DIVINE JUSTICE: Ali Keeler Sings Islams Superiority and Perennial Kufr to Nasr’s Face

Well done Ali! He sings the nature of the jahiliya of the perennial kufr; the folly of this freemasonic religion, that has attempted to set its corruption among Sunni Muslims.

Indeed, Allah confers blessing upon the Prophet, and His angels [ask Him to do so]. O you who have believed, ask [Allah to confer] blessing upon him and ask [Allah to grant him] peace. Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment. (Qur’an 33:56-57)

Qasida at 17:30 minutes in the corus, the implications of the words in this Qasida; state that it is through the Prophet Muhammad alayhisalam there is salvation and no-one else will give salvation to Allah Most High. He is the leader of all the Prophets the only door to Allah Most High. In short this for Perennialism this is a death blow Qasida.

Qasida at 22:20 minutes The Burdah is a total destruction of any argument of any other Prophet philosophy that can supersede Islam and the Prophet of Islam Muhammad alayhisalam Perennialism is strangled and destroyed by the Burdah.

Section Three

I disobeyed the Sunnah (the way of passing life) of (Nabi Akram A) who passed the nights in worship until his feet complained of injury due to being swollen.

And he (A) tied and folded, due to hunger, around his stomach, a stone on his delicate skin.

And (very) high mountains of gold (presented themselves to him to) tempt him towards it (worldly things) and he (A) showed them (the people that) how high these mountains are (but rejected the offer).

And his piety became more powerful inspite of his need. For verily, need never overpowers the infallible (The Holy Prophet A).

And how can the need incline such a noble personality towards this world; for if he (A) had not been (created), the world would have not come into existence.

(The beloved Prophet) Muhammad (A) is the Leader of both worlds and both creations (man and jinn) and of both groups, Arabs and non Arabs.

Our Nabi (A is) the one who commands (to do good and) forbids (evil, undoubtedly) there is non (parallel to him who is) more truthful than him in saying, “No” or “Yes”.

He (A) is the most beloved (of Allah Almighty) whose intercession (شفاعۃ) is hoped for every fear (and distress) that is going to come (on the day of agony and fears).

He (A) called (the people) toward Allah (Almighty), so those who cling to him are clinging to a rope which will never break.

He (A) exceeds (transcends) the prophets (عليهم السلام) physically and in noble character; and (none of other prophets عليهم السلام) can reach (touch) his knowledge and noble nature kindness.

And all of them (the prophets عليهم السلام) obtained from Rasoolullah (A, his bounties like a) handful (of water) from the ocean or a sip from continuous rains.

And they all (prophets عليهم السلام) stopped before him at their (assigned) limits; (either like) a point of knowledge or to gain a piece of wisdom (from the wisdom of Holy Prophet A)

For he (A) is the one who was perfected outwardly and inwardly; and then (Allah Almighty), the Creator of all creations, chose him as (His) the most beloved.

There is no equal to him in his magnificence; the jewel of superiority (dignity) in him is inseparable (and indivisible).

Throw away what the Christians claim (attribute) about their prophet (Isa, Jesus D). Then decide and say what you wish in praise of him (except doing polytheism which the Christians do).

And attribute (claim) to his personality whatever you wish to (claim) in (his) excellence; and attribute the greatness towards his (highly) dignified status as much as you wish (except committing polytheism).

For verily, the excellence of the Allah’s Messenger (A) has no limit. Therefore, a speaker (admirer) might (be able to) express with his mouth.

If his miracles were proportionate (according) to his (A) rank in greatness, then his (A) name, when called out, would have brought decaying bones back to life.

He (A) did not test us with that which makes our minds unable (to pass). Having keen inclination (interest, kindness) for us, neither we had suspicion (about the truthfulness of the mission of the Holy Prophet A) nor were we confounded (confused, by his policies).

His (A) perfect inner (most) nature made the people helpless from comprehending (him, so it was not understood by anyone but Allah Almighty), so there is none in near or far who is not helpless (and imperfect in grasping his inner most nature).

(The example of our Holy Prophet A is) like the sun (which) is seen by eyes (very small) from far. And yet itches (your) eyes (when you) see it from near.

And (how) can his reality be comprehended (by the people) in this world; (certainly this is a) sleeping nation (except Allah’s prophets and friends عليهم السلام) whose description of him is (nothing but like an interpretation of) a dream.

So, the extreme depth of (our) knowledge, concerning to him, is that he (A) is a man (like us). Whereas indeed he (A) is the best of all creations of Allah (Almighty).

And all miracles which the prophets (عليهم السلام) showed, indeed they (all miracles) have been derived from his Noor (light).

For verily, he (A) is the sun of virtue (and blessings, and) they (all other prophets عليهم السلام) are its stars which show the people their lights in the dark.

Until when the sun (of Noor of the Holy Prophet A) rose, its light spread universally and gave the life to the entire nations.

How noble are the physical qualities of (our) Prophet (A) which are adorned with good characteristics. (Our Prophet A) is dressed with beauty; and distinguished by pleasant nature.

(He A is so delicate that looks) like a blooming flower in its freshness and (like) the moon (when it is) full in splendour and (like) the ocean in generosity and (his) fearless courage (is) like the time.

Even when (he A is) alone, (he looks) due to his grandeur (that he is) in the midst of a large army and its associates. (And he A has overcome all of them for his grandeur and no one is able to even move).

As though (he A is like) pearls (which are) well preserved in oysters (and all of this is) from the two mines, of his speech and his smiles.

None of perfumes can be equal to the dust which is touching his sacred body. Glad tidings be to (the) person who smells this (sacred dust) and kisses it. (Undoubtedly, that man is the luckiest and blessed one.

Qasida at : 31:42 minutes…

Qasida at 40:05 minutes…

Qasida at 50:25 minutes…

Qasida at 103:00 minutes…

Qasida at 112:00 minutes…

To Be Continued… The misguidance and nature of Perrenialist kufr sung infront of Nasr. Divine justice for a man misguiding the world.

[There are two chronological sides to Hamza Hanson the first is when he was following true guidance (Good Influences) and another is after 9/11 when he was invited to the White House after taking Bin Bayyah's advice after which he declared Bin Bayyah as his Shaykh. consult biography]

These Words Are Enough


There are two chronological sides to Hamza Hanson the first is when he was following true guidance (Good Influences) and another is after 9/11 when he was invited to the White House and took Bin Bayyah’s advice, after which he declared Bin Bayyah as his Shaykh. “Seven days after the Twin Towers fell, President Bush requested to meet with a Muslim leader. A Muslim aide in the White House knew Shaykh Hamza personally, and he contacted Shaykh Hamza requesting him to meet with President Bush. Shaykh Hamza thought about the request, and after speaking with Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah on the matter, he went to the White House.”(HY biography) before Bin Bayyah gave him this devilish advise in 2001 his gut feeling was “My initial reaction was, ‘Whoever goes into the places where Rulers are, they will have tribulations’ That’s a Hadith, and I proved it right…again” which is also corroborated with what the shariah says 3. It is not lawful for him to keep the company of a deviant (fasiq ) or to sit with him without necessity. 4. He should not seek to please creatures at the price of incurring the anger of the Creator. Allah Almighty says, “It would be more fitting for them to please Allah and His Messenger if they are believers.”(9:62) The Prophet, peace be upon him said, “There is no obedience owed to a creature when it involves disobedience of the Creator.” Akhdari


Look at the mask clearly fall off of Hamza Hanson, he looks for any opportunity for a photo shoot, he has no shame of the dignity of Islam the Muslims or of Muhammad Ali’s funeral. This clearly shows he is only about sensationalism, he talks sensationalism and now we can see the proofs of how he and his cohorts will stoop to the lowest levels to get a photo with David Beckam, one must ask oneself, is this the actions of a scholar? a representative of Islam? No it is not; it is clear. This will not advance Islam this will show its weakness.


In some of Hamza’s initial studies in Mauritania it is mentioned: 1.It is unlawful for him to lie, to slander, carry tales, be arrogant, be proud, show off for the sake of appearance and reputation, to envy, to hate, to see one oneself as better than others, to fault find, to backbite, to mock, or to ridicule. (Full text: al-Akhdari)


Abu Hurairah reported that the messenger of Allah said: “Hasten the good works before the advent of tribulations like pieces of dark night. A man will get up a believer in the morning and end the day as an unbeliever, or end his day a believer and get up an unbeliever next morning, selling his religion for a share of this world.” (Muslim)


Even Muhammad Ali’s corps is not spared and used as a prop, this is not an example of the dignity of Islam that Muhammad Ali represented. This is sacrilege of the highest order Hamza Hanson clearly shows he is not fit as a leader of Muslims.


QUR’AN  2:8-22  

And of the people are some who say, “We believe in Allah and the Last Day,” but they are not believers. They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not. In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie. And when it is said to them, “Do not cause corruption on the earth,” they say, “We are but reformers.”Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not. And when it is said to them, “Believe as the people have believed,” they say, “Should we believe as the foolish have believed?”Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not. And when they meet those who believe, they say, “We believe”; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, “Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers.” [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly. Those are the ones who have purchased error [in exchange] for guidance, so their transaction has brought no profit, nor were they guided. Their example is that of one who kindled a fire, but when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness [so] they could not see……………Or [it is] like a rainstorm from the sky within which is darkness, thunder and lightning. They put their fingers in their ears against the thunderclaps in dread of death. But Allah is encompassing of the disbelievers. The lightning almost snatches away their sight. Every time it lights [the way] for them, they walk therein; but when darkness comes over them, they stand [still]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their sight. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.

As you can see throughout the whole of the compiled videos in this blog the person Hamza Hanson speaks about one rule for others, but when it comes to applying it on himself there is another clear rule. The above is a classical example of this he discusses selfies in the most un-scholarly way taking the fun of people and then also scorns a person who dies doing the same thing he has done all his life. The worst thing in all of this is it is considered funny, in reality it is highly disappointing that this man can speak about and misguide so many people especially with TSQ book all to feed the success of Hamza Hanson’s college. The question that should be asked is do we need a college that has confused people, promoted and attacked the heart of Islam which is The Holy Qur’an?

All in all if one puts this in context with Muhammad Ali’s funeral its clear to see Hamza Hanson is a opportunist, and has become accustomed in doing this all his life, he is a walking and living contradiction, otherwise known in arabic as a ‘munafiq’.

Hamza Hansons ultimate hypocrisy has been his support of TSQ which is inexcusable, a project that has never been done before in the history of Islam, to mistranslate and confuse the reading of the Qur’an; no sunni in the past ever did this and claimed it to be a orthodox book, especially not in support of a kufr Perennialist belief system, that has its roots in freemasonry.

Watch “Why was Shaykh Hamza Yusuf refuted on Dante? | Shaykh Asrar Rashid” on YouTube


If you want to say something about the blog please send a message.

Good and Bad Influences on SHY

Watch “Islam Vs Perennialism | ‘The Study Quran’ Trojan Horse | Shaykh Asrar Rashid” on YouTube


If you want to say something about the blog please send a message.

Good and Bad Influences on SHY

A Conclusive Review of The Study Quran by Gabriel Haddad

A Scholarly Conclusive Review of The Study Quran by G Haddad of Brunai University, Darussalam

This is very convincing proof of the great mischief of Nasr his cohorts and those that have supported this book. TSQ after this analysis sets the stage which would explain why TSQ should be banned by general Muslims to read because of the deliberate attempt to deceive at precise poinient places.

Indeed this four page analysis of the translation sets out the reasons why and how TSQ is a very manipulative and dangerous writing. What it shows is how certain words have been mistranslated with conclusive proof as to why this has been done using historical references in connection with the text. The reasons why Nasr and his cohorts have no qualification in this field of work, it indicates the real status of Perennialism it’s total uniformity with kufr (disbelief) as set out by Islam it clearly shows the unorthodox premise of its cognition.

Giving conclusive evidence from the book on all of its analysis rendering the book useless to read or to use, especially with the amount of exegetes employed, the amount of pages and information provided conclusively proves that it was done in this manner on purpose, to set the presence of confusion so as to deliberately misguide at junctures which seriously compromise the credence of Islam’s theological strength.

Print Version

The Muslim World Book Review

Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al., ed.

The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary

New York: Harper Collins, 2015. Hardback. lix + 1988pp. Maps. ISBN: 978

This book is the magnum opus of Iranian University Professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University Seyyed Hossein Nasr (b. 1933), an expert on Islamic philosophy and the history of science and the heir apparent of the syncretist Frithjof Schuon (1907- 1998) as head of the Maryamiyya Order, a universalist movement based on the so-called Traditionalist School. (“Traditionalism” is a Western adaptation of Hinduism that negates claims of Truth  by any religion through relativizing all of them; I will refer to its ideology in this review by the term Perennialism.) It is a well-crafted, mostly North American project that lumps several works in a single hefty volume printed on extra-thin India paper: an original English rendering of the Qur’ān; a first-ever, rich anthology in English from 41 works of Quranic commentary with an embedded 42nd, original commentary on the part of Nasr, who terms it “not simply a collage of selections but a new work” (p. xliii); and the mismatched last part, 15 essays on the Qur’ān by a mixed group of academics—three of whom are also the book’s general editors— “included… at the suggestion of the publisher… the essays are in a sense a separate book… an independent work” (p. xlv).

The earliest of the tafsīr sources used is Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767), the next to latest Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabāṭabā’ī (d. 1401/1981). Thirty-one of these sources are Sunni (74%), seven twelver-Shiʿi (17%), one (al-Shawkānī) Zaydi, one (al-Zamakhsharī) Muʿtazili, one (ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī) Batini and of course one (Nasr) Perennialist. Abbreviations  pointing to each of those commentaries are used in almost all of the abundant footnotes and the editors explicitly identify the Shiʿi sources whenever using them, making Sunni sourcing the norm. Because of its coverage, the quality of its language, the range of its exegetical material and its attractive presentation, The Study Quran is the nearest thing to a handy and accessible, integral reference-work in English on the subject. This is not saying much. Nasr is, of all the Guénon Perennialists past and present, the nearest thing to a traditional scholar;  but his field is not Tafsīr, not Hadith, not Arabic philology, and not jurisprudence.

Except for the calligraphied basmala that precedes each of the translated suras and a photograph from a palimpsest muṣḥaf on p. 1619 there is of course not one jot of Qur’ān in The Study Quran, which was entirely written by Nasr, his colleagues Caner K. Dagli, Maria Massi Dakake, Joseph E. Lumbard and the essayists. This banal yet unorthodox titular confusion between the original sacred Arabic corpus and the 2007-2016 collaborative product  by the same name is kept throughout the 25- page introduction. The latter discusses “the inner unity of religions,” the Christian doctrines of incarnation and transubstantiation,  jafr  and gematria (numerology), “polemical accounts in some apocryphal sources” of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib’s alternate Qur’ān, and bibliomancy or Quranic fortune-telling (see “Fāl-nāma” in the Encyclopaedia Iranica) which consists in opening a muṣḥaf  at random before choosing a course of action instead of performing the actual istikhāra prayer taught by the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Beyond a perfunctory captation on “the inimitable eloquence of Quranic Arabic, which Muslims consider a miracle that no human being can ever duplicate” (p. xlii) and a brief, unsourced footnote (2:23), The Study Quran shows no knowledge of iʿjāz or the miraculous inimitability of the Quranic idiom from the perspective of Muslim philologists and exegetes, who viewed it as the foremost argument of divine origin and thus the central theme of exegesis. Ibn ʿĀshūr, one of the sources the Study Quran claims to have used, stated in the tenth prolegomenon to his Tafsīr  (1:102): “A Quranic exegete is not reckoned to have passed muster as long as his commentary does not expose the aspects of eloquence in the verses it strives to explain, and the upshot of this inimitability is that the entire mission of the Prophet Muḥammad—upon him blessings and peace—was built on the staggering miracle (muʿjiza) of the Qur’ān, and that its conclusive proof (ḥujja) is inseparable from that miracle until the Day of resurrection.”  Nasr protests that The Study Quran is to be “excluding modernistic or fundamentalist interpretations that have appeared in parts of the Islamic world during the past two centuries” (p. xl) hence the absence of the tafsir  works of Abduh, Maududi, Qutb and Maraghi; but how is one to explain, on the one hand, the absence of contemporary non-modernistic or non-fundamentalist contributions such as by Drāz, Zuḥaylī, Bint al-Shāṭi’ and Shinqīṭī and, on the other, the fact that the Perennialist ideology that pervades

The Study Quran is itself very much a modernistic interpretation that has appeared in parts of the Western world during the  past century? He justifies his choice of editors as “preserv[ing] diversity” because they are of  both genders although all are, in his own words “from among those who had studied with me in one way or another in years past,” for the sake of “preservation of the unity of the work.” He asserts they are “all with direct experience of the Islamic world, familiarity with the traditional Islamic sciences, and mastery of classical Arabic” (pp. xl-xli). Although I do not know by what standards the latter claims are meant or under what recognized scholars of Qur’ān and Hadith any of the editors studied, Nasr included, nevertheless the translation  problems on several key issues are obvious, not to mention the elephant in the room. Technical and doctrinal credentials matter in purporting to teach the ultimate source for the  beliefs of two billion people in the third most widely spoken language on earth.

The Quranic translation of The Study Quran is unexceptional. Nasr adopts the same archaizing English typical of colonial India translators (and, most recently, Martin Lings) who wished to produce an equivalent of the King James Bible idiom, with “God” as the inevitable rendering of the divine Name and the similarly biblicized Englishing of the names of prophets, angels, places etc.  Janna is translated not as the expected “paradise” but as the more literal “Garden” while al nār  is “the Fire” and al  jaḥīm  “Hellfire.” A few Arabicisms are imposed—the untranslated terms ḥajj, ʿumra,  jizya (2:196-197, 9:3, 9:29, 22:27)—along with the diehard, archaic “wont” for Sunna and (in footnotes) the Trollopian “People of the Veranda” for  Ahl al  ṣuffa. The unprecedented translation of kursī  as pedestal (2:255) is felicitous but no such thought shows in rendering dhālika al kitāb as “This is the Book” (2:2), when Rāzī and Bayḍāwī showed that the demonstrative of remoteness dhālika points to Quranic magnificence and unfathomability, and should therefore be rendered as “That.” The translation of lan nu’mina laka as “we will not believe thee” (2:49) reduplicates the mistake of all previous English translations by ignoring the preposition lām (in laka), “for,” which calls, as pointed out by Ṭabarī and others, for the rendering “we will not believe just for your sake/just because you say so.”

The translation of muslimūn mostly as “submitters” (3:52, 3:64, 3:80, 11:14…) is justifiable, the latter construing the original as a nominal form, were it not for the editors’ underlying Perennialist bias which strives to separate the historical acception of islām as “the religion revealed through the Prophet of Islam” from generic “submission to God in general.” Hence the claim that “in the Quran Abraham and Jesus are also called muslim in the sense of ‘submitter’ ” (p. xxix, my emphasis). In reality the religion of Islam is submission sine qua non and all prophets are called  Muslim with a capital from the start—and in the sense of timeless, essential Muḥammadans, followers of the Prophet Muḥammad as explicited in verse 3:81—just as all Muslims are also submitters. In addition, submission is always understood as submission to the latest prophet of the time, not to an earlier one, and so no submission remains today except that manifested in Islam. Al-Ghazālī cited in the book of naskh of his Mustaṣfā “the consensus in the agreement of the entire Community that the sacred law of Muḥammad—upon him blessings and peace—has abrogated the laws of his predecessors” while al- Nawawī in the book of ridda of his Rawḍat al ṭālibīn stipulated, “Someone who does not believe that whoever follows another religion than Islam is an unbeliever, like the Christians, or has doubts about declaring them to be unbelievers, or considers their way to be correct, is himself a kā fir  even if with that he professes Islam and believes in it.”

The Perennialist leitmotiv of the universal validity of all religions is perhaps the chief original message of The Study Quran which readers will not get anywhere else, because it is as alien to the Qur’ān and Sunna as it is alien to Islam and all other religions. This novel theme creeps in and out unsourced; it is part of what the introduction innocuously describes as “providing in some places our own commentary, which is not found… in the earlier sources” (xliv), in comments such as “most Muslims believe that these women [Mary, Fāṭima and Āsiya] lead the soul [ sic] of blessed women to Paradise” (p. 143) and “Some might argue, therefore, that Jesus, by virtue of being identified as God’s Word , somehow participates (uniquely) in the Divine Creative Command” (p. 267). The latter co-Creator comment suffices to describe the effect of the Study Quran on the Perennialist School in the same terms Abū Muḥammad al-Tamīmī described the effect of Abu Yaʿlā al-Farrā’s anthropomorphist book Ibṭāl al ta’wīlāt on the Ḥanbalī School: “He has beshat them with filth even water cannot wash away” (Ibn al-Athīr, al  Kāmil , obituaries for the year 458). The discussion of ḥanīf  (2:135) mixes up Rāzī, Ṭabarī, Orientalist views and “universal truth,” yielding an impossibly confused footnote. On pp. 31-32 the editors twist all the commentaries on verse 2:62 to make them fit into their very special reading of a single phrase in a controverted work of Ghazalī,  Fayṣal al tafriqa, in defense of their ideas. Their reduction of the Quranic condemnation of Christian doctrines as addressing only “a local sect of Christians with beliefs different from mainstream Chalcedonian Christianity” (p. 31), “those who assert the existence of three distinct gods” (p. 267), “certain sects among the Christians… such as the Jacobites and the Nestorians” (p. 316), is a revision of the Qur’ān and a woeful justification of Orthodox and Catholic Trinitarianisms. As pointed out by an earlier review [http://muslimmatters.org/2015/12/14/the-study-quran-a-review/], “in the formative period, Chalcedonian Christology was not being treated any differently than other forms of Christology, and the earliest Muslims regarded it as constituting the very Trinity which the Qur’ān rebukes.” The comments from al-Rāzī to that effect cited on all the above  pages show that the editors are fully aware of the fact.

This is what I called Nasr’s embedded 42nd commentary and here are some more examples of it: “There may be a third possibility often left unexplored by Muslims until recently: that one can remain a Christian while affirming the veracity of the Prophet Muhammad and of what was revealed to him” (p. 187). This was in fact the claim made by the eighth-century founder of the ʿĪsāwiyya Perso-Jewish sect and pseudo- prophet Abū ʿĪsā al-Aṣfahānī (documented by Bāqillānī, Ibn Ḥazm and other heresiographers), namely that Jesus and Muḥammad were indeed prophets, but only for the Arabs. The spotlight is on what Lombard calls “the eternal  formless truth” (p. 1766, my emphasis) but never on the abrogation and supercession of pre-Muḥammadan dispensations, to deny which is atheism and blasphemy, divestiture posing as inclusivism; as a result The Study Quran ends up construing the exact opposite of the message of the Qur’ān: “The Religion of Truth can be more broadly understood to mean all revealed religions” (p. 1367), a methodical rejection of the hadith in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: “By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muḥammad, there is no one among this nation, Jew or Christian, who hears of me and dies without believing in that with which I have been sent, but he will be one of the people of the Fire.” In the above context, the editorial comment “it is the Divine Will that there be multiple religious communities, as expressed in the next line of the verse had God willed, He would have made you one community” (p. 301), although true, is the stuff of heterodoxy (in this case Jabriyya determinism) and reveals a studied confusion between the divine will (irāda) and the divine good pleasure (riḍā). It is like an amoralist saying it is also the Divine Will that evil should exist.

This Perennialist bias thrives even at the expense of Arabic grammar and syntax. The translators correctly have “the Trustworthy Spirit” for al  rūḥ al amīn (26:193) but render rūḥ al qudus (16:102) as “the Holy Spirit”—rather than the accurate “Spirit of holiness”— construing rūḥ as a noun and al qudus as an adjective then adding loaded initial capitals, a  blatant christianism reminiscent of the now trite “God’s baptism” for ṣibghat Allāh in 2:138 which this translation perpetuates. Arab Christian liturgies use qudus as an adjective exclusively, but the latter form is of course al  rūḥ al qudus. Another poor choice is the limp rendering of ittaqū (beware) as “be mindful” (2:48, 2:123…) at times and “reverence” (2:189, 2:194, 49:12…) at others.

There are other serious problems of which again only a sampling can be given. In a long eight – column footnote at the beginning of the rendering of Sura 24 (“Light”) the mainstream reader will notice an accumulation of scholarly fallacies posing as arguments against the criminal penalty of stoning for the adulterer. Among these, (i) avoidance of any mention of the Consensus which has formed over this issue since the first century of Islam; (ii) ignorance of the abrogated status—also by consensus—of the restriction of the adulterers’ freedom to marry (pp. 868-869) and of the “double punishment” hadith (p. 866) for all but Hanbalis; the editors mechanically list aḥadd  hadiths (pp. 865-866) without sourcing, grading or analysis,  but only with a view to suggest ambiguity, conflict and contradiction over this particular issue, much in the same way that the entire book is ungrounded in jurisprudential madhhab knowledge; (iii) pointed mistranslation of the terms al   shaykh wal  shaykha in the abrogated Verse of Stoning, which here never meant “old man” and “old woman” as claimed ad nauseam, but rather “married man” and “married woman” in all the glosses. Sourcelessness is another way of purveying outlandish ideas, such as the unreferenced speculation (p. 436) by “some” that “the real crime of the people of Lot was forcible sodomy rather than consensual homosexual relations.” This is an LGBT perspective that has nothing to do with scholarship of any kind, let alone exegesis. (See on this the excellent article “Gender Identity and Same-Sex Acts in Islamic Law” by MIT Muslim Chaplain and Fawakih Academic Dean Dr. Suheil Laher.) The insertion of elliptical dots between square brackets […] in the midst of verse 41:42 suggests lost parts or missing text in the original Arabic, a gross impropriety.

All the great exegetes agreed on tafsīr  as requiring mastery in the entire spectrum of the Islamic disciplines. The methodology of The Study Quran falls short of that requirement even as it mimicks the activity of tafsīr  and ijtihād  in many places. In terms of presenting Islam to non-Muslims in an advantageous light in the post-9/11 world, it would have been a commendable effort that filled a void. However, the fact that it is, at best, mainstream in many places and absolutely heterodox in many others makes it unrecommendable in absolute terms. Those who are looking for a truly reliable holistic digest of the mercy-oriented, reason-grounded book of law, wisdom, prophets and devotion that is the Qur’ān in light of its native  principles of mass transmission, consensus, abrogation, jurisprudence and the inexhaustible troves of divinely-inspired Arabic polysemy and Prophetic directives, must keep looking.

Gibril Fouad Haddad

Universiti Brunei Darussalam-SOASCIS

Good and Bad Influences on SHY

T.J.Winter has elucidated in short words of the stupidity of Perennial thought. A total contradiction of mind body and spirit.

Singer Baraka Blue interviews Joseph Lumbard on The Study Quran


This is the latest audio that is an interview with the infamous Joseph Lumbard the perennial translator of TSQ with Baraka Blue a small time singer that coaxes the Western Muslim population with English rapping. Much like Sami Yusuf the Shiite singer. Baraka Blue is based in California with Hamza Yusuf and is taught by Usama Canon, and is signed to make money with his songs with the brother of Usama.

If one listens to this aludio first and foremost one can see that the interviewer is not an expert in Islam except that he sings songs for Muslims. Baraka Blue has no previous learning in Arabic or has not studied Islam with any reputable scholar or has not travelled to any Muslim country to study Islam. So it is totally inappropriate for this interview to be taken with any credence because the person has no credentials.

In actual fact his in-experience shows throughout the interview, Mr Blue says that the Qur’an is actually perennial and has no definitive finality in its message. It is a book that talks about all of these revelations and all of the Prophets alayhisalam and acknowledges everyone. This is how he was guided to Islam indeed if this is his version of Islam it is definitely not orthodox Islam it is some type of perennialism although he does appear with organisations like the Spring Lodge, Ustadh Ibrahim Osi-Efa and the Habaib he clearly lacks deep understanding of the fundamentals of Islam.

Further in the audio he explains that only young people have raised objections to TSQ. Where this is absolutely untrue most of the objections have been posed by very well versed scholars, people like Musa Furber, Dr Shade Elmisry with fatawa legal rulings on TSQ have come from great masters and teachers of Islam. Indeed it doesn’t make sense what Mr Blue says at 55mins into the interview. Indeed those that have less knowledge could not pose any objections to such a complicated book as TSQ they would not have argumentation. The objections posed about the content have only be done through a scholarly eyeglass. The objections could and have not been done by people who have no previous learning.

Indeed Mr Blue is uninformed about the whole issue, on another note it proves why this is a dangerous translation for someone to have so little knowledge and to give him a translation and super commentary with many deviant views will give him a license to interpret the Qur’an in almost any incorrect way possible. As Dr Shabir Ally also remarked as one of the first reviewers of the TSQ if this book is used by an unlearned person it will misguide. Even though Dr Ally said this he did not qualify that this book was written for the Sunni majority, so in this case Shaykh Abdal Rahman Ould Murabit al-Hajj’s fatwa on TSQ should be applied very strictly.

During the interview we hear Lumbard talks about the many mistakes that have been highlighted to him since TSQ has been out by many people. They have highlighted many many mistakes of which Lumbard does not reveal, suggesting his true nature of covering up that which will seriously misguide. When Mr Blue takes about the supporters of the book like Llandgraff and others that have said those who oppose this book are bigots, indeed by the standards of this interview it truely proves that those who blindly accept this book are certified bigots that will sell Allah’s Book so cheaply.

If anyone who has made analysis of the many mistakes in this book is reading this we urge you not to contact Lumbard for it to be never mentioned again. We urge you to contact this blog so that the many mistakes can be clearly seen.


Good and Bad Influences on SHY

Statement About The Study Qur’an

Keep this sight as a favourite or follow. More corroborative verdicts from scholars will be published here also a deeper understanding of Perennialism and its implications on the Muslim community, the reason for this blog is to help everyone understand this theological incoherence. Also we would like to apologise for any links that do not open we have been experiencing links all of sudden after being live, don’t work (we would like to inform readers that there is some very suspicious activity being implemented since this subject has been tackled. Let me inform you that accounts have been shut down mysteriously from YouTube, Google and Facebook and now we have experienced links being unlinked, there is no logical reason for this happening), even though no one here is conspiratorial by any means we are merely looking at this subject to understand it and help others understand the many incoherence’s. If any link doesn’t work please send a message and we will try and send you the information in your eMail or work something out.

TSQ Statement Final

Very Important Announcement and Warning

Information has come to our attention regarding the statement above. The people who released the statement that is Sanus PR have tried to maintain an authentic line of transmission of information. So that all the information can be verified, that this is a actual verifiable statement that has been made in full knowledge of what is in the book by Shaykh Abdal Rahman the son of Murabit al-Hajj. Passages were accurately translated from pertinent parts of the book by a well known knowledgeable translator and a scholar known for his God Fearingness, who has been studying Islam for many many years who has academic and traditional learning credentials he understands and has relayed the contextual meaning, nuanced nature of this subject in its truest light.

The parts that where translated where done so in full contextual meaning from the book. The parts translated from this book where the parts of contention which were of deep concern and violated the sanctity of the faith of Islam and its holy book alQur’an alKareem; which was delivered in full context. It was emailed to the Shaykh through one of their children’s eMail account. We are totally committed in making a true chain of information relay, we warn anyone that takes this statement that they must attribute where they got the statement from, so it can be verified. We have seen the statement appear in places without the attribution of source, we do not accept this and they should fear Allah for it can raise doubts about the source. Which is absolutely authentic and real.

Further to the above statement on Shaykh Abdal Rahmans recent visit for the Trodden Path retreat with Ustadh Ibrahim Osi-Efa on the arrival of Shaykh Abdal Rahman he gave a short dars in Liverpool L18 7LA where he reiterated the same statement in a more comprehensive manner. It was corroborated by Ustadh Ibrahim Osi-Efa and both came to a conclusion that this book needs to be condemned as a misguidance the full detailed discussion can be seen on the new page in this blog named Ustadh Ibrahim Osi-Efa condemns The Study Quran as Kufr.


PUBLISHED 13/04/2016 Regarding the dubious tafseer that was recently published in America

To the honourable scholars, al-salam ‘alaykum.

Recently, an English translation and commentary of the Quran entitled ‘the Study Quran’, was published. It was undertaken by a group of western academics. The work includes Shia, Sunni, Sufi tafsir, in addition to several essays as appendices. Unfortunately, in spite of some benefits in the work, the authors have, while commentating on certain verses, presented interpretations that accord with the belief in the universal validity of religions. For instance, during the discussion on the tafsir to the verse: Truly the religion in the sight of God is submission (3:20), it says:

Many Muslims say that this verse shows that the only religion acceptable to God is the one revealed to the Prophet of Islam, but the most universal meaning of it, which been emphasised by many Islamic authorities over the ages, is that Islam in this verse refers to submission to God even if it is not in the context of Islam as the specific religion revealed through the Quran … [p. 135]

The reader is then referred to the essay at the end of the book entitled ‘The Quranic View of Sacred History and of Other Religions’ in which it is argued that previous scriptures and religions are not abrogated by Islam:

The notion that previous scriptures have been abrogated in the sense of being nullified or excessively distorted to such an extent that the message no longer reflects  the particularity of the original teachings, as some Muslims maintain, would seem to be contradicted by verses such as 5:43: And how is it that they come to thee for judgement …  It would be contradictory for the Quran to speak of the efficacy of judging by the Torah and the Gospel if it were to also maintain that these Scriptures have been abrogated or excessively distorted … If the previous religions were abrogated by the revelation of the Quran, it will be implausible to tell the Prophet Muhammad to seek their counsel when it says, Ask the people of the Reminder, if you know not. [p. 1767]

Regarding the verse: Whoever seeks a religion other than submission it shall not be accepted of him… (3:85), it says:

However, the idea that 3:85 abrogates 2:62 is connected to the interpretation expressed by some commentators that this verse denies the “acceptability” of any form of religion other than that brought by the Prophet Muhammad. This opinion is not without its inconsistencies, however, since it does not take into account the more general and universal use of Islam and muslim in the Quran to refer to all true, monotheistic religion… [p. 153]

Moreover, regarding the interpretation of the verse on the Christian trinitarian belief: They certainly disbelieve, those who say, “Truly God is the third of three,”… [5: 73], it says:

However, the verse clearly threatens punishment only for those among them who disbelieved, suggesting that it is not for all Christians. Moreover, an interpretation that considers all Christians to be barred from the garden in the next life would openly contradict both v. 69 and 2:62 where Christians and anyone who believes in God and the Last Day and works righteousness shall have the reward with their Lord. No fear shall, upon them, nor shall they grieve, and is not consistent with the description of Christian virtue in vv. 82-85. [p. 316-17]

The same author says in the above-mentioned essay as he speaks about the concept of trinity criticised in the Quran:

And say not “Three.” Refrain! … (4:171) … They certainly disbelieve, those who say,” Truly God is the third of three…” This, however, is not a direct condemnation of Christian theology, for trinitarian theology does not make God one of three, but rather speaks of the triune God, Who is both one and three in a manner that transcends human understanding. Viewed in this light, 5:73 does not oppose the various forms of orthodox trinitarian doctrine that have prevailed for most of Christian history. Rather, it appears to oppose crude misunderstandings of it that would lead one to believe that there are three gods instead of one. [p. 1779]

Similar notions to the above are frequently found throughout the work.

The author of another essay, also within the work, states the following on the matter of perpetuity of hellfire:

During the early period of Islam, scholars differed about the duration of Hell. The majority of them argued that Hell is perpetual and an actualised state that never ends. But some groups argued otherwise, citing verses that hinted at an end to Hell’s torment and arguing that this was more consistent with God’s saying, ‘My Mercy exceeds My Wrath.’ Thus the scholars fell into three camps. The first believed that although Hell did not end, its punishment and torment did. The proof for this was the verse: Truly Hell lies in ambush, a place unto which the rebellious return, to tarry therein for ages (78:21-23). This was the opinion of Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, and Ibn al-ʿArabī; a similar opinion that the majority of Hell’s denizens are ultimately released also appears to have been held by al-Ghazzālī, as is evident in his Fayṣal al-tafriqah (Decisive Criterion). [p. 1849-50]

The work would probably not have gained much popularity were it not for certain popular Muslim preachers in West who promoted and endorsed the work unconditionally without any caution against its absurd interpretations and false beliefs; one of them went to the extent of describing it as ‘A major victory and a gift from god’, and another said, ‘It is probably the best work in English to date’ and called it ‘A mercy from God.’ This latter individual made the matter worse by allowing the hosting of an event in his Islamic institute in America wherein one of the translators of the work was invited to speak about the book. None of the panel attendees refuted or challenged his claims. Instead, they encouraged the attendees to purchase a copy of the book at the end of the session and get it signed by the translator.  Since the book has gained much popularity and is increasingly bought we fear that it will pollute the minds of readers and therefore seek your guidance and fatwa in regards to the following questions:

1.      What is the status of those who believe in the validity of all religions other than Islam, claiming that it does not abrogate the previous religions: does it take them out of the pale of Islam even if they an interpretation (ta’wil) for such a belief?

2.    What is the ruling on believing that Hellfire or its torment will eventually extinguish? Is there a valid scholarly disagreement over the issue?

3.    What is the ruling on promoting, endorsing, and encouraging people to buy and read such a work, knowing full well its contents, without cautioning readers against the problematic points?

4.    What is the ruling on laymen reading such a work?


Answered by:Dr. Muhammad Tawfiq Ramadan Al-Bouti

In the Name of Allah, the All Merciful, the Most Merciful

        Praise be to Allah, the Unique, the One, the Singular, the Everlasting Sustainer, who has not given birth and was not born, and no one is comparable to Him, and blessings and peace be upon our master Muḥammad and upon his family, all of his companions and those who follow them on the path of truth until the Day of Repayment. To proceed:

I have looked at the explanation (tafsīr)[1] of certain verses from the Book of Allah which offends what the people of truth are upon and contradicts the Qurʾānic texts with interpretations that are inconsistent with what is correct. I believe that whoever stated them is upon misguidance in his theology and whoever has followed him is obliged to return to the path of truth. If not, then one becomes one of those whom Allah, may His affair be manifest, described by saying:

 “Do you, then, believe in one part of the Book and reject the other? What repayment will there be for any of you who do that except disgrace in this world? And on the Day of Standing, they will be returned to the harshest of punishments. Allah is not unaware of what you do.” [Sūrat al-Baqarah 2:85]

Indeed the Book of Allah the Exalted has commanded us to debate kindly with the People of the Book[2] whom we differ with regarding what they believe about our masterʿĪsā (Jesus), peace and blessing be upon him or ʿUzayr (Uzair), peace and blessings be upon him. The Book of Allah calls on the People of the Book to have faith in our master Muḥammad, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and it does not consider those who disbelieve in our master Muḥammad to be from the people of salvation nor does it consider those who believe Allah to be the third of three or that the Messiah is the son of Allah to be from the people of salvation.[3] Our theology is not taken from those are suspect in their theology nor from those who flatter those who contradict the truth, seeking to ingratiate themselves while having certain interests, or something similar, in mind.

Indeed a tafsīr like this aims to ruin the Muslims and to take them away from the true paths of knowing their religion and their theology. Indeed, treating the People of the Book kindly is one thing and presenting relinquishments to them in violation of our theology and our Revealed Law is something else. The obligation to debate with the People of the book in the kindest of ways is one thing and violating what is clear in the Book of Allah, seeking to ingratiate oneself with them, is something else.

Indeed the belief that the People of the Book, with the beliefs that they currently hold, are not disbelievers contradicts what is clear in the Book of Allah, and the circulation of such publications is one of the waves of misguidance that Muslims are exposed to, in addition to their other afflictions.

Likewise, the belief that the people of the Fire are not in there eternally is inconsistent with the Exalted’s statement:

 “As for those who disbelieve in Our Signs, We will roast them in a Fire. Every time their skins are burned off We will replace them with new skins so that they can taste the punishment. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.” [Sūrat an-Nisāʾ 4:56]

and other verses that clearly show that the people of the Fire are therein eternally and that the people of Paradise are therein eternally, and this is aside from what this tafsīr ignores from the clear, authentic Prophetic ḥadīths on this matter. This shows that the authors of this tafsīr have shunned the Exalted’s statement:

“And we have sent down the Reminder to you so that you can make clear to mankind what has been sent down to them so that hopefully they will reflect.” [Sūrat an-Naḥl 16:44]

Al-Bukhārī has related on the authority of Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, may Allah be pleased with him, who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, {Death will come in the form of a black and white ram and then a caller will call out,‘O people of Paradise’, and at that point they will stretch their necks and look. He will say, ‘Do you know what this is?’ They will respond, ‘Yes. This is death.’ and all of them will have seen it. Then he will call out, ‘O people of the Fire’, at which point they will stretch their necks and look. He will say, ‘Do you know what this is?’ They will respond,‘Yes. This is death.’ and all of them will have seen it. It will thus be slaughtered and then he will say, ‘O people of Paradise, eternity and thus no death, and O people of the Fire, eternity and thus no death.’} Then he recited,

 “Warn them of the Day of Bitter Regret when the affair will be resolved. But they take no notice [i.e. the people of this worldly life]. They do not believe.” [Sūrat Maryam 19:39]

Indeed circulating books like this is to take part in misguiding and in serving the plan to disrupt the thinking of the Ummah away from the right path. And Allah knows best.


The servant of knowledge: Muḥammad Tawfīq Ramaḍān

[Translated by Mahdi Lock]

[1] (tn): because it is not actually possible to fully translate the Qurʾān, and thus any so-called translation is in fact only a conveyance of some of the meanings, and therefore it’s an explanation, or tafsīr

[2] (tn): for instance, see Sūrat an-Naḥl 16:125

[3]  (tn): for instance, see Sūrat al-Māʾidah 5:72-73

Habib Umar Ibn Hafidh Statement



Regarding the quote from Habib Umar Ibn Hafidh the chief teacher and scholar in the holy place known as Hadhramaut. This quote is from a Facebook page connected to Ustadh Haroon who is a translator, teacher and a learned person also in the field for many years he lives in Liverpool. He is the official translater and teacher of those that represent Hadramaut, from the Yemen in the UK.

We have no idea of the veracity of this statement other than it came from an official source. Which we deemed good enough to be inserted with the statement given by the most erudite and God Fearing Shaykh Abdal Rahman Ould Murabit al-Hajj confirmed as The Greatest Scholar and Sage of the Sahara Desert.

Another HY video that totally is damning about the implications of TSQ

Sayid Hossain Nasr varified religion is Perennialism, SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN ABOUT HIS ISLAMIC FAITH ?

Within the video below we can see Sayid Hossain Nasr is a definite Perennialist and he does not hide his theological belief in it. Believing that all religions lead to salvation as saying one as claiming to be Muslim. One acknowledges clearly deems the religion of Islam and the message of The Last Messenger as redundant and in essence Sayid Hossain Nasr suggests that the Prophet alayhisalam was a liar.

As a short response to the statement suggested in this video; the Islamic doctrine actually dictates, it is not that Allah wanted Himself to be Known. Indeed Allah wanted the Prophet Muhammad alayhisalam to be Known. That is the reason why we state the shahada statement at the beginning of becoming Muslim and why Allah put the Prophet Muhammad alayhisalam with His Name in all testifications, to verify ones Islam
Ashadu an la illaha illallah wa ashadu ana muhammad urasullallah I bear witness that there is no deity except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

Indeed the truth of the Prophet Muhammad alayhisalam is self evident in itself, The Prophet of Islam testified that he brought Islam to supercede all previous religious dispensations and his coming abrogated all of them with the revelation of The Inimitable Arabic Holy Quran, this is what defines and makes the fundamental initial rubric of being a Muslim it is to accept The finality of The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the righteous Prophet sent to man to deliver the last revelation by God Himself and anyone who insinuates this by saying he is not the abrogator of other religions as The Arabic Qur’an states, and moves to accept Christianity and its trinity, Judaism which earned Gods Wrath and Anger, they take themselves out of the fold of Islam as God who names Himself as Allah in The Arabic Qur’an states.

Indeed those people who have cast a doubt on this absolute truth delivered to the Prophet of Islam from His Lord. Muhammad (peace be upon him) said will not taste anything of what was promised the first three generations of Muslims, and those who followed them.

Islam clearly rejects Perennialism and it can never be accepted as acceptable by Islam. As the journal below describes and also by the short video of T J Winter also known as Abdal Hakeem Murad who explains very clearly in short the incoherence of such a belief.

Good and Bad Influences on SHY

The Last Trump Card Islam and the Supersession of other faiths by T J Winter written in Studies in Interreligious Dialogue






Click to access first_pillar_part_ii_universal_validity_of_religions_in_the_sq.pdf


A Room With A Clear View: Perennialism Exposed (in a few words)

The Best Convert Mind in the West Clearly Elucidates The Problems in Perennialism

The article below was written by Abdal Hakim Murad and it clearly elucidates what lslams verdict is of the Perennialist belief system; further the video succinctly delivers the incoherence of such a belief within Islam. Abdal Hakim Murad explains how incoherent Perennialist theology is and how it has no place in any religion because of its total incoherent logic, especially when it is placed in any belief system that relates to a belief in God, or any understanding that believes in an Omnipotent Deity.

The Last Trump Card Islam and the Supersession of other faiths written by T J Winter also known as Abdal Hakim Murad published in the Journal of Studies in Interreligious Dialogue

T.J.Winter has elucidated in short words of the stupidity of Perennial thought. A total contradiction of mind body and spirit.

What are the implications of accepting Trinity in Islam


Surah Ikhlas (Sincerity)

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.

Surah Kafirun (The Disbelievers)

Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.

The clarity of these verses clearly are enough as answers to this blasphemous ridiculous, and erroneous view on Islam accepting any form of Trinity. Islam came to explain what happened to the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) and reject Christianity and its idea of trinity as absurd in the sight of the true God. AlQuran alKareem was revealed as the absolute truth and the representative view of God The Most High, The Most Merciful and to clarify what position he holds to Muslims and Islam the last religion so Jesus the son of Mary alayhisalam name can be cleared from this ridiculous triune pathetic, illogical theory.