? 

Brother Md Farid Then: The publisher can translate the book of tafsir into English then; no need for a “study” Qur’an. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: We have a lot of books of tafasir, translated into English.  But this book is unique in that it references all of them in light of the Qur’anic text itself.  This is a direct refutation of Wahhabi publications such as the Muhsin Khan-Hilali “translations” which interpret verses according to the Wahhabi perspective, ignoring the nuances and depth of scholarship in Sunni Islam, and its shared heritage with Shi’ah Islam. 

Brother Ahmad Jenkins: I get it.  It is similar to what Christians have of study bibles.  Also, like the ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali translation of the Qur’an, but in contemporary English vernacular. 

Brother James Harris: Translating and providing very minor comments on tafsir books without giving any new insights and other contributions was a practice of Muslims over centuries, and led to the death of Muslim intellectual life.  Any new insights and reflections on the Qur’an is needed and is a breath of fresh air.  We should not adopt the practice of simply translating books without trying to critically analyse and understand them in depth. 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: This is misleading.  There are a number of Muslim scholars who are not Wahhabi that have warned against some of the perennial aspects of this work.  People indeed need to be warned against those specific aspects of the work. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I know one of the authors.  We have hosted him previously for our conference.  I personally recommend his works. 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: Your personal relationship with one of the authors is not a proof against aspects of the work that have been criticised.  The author was not a single person in this case.  The “Study Qur’an” was a group project taken up by, frankly, perennialists who adhere to Sayyid Husayn Naswr, the noted Shi’ah scholar.  One of the authors, Dr. Joseph E. B. Lumbard, appeared at an event sponsored by Zaytuna College where two scholars, Shaykh ‘Abdullah ‘Ali and Ustadz ‘Ali Atha’i questioned Dr. Lumbard on this aspect of the work and about the Christian Trinitarian concepts.  Dr. Lumbard gave some very disturbing answers.  All of this is not to go to the extreme and tell people not to buy or purchase the book, but the warnings and criticism is not simply coming from Wahhabis, this is clear. 

Brother Sri Nahar: The whole point of the “Study Qur’an” is to show that there are differing interpretations of the text.  It is not a work written keeping a particular school of thought in mind.  So, it is not written to either promote a view or condemn a view, but to provide a platform for all views. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Some people from Zaytuna, I will not name them, wrote about how we must accept the Salafis.  Possibly because of political expediency, considering that the American Muslim community is infested with extreme groups, driving most converts to Shi’ah Islam, as the only rational mainstream sect.  The same Salafi sect whose theological positions is considered idolatry in Sunni Islam is acceptable to American “scholars”.  But label something “perennialism”, and it is kufr.  It has, to me, the stench of hypocrisy. 

“Perennialism” is a term thrown around at dissenting views, alternative theological positions and inconvenient arguments, despite the fact that these opinions and positions were held by the same scholars otherwise esteemed.  So, somehow, according to these people, we are to accept Shaykh Muhyi ad-Din Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Arabi (q.s.), Imam Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir ath-Thabari (r.a.), Imam Abu Muhammad ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hazm (r.a.), and such like where they adhere to the mythical sawad al-a’azham of the current age, but to learn and understand their positions is now “perennialism”. 

Are the ‘ulama so afraid of Muslims realising that there is actually a great diversity of Muslim thought, even amongst our great scholars?  What are they scared of?  Losing their hold on sections of the ummah?  Becoming less relevant?  It is too late for that.  If they can accept the kufr of Wahhabism as mainstream, then they have abrogated their moral authority for censorship.  The same argument they conveniently use for Wahhabism while sucking on the teats of Saudi petro-dollars is the same argument I will see here: we should not censor - engage, refute, debunk. 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: Well, extremism has many faces.  The contention that the American Muslim community is “infested with extreme groups” is absolutely ridiculous unless one has a frankly extreme biased against anyone who can be identified as a Salafi.  Biased, extreme sectarianism is destroying our ummah in some instances, and it leads to extremism from all sorts of camps.  Extreme Sunnis who viciously condemn all Salafis, extreme Shi’ah, extreme Salafis, extreme madzhabiyyah.  The extremism reveals itself in the sort of all or nothing propositions, where any intellectual criticism is deemed to be a vicious attack. 

It is pure hypocrisy, on the one hand condemn the Salafi as “kufr” but then turn around and accept those who proclaim that one can accept Christianity along with its so-called “esoteric” Trinitarian concepts as a valid way to Paradise. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: A Wahhabi is a kafir and a mushrik, and even the most deluded of American Sunni “scholars” have to accept that we do have valid fatawa by Sunni scholars to that effect. 

Also, the Qur’an never states Muslims alone go to Paradise.  It states believers are Saved, and then goes on to clarify that Allah (s.w.t.) Alone Determines who is or is not a believer.  It is a form of sectarianism to believe that God Chooses people by accident of religion.  I know a lot of pious Catholics, considering my background.  Are we supposed to believe that they are bound for the Fire and every Muslim, even the most disreputable dregs of a failed civilisation, are automatically guaranteed Paradise simply because they are “Muslim”?  I cannot accept that.  I did not convert to the tribal religion of dead Arabs. 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: You mean it is a “valid fatawa” from Sunni scholars that you like, but there are scholars who have endorsed the “Study Qur’an” that would reject the claim that the Wahhabi are “kafir” and “mushrik” as pure extremism.  The perennialist arguments have been totally rejected by mainstream ‘ulama from our tradition.  In terms of you “personally”, you are not obliged to form an opinion about the state of “pious” Catholics and whether they go to Paradise or Hell.  But Allah (s.w.t.) Says in His Qur’an: 

سُوۡرَةُ آل عِمرَان

وَمَن يَبۡتَغِ غَيۡرَ ٱلۡإِسۡلَـٰمِ دِينً۬ا فَلَن يُقۡبَلَ مِنۡهُ وَهُوَ فِى ٱلۡأَخِرَةِ مِنَ ٱلۡخَـٰسِرِينَ (٨٥) 

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be Accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost. (all spiritual good). (Surah Ali ‘Imran:85) 

The Prophet (s.a.w.) stated clearly, “By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been Sent with, will be an inhabitant of Hell.”  This is recorded in Imam Abu Muhammad al-Husayn ibn Mas’ud al-Baghawi’s (r.a.) Sharh as-Sunnah. 

Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi (r.a.) clarified in mainstream Islamic thought, in Rawdhah ath-Thalibin, when he stated, “Someone who does not believe that whoever follows another religion besides Islam is an unbeliever, or doubts that such a person is an unbeliever, or considers their sect to be valid, is himself an unbeliever even if he manifests Islam and believes in it.” 

This is well established.  Now, there is no clear text that we can extract from the Qur’an, the sunnah, or our established ‘ulama that allows us to adopt the extreme view that Salafis are ‘kuffar’.  The reality is that we can all stick to the position of Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.) and simply state that the truth of Islam has to be brought to a person with clarity, thus opening the door to leave off judgement to their final state with Allah (s.w.t.).  I can say that maybe the pious Christian relative that I know has not received the message of Islam in a clear way, while not accepting their Christianity as valid. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Regarding the verse, it pertains to people who have come to the truth of Islam.  Anyone who has met a prophet, or the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), then there is no excuse.  But for people who have never seen Islam, but “Muslims”, then they cannot be blamed.  What about the several verses that talk about Allah (s.w.t.) not Judging people on what they do not know?  Or the verse about not punishing unless a Messenger was Sent?  Have you looked at the Muslims?  I am a Muslim, and I see scum, liars, paedophiles, thieves, murderers, oppressors, and the worst of humanity.  In such an age, we should be amazed that anyone comes to Islam at all, or that anyone stays. 

As for the hadits cited, it is precisely that point.  Who has truly heard Muhammad (s.a.w.)?  Who, looking at the Muslims, sees the reality of Muhammad (s.a.w.)?  I do not see it.  I see an ummah that is dust, a failed civilisation, an ossified clergy, and people who have done nothing to show the beauty of Muhammad (s.a.w.). 

Regarding Imam an-Nawawi (r.a.), we should consider what he wrote in his time, not ours.  Mind you, I did not say that Christianity as a doctrine is valid, or indeed, any other religion.  But I dispute this foolish notion that the lottery of religion exalts or condemns people.  I believe a lot of non-Muslims have a more than even chance of Divine Mercy, and a lot of Muslims deserve their place in the lowest pits of Hell.  As the Prophet (s.a.w.) said, no man is superior to another except by piety; he did not say “Muslim” piety. 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: Brother, you reflect a growing trend that saves their severe and harsh condemnations for the Muslims while excusing the excess of sins, hatred, and crimes of others.  There are all kinds of scum, liars, murderers, and ‘bad’ people - Muslim and non-Muslim.  So what?  We have the hadits of the mass murderer who killed 100 people but was forgiven by Allah (s.w.t.).  We do not have to posit ourselves in a position of eternal condemnation or declare anyone to be the people of Hell, nor are we obliged to look at the pious amongst us and say they are clearly people of Paradise.  We can and should leave that to Allah (s.w.t.).  But it is simple, and most of our scholars clearly confirm that Christianity is kufr. 

As to this selective approach and interpretation that you want to adopt for Imam an-Nawawi (r.a.), this is your personal view, that there should be some “time adjustment” with regards to his position.  Plenty of our ‘ulama reject such a view, and the mainstream of our current ‘ulama readily reject such a position.  His position represents the same position of numerous scholars throughout all four schools of Islamic law today. 

Indeed, the misrepresentation of Shaykh ibn ‘Arabi (q.s.) by perennialist has been rejected by our ‘ulama who note that Shaykh ibn ‘Arabi (q.s.) himself stated, “Beware lest you ever say anything that does not conform to the pure Sacred Law.  Know that the highest stage of the rijal is the Sacred Law of Muhammad (s.a.w.).  And know that the esoteric that contravenes the exoteric is a fraud.”  The perennialist views that attempts to posit Christianity as “valid” is simply esoteric fraudulence that the mainstream scholars have utterly rejected. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: If you were paying attention, you would note that I did not say Christianity is “valid”; that is a deliberate mischaracterisation to avoid the substance of the issues of contention.  What I do say, is that being a non-Muslim does not preclude one from Divine Mercy.  Indeed, it is a form of shirk for Muslims to decide who is or is not a recipient of Divine Grace. 

And we should be harsh with Muslims.  Are we not proud to boast how we are the best ummah?  What are we best in?  Justice?  Knowledge?  Human rights?  It is a hollow boast.  It is a fact that Muslim countries such as Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are cesspools of decadence, strife and oppression.  The Muslims, as a body, are contemptible, beset with a martyr complex.  It is never our fault; it is the kuffar, the “West”, homosexuals, aliens, jinn, whatever.  The only thing Muslim intellectuals are good for is quoting text after text.  Cut-and-paste scholarship is no scholarship.  They have nothing of substance to offer to any of the very real problems we have to address. 

You posit that I am being selective with this time adjustment of Imam an-Nawawi’s (r.a.) position, but you do the same thing with the Wahhabi issue, alternatively denying fatawa that they are out of Islam, or implying that these fatawa are not valid.  Double standards much? 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: How much “attention” have you been paying?  Who claimed that Divine Mercy does not extend to non-Muslims?  Everyone obtains Divine Mercy with a single drop of water and a whiff of air.  The whole argument is pertaining to the universal validity of religions, namely Christianity, as presented in the “Study Qur’an” and rightfully subjected to critical review. 

Once again, the problem is a failure in intellectual discernment and extreme sectarianism.  I have not argued that the “Study Qur’an” should be rejected in totality.  My argument was simple, that not all the criticism came from the Wahhabis.  Of course, this led to you launching in your typical sectarian based attacks of Muslims who do not share your fanatical approach to Salafis and reject your extreme takfiri-like declarations that they are “kuffar”, while ironically rejecting the position of Imam an-Nawawi (r.a.). 

As to your broad condemnations of Muslims and the notion that the “only thing Muslim intellectuals are good for is quoting text”, this is absolutely ridiculous.  Maybe you simply have not closely examined the works of enough Muslim scholars.  There are close to a billion Muslims in the world; that oppression and injustice exist in some Muslim countries is no surprise at all.  However, to turn a blind eye to factors like colonialism, western imperialism, and US policy and then blame everything on the “Wahhabi” is pure folly and intellectually irresponsible. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Would you then say that all the scholars that I have previously named in their threads, and articles, all the citations “fanatical” and “sectarian” in their condemnation of the Wahhabi sect?  Are you not doing the exact same thing you accuse me of?  Ignoring fatawa and scholars who state a position you do not like?  A bit much, is it not?  It is telling that we have Sunni scholars, particularly in the US, who would make excuses for the Salafi sect and certain theological positions, and ignore the condemnation of those positions by consensus, and then dig up other positions to condemn their pet heresy.  It is intellectually dishonest. 

Someone claiming that God has a form is an idol worshipper, and far worse than a Jew who worships an unlimited God.  But here, you are excusing the people who worship an idol even though they claim to be Muslims and have the appearances of such, but happily damn the adherents of an entire religion to Hell.  If you cannot see something wrong with that, then we really have no bridge for discourse.  It renders the shahadah meaningless.  So, any person can say it and then pray to idols.  How is that any different from the Murjiyyah? 

Brother Sri Nahar: So, in my beliefs, I am Christian; I incline towards Eastern Orthodoxy.  I also consider Muhammad (s.a.w.) to be a true prophet; several Christian theologians do, including the Jesuit theologian, Fr. Francis X. Clooney.  I think that nothing in the Qur’an contradicts Christian doctrine - the Trinity is not three gods; God is not the “third of three”.  Further, it is not Jesus qua man who is worshipped, but Jesus qua Logos.  Thus, when the Qur’an Says that Jesus (a.s.) is not God, I understand it to mean that Jesus (a.s.), the man, is not God.  Which is like saying that the body is not the soul.  I understand this to be a repudiation of the doctrine of the Monophysites who believed that God literally changed into a man. 

I understand that while most Muslims do not believe that Jesus (a.s.) died on the cross, you believe that Jesus (a.s.) is the Christ, and that His mother the Virgin Mary is blessed above the worlds, and that the prophets, including Jesus (a.s.), are intercessors for believers.  So, while you do not take the sacraments, I believe that this does not mean that you cannot be Saved, for the saving action of Christ (a.s.) is not limited to the sacraments.  For all I know, the belief in the intercessory power of Christ (a.s.), albeit with the other prophets, might be enough for Salvation.  The point is that Salvation is not limited to the sacraments.  Anyone who does not explicitly reject Christianity, knowing what it teaches and understanding it fully well, has the potential to be Saved.  Now, I hope I'm not a kafir. 

Sister Philip Smith: What does Brother Khalil Muhsin make of the many verses in the Old and New Testament that deny other religions’ validity as a path to God?  Specifically, Jesus’ (a.s.) “No one comes to the Father, except through me,” as an example?  I think it is wrong to say that Islam is the only path as you are doing. 

John 14:6

⁶ Jesus said to him, “I am the way; I am truth and life; nobody can come to the Father, except through me.” 

⁶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς: ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή: οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι' ἐμοῦ. 

⁶ Dicit ei Jesus: Ego sum via, et veritas, et vita. Nemo venit ad Patrem, nisi per me. 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis, I have not read every thread and article you have posted with regard to the Wahhabis.  However, what I do know is that the vast majority of ‘ulama severely caution us against making statements declaring the people of Laa ilaha illa Allah Muhammadur Rasulullah as kafirun.  The vast majority of the ‘ulama have long tolerated and accepted Shaykh Taqi’ ad-Din Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Halim ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) as a believer while censoring some of his positions.  The same can be said of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and others. 

What you fail miserably to understand is the distinction between valid criticism and extreme condemnation.  Your extremism simply appears to me to be the other side of the extreme coin with the vociferous Wahhabis on the other side of the coin, both sides with condemnations of Muslims who do not agree with them as kafirun.  Well, there are Salafi and non-Salafi Muslims who reject this extremism.  The ‘ulama who wrote in defence of the Salafis were absolutely right, and on solid theological and practical grounds. 

As to the issue of the “Study Qur’an”, you proclaimed that “only” the Wahhabis opposed this work.  This is simply not true, and there are well-written, sensible, and specific critiques of the work as it relates to the perennialism that the work contains. 

As a matter of consensus, there is only one valid religion - Islam.  By consensus, Christians and Jews are deemed to be kuffar.  We do not tell Christians or Jews, “Well, since you were a Christian who believe in One God and you say well, I believe Muhammad (s.a.w.) is a prophet, you do not need the shahadah.  You are okay; just be good and God will Let you enter Paradise.  No.  We say, accept Islam.  The declaration that Christians and Jews are kuffar does not oblige me to condemn them as individuals to the Hellfire.  I can leave that to Allah (s.w.t.). 

I subscribe to the view of Imam al-Ghazali (r.a.) that says people have to be presented Islam properly and knowingly reject with understanding and comprehension reject it.  This allows me the space to avoid judgements.  I am not assessing anyone's internal state.  The same to me can be said for the majority of common Muslims who subscribe to Salafism; it is not my job to discern their internal state and what they understand. 

No one that I know who has criticised the “Study Qur’an” has declared the authors of the work kuffar.  They have simply posited that there are some terrible mistakes in the work that Muslims should be warned against.  This is a fair and valid critique of the book. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Since you have not read what I have written, then you are certainly not qualified to characterise my position vis a vis the ‘ulama.  No one disputes the Islam of Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.).  But to suggest that the majority somehow accept ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and the Wahhabi sect, and we must also, is either disingenuous or mischievous. 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: Terence Helikaon Nunis, I did not say I have not read anything you have written; I simply have not read all that you have written.  And once again, you give validity to what I state in your utter failure to discern between the distinction between valid criticism and extreme condemnation. 

In saying that they are Muslims, I am not saying that we have to accept the Wahhabiyyah, that are exempt from valid criticism.  But your position demands that the common Muslims engage in this severe condemnation only reflects your extreme sectarian-based approach, which is also been criticised by many of our ‘ulama. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: This is something to do with the 'ulama at your end of the world.  The American Muslim community has been happy to go to bed and fornicate with them, and suddenly, the rest of the ummah must follow you?  Since when did a small community with so little scholarship become the guiding light of the ummah?  Islam was brought to this part of the world by the swahabah and Sufis.  Islam came to your part of the world via Wahhabi missionaries and the dregs of the ummah fleeing orthodoxy.  Your side has never really ceased to justify this and attempt to normalise something that is not. 

So, who should we follow?  People like Zayd Shakir Ricky Daryl Mitchell, who say we accept them as Muslims, or people like these listed below?  These are the names and the titles of some excellent refutations of the Wahhabi sect from the earliest days of the Wahhabi movement to the present. 

This are the names and the titles of some excellent refutations of the Wahhabi sect from the earliest days of the Wahhabi movement to the present. 

Imam Ahmad ibn  ‘Abd al-Lathif al-Ahsa’i al-Miswri (r.a.) wrote an unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect.  His son, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Lathif al-Ahsa’i (r.a.) also wrote a book refuting them. 

Sayyid ‘Abd ar-Rahman Al-Ahsa’i (r.a.) wrote a sixty-seven verse poem which begins with the verse: 

“A confusion came about like nightfall covering the skies,

And became widespread, almost reaching the whole world.” 

Imam ‘Abd al-Hayy al-‘Amrawi and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Karim Murad, published by Qarawiyyin University, Morocco, wrote at-Tahdhir min al-Ightirar bi ma Ja’a fi Kitab al-Hiwar, “Warning against Being Fooled by the Contents of the Book”.  The book in question is by “A Debate with al-Maliki” which is an attack on Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan ibn ‘Alawi al-Maliki (q.s.) by a Wahhabi writer. 

Imam ‘Atha’illah al-Makki (r.a.) wrote asw-Swarim al-Hindi fi al-‘Unuq an-Najdi, “The Indian Scimitar on the Najdi’s Neck.” 

Imam ‘Abd ar-Rabbih ibn Sulayman ash-Shafi’i al-Azhari (r.a.), the author of Sharh Jami’ al-Uswul li Ahadits ar-Rasul, a basic book of uswul al-fiqh, wrote Faydh al-Wahhab fi Bayan Ahl al-Haqq wa man Dhallah ‘an asw-Swawab, “al-Wahhab’s Outpouring in Differentiating the True Muslims from Those Who Deviated from the Truth”, which comprised four volumes.  ‘al-Wahhab’ here refers to Allah (s.w.t.). 

Shaykh Salama al-‘Azzami (r.a.) wrote al-Barahin as-Sati’at. “The Radiant Proofs.” 

Imam ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Ahmad al-Barakat ash-Shafi’i al-Ahmadi al-Makki (r.a.) wrote an unpublished manuscript refuting of the Wahhabi sect. 

Shaykh Musthafa al-Maswri al-Bulaqi (r.a.), wrote a refutation to San’a’i’s poem in which the latter had praised the heretic, ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab.  It is found in mam Ibrahim as-Samnudi al-Manswuri’s (r.a.) Sa’adat ad-Darayn, and consists in 126 verses beginning thus: 

“By the Glory of the Owner of glory, not baseness, do I overcome;

And by Allah, not by creatures, do I seek guidance to Allah.” 

Imam Muhammad Sa’id ibn Muhammad Ramadhan al-Buwthi (r.a.) wrote two major refutations: as-Salafiyyatu Marhalatun Zamaniyyatun Mubarakatun laa Madzhabun Islami, “The Salafiyyah is a Blessed Historical Period not an Islamic School of Law”; and al-Lamadzhabiyyah Akhtaru Bid’atin Tuhaddidu ash-Shari’ah al-Islamiyyah, “Non-Madzhabism is the most Dangerous Innovation Presently Menacing Islamic Law”. 

Shaykh ad-Dahish ibn ‘Abdullah from the Arab University of Morocco wrote Munazharah ‘Ilmiyyah bayna ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ash-Sharif wa al-Imam Ahmad ibn Idris fi ar-Radd ‘ala Wahhabiyyat Najd wa Tihamah, wa ‘Aswir, “Scholarly Debate between the Sharif and Ahmad ibn Idris against the Wahhabis of Najd, Tihamah, and ‘Aswir”. 

Imam Ahmad ibn Zayni ad-Dahlan (r.a.), the Mufti of Makkah and Shaykh al-Islam, highest religious authority in the Ottoman jurisdiction, for the Hijaz region, wrote three major works against them.  They are ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyyah, “The Pure Pearls in Answering the Wahhabis”; Fitnat al-Wahhabiyyah, “The Wahhabi Fitnah”; and Khulaswat al-Kalam fi Bayan Umara’ al-Balad al-Haram, “The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Sacrosanct Country”, a history of the Wahhabi fitnah in Najd and the Hijaz. 

Shaykh Hamdullah ad-Dajwi (r.a.) wrote al-Baswa’ir li Munkiri at-Tawaswswul la Amtsal Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, “The Evident Proofs against Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession Like Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab”. 

Shaykh al-Islam, Imam Dawud ibn Sulayman al-Baghdadi al-Hanafi (r.a.), wrote al-Minha al-Wahbiyyah fi Radd al-Wahhabiyyah, “The Divine Dispensation Concerning the Wahhabi Deviation”; and Ashadd al-Jihad fi Ibthal Da’wah al-Ijtihad, “The Most Violent Jihad in Proving False Those Who Falsely Claim Ijtihad”. 

The muhaddits, Imam Swalih al-Falani al-Maghribi (r.a.) authored a large volume collating the refutation of the scholars of the four madzahib al-fiqh of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. 

Habib Muhammad ‘Ashiq ar-Rahman (r.a.) wrote, ‘Aqab Allah al-Mujdi li Junun al-Munkir an-Najdi, “Allah’s Terrible Punishment for the Mad Rejecter from Najd”. 

Sayyid al-‘Alawi ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan ibn al-Quthb al-Haddad (q.s.) also wrote an unpublished manuscript. 

Sayyid ‘Abdullah ibn `Alawi al-Haddad ash-Shafi’i (q.s.), the son of Sayyid al-‘Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad (q.s.), wrote as-Sayf al-Bathir li ‘Unq al-Munkir ‘ala al-Akabir, “The Sharp Sword for the Neck of the Assailant of Great Scholars”.  He also wrote another, unpublished manuscript of about 100 folios titled Miswbah al-Anam wa Jala’ az-Zalam fi Radd Shubah al-Bid’i an-Najdi Allati Adalla biha al-‘Awamm, “The Lamp of Mankind and the Illumination of Darkness Concerning the Refutation of the Errors of the Innovator from Najd by Which He Had Misled the Common People.”  This manuscript was published in 1907. 

Shaykh Musthafa al-Hamami al-Miswri (r.a.) wrote Ghawts al-‘Ibad bi Bayan ar-Rashad, “The Helper of Allah’s Servants according to the Affirmation of Guidance”. 

Shaykh Ibrahim al-Hilmi al-Qadiri al-Iskandari (r.a.) wrote Jalal al-Haqq fi Kashf Ahwal Ashrar al-Khalq, “The Splendour of Truth in Exposing the Worst of People”, which was published in 1934. 

Sayyid ‘Amili Muhsin al-Husayni (r.a.) wrote Kashf al-Irtiyab fi Atba’ Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, “The Dispelling of Doubt Concerning the Followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab”. 

Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Lathif ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) wrote Tajrid Sayf al-Jihad ‘ala Mudda’i al-Ijtihad, “The Drawing of the Sword of Jihad against the False Claimants to Ijtihad”. 

The family of Imam ‘Abd ar-Razzaq ibn Hammam asw-Swan’ani (r.a.) in Zubara and Bahrayn possess both manuscripts and printed refutations by scholars of the four schools of fiqh, from Makkah, Madina, al-Ahsa’, Basra, Baghdad, Aleppo, Yemen and other regions.  Ahsa’ refers to the Arabian Peninsula. 

Shaykh Sulayman ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab an-Najdi (r.a.), the elder brother of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, wrote as-Sawa’iq al-Ilahiyyah fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyyah, “Divine Lightning in Answering the Wahhabis”.  The prefaces were by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Kurdi ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) and Shaykh Muhammad Hayyat as-Sindi (r.a.), the teachers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s.  They said to the effect that Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab is ‘dhal mudhil’, “misguided and misguiding”. 

Sayyid Muhammad Amin ibn ‘Abidin al-Hanafi (r.a.) wrote Radd al-Muhtar ‘ala ad-Durr al-Mukhtar, “Answer to the Perplexed: A Commentary on The Chosen Pearl”.  He addressed the heresy in volume 3, Kitab al-Iman, Bab al-Bughat, the Book of Belief, Chapter on Rebels.  This was published in 1855. 

Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn ‘Afaliq al-Hanbali (r.a.) wrote Tahakkum al-Muqallidin bi man Idda’a Tajdid ad-Din, “Sarcasm of the Muqallidin against the False Claimants to the Renewal of Religion.  This is a very comprehensive book refuting the Wahhabi heresy and posting questions which Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his followers were unable to answer for the most part.  They are still unable to address these points to this very day. 

Imam ‘Afif ad-Din ‘Abdullah ibn Dawud al-Hanbali (r.a.) wrote as-Sawa’iq wa ar-Ru’ud, “Lightning and Thunder”, an important book in 20 chapters.  According to the Mufti of Yemen, Imam ‘Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad (q.s.), “This book has received the approval of the ‘ulama of Basra, Baghdad, Aleppo, and Ahsa’.  It was summarised by Qadhi Muhammad ibn Bashir, the qadhi of Ra’s al-Khayma in Oman.” 

Shaykh al-Libi ibn Ghalbun (r.a.) wrote a refutation in forty verses of as-San’a’i’s poem in praise of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab.  It is in Imam Samnudi’s (r.a.) Sa’adat ad-Darayn and begins thus: 

“My salutation is upon the people of truth and guidance,

And not upon Najd nor the one who settled in Najd.” 

Imam ‘Ulyawi ibn Khalifah al-Azhari (r.a.) wrote Hadzihi ‘Aqidatu as-Salaf wa al-Khalaf fi Dzat Allahi Ta’ala wa Swifatihi wa Af’alihi wa al-Jawab asw-Swahih li ma Waqa’a fihi al-Khilaf min al-Furu’ bayna al-Da’in li as-Salafiyyah wa Atba’ al-Madzahib al-Arba’ah al-Islamiyyah, “This is the Doctrine of the Predecessors and the Descendants Concerning the Divergences in the Branches between Those Who Call to as-Salafiyyah and the Followers of the Four Islamic Schools of Law”.  This was published in 1977. 

Shaykh Muhammad Zahid Kawtsari al-Hanafi (r.a.) wrote Maqalat al-Kawtsari. 

Shaykh Swalih al-Kawwash at-Tunisi’s (r.a.) refutation of the Wahhabi sect is contained in Imam Samnudi’s (r.a.) Sa’adat ad-Darayn fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Firqatayn. 

Shaykh Hasan Khazbik (r.a.) wrote al-Maqalat al-Wafiyyat fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyyah, “Complete Treatise in Refuting the Wahhabis”. 

Shaykh Muhammad Hasanayn Makhluf (r.a.) wrote Risalat fi Hukm at-Tawaswswul bi al-Anbiya’ wa al-Awliya’, “Treatise on the Ruling Concerning the Use of Prophets and Saints as Intermediaries”. 

The muhaddits, Imam Muhammad al-Hasan ibn ‘Alawi al-Maliki (q.s.) wrote Mafahimu Yajibu an Tuswahhah, “Notions That Should be Corrected”.  This was published in its 4^th edition as Muhammad al-Insanu al-Kamil, “Muhammad, the Perfect Human Being”, in 1984. 

Shaykh Mashrifi al-Maliki al-Jaza’iri (r.a.) wrote Izhar al-‘Uquq Mimman Mana’a at-Tawaswswul bi an-Nabi’ wa al-Wali asw-Swaduq, “The Exposure of the Disobedience of Those Who Forbid Using the Intermediary of the Prophet and the Truthful Saints”. 

Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn Ibrahim al-Mirghani ath-Tha’ifi (r.a.) wrote Tahridh al-Aghbiya’ ‘ala al-Istighatsa bi al-Anbiya’ wa al-Awliya’, “The Provocations of the Ignorant against Seeking the Help of Prophets and Saints”. 

Shaykh Mu’in al-Haqq ad-Dahlawi (r.a.) wrote Sayf al-Jabbar al-Maslul ‘ala ‘Ada’ al-Abrar, “The Sword of the Almighty Drawn against the Enemies of the Pure Ones”. 

Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Isa al-Muwaysi al-Yamani (r.a.) wrote an unpublished manuscript of a refutation of the Wahhabi sect. 

The qadhi and great muhaddits, Imam Yusuf ibn Isma’il an-Nabhani ash-Shafi’i (q.s.) wrote Shawahid al-Haqq fi al-Istighatsa bi Sayyid al-Khalq, “The Proofs of Truth in the Seeking of the Intercession of the Prophet”. 

Imam Ahmad ibn ‘Ali al-Qabbani al-Baswri ash-Shafi’i (r.a.) wrote a manuscript treatise in approximately 10 chapters, refuting them. 

Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Qadumi an-Nablusi al-Hanbali (r.a.) wrote Rihlat, “Journey”. 

Imam Muhammad Hasan al-Qazwini (r.a.) wrote al-Barahin al-Jaliyyah fi Raf` Tashkikat al-Wahhabiyah, “The Plain Demonstrations That Dispel the Aspersions of the Wahhabis”, which was published in 1987. 

Imam al-Qudsi (r.a.) wrote as-Suyuf as-Siqal fi ‘Anaq man Ankara ‘ala al-Awliya’ ba’d al-Intiqal, “The Burnished Swords on the Necks of Those Who Deny the Role of Saints after Their Leaving This World”. 

Sayyid Yusuf ibn Hashim ar-Rifa’i, President of the World Union of Islamic Propagation and Information, wrote Adillat Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama’at aw ar-Radd al-Muhkam al-Mani’ ‘ala Munkarat wa Shubuhat ibn Mani’ fi Tahajjumihi ‘ala as-Sayyid Muhammad ‘Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki, “The Proofs of the People of the Way of the Prophet and the Muslim Community or the Strong and Decisive Refutation of ibn Mani’’s Aberrations and Aspersions in his Assault on Muhammad ‘Alawi al-Maliki al-Makki”. 

Imam Ibrahim as-Samnudi al-Manswuri (r.a.) wrote Sa’adat ad-Darayn fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Firqatayn al-Wahhabiyyah wa Muqallidat azh-Zhahiriyyah, “Bliss in the Two Abodes: Refutation of the Two Sects, the Wahhabi and Zhahiri Followers”. 

Imam Hasan ibn ‘Ali as-Saqqaf ash-Shafi’i, from the Islamic Research Institute in Amman, Jordan, wrote several books.  They include al-Ighatsa bi Adillat al-Istighatsa wa ar-Radd al-Mubin ‘ala Munkiri at-Tawaswswul, “The Mercy of Allah in the Proofs of Seeking Intercession and the Clear Answer to Those who Reject It”; ‘Ilqam al-Hajr li al-Muthatawil ‘ala al-Asha’ira min al-Bashar, “The Stoning of All Those Who Attack Ash’aris”; and Qamus Shata’im al-Albani wa al-Alfazh al-Munkarat Allati Yathluquha fi Haqq ‘Ulama al-Ummah wa Fudhala’iha wa Ghayrihim, “Encyclopedia of al-Albani’s Abhorrent Expressions Which He Uses Against the Scholars of the Community, Its Eminent Men and Others”.  This was published in Amman by Dar al-Imam an-Nawawi in 1993. 

Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad as-Sawi al-Miswri (r.a.) mentioned them in his Hashiyat ‘ala al-Jalalayn, “Commentary on the Exegesis of the Two Jalal al-Din”. 

Imam Sayf ad-Din Ahmad ibn Muhammad wrote in English, “al-Albani Unveiled: An Exposition of His Errors and Other Important Issues”, which was published in 1994. 

Sayyid Musthafa ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan ash-Shatti al-Atsari al-Hanbali, the Mufti of Syria, wrote an-Nuqul ash-Shar’iyyah fi ar-Radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyyah, “The Legal Proofs in Answering the Wahhabis”. 

Imam Taqi’ ad-Din Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd al-Kafi’ as-Subki (r.a.) wrote a refutation of Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah’s (r.a.) dangerous ideas that later inspired the Wahhabi sect.  Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) repented from them eventually.  But generations later, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab took them up, leading to their anthropomorphism.  That book is ad-Durra al-Mudiyyah fi ar-Radd ‘ala ibn Taymiyyah, “The Luminous Pearl: A Refutation of ibn Taymiyyah”.  The recently published version was edited by Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawtsari (r.a.).  Imam as-Subki (r.a.) further wrote a refutations of Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) and his foremost student, Imam Shams ad-Din Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (q.s.), ar-Rasa’il as-Subkiyyah fi ar-Radd ‘ala ibn Taymiyyah wa Tilmidzihi ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, “as-Subki’s treatises in Answer to ibn Taymiyyah and his pupil, ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah”.  He then wrote one specifically against Imam ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (q.s.), addressed as ibn Zafil, as-Sayf as-Saqil fi ar-Radd ‘ala ibn Zafil, “The Burnished Sword in Refuting ibn Zafil”.  Imam Taqi ad-Din as-Subki (r.a.) also wrote Shifa’ as-Siqam fi Ziyarat Khayr al-Anam, “The Healing of the Sick in Visiting the Best of Creation”, in response to Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah’s (r.a.) outrageous fatwa that it is haram to travel for the purpose of ziyarat of the Rawdhah of Rasulullah (s.a.w.).  This caused Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah (r.a.) to retract his fatwa. 

Imam Thahir Sunbul al-Hanafi ath-Tha’ifi (r.a.) wrote Sima al-Intiswar li al-Awliya’ al-Abrar, “The Mark of Victory Belongs to Allah’s Pure Friends”. 

Sayyid at-Tabataba’i al-Baswri (q.s.) also wrote a reply to San’a’i’s poem which was excerpted in Imam Samnudi’s (r.a.) Sa’adat ad-Darayn.  After reading it, San’a’i reversed his position and said, “I have repented from what I said concerning the Najdi.” 

Imam Isma’il at-Tamimi al-Maliki (r.a.), the Shaykh al-Islam in Tunis: wrote a refutation of a treatise of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab. 

Imam al-Mahdi al-Wazzani (r.a.), the Mufti of Fes, Morocco, wrote a refutation of Muhammad ‘Abduh’s prohibition of tawaswswul.  Muhammad ‘Abduh was not a Salafi per se, although he was strongly influenced by Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and, in turn, strongly influenced the movement itself with his ideas of secularism, modernism and neo-Mu’tazilism.  He provided an intellectual basis for their rejection of taqlid. 

Imam Jamil Swiddiqi ibn Muhammad Faydhi az-Zahawi al-Kurdi (r.a.), the Mufti of Baghdad and descendent of Khalid ibn al-Walid (r.a.), wrote al-Fajr asw-Swadiq fi ar-Radd ‘ala Munkiri at-Tawaswswul wa al-Khawariq, “The True Dawn in Refuting Those Who Deny the Seeking of Intercession and the Miracles of Saints”, which was published in 1905 in Egypt. 

Imam Muhammad Swalih az-Zamzami ash-Shafi’i (r.a.), the Imam of the Maqam Ibrahim in Makkah, wrote a book in 20 chapters against them according to Imam al-Haddad (q.s.). 

Shaykh Qiyam ad-Din Ahmad wrote in English, “The Wahhabi Movement in India”, which was published in New Delhi in 1994. 

All these books are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the volume of refutation from our scholars.  Many of these books are relatively rare, neglected, or simply lost.  But they provide abundant proof that the Wahhabi sect are considered out of the fold of Islam, deviant and guilty of kufr and shirk.  Do you want more? 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: Brotehr Terence Helikaon Nunis, do you really think Imam Zayd Shakir who you mentioned is unfamiliar with the critique against the Wahhabis?  Again, sectarian zeal, blinds you to distinctions.  You fail to understand the difference between legitimate criticism or refutations and condemnations.  How many of those works say that the Wahhabis and those who are amongst the unlearned of them are kafirun?  How many of those works say that we are to categorically condemn all the Wahhabis as kuffar?  Funny, many of the same authors you quote would also be opposed to the perennialist doctrines that you want to support in the ‘Study Qur’an’.  Now you called for a historical assessment of Imam an-Nawawi’s (r.a.) position on what many of the same authors you quote would yet you fail miserably to provide any historical context to the works of many of the scholars that you mention who wrote these works in direct response to what was occurring in Arabia during the time of conflict between the Ottomans and ibn Sa’ud.  How many of the works you cite make distinctions between the positions of Muhammad ‘Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad Naswir ad-Din al-Albani or ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Baz and other Wahhabis?  What the Muslim-American ‘ulama have done in many instances is reviewed the distinctions and honoured the aspects of our tradition that leads Muslims away from takfir. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I do not think Zayd Shakir is unfamiliar, and that is why his apologist piece is inexcusable.  Who is Zayd Shakir compared to all those scholars I listed above? 

Secondly, it is not “perennialist” to believe that Salvation is not exclusive to Muslims.  That is Islam.  And a non-Muslim is not automatically a kafir, they are ghayr Muslimin.  The Christians and the Jews are Ahl al-Kitab, not kafirun.  You need a lesson in understanding these Qur’anic terms. 

Thirdly, we have stated our positions regarding this book, and you are rehashing the argument. I am not one to belabour points. 

And finally. what distinction between people such as ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, ibn Baz, al-Albani and Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Swalih al-‘Utsaymin is so important that it detracts from the main kufr of their anthropomorphism?  The underlying credal position is exactly the same.  Do you even know what these people wrote?  Because I do, and I have that 100 plus articles with citations quoting from them and the refutations of our scholars to prove it.  What do you have? 

Brother Khalil Muhsin: Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis, the question is not who Imam Zayd Shakir is in comparison to those scholars, but who is he in comparison to your understandings of those scholars that have led you to these extreme sectarian like views, and reflections. 

Secondly, Islam is what Allah (s.w.t.) Says in His Qur’an, and what our Prophet (s.a.w.) says.  Allah (s.w.t.) Says: 

سُوۡرَةُ آل عِمرَان

وَمَن يَبۡتَغِ غَيۡرَ ٱلۡإِسۡلَـٰمِ دِينً۬ا فَلَن يُقۡبَلَ مِنۡهُ وَهُوَ فِى ٱلۡأَخِرَةِ مِنَ ٱلۡخَـٰسِرِينَ (٨٥) 

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be Accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost. (all spiritual good). (Surah Ali ‘Imran:85) 

The Prophet (s.a.w.) stated clearly, “By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been Sent with, will be an inhabitant of Hell.”  This is recorded in Imam al-Baghawi’s (r.a.) Sharh as-Sunnah. 

This is our ‘aqidah that is found and specified in the books of the Ahl as-Sunnah.  The scholars who you quoted extensively will tell you the same.  Bring forth with the same enthusiasm that you have in providing extensive quotes condemning the Salafi, the extensive quotes from our ‘ulama saying Salvation is found in other religions’.  Bring forth the quotes you have from the ‘ulama that Salvation is found in other religions after the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.). 

Thirdly, it was your erroneous statement that required the statement to be rehashed, the topic was not the Salafis, but the book which you erroneously implied was only criticised by the Wahhabis.  You were wrong, so of course, you do not want to rehash it. 

Instead, you go to your fourth point and make a bunch of totally irrelevant references to what some of the ‘ulama have stated about the Wahhabi, which as I have pointed out is due to your extreme sectarianism which only applies to hatred of them.  But when the ‘ulama affirm something that you do not agree with, you abandon them. 

The brother of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, Shaykh Sulayman ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (r.a.) called his brother an “innovator”, not a kafir.  However, your extreme sectarianism and hatred for the Wahhabi pushes you into the realm of error. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: On the issue of the Wahhabi sect, in Sawa’iq al-Ilahiyyah, Shaykh Sulayman ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (r.a.) called his brother, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, an innovator and a kafir.  I have the book.  In Arabic.  He called him the Horn of Shaythan and the Dog of Hell.  So, you only saw the parts you wanted and ignored the rest?  That is what you do, if you did not realise that. 

Just as you accuse me of accepting opinions that I agree with and ignoring opinions I do not, you do the exact same thing.  You call it sectarianism; I call what you have done, prostituting the ‘aqidah.  You have not addressed some of the more pertinent points raised, but I will leave that and move on to the next major contention. 

You are correct that I seem to have given the impression that it is only Wahhabis are against this book.  But then, we are addressing primarily a Wahhabi problem, not a perennialist problem.  This bogeyman of perennialism is always raised when there is a slightly nuanced opinion on an issue of ‘aqidah, which I will address in the next point. 

Back to the Wahhabi issue, they have had a monopoly of sorts on the translation of the Qur’an into English.  And those literalist translations have shaped a literalist absolutist mindset, something that you display here as well, from your contention that Sayyidatina ‘Aishah bint Abu Bakr (r.a.) was underage at the time of marriage being almost a point of ‘aqidah to your contention that God is somehow limited to ranting Salvation only to Muslims, to your calling the Ahl al-Kitab kuffar. 

You have correctly quoted Imam an-Nawawi (r.a.) on this, and I can add Imam Taqi ad-Din as-Subki (r.a.) and many others.  That does not mean they are correct, and I am wrong, or vice versa.  You cannot quote a line of text out of context to advance a position, ignoring the historical realities that lead to it.  That is a form of deception.  Whilst it does not mean that such an issue of ‘aqidah is then discarded, it does mean that the religious understanding of our pious predecessors is a lot more expansive than many Muslims give them credit for. 

Going back to theology, it is a fact that Islam is the Chosen Path.  There is no dispute.  It is a fact that the Prophet (s.a.w.) is the Rahmatan lil A’alamin.  There is no dispute.  It is a fact that any person who has encountered the truth of Islam, and opened to its realities, and understood the Absolute Haqq of the Oneness of God, should he turn back, will be in perdition.  There is no dispute.  But, that does not mean we extend it to every non-Muslim and collectively condemn them by default for their non-understanding of the religion based on the inadequacies God Gave them or within the ummah.  That would imply that God is not just and not merciful.  So, the inadequacy here, and you have failed to grasp, is a nuanced understanding of Divine Attribute and Decree. 

This does not mean that Christianity or Judaism, for example, is “valid”, which is a term that makes no real sense. it means that a person of another faith may have a purer understanding and come to islam, as opposed to Islam, and be Accepted.  This is not perennialism.  This is the foundation of our religion. 

Since people like to throw around this term, it is important to understand that actual perennialism is to disbelieve the validity of the shahadah as the key to Salvation.  And the shahadah is mushahadah, not the mere utterance of the kalimatayn.  So, it pertains to a spiritual state that is ghayb. 

Brother William Voller: Brother Khalil Muhsin, I find your comments continually marred by concrete thinking.  For example, you keep quoting this as if it is unequivocal: 

سُوۡرَةُ آل عِمرَان

وَمَن يَبۡتَغِ غَيۡرَ ٱلۡإِسۡلَـٰمِ دِينً۬ا فَلَن يُقۡبَلَ مِنۡهُ وَهُوَ فِى ٱلۡأَخِرَةِ مِنَ ٱلۡخَـٰسِرِينَ (٨٥) 

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be Accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost. (all spiritual good). (Surah Ali ‘Imran:85) 

Yet it is ambiguous; it actually Says: “Wa man yabtaghi ghayra al-islami dinan”.  Whilst this could be rendered as you say, it could also mean a more general, “those who follow a path other than submission to God.”  The key to understanding this verse are the possible meanings of diyn and islam. 

I would think it unlikely that the Qur’anic usage of “islam” is ever used in the sense of a formal religion, in fact it is very critical of those that make formal religious groups that make distinctions between members and non-members.  Consider this, for example: 

سُوۡرَةُ البَقَرَة

وَقَالُواْ لَن يَدۡخُلَ ٱلۡجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَن كَانَ هُودًا أَوۡ نَصَـٰرَىٰ‌ۗ تِلۡكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمۡ‌ۗ قُلۡ هَاتُواْ بُرۡهَـٰنَڪُمۡ إِن ڪُنتُمۡ صَـٰدِقِينَ (١١١) 

And they say, “None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.”  Those are their (vain) desires.  Say, “Produce your proof if you are truthful.” (Surah al-Baqarah:111) 

Diyn likewise does not translate well to religion: it derives from Latin “religare” meaning ‘to bind’ because it was for those living a monastic life.  Diyn is more a habit or way of life.  There is no doubt, there is overlap, but again it does not really refer to formal religion.  It is both disingenuous to not state this blatant fact and, given your argument, deceptive, either consciously or unconsciously. 

Brother Marquis Dawkins: I am perturbed by this entire discussion, though I am very impressed with the information that Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis has shared.  It is actually fascinating.  I get the basic gist of what Brother Khalil is saying.  Basically, that it is not only Wahhabis who hate the study Quran; there are a few others considered more moderate that dislike it or accuse it of being perennialist.  However, this whole talk of it being dangerous and such is asinine and unnecessary, and I find it rather trite. 

Brother William Voller: I agree, Brother Marquis.  If we say this book has errors and must be rejected entirely, then by extension, we must throw away all books in existence, except Scripture.  If it has erred, then quote where it has and explain why, leaving the rest as fine.  The thing about the book is that it does not dictate, but offers a summary of interpretations anyway, which may contain less well regarded positions.  That approach is not an error; that is called fiqh, deep understanding. 

Brother Ahmad Jenkins: Finally, a ‘Study Qur’an’ that reflects the understanding of the Qur’an many of us converts had to struggle to come too.  It makes sense that extremists are hot over it.  They are losing control over spreading their warped interpretation of Islam. 

Brother Ijaz Ahmad: I have read this commentary to Surah at-Tawbah.  And the only thing I see is disagreements between scholars. 

Brother Daniel Frayer: I bought the book based on those who endorse it, but now that I see so many condemnations from certain quarters, I feel better and more certain of the decision. 

Brother William Voller: This book is the greatest English publication related to Islam.  May the contributors be forever Blessed for their efforts and Forgiven for any shortcomings.  Amin. 

Sister Colleen Dunn: I am amused that a simple Qur’an endorsement has generated so much controversy here. 

Brother James Harris: My copy is on the way. 

Sister Brooke Miller: I just bought this the other day.  It is phenomenal; so much information.  I may not decide to agree with all of it, but it certainly feels much more right than many books I picked up. 

Sister San Yee: Anything the Wahhabis hate must be excellent. 

Brother William Voller: From a discussion on one of the comments: The thing about the book is that it does not dictate, but offers a summary of interpretations anyway, which may contain less well regarded positions.  That approach is not an error.  That is called fiqh, deep understanding. 

Brother Fadlullah Wilmot: The ‘Study Qur’an’ is both very traditional and reformist.  It maintains the Qur’anic Provisions regarding unequal inheritance for men and women and the verses on nushuz and dara’.  However, the ‘Study Qur’an’ has departed from consensus and traditional theological methodologies with respect to stoning to death and pluralism.  However, other verses explicating ḥadd punishments, are not avoided or explained away.  Such as 

سُوۡرَةُ المَائدة

وَٱلسَّارِقُ وَٱلسَّارِقَةُ فَٱقۡطَعُوٓاْ أَيۡدِيَهُمَا جَزَآءَۢ بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَـٰلاً۬ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ‌ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ۬ (٣٨) 

As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a retribution for their deed and exemplary punishment from Allah and Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom. (Surah al-Ma’idah:38) 

Instead, communitarian benefits are articulated, destabilising effects of wrongs examined, and premodern exegetes referenced.  In the case of zina, the “Study Qur’an” authors call into question the juristic consensus related to the issue of stoning to death. 

سُوۡرَةُ النُّور

ٱلزَّانِيَةُ وَٱلزَّانِى فَٱجۡلِدُواْ كُلَّ وَٲحِدٍ۬ مِّنۡہُمَا مِاْئَةَ جَلۡدَةٍ۬‌ۖ وَلَا تَأۡخُذۡكُم بِہِمَا رَأۡفَةٌ۬ فِى دِينِ ٱللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمۡ تُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلۡيَوۡمِ ٱلۡأَخِرِ‌ۖ وَلۡيَشۡہَدۡ عَذَابَہُمَا طَآٮِٕفَةٌ۬ مِّنَ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ (٢) 

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication ― flog each of them with a hundred stripes: let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter Prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (Surah an-Nur:2) 

In this regard, the authors initially mention the four principle prophetic traditions concerning stoning, and discuss inconsistencies and incongruities between them based on details within the disparate reports.  The authors deal with the question of naskh, both with regard to the abrogated ayah of stoning as well as the question of the sunnah abrogating the Qur’an and whether or not non-mutawatir reports are sufficient for overturning clear, unambiguous Qur’anic prescriptions. 

In respect to religious pluralism and the salvia efficacy of other faiths, the “Study Qur’an” reinterprets and historicises many verses that repudiate Christian or Jewish.  Salvific efficacy is extended to all religions and paths, so long as they are somehow subsumed under the general postulate “islam”, instead of the particularised Muhammadan ‘Islam’.  In this regard, belief in the Prophet (s.a.w.) is optional and inessential for entry to Paradise.  Moreover, belief in the Qur’an itself, compliance with its injunctions, and conformity with the strictures inherent to Islamic law are all non-compulsory for individuals living in a post-Muhammadan world. 

The “Study Qur’an” incorporates prophetic traditions, ahadits, into the commentary.  For those who look for a more ‘progressive’ understanding of the Qur’an, there will be disappointment in that the “Study Qur’an” makes no apologies for verses that appear inegalitarian, malevolent, or otherwise discordant with the metaphysical commitments of contemporary liberal society.  Instead, the “Study Qur’an” contextualises, elucidates the tradition, and offers an understanding of those verses within terms that the Muslim community has understood them for over a thousand years.  This, I suspect as well, will not gratify reformists who view the majority of premodern jurists and theologians as having been prejudiced by patriarchy, exclusivism, and militarism. 

For example, the commentary of this: 

سُوۡرَةُ النِّسَاء

يُوصِيكُمُ ٱللَّهُ فِىٓ أَوۡلَـٰدِڪُمۡ‌ۖ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثۡلُ حَظِّ ٱلۡأُنثَيَيۡنِ‌ۚ فَإِن كُنَّ نِسَآءً۬ فَوۡقَ ٱثۡنَتَيۡنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ‌ۖ وَإِن كَانَتۡ وَٲحِدَةً۬ فَلَهَا ٱلنِّصۡفُ‌ۚ وَلِأَبَوَيۡهِ لِكُلِّ وَٲحِدٍ۬ مِّنۡہُمَا ٱلسُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ إِن كَانَ لَهُ ۥ وَلَدٌ۬‌ۚ فَإِن لَّمۡ يَكُن لَّهُ ۥ وَلَدٌ۬ وَوَرِثَهُ ۥۤ أَبَوَاهُ فَلِأُمِّهِ ٱلثُّلُثُ‌ۚ فَإِن كَانَ لَهُ ۥۤ إِخۡوَةٌ۬ فَلِأُمِّهِ ٱلسُّدُسُ‌ۚ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ وَصِيَّةٍ۬ يُوصِى بِہَآ أَوۡ دَيۡنٍ‌ۗ ءَابَآؤُكُمۡ وَأَبۡنَآؤُكُمۡ لَا تَدۡرُونَ أَيُّهُمۡ أَقۡرَبُ لَكُمۡ نَفۡعً۬ا‌ۚ فَرِيضَةً۬ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ‌ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمً۬ا (١١) 

Allah (thus) Directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.  For parents a sixth share of the inheritance to each if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters), the mother has a sixth.  (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies and debts.  You know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit.  These are settled portions Ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing All-Wise. (Surah an-Nisa’:11) 

A somewhat controversial verse, given its prescription for inequitable distribution of inheritance between men and women, explicates traditional inheritance law and does not reinterpret or historicise the apportioning of inheritance.  The “Study Qur’an” explains that the inequitable apportioning of inheritance can be attributed to the males’ provider-responsibility within a household, a reasoning cited from the exegetical work of Hafizh ‘Imad ad-Din Abu al-Fida’ Isma’il ibn ‘Umar ibn Katsir (r.a.). 

A similar approach can be seen in the explanation of this, the infamous verse of nushuz: 

سُوۡرَةُ النِّسَاء

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٲمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعۡضَهُمۡ عَلَىٰ بَعۡضٍ۬ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُواْ مِنۡ أَمۡوَٲلِهِمۡ‌ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌ۬ لِّلۡغَيۡبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ‌ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهۡجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلۡمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضۡرِبُوهُنَّ‌ۖ فَإِنۡ أَطَعۡنَڪُمۡ فَلَا تَبۡغُواْ عَلَيۡہِنَّ سَبِيلاً‌ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّ۬ا ڪَبِيرً۬ا (٣٤) 

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has Given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means.  Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.  As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their, beds (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Surah an-Nisa’:34) 

Again, the authors cite premodern jurists, expound upon the occasion of Revelation, sabab nuzul, and provide stipulations that premodern jurists would articulate when commenting on the very controversial locution dharb, or striking.  Of note is that the authors do not adopt an alternative explanation or translation of dharb, electing instead for a hermeneutic of fideism to the tradition.