Forgiveness for Slander of Chaste Women

The Twenty-eighth allegation:
Verses in question:
24:4-5. And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

24:23 Those who slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter: for them is a grievous Penalty.

The offence being referred to here is called Al-Qadhf, in Islamic law. It is defined simply as an unproven allegation that another individual has committed adultery or fornication. The response to this alleged contradiction is as follows:

1. The first point to note is that forgiveness is offered for any sin from which a person sincerely repents. As Allah SWT says in the Qur'an:
39:53 Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah. for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
This is a point that has been unanimously agreed upon by the scholars of Islam. Allah is mercfiul and loves to forgive, hence Allah will forgive any sin, major or minor, so long as the believer turns to Allah with sincere repentance. In Islam, sincere repentance entails the following conditions:
a) The sinner refrains from the sin
b) the sinner must feel remorse for having committed the sin
c) The sinner vows never to return to that sin, fearing Allah's punishment
In the case of sins which involve other parties, the scholars have outlined another condition. As Shaykh Abdul Aziz Ibn Baz (d.1999), the late Grand Mufti Saudi Arabia, states:

If your sin involves a right of a human being, then we must add a fourth condition: you must return to them their rights, whether it is wealth or something else; otherwise, you must seek their pardon. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, "Whoever has wronged his brother regarding his honor or something else, let him seek his pardon today..." (Bukhari #2449) (Fatawa Islamiyah, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2002, vol. 7, p.254)

Therefore, forgiveness is granted to one who commits Al-Qadhf, so long as he or she sincerely repents to Allah, which includes obtaining the forgiveness of the one against whom the allegation was made. If these conditions are met, there is no doubt that Allah will forgive such a person.

2. The point of confusion seems to arise from verse 24:23 because it mentions that those who commit Al-Qadhf are cursed (arabic: Al-Lanah) in this life and in the hereafter. However, the meaning of Allah's curse is not that such people will never be forgiven. A similar verse in the Qur'an also uses the same phrase:
33:57 Those who affront Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
Explaining the meaning of the curse, Muhammad Asad writes in his commentary:

In classical Arabic, the term lanah is more or less synonymous with ibad (“removal into distance” or “banishment”); hence. God’s lanah denotes “His rejection of a sinner from all that is good” (Lisan al-Arab) or “exclusion from His grace” (Manar II, 50). (Asad, Message of the Qur'an, The Book Foundation 2003)

Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih Al-Uthaymeen gives a similar explanation in response to a questioner:

[The Questioner] asked whether he was cursed by Allah during the time he committed the acts of disobedience. We say that Allah's curse could have taken place while one is committing the act of disobedience or the warranted punishment could be delayed in accordance with what Allah's will decreed for him and His wisdom. But we do know that if Allah Almighty accepts his repentance, that the curse is non-existent. This is because Allah;s curse means banishment and exclusion from His mercy, and whoever repents in within Allah's mercy. (Fatawa Islamiyah, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2002, vol. 7, pp.237-238)

Therefore, there is no contradiction at all. On one hand, we have a verse that mentions sincere repentance as a means for forgiveness of Al-Qadhf, while on the other hand, we have a verse which states that those who commit Al-Qadhf are excluded from Allah's mercy if they do not repent. As Shaykh Muhammad Iqbal An-Nadvi, former Asst. Professor at the King Saud University in Riyadh, mentions:

The curse of Allah mentioned is a conditional curse, which only applies to those who do not repent. The curse is not on the one who repents with sincere repentance.

In his translation of verse 24:23, Muhammad Asad adds the phrase "without repentance" in parenthesis and provides the following comment:

According to Razi, the absence of repentance is incontrovertibly implied in the condemnation expressed in the sequence, since the Quran makes it clear in many places that God always accepts a sinner’s sincere repentance. (Asad, Message of the Qur'an, The Book Foundation 2003)

Moiz Amjad provides a similar explanation:

Keeping the above explanation in perspective, it should be clear that even though Al-Noor 24: 23 has not mentioned the exception clause, yet it is clear that even there the punishment mentioned is for such slanderers who do not repent on their past doings and do not correct their behavior. The verse, should more accurately be understood as follows:
Those who slander against chaste, innocent, believing women [and then neither repent for their slander nor correct their behavior], shall indeed be cursed in this world as well as the hereafter. For them shall be a grievous punishment. (SOURCE)

Therefore, verse 24:23 is understood to refer to those sinners who commit Al-Qadhf and do not repent from it. It is not mentioned in the verse since it is already mentioned throughout the Qur'an, including the same Surah.

3. Before completing this discussion, it is also important to mention the position of repentance in Islamic law. The scholars have agreed that if someone commits a sin, it is better for them to repent before it is brought into the legal system, so that they may avoid the punishment. As Shaykh Muhammad Iqbal An-Nadvi mentions:

With regards to the sinner who repents, they may be pardoned if their repentance occurs before the case enters the legal procdure. After that, it must be dealt with according to the legal system.

Likewise, Shaykh Muhammad bin Saalih Al-Munajjid, a prominent Islamic scholar and author in Saudi Arabia, writes:

The offenses which the sultan (Muslim ruler) hears of are the ones for which the hudood punishments must be carried out. As for those of which he does not hear, then it is better to repent from them and to conceal oneself with the concealment of Allaah. (SOURCE)

The reason behind this ruling is obvious. When a case is submitted to the legal system, it is no longer private. Once it becomes public, it becomes a societal issue, and the danger of the sin spreading is greater if it is not dealt with. Therefore, anyone judged under the Islamic legal system can no longer be pardoned since their sin has become public. Once they are punished for their sin, the scholars are agreed that the sinner has been expiated for the sin, and thus purified. The punishment in this life will remove their punishment that they would have experienced in the next life.
If the sinner repents during the procedure, or once the punishment is applied to him, then the repentance removes their status of being "wicked transgressors" and they are accepted into society, once again. The majority of scholars agree that such a person may have their record cleaned, and regain their right to act as a witness. However, Imaam Abu Hanifa differed on this issue as Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa, a former Assoc. Professor of Law at the University of Riyadh, notes:

According to the Hanafi school, this repentance does not affect the fact that the criminal's future testimony is to be rejected. (fn. Sarakhshi, Mabsut, vol. XVI, pp. 125-129). The Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, and Zaydi schools hold a contrary view, according to which the testimony of the criminal can be accepted after his repentance. (fn. Shirbini's commentary on Nawawi's Minhaj al-Talibin, vol. IV, p.403 ff.; Mawwaq, commentary on Mukhtasar Khalil, vol. VI, p. 161; Mughni, vol. X, pp. 178-181; Al-Rawad al-Nadir, vol. IV, pp. 85-87.) (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 23)

4. Some Muslims also explain the alleged contradiction by stating that the verses refer to different cases of Al-Qadhf. As Misha'al bin Abdullah writes:

The general guideline is that Allah, who excels in mercy and forgiveness, does forgive all sins with repentance, as a general rule... Even this tremendous sin [of Al-Qadhf] can be forgiven if the person sincerely repents and turns to God in penitence before death. This is the general rule. However, there is an exception to this rule and this is found in the second set of verses a little further down this same chapter.
In the second set of verses we are dealing with a completely different context and situation. This set of verses was revealed regarding a group of hypocrites lead by Abdullah ibn Ubai ibn Salool who tried to frame Aisha the wife of the prophet (pbut) and cast doubt on her integrity and chastity by alleging infidelity with a Muslim by the name of Safwan ibn Al-Muattal...This was a time of severe discord and tribulation and was not resolved until God revealed their innocence in this set of verses. The difference is that in this case the sin shall not be forgiven since it was directed at the prophet's wife in an attempt to destroy both their reputations. (SOURCE)

And Shahid bin Waheed uses a similar explanation:

I would like to state that the verse 24:4 (which the claimant did not mention) is setting a general rule about false accusation against a chaste woman and its punishment, whereas verse 24:23 is about the exceptional rule for believing women, i.e. Muslim women. Verse 24:5 is about repentance and forgiveness. (SOURCE)

And Shaahin Amiri-Sharifi states:

verse 24:5 is about "women" in general, even unbelievers but 24:23 talks about "believing women". (SOURCE)

However, the agreed upon opinion is that which was already explained under points #1, #2, #3. That is the explanation which is in accordance with Islamic law.

How the Disbelievers will recieve their record on Judgement Day

Concerning the twenty-ninth alleged contradiction:
Verses in question:
69:25-31 And he that will be given his Record in his left hand, will say: "Ah! Would that my Record had not been given to me! And that I had never realised how my account (stood)! Ah! Would that (Death) had made an end of me! Of no profit to me has been my wealth! My power has perished from me!"...
(The stern command will say): "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire."

84:10-12 But he who is given his Record behind his back Soon will he cry for perdition, And he will enter a Blazing Fire.

1. It is strange how such verses can be considered contradictory at all! Is it not possible for someone to recieve their record in both their left hand and behind their back at the same time? Indeed, this is what all the scholars of Tafsir have mentioned about these verses. Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) explains in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:

(But whosoever is given his Record behind his back,) meaning, he will be given his Book in his left hand, behind his back, while his hand is bent behind him. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 10, p.417 )

Similarly, Abul 'Ala Maududi (d.1979CE) writes about verse 84:10 in his prominent Tafheem Al-Qur'an:

In Surah Al-Haaqqah (v.25), it was said that his conduct-book will be given to him in his left hand, but here it is "behind his back". This will probably be for the reason that in order to avoid the humiliation of recieving the conduct-book in the left hand, in front of mankind, he will withdraw his hand behind and so recieve the conduct book "behind his back". (Maududi, The Holy Qur'an Translation and Brief Notes with Text, Islamic Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., 1991, p. 1018)

Syed Qutb (d. 1966CE), a revolutionary Muslim writer, gives the same explanation as well in his commentary, Fi Dhilalil Qur'an:

The Qur'an usually makes a distinction between receiving the book with one's right hand or left hand. Here we have a new image: the book is given from behind the back. There is no reason to prevent the combination of anyone being given the book in his left hand and from behind his back at the same time. It is an image of one who feels great shame and hates to be confronted with what he has done. We have no real knowledge of the nature of this book or how it is given in one's right or left hand or behind one's back. But we comprehend from the first expression the reality of escape, and from the second the reality of doom. (SOURCE)

The above commentary should make it obvious that this allegation does not even approach a contradiction.

2. Even for the sake of argument, we assume that it is contradictory to recieve something in one's left hand and behind the back, there are still other explanations. Why must both verses be referring to the same group? it is entirely possible that they are not referring to the same group of "doomed people". Also, one may give a metaphorical explanation as Muhammad Asad states:

But as for him whose record shall be given to him behind his back;*
* At first glance, this seems to contrast with 69:25, where it is stated that the record of the unrighteous "shall be placed in his left hand". In reality, however; the present formulation alludes to the sinner's horror at his record, and his wish that he had never been shown it (69:25-26): in other words, his not wanting to see it is symbolized by its appearance "behind his back". (Asad, Message of the Qur'an, The Book Foundation 2003)

Indeed, this is plausible for human beings do not even know the nature of these records they will be given on the day of judgement. Will they be physical codices or scrolls? Or will they be in a different form, foreign to the human mind? If it is the latter, then we do not know what it means to "recieve" such a record in one's hands because we do not know how one would hold it.

With regards to the thirtieth allegation:
Verses in question:
16:49-50 And to Allâh prostate all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, of the live moving creatures and the angels, and they are not proud [i.e. they worship their Lord (Allâh) with humility]. They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded.

2:34 And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before Adam.". And they prostrated but not Iblîs (Satan), he refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers (disobedient to Allâh)

1. The confusion stems from the misconception that Iblis (satan) was an angel. In fact, he was not an angel but another species known as the Jinn, as clarified in the Qur'an:
18:50 Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam": They bowed down but not Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrong-doers!
There is no doubt about this point, as it is something which has been unanimously affirmed by the Muslim scholars. The Jinn are a seperate creation from the Angels.

Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) distinguishes Iblis from the angels in his tafsir of verse 18:50:

[Iblis] had been created from smokeless fire, whereas the angels had been created from light, as is stated in Sahih Muslim where it is reported that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said that the Messenger of Allah said:
(The angels were created from light, Iblis was created from smokeless fire, and Adam was created from that which has been described to you.) When matters are crucial, every vessel leaks that which it contains and is betrayed by its true nature. Iblis used to do what the angels did and resembled them in their devotion and worship, so he was included when they were addressed, but he disobeyed and went against what he was told to do. So Allah points out here that he was one of the Jinn, i.e., he was created from fire... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 6, p.171 )

Shaykh Abu Ameenah Bilal Phillips expains the islamic belief on Jinns and why they cannot be held to be angels:

[The Jinn] are created from fire according to Allaah's statement in the Qur'aan; "The Jinns were created from the fire of a scorching wind." (Soorah Al-Hijr 15:27). They are not "fallen angels", as angels are made from light according to the following statement of Prophet Muhammad saws narrated by his wife 'Aa'eshah: "The angels were created from light and the Jinn from a fiery wind" (Sahih Muslim [English Trans.], vol. 4, p. 1540, no. 7134) and angels can not disobey God according to Allaah's staement in the Qur'aan, "...angels stern and severe, who do not disobey Allaah in what He orders them, but do whatever they are commanded." (Soorah at-Tahreem 66:6) (Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips (Ed.), Ibn Taymeeyah's Essays On The Jinn, 1996, 3rd Edition, International Islamic Publishing House, pp. 1-2, See footnote 1.)

The same thing is mentioned by Shaykh Abdul Majid Daryabadi (d.1977CE) in his commentary on verse 2:34:

Iblis, literally, being the disappointed one. He was not an angel but a jinn, as expressly mentioned in the Qur'an (Surah Al-Kahf, verse 50). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur'an: Text, Translation & Commentary, The Islamic Foundation 2001, p.13)

Abul 'Ala Maududi (d. 1979CE) makes the same point as well, in his commentary:

Moreover, one should not make the mistake of considering Satan an angel. Elsewhere the Qur'an itself clearly states that he was a jinn and jinn, as we know, are an independent species, distinct from angels. (see Qur'an 18:50) (Maududi, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, THe Islamic Foundation 1995, vol. 1, p.63 ftn. 46)

Shaykh Umar Sulayman Al-Ashqar, Professor at the University of Jordan, explains the background behind Satan/Iblis's presence in paradise:

Satan, which Allah mentions to us many times in the Qur'an, is from the world of the Jinn. He used to worship Allah at the beginning of his creation. He lived among the angels in the heavens. He entered paradise, but then he disobeyed Allah when he refused to prostrate to Adam, out of pride, arrogance and envy. Therefore Allah cast him out from His mercy. (Al-Ashqar, The World of the Jinn and Devils, Al-Basheer Company for Publications and Translations 1998, p.13)

From the above statements it becomes clear that the scholars are agreed that, based on the Qur'an and authentic narrations, Iblis was a Jinn who was living amongst the angels in paradise. He had within him arrogance which became manifest in his refusal to bow down to Adam when Allah gave the command.

2. We now come to the heart of the issue being discussed, which is the reason Iblis is misunderstood to be an Angel when, in reality, he is a Jinn. The source of the confusion is the fact that verse 2:34 states that all the angels bowed down except Iblis which seems to imply that Iblis was an angel. However, this is not the case as the Qur'anic commentators and Islamic scholars have explained. Hasan Al-Banna (d. 1949CE) clarifies some points on this issue:

The context reveals that Iblis was not one of the angels though he was with them. If he had been one of them, he would not have rebelled. Their primary quality is that "they do not rebel against Allah in what He commands them and they do as they are commanded." The word "except" here does not show that he was one of them. The fact that he was with them allows this exception to be used. Iblis was one of the Jinn according to the text of the Qur'an. Allah created the jinn from smokeless fire. This is a clear statement that he was not one of the angels.(Quoted by M. Ashour in The Jinn in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. 1989, pp. 11-12)

Similarly, Syed Qutb (d.1966CE) comments in his prominent commentary, Fi Dhilalil Qur'an:

The general drift of the narration suggests that Iblis was not of angelic species but merely associated with the angels. For, had he been of similar kind, he would not have disobeyed God, since the angels' foremost characteristic is that they "never disobey whatever God commands them and do as they are bidden" (al-Tahrim 66:6). The fact that Iblis had been singled out does not mean that he is, or was, one of their number. The exception is justified on the basis that he was with the angels, as well as by Arabic syntax, which allows the construction "the whole clan arrived but not Ahmad" without implying that Ahmad is a member of the clan.
Furthermore, the Qur'an specifically identifies Iblis as belonging to another type of extra-terrestrial creatures, the jinn, who are created out of fire, eliminating the idea that he was angelic (al-Hijr 15:27, al-Kahf 18:50, al-Rahman 55:15). (Qutb, In The Shade Of The Qur'an, The Islamic Foundation 1999, p.49)

Thus, the scholars mention that although the verse states that the angels bowed down 'except' (Ar., Ilaa) Iblis, this does not necessitate that Iblis was amongst the angels according to the arabic language. The specifc arabic syntax referred to by Syed Qutb is explained by Dr. Zakir Naik, a famous orator on Islam, who states:

The English translation of the first part of the verse ‘We said to the angels bow down to Adam: they bowed down except Iblis’, gives us the impression that Iblis was an angel. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic. In Arabic grammar there is a rule known as Tagleeb, according to which, if the majority is addressed, even the minority is included. If for example, I address a class containing 100 students of whom 99 are boys and one is a girl, and if I say in Arabic that the boys should stand up, it includes the girl as well. I need not mention her seperately.

Similarly in the Qur’an, when Allah addressed the angels, even Iblis was present, but it is not required that he be mentioned separately. Therefore according to that sentence Iblis may be an angel or may not be an angel, but we come to know from Surah Al Kahf chapter 18 verse 50 that Iblis was a Jinn. No where does the Qur’an say Iblis was an angel. Therefore there is no contradiction in the Qur’an. (SOURCE)

This issue is also dealt with by Shaykh Umar Sulayman Al-Ashqar in his book on the Jinns, in which he writes:

[Some writers quote] verses in which Allah makes an exception from the angels of Iblis. And they argue that if he is being excepted from this group, it must have been that he was a member if that group as this is the customary mode of speech.
...Concerning their proof that Allah excepted Iblis from the angels, it is not a definitive proof. Such statements may be disjunctive. (Al-Ashqar, The World of the Jinn and Devils, Al-Basheer Company for Publications and Translations 1998, p.16)

In his translation of Shaykh Al-Ashqar's book, Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo adds the following explanation of the above quote in a footnote:

Al-istithnaa al-munqata is a case where someone states, for example, "Everyone except so and so," while in reality "so and so" was no a member of the original group. Such a form of speech is acceptable and not uncommon in Arabic. However, such would probably be objectionable if stated in english. (Al-Ashqar, