“WILL God be sighted in the Hereafter?” This question is causing much controversy among the Muslims. There are those who believe that He will be seen and they claim that those who deny this are defectors from Islam and will not enter the Paradise. They base their belief on the interpretation of the word “NADHARA” which they say, in that particular verse, it means “TO LOOK”. They also say, correctly, that in the Hereafter people will not have the physical bodies which we know in this world, but will be in a different shape, more or less spiritual.
Those who deny sighting of God also base their argument on the same word ‘NADHARA’ which they interpret to mean “WAITING” and not “LOOKING”. They agree that people or rather souls—will not have the physical bodies and that all the limbs which are mentioned in the Quran, and pertaining to life in the Hereafter are merely allegorical. They do not believe, however, that the examples mentioned in the Quran regarding the characteristics (qualities) of God are true only to this material world.
However, discussing a subject like this is to dwell on the topic the knowledge of which (or the truth about which) does not beneﬁt anyone, and similarly the ignorance of which does not harm anyone. In other words, if we are convinced that God will be seen in the Hereafter it does not avail us of any useful knowledge, and equally, if we remain ignorant or hesitant about its truth it does not rob us of any beneﬁt. It is a controversy about the knowledge which does not beneﬁt and ignorance which does not harm.
Denouncing the Sighting of God
The Ibadhis are among those who deny that God will be seen. Those who afﬁrm sighting of God accuse them that they use their intellect rather than the Sharia in their inferences. They are further accused that they have been influences by the defectors—Khawarij—who deny sighting of God. It has been argued that the Ibadhis base their argument on the Verse 103 of Sura 6 which says: “No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision”, and they ignore other verses or they have interpreted those other verses in a manner which serves their sect. Also, they have collected the Prophetic traditions and the sayings of the Companions to support their point of view. The argument of their opposers is based on the fact that they—The Ibadhis—depend on the Prophetic traditions collected by Al-Rabii bin Habeeb in his book “AL-JAMII AL-SAHIS” which is unknown to them.
The Ibadhis on their part do not blame the other sects for not recognising the Traditions collected by AL-RABII BIN HABEEB because, although it is the first book of Prophetic sayings, it was not known to them for quite a number of years. They, however, know that, if there is any lie in such traditions, they would not hesitate to expose it, because the Ibadhis strongly oppose telling lies about the Prophet, who himself has said that if any one tells lies about him should prepare for his abode in the Hell of Fire.
Al-Salmy—an Omani distinguished Ibadhi scholar—has considered the book of Al-Rabii bin Habeeb as the most correct among the books written on the traditions.
With regard to applying the intellect in an effort to understand the hidden meanings of the Quran and the Hadith, the Ibadhis do so merely for supporting their opinion and not as the fundamental method in determining their position in denying the sighting of God. But, among the Ibadhis, there are those who refuse to depend on the use of intellect and consider it a weak method. With regard to the sighting of God, they say that the intellect is a weak tool to depend upon and nothing but the traditional evidence can be used. Evidences given for and against the sighting of God based on the intellectual reasoning are weak and cannot be supported particularly if they are not based on the Quranic verses.
The Ibadhis strongly deny that they have been inﬂuenced by the AL-MUUTAZILA although there are certain things which are common between them.
In denying the sighting of God in the Hereafter, the Ibadhis use the Quranic verses, among which are:
1. “No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision” (VI: 103).
Learned people have discussed this verse from different angles, most important of which being:—
(a) That the verse does not indicate knowledge but it indicates sighting. The Arabic word ‘DARAKA’ has many meanings such as: to grasp, to comprehend, to perceive, to realize, to understand etc. . . . Also: to reach, to attain, to catch etc. . . .
In explaining this word, Sheikh Ahmed bin Hamed Al-Khalily—the Grand Muffi of Oman says in his translation of the Quran “MASHARIQ ANWAR AL-UQUUL” that the Arabs say: ADRAKTU HAYAT FULAN to mean ‘I reached the life of so and so (i.e. I was born when he was still alive). Also: Al-MATAR AL-MUTAWALY MUTADARIKA—to mean the continuous rain keeps up (i.e. each drop meets another), ‘ADRAKAHU AL-SAHAM—to mean the Spear reached him. He quotes the Quran: “HATTA IDHA ADARAKU FIYHA” to mean until they follow each other, all into the Fire” (VII: 38) (i.e. meeting of the groups in the Fire).
