AKU SEORANG BEKAS MUSLIM

HOME · TENTANG BLOG INI · MORE…

May 08, 2021

SHAYKH UTHMAN FAROOQ -

HADITH ABOUT QUR'AN BECOMING
A PALE MAN
—

Recently, there was a "debate" between Shaykh

Uthmaan Farooq and Anthony Rogers. It wasn't really
a debate, but more of a discussion, an exchange of
ideas, going back and forth between the two
individuals at a roadstall somewhere in San Francisco
if I'm not mistaken. It wasn't really a debate because
it wasn't really moderated and there was no time
allocated for one person to speak. 

One of the points that was brought up during the

exchange was about the hadith about the Qur'an
becoming a pale man during the Day of Resurrection
mentioned by Anthony Rogers. Although it wasn't a
main point, and it was just mentioned by Anthony to
illustrate his point that the Allah in Islam is not
strictly one person, and hence Islam is not a strictly
unitarian monotheistic religion, but it has sort of
become a main argument, and Shaykh Uthman has
brought up some arguable points.

The hadith in question is as below:

ْ َ ‫ل ِذي أ‬1 ‫ أَنَا ا‬: ‫ول‬ ِ ‫الش‬

1 ‫الر ُج ِل‬ ِ ِ
، ‫ت َليْ َل َك‬
ُ ‫س َه ْر‬ ُ ‫ فَيَ ُق‬, ‫ب‬
ِ ‫اح‬ 1 ‫يَجِي ُء ا ْل ُق ْرآ ُن يَ ْو َم ا ْلقيَا َمة َك‬
‫ار َك‬ ُ ْ ‫َوأَظْ َمأ‬
َ ‫ت نَ َه‬

“Al-Quran appears on the Day of Judgement in the

form of a man whose body is yellowish (a pale man),
then he said: I am the one who awakens you at night
and makes you thirsty during your days.” (Sunan Ibn
Majah)

Shaykh Uthman has said that the hadith brought up

by Anthony Rogers is dhaif (weak). Anthony
mentioned that the hadith was narrated by al-
Tirmidhi, however this is a minor mistake on his part,
as it was actually narrated in Sunan Ibn Majah,
Musnad Ahmad and at-Tabarani. Shaykh Uthman has
mentioned in the discussion that the hadith is weak,
and he subsequently made a video saying that the
hadith is found in a book called Dha'if Ibn Majah by
al-Albani (not a book by Ibn Majah himself, but by the
modern hadith scholar al-Albani)

Few points needed to be raised here. Shaykh Uthman

should know that the hadith in Ibn Majah in question
is not conclusively rated as Dha'if  or weak. It is true
that some some scholars say it is weak due to their
own criterias, but there are other scholars who says
the hadith is hassan or good and considered
authentic. So for Shaykh Uthman to say that it is
deRnitely dha'if, this is a lie and his number one
lie. 

The hadith in question is discussed by the Malaysian

Mufti's ofRce and the website states:

"The sanad of this hadith meets in Waki’ bin al-Jarrah

from Basyir bin Muhajir from Abdullah bin
Buraidah from his father Buraidah bin Husaib. All of
these narrators are thiqah (trustworthy) except
through the narration of al-Tabarani in al-Mu’jam al-
Awsat which contains a narrator named Yahya bin
Abdul Aziz al-Hammani. He is a weak (dhoif) narrator.
(Majma’ Al-Zawaid Wa Manba’ Al-Fawaid, 7/73).

Sheikh Shu’aib al-Arnaut evaluates this hadith

as hassan. (Refer Musnad Ahmad, tahkik Al-
Risalah, 38/76). In short, the hadith is a
hassan hadith."

(Source)

So the hadith is rated as hassan, based on the fact

that it's narrators are tsiqah. So Shaykh Uthman
choosing certain views from certain scholars that say
this hadith is weak, glosses over the fact that there
are other scholars who say it is an authentic hadith. 

And why did certain scholars say it is weak? One of

the reason is because the narrator Basyir bin Muhajir
(al-Ghanawi al-KuR) is not agreed upon on his
trustworthiness. Imam Ahmad said that he is munkar
(rejected) in hadith, and Abu Hatim said that he is not
to be relied upon, while an-Nasa'i and Ibn Adi
considered him a weak narrator. 

However, the following scholars consider him tsiqah

or trustworthy:

Yahya ibn Ma'in: tsiqah

Al-Ajli:tsiqah
az-Zahabi: tsiqah

(Source: 1, 2, 3)

This disagreement should be mentioned by Shaykh

Uthman to give a fuller picture, as well as the fact
that the modern Syrian hadith scholar Sheikh al-
Arnout has also agreed that the hadith is hassan not
weak, meaning to say that to say the hadith is
authentic, is not totally incorrect. 

Shaykh Uthman is too focused on attacking the

messengers (Anthony Rogers and David Wood) that
he hides the fact that some Islamic scholars actually
agree with the hadith's authenticity. If he deliberately
does this, then he is a liar. 

The hadith in question

Although Shaykh Uthman says that the hadith is

weak, he brings up other hadiths which does say that
the Qur'an will intercede in the day of judgement to
intercede on behalf of the Muslim, and he says that
this doesn't actually mean that the Qur'an itself will
appear to intercede, but the good deeds of reading
the Qur'an will appear. This is the same with other
hadith which mentioned that the "Fasting" or the
"Charity works" of the Muslim will appear on the Day
of Judgement to intercede on the Muslim's behalf in
front of Allah. 

This explanation is actually the explanation given by

other traditionalist Muslim such as Imam Ahmad and
others.

The problem I see with this explanation is twofold.

Firstly, the hadith itself doesn't say the the good
deeds of reading the Qur'an will appear, the hadith
said the QUR'AN itself will appear. If it is the good
deed of the Muslim of reading the Qur'an that will
appear in some form, then why didn't the hadith say
so? 

Instead, the hadith says:

ِ ‫الش‬
1 ‫الر ُج ِل‬ ِ ِ
ِ ‫اح‬
‫ب‬ 1 ‫ي َ ج ِي ء ُ ا ل ْ ق ُ ْر آ نُ يَ ْو َم ا ْلقيَا َمة َك‬

"The Qur'an will come on the day of Judgement as a

pale man" (Sunan Ibn Majah, the hadith in question)

‫ح ا ب ِ ه ِ ا ْق َر ُءوا‬َ ‫ص‬ ْ َ S ‫ش ف ِ ي ًع ا‬ َ ِ ‫ ه ُ ي َ أ ْتِ ي ي َ ْو َم ا ل ْ ق ِ ي َ ا م َ ة‬1 ‫ا ْق َر ُءوا ا ل ْ ق ُ ْر آ نَ ف َ إ ِ ن‬

‫ان‬ِ َ ‫ ُه َما َغ َما َمت‬1‫ان يَ ْو َم ا ْل ِقيَا َم ِة َكأَن‬
ِ َ‫ ُه َما تَأ ْ ِتي‬1‫آل ِع ْم َرا َن فَ ِإن‬ ِ َ‫ورة‬ َ ‫س‬ ُ ‫ ْه َرا َويْ ِن ا ْلبَ َق َرةَ َو‬1‫الز‬
‫ص َحا ِب ِه َما‬ ْ َ ‫ان َع ْن أ‬ِ ‫اج‬1 ‫اف تُ َح‬ 1 ‫ص َو‬ َ ‫ان ِم ْن طَ ْي ٍر‬ ِ ‫ ُه َما ِف ْر َق‬1‫ان أ َ ْو َكأَن‬ ِ َ ‫ ُه َما َغ َيا َيت‬1‫أ َ ْو َكأَن‬
‫ط َل ُة‬
َ َ‫طي ُع َها ا ْلب‬ ِ َ ‫ست‬ْ ‫َ َت‬g‫س َرةٌ َو‬ْ ‫خ َذ َها بَ َر َك ٌة َو َت ْر َك َها َح‬ ْ َ ‫ن أ‬1 ‫ورةَ ا ْلبَ َق َر ِة َف ِإ‬ ُ ‫ا ْق َر ُءوا‬
َ ‫س‬

"Recite the Qur'an, for on the Day of Resurrection it

will come as an intercessor for those who
recite It
It. Recite the two bright ones, al-Baqara and
Surah Al 'Imran, for on the Day of Resurrection they
will come as two clouds or two shades, or two focks
of birds in ranks, pleading for those who recite them "
(Hadith Sahih Muslim)

Both the hadith above say that the Qur'an itself will
come, and if Muslim scholars want to interpret it by
saying that it is actually the "DEEDS" of reading the
Qur'an that will appear in some form and not the
Qur'an itself, how do they explain the second hadith
above which commands Muslims to recite the Qur'an
for IT will intercede for those who recite IT. 

How does it make sense to say the "deeds of reading

the Qur'an" will come to intercede for those Muslims
who recited the "the deeds of reading the Qur'an".
This doesn't make any sense. It would only make
sense to say the "Qur'an" will appear to intercede for
Muslims who recited it (Qur'an), and this is obvious.

As for the hadith which say that "fasting" will

intercede for Muslims, then this could mean fasting
will appear in some form of tangible being, whatever
that means. Of course, in Allah's eyes, nothing is
impossible. 

The whole point of this

The whole point of this hadith is to show that the

Qur'an is actually a separate entity than Allah. If the
Qur'an is Allah's kalam (speech), then it means that
the Qur'an is one of Allah's attributes. But if the
Qur'an appears a man, or as a cloud, or as a fock of
birds, and even speaks to Allah to intercede on behalf
of Muslims, then this means that the "Speech of Allah"
is speaking to Allah. 

This is not much different from the Christian

doctrine which says that the Word of God manifests
itself in the being of Jesus, so you have the Father,
and the Jesus the Son of God (Word of God manifest
as a separate person in the form of Jesus). The Father
and Son can interact and talk to each other. 

The hadith of the Qur'an manifesting and talking to

Allah is the same as the Christian concept. Because
the Qur'an is also part of Allah's attributes, that
means the Qur'an is also God, and Allah is also God
and they can interact and to each other. 

COMMENTS

Abdullah Petra 9 May 2021 at 19:07

Hahaha.. Kena provoke sikit pergi oversea

kat Singapore dah claim makan babi bagai,
terus keluar artikel bahasa inggeris..
hahaha.. nampak sangat kau ni kaki
kelentong suka buat cerita nak sesatkan
orang Islam.. tak padan kau ni mengaku
keturunan beruk.. penat emak kau teran
masa lahirkan kau.. last-last kau mengaku
kau ni keturunan beruk.. hahaha..

Abu Yusuf al-Malizi

10 May 2021 at 08:13

Awak ni ada masalah jiwa ke

Unknown 1 July 2021 at 08:40

Die xfaham English....sbb Tu laa

jadi camtu...bile membesar percaya
pada cult camtu laa jadinya

Abu Yusuf al-Malizi

19 July 2021 at 20:18

Oo, kesian kan dia..?

REPLY

Nazmi 19 August 2021 at 19:04

Apa masalah dia kalau Alquran datang

sebagai manusia pun.??.apa isu dia..
Alquran kan Kitab.Kira macam makhluk.
Xkan la kalau Kita tulis ayat Alquran,Dan
ayat itu allah..dah pula Kita pula yg cipta
Allah.
Benda kecik pun jadi isu

Abu Yusuf al-Malizi

21 August 2021 at 22:57

Of course la jadi isu. Kalau ayat

Allah jadi manusia, maksudnya
sekarang kau ada Allah, lepas tu
kau ada ayat Allah dalam bentuk
manusia. Ayat Allah tu pun
sebahagian drpd Allah juga, sebab
ayat Allah tu sifat Allah.

Maksudnya kau ada Allah, kau ada

sifat Allah yang terpisah dari Allah
yang jadi manusia. Kau tau siapa yg
percaya macam ni? Kristian.
Kristian kata Jesus tu ayat Allah
yang menjelma jadi manusia, sebab
tu Jesus tu pun tuhan juga.

Ni bukan isu kecik, sbab ni

maksudnya kau ada dua tuhan.

Abu Yusuf al-Malizi

21 August 2021 at 22:58

Al-Qur'an tu tak sama dngan

mushaf quran. Kalau mushaf tu
buku lah, itu lain. Hadith tu kata
Qur'an tu yg jadi manusia, bukan
mushaf jadi manusia.

Abu Yusuf al-Malizi

21 August 2021 at 22:59

Aku tengok setiap kali kau reply,

mesti kau reply tak menjawab
soalan aku. Kenapa? Kenapa kau
reply cuma nak sekadar reply?
Kenapa tak guna akal?

REPLY

Logia1978 21 November 2021 at 11:00

that hadith is not Sahih...

And it is very different from Christian

doctrine as in islam Allah can not be devided
and does not incarnate in other than Allah...

Abu Yusuf al-Malizi

22 November 2021 at 21:02

As i have mentioned clearly above,

scholars are divided, some say it is
not sahih, but there are many
others that do say it IS sahih. So
who are you to say it is not sahih?

Abu Yusuf al-Malizi

22 November 2021 at 21:03

Sheikh Al arnout himself said this

hadith is sahih.

REPLY

Anonymous 12 June 2022 at 03:59

That is really good one

REPLY

Enter comment

POPULAR POSTS

June 10, 2017

AMALAN LIMA K AGAMA SIKH

4 comments

December 21, 2013

BENTUK BUMI MENURUT AL-

QUR'AN ADALAH SEPERTI APA?
48 comments

Powered by Blogger

Theme images by konradlew