Al-Salmy prefers to retain the word ‘IDRAK’ in its real sense because limiting this word to mere ‘acquaintance’ is a permission which requires evidence, He insists that evidences indicate denial of absolute comprehension.
(b) The verse indicates general negation: Thus, the deﬁnite letters AL in “AL-ABSAAR” indicate general and comprehensiveness, and the meaning of the Verse:
“No vision grasp Him”, means all the eyes in general whether those of the believers or of the inﬁdels.
Among the inferences derived is the indication of the verse on the Characteristics, in that the previous verse of this version is the praise in the context of mentioning the Characteristic which God Has singled out for Himself. In the same way as sleep and slumber are denied for Him, so also sighting Him is denied. For this reason, those who see that the verse indicates general negation reply to those who believe in sighting God that this sign contradicts with the verse: “No slumber can seize Him, nor sleep” (II: 255). Hence, if “No vision can grasp Him”, it should also be “No slumber can seize Him nor sleep” in this world alone and not in the Hereafter,—which is impossible. Hence, if denial of slumber and sleep is conﬁrmed both in this world and in the Hereafter, then denial of sighting Him is equally true in this world an in the Hereafter.
2. The version: “When Moses came to the place appointed by us, he said! “O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon Thee”. God said: “By no means canst thou see Me (direct); but look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me”. When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust, and Moses fell down in a Swoon. When he recovered his sense, he said: “Glory be to Thee! To Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the ﬁrst to believe” (VII: 143).
The Ibadhis have concentrated upon the word “LAN” in this verse which sometimes means assurance and sometimes it means support, depending upon the sentence and its aim. They are convinced that in this particular verse the word LAN means support, and the evidence thereof is God’s declaration that He is above the reach of the senses because He is not a concrete object dwelling in a steady place where the sense of vision or any other sense—however strong— can grasp Him.
There is a similar verse where ‘LAN’ means support i.e. “Cannot Create (even) a ﬂy, if they all met together for the purpose” (XXII: 73). There is an argument that if sighting God is impossible, then Moses would not have asked his Lord to allow him to look upon Him. The Ibadhi’s opinion is that the verse “O my Lord! Show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon Thee” came as an excuse to his people and demanded that God should show them a sign among His signs in order that they should be convinced that they cannot see Him. (See Musnad Al-Rabii bin Habib-Hadith No. 869).
Al-Salmy further comments that when Bani Israil demanded from Moses that he should show them God openly, he decided to give evidence that God cannot be seen. He thus took seventy of his people who all heard the voice: “By no means canst thou see Me”. (See Al- Salmy: Mashriq Anwar Al-Uquul l89).
Had sighting God been possible, those who demanded it would not have been subjected to immediate punishment, nor be grouped among people of grave offences, arrogance and tyranny.
“God says: “Such as fear not the meeting with Us (for judgement) say: “Why are not the angles sent down to us, or (why) do we not see our Lord?”. Indeed, they have an arrogant conceit of themselves, and mighty is the insolence of their impiety” (XXV: 21). Again: “And remember ye said: “O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see God manifestly”, but ye were dazed with thunder and lighting even as ye looked on”. (II: 55).
Also: “The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: indeed, they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: “Show us God in public”, but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning.
So, combining these three stern verses for those who demand to see God with the previous verses indicates that Moses did not ask to see God except by way of proving to his people that it is impossible to see Him. Therefore, there cannot be any evidence in these verses indicating the sight of God.
As for the verses which those who believe in sighting God depend upon, the Ibadhis have not ignored them as it has been alleged by some authors. The Ibadhis have discussed those verses one after another without subjecting them to the requirements of their sect, but according to the contexts and their literal meanings.
Let us analyze these verses to see the extent of the Ibadhi point of view:
(1) “Some faces, that Day, will beam (in brightness and beauty); waiting for the reward from their Lord”. (LXXV: 22-23). (Here those who believe in sighting God interpret verse 23 to mean: “looking towards their Lord”). The Ibadhis have discussed this verse since the second century A.H., and Al-Rabii bin Habeeb has related many narrations from the Companions and their successors regarding the interpretation of this verse. They analyzed it linguistically and literally to conﬁrm their interpretation. They have explained that the word “NADHAR” means ‘waiting’ and have proved that from the Quranic evidence as well as the ordinary Arabic usages. Examples in favour of their argument are: “They will not (have to) wait for aught but a single Blast” (XXXVI: 49), And “These (today) only wait for a single mighty blast” (XXXVIII: 15), And “Do they only wait for the Hour—that it should come on them all of a sudden” (XLIII: 66).
Some argue that if the word “NADHARA” is followed by the preposition ‘ILA’ it means ‘to look at’, but the Ibadhis do not agree with that and give the Quranic evidence from the verse “FANADHIRATUN ILA MAYSARATI” (“Grant (him) time till it is easy” (11: 280).
Sheikh Muhamed Abdo says that the word “NADHARA” has been used many times in the Quran to mean “Waiting for recompense”. (See Muhamed Abdo: TAFSIR AL-MANARA 9/134). The Ibadhis also argue that if ‘NADHARA’ is taken to mean ‘Looking’ in the verse 23 of LXXV, there will be no uniformity with the second part of the version, in that as the ﬁrst part deals with the recompense, the second part deals with the punishment, and there is no uniformity between ‘looking’ and punishment. Had the meaning been ‘to look’ then the second part would have meant ‘to prevent from looking’.
(2) God’s word: “Verily, from (the light of) their Lord, that Day, will they be veiled (LXXXIII: 15), A1-Ashaaira (followers of Abu Moosa Al-Ashary) have interpreted this verse to mean that the inﬁdels will be prevented from seeing God and the believers will be honoured to see Him. This is not accepted by the Ibadhis on the grounds that it is not permitted to make inferences by contrast in the doctrines.
(3) God’s word “Who bear in mind the certainty that they are to meet their Lord” (II: 46) when the Ashaira interpreted ‘meeting’ to mean ‘Seeing’, the Ibadhis objected because taking ‘meeting’ for ‘seeing’ requires an evidence—which is not given—. Also ‘meeting’ has only been mentioned for intimidation, which contradicts with those who believe in sighting God. Meeting the Lord (for Judgement) is true to both the believers and the inﬁdels as God Himself Has asserted in another verse: Thus “O Thou man! Verily thou art ever toiling on towards they Lord—painfully toiling—but thou shalt meet Him (LXXXIV: 6).
(4) God’s word: “On Thrones (of Dignity) will they Command a Sight (of all things)” (XXXIII: 23). The Ibadhis have asserted that there is no indication in this verse of sighting (God) because the object of sighting has not been specified. They have interpreted the verse to mean (a Sight of) what God Has decided in recompense in His Utter Compassion. This is supported by another verse which says: “And when thou lookest, it is there thou wilt see a Bliss and a Realm Magniﬁcent” (LXXVI: 20).
(5) God’s word: “To those who do right is a goodly (reward)—yea, mere (than is measure” (X: 26).
Al-Ashaira have interpreted ‘a goodly (reward)’ to mean Paradise and ‘More’ to mean sighting God. The Ibadhis object this interpretation as it is void of its manifest meaning. ‘More’ cannot be except for the same kind of a thing. When we say one Thousand Riyals and more, we do not mean One Thousand Riyals and more—to mean something else (a dress for example).
After discussing these verses in detail and giving the Ibadhi reasons for their interpretations in terms of language, composition, style and the Quranic expressions, the reader will be in a position to judge the right from the wrong.
The critics have accused the Ibadhis that they have interpreted certain verses to support their stand but have ignored other verses. We say that the best interpreter of the Quran is the Quran itself and some verses interpret other verses and this is what the Ibadhis have followed in explaining their opinions, but the critics have, nevertheless, found reasons to accuse simply because those explanations have come in the Book of Al Rabii bin Habeeb which is unknown to them.
The Creation of the Quran
Is the Quran Created?
THIS is another question which has caused much controversy among the Muslim. The issue began in Kufa and the ﬁrst person who was confronted with it among the Ibadhis was Abdulla bin Yazid Al-Fizary who lived in Kufa. His indulgence in the issue did not cause any effective reaction among the Ibadhis, but when the Ibadhis in the West got the news they saw that they had to give their opinion about it. However, they delayed to give their opinion until the time of Imam Muhamed bin Aﬂah bin Abdul Wahab—the ﬁfth Imam of the Rostanic state in Algeria-popularly known as Abu Al-Yakdhan Al-Rostamy. The Ibadhis gave their opinion just as followers of other sects gave their opinions.
As for the Ibadhis is the East, particularly Oman, the issue reached them from Basra where a jew called Abu Shakir Al-Dissany—who ostensibly professed Islam with an intent of sowing seeds of discord among the Muslims-declared that the Quran is eternal (ancient) and was not created. Some Muslims accepted Al-Dissany’s statement and some denounced it. The issue came when the Imam of the Ibadhis, Jabir bin Zayd was no more.
When the issue reached Oman, the learned scholars held many meetings to discuss it and reached a consensus that since God has created everything, then whatever is not God is a created thing; hence, the Quran, being God’s word, His inspiration, His Book and Having been sent down by Him to Muhammad (S.A.W.), is God’s creation. This consensus was reached after Muhamed bin Mahboub (who was then among the prominent Ibadhis in the East) withdrew his opinion regarding the Creation of the Quran.
The Ibadhis, therefore, did not discuss this issue until when it was provoked in Kufa and Basra. It was natural for them, as it was for others, to give their opinion on the issue.
The critics have accused them of slipping without giving reasons. If the accusation is based on their interpretation of the Sharia versions with regard to this issue, the Ibadhis have, on many occasions, explained that their interpretation has not been on whims and without principles, but has been based on proofs of language and collection of versions and comparisons of one with another strictly on the foundation that the Quran translates itself.
The verses on revelation, elaboration, creation and occurrence have come down clearly and all of them are qualities indicating that the Quran is created, besides God’s conﬁrmation that He is the Creator of all the things. And the Quran is the thing—not God. There is no need, therefore, to review the logical reasons and the narrations related about this issue after explaining—beforehand—that they are not evidence in ideology.
As for the verses on which the believers of the eternity of the Quran base their argument, the Ibadhis have carefully studied them and have proved that there is no evidence of the eternity of the Quran. Brieﬂy, let us discuss some of these verses:
(1) Say: “If the whole of mankind and Jins were to gather together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support”. (XVII: 88).
While those who believe in the eternity of the Quran see that the inability of man to produce the like of the Quran as a proof of the eternity of the Quran, the Ibadhis see that the verse has come in eloquence and fluency, its meaning indicates that God Has not created words similar to these and that no one is able to utter a word like that.
(2) Is it not His to create and to govern?” (V11: 54). The believers of the eternity of the Quran have translated ‘govern’ to mean the Quran, basing their reason on another verse: “That is the Command of God, which He has sent down to you” (LXV: 5). The believers of the creation of the Quran say that taking ‘Command’ to mean the Quran is refused on the ground of God’s word: “And the command of God is a decree determined” (XXXIII: 38). If ‘Command’ is taken to mean the Quran in this verse, then the Quran will be a thing created, and this is objected by the believers of the eternity of the Quran.
(3) “(God) Most Gracious! It is He Who has taught the Quran. He has created Man”. (LV: l-3). There is no evidence in these verses on the eternity of the Quran or its creation because the point here is counting the favours which God has gifted to mankind. God has created man and taught him the Quran, and there is no contradiction between its being created and its being learned by mankind with God’s favours and blessings.
As for the verses regarding revelation, elaboration, creation and occurrence, the following will illustrate:
(1) Revelation: “It is We Who have sent down The Quran to thee by stages”. (LXXXVI: 23).
(2) Elaboration: “This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than God; on the contrary it is a conﬁrmation of (revelations) that went before it and a fuller explanation of the Book—wherein there is no doubt—from The Lord of the Worlds”. (X: 37).
(3) Creation: “We have made it a Quran in Arabic” (XLIII: 3) and ‘to make’ means to create as evidenced by another verse: “And made his mate of like nature”. (VII: 189).
(4) Occurrence: “But there comes not to them a newly revealed message from (God) Most Gracious, but they turn away therefrom”. (XXVI: 5).
The Message here means The Quran as God conﬁrms: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)”. (XV: 9).
It is therefore evident that the Quran has been created, and God Himself confirms by saying: “That is God, your Lord! There is no god but He, the Creator of all thing”. (VI: 102). The Quran is not excepted as there is no evidence proving that.
With regard to the differences of opinion among the Ibadhis themselves, they have sought reasons to excuse one another. Al-Salmny, who is from the East (Oman) refers to those who believe in the eternity and says that all that they meant to say was to conﬁrm that God is not dumb. Muhamed Atfaish—who is from the West (Algeria) refers to the Omanis with regard to the eternity of the Quran and says that they mean understanding it generally and elaborately, in letter and spirit on what it shall be when He creates it; and there is nothing wrong in this. Abu Is-haaq Atfaish, in his explanation of the Book “Muqaddimat Al-Tawhiid” has given a summary of the closeness of opinions in this issue indicating that those who believe in the creation have viewed the recitation and the memorized in the hearts and the preserved in the volumes and it is described by God in the form of occurrence, revelation, and creation. As for those who believe in eternity, they have viewed it as God’s Knowledge, His quality and His word, and thus the difference is only verbal between the two groups.
Great Sins and Judgement of their
WHAT has injured the Muslims and undermined their lives is the insufficient understanding of many of Re1igious matters; the wrong understanding of which has been widely spread among them for quite a long time. Among these matters is the case of the great sins and its connection with Faith and its consequences on the Day of Judgement.
It is a common practice for people to ignore their Religious Obligations and plunge into sins on the pretext that they have no connection with the Faith, or that whoever pronounces the two testimonies become viable for practicing Religion, actions being considered complementaries which do not matter if not performed. People dwell on this wrong notion because of their wrong understanding of the Quranic verses and the Prophetic sayings.
To cite one example, Ans related that the Prophet (S.A.W.) and Maadh—his attendant in the Journey—said: O Maadh! And his attendant said: Yes Sir, O Prophet of God; and the Prophet said: “No one who testiﬁes that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Apostle but God prevents him from the Fire”. (Maadh) said: “O Prophet of God, should I announce this to people so that they be happy?” The Prophet said: “Then they will trust. And Maadh announced it at his death for fear of committing a sin. Al-Ghazaly comments on this tradition saying that this tradition and others like this are generally related with violation of establishment of Islam and demolishing its pillars and scorning the danger of actions and their effects. And this is a wrong comment.
The Ibadhis interpret this tradition in a way contrary to the understanding of others and consider tradition such as this which deal with those who say “There is no god but Allah” enters the Paradise or is prevented from the Fire, that either they have come during the early stages of Islam when the call was simply to believe in the Uniqueness of God (TAWHEED) or that they are strictly connected with performing actions. Hence, they have concluded that the great sins foil the reward of piety and are subject to Judgement on the Day of Judgement.
The critics consider the Ibadhi opinion as extremism in the Religion which is a result of their historical connection with the Khawarij. They say that the Ibadhis cling to their opinion that perpetrators of the great sins will dwell in the Hell for ever by referring to the verse: “Nay, those who seek gain in Evil, and are girt round by their sins,—they are Companions of the Five: Therein shall they abide (forever) (II: 81). They also depend upon other verses and Traditions.
The Ibadhis are not alone in adopting this opinion. Sheikh Muhamed bin Yusuf Atfaish in his “Taysir Al -Tafsir” says “Nay, those who seek gain in Evil” mean big sins or small sins which one insists upon. Evil includes associating God with other things and what is below it and there is no indication specifying associating God with a partner. “And are girt round by their sins”—means his sins or showing that he has not repented from the evil, will not be pardoned for his small sins because of his persistence. They will surround him from all sides if he does not repent from all of them. “They are the Companions of the Fire: Therein shall they abide (forever”). They will not come out from it—the idolaters and the sinful alike. The meaning of ‘those who seek gain in Evil is that ‘the evil will annihilate him if he does not rid himself by way of repentance.
The dictionary—Muhiyt Al-Muhiyt—describes the word—AL-SAYYIA—i.e. Evil to mean AL-KHATIA—i.e. Sins, which is contrary to —AL-HASANA—i.e. good. In the “Munjin Al-Wasiit” the word ‘Al-SAYIA’ means small sins, and in the Quran, it has come: “If ye (but) eschew the most heinous of the things which ye are forbidden to do, we shall expel out of you all the evil in you”. (IV: 31) “A1-SAYYIA” is a fault and a defect, and in the Quran, it has come as: “And when some evil afflicts them because of what their (own) hands have sent forth, behold, they are in despair! (XXX: 36). Again, the Quran says: “But the plotting of Evil will hem in only the authors thereof” (XXXV: 43). This means plotting idolatry. This agrees with the author of AL-JAMII LIAHKAAM AL-QURAN when he says in his translation of the version “Nay, those who seek gain in Evil” that Evil means idolatry and sin means ‘great sins’.
These translations of the word Evil to mean idolatry, however, are not based on any evidence, and they may be from mere ideological inﬂuence. Many translators and writers have commented on such translations. Atfeish says that Evil represents idolatry and what is beyond it, and there is no proof of its being speciﬁcally limited to idolatry. Muhammed Al-Ghazaly in his “AQIDAT AL-MUSLIM” says that interpreting the word ‘EVIL’ to mean inﬁdelity and idolatry is meaningless, because the context of the verse is in addressing the Jewish Rabbis, and in using the language and cultivating the Law-maker—all these refute this interpretation which is unjustiﬁable.
The author of—AL-MANAR—says that in the verse “Nay, those who seek gains in Evil” the word “EVIL” here is ﬂexible; and our great translator—AL-JALAAL—and some others have speciﬁed it to mean idolatry, but if this were correct, then the connecting version “and are girt round by their sins” would have been meaningless. Hence the word ‘encirclement—or girt round’ should mean persistence in the sins. This is with regard to ‘Evil’ as there is no consensus that it means idolatry. Many
translators and commentators have said that it means idolatry and what is beyond it among the infamy activities which destroy the faith to an extent that a perpetrator quits from Islam to disgusting paganism which places him between gloomy darkness in the world and throws him into the Hell of Five—a miserable residence.
Some critics of Ibadhism have on many occasions interpreted Evil to mean idolatry at one time and perpetuity in the Fire throughout the period of being therein at other times— till those who say “There is no god but Allah” get out of the Fire even if one has been committing sins all his life and has been completely engaged in evils in all his dealings.
The author of ‘AL-MANAR’ says that the Sunnites have given such an interpretation to escape the remark of ‘AL-MUUTAZILAH’ that the perpetrators of great sins will dwell in the ﬁre forever, and to support the opinion of those opposing AL-MUUTAZILAH’—The Quran is above sectarianism, and their interpretation is vicious because they have subjected the verse to suit their opinion.
There are many verses indicating threat to perpetrators of great sins. We mention here one verse: “If a man kills a Believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (forever): and the wrath and the curse of God are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him”. (IV: 93).
Sheikh Farhat Al-Jaabeiry in his book ‘The Ibadhi Heritage’ comments on this verse saying: The context in the judgement of atonement is for one who kills his Brother by mistake. Abu Ammar says with regard to this verse and other similar verses “And all this in the Quran is a Threat (and a promise for punishment) to perpetrators of great sins among the great sinners. He quotes from Yousuf Al-Mus’aby what has come from AL-ZAMAKHSHARY that the verse is a positive evidence of executing the threat (for punishment): And what is strange here is to see people who read this verse and see what it says, and (in spite of that) their empty greed, and desire and adherence to their lusts and what their aspirations reﬂect to them to wish a pardon do not let them despair for a pardon of killing a believer without repentance.
The Ibadhis have given evidence for execution of the threat for punishment to the perpetrators of the great Sins from many verses, among them being:
“Nor commit fornication;—and any that does this (not only) meets punishment”. (XXV: 68) “But those who disobey God and His Apostle and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein” (IV: 14). And we know that whoever abandons prayers, alms, fasting pilgrimage and holy war, and indulges in drinking alcohol, commits fornication and kills the forbidden souls is a violator of God’s limits and is among those who will be punished.
“And any that does this (not only) meets punishment (But) the penalty on the Day of Judgement will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy”. (XXV: 68-69). This proves that the sinner, like the inﬁdel is a companion of the Fire (to dwell therein) unless the sinner repents and the inﬁdel believes (in God).
Since there are a number of the Quranic verses on which the Ibadhis and others who think like them depend, they minimize the use of the Traditions to support their opinion in cases like this, because (such traditions are unilateral) they have not reached the stage of being successively used; but even if they use such traditions, it will be merely for supporting their opinion. To cite an example, let us see these two traditions which will support what we have said above:
(1) The Prophet (S.A.W.) said: “Whoever falls from a mountain and kills himself will fall in the Hell of Fire for ever and ever”. (Related by Muslim, Al-Tirmidhy, Al-Nisaaiy).
(2) The Prophet also said: “Whoever commits suicide by using a piece by iron will have his stomach cut to pieces with it in the Hell of Fire for ever and ever”. It is clear that these traditions are meant for the perpetrators of great sins among the believers, because for the inﬁdels it is well-known that they shall dwell in the Hell of Fire for ever whether or not they commit suicide.
In concluding this brief explanation with regard to the great sins and their judgement in the Hereafter, we should ask the critic; “Where is the intensiﬁcation”? The fact is that questions like this are controversial and everyone has his opinion and his interpretation. We have seen that many of the translators and scholars (who are non-Ibadhis) have adopted the Ibadhi opinion. So, does it mean that the non-Sunnis are naturally considered rigorous? The critics’ reference that the Ibadhis interpret versions in order to support their stern opinion, he has consequently fallen into a similar obscurity. In most cases he refers to Ibadhism as vigorous without giving any evidence to support his accusation, but it is sufficient for him to mention a topic without a clear proof, or to interpret the given proof in order to support the non-Ibadhis opinion according to his own allegation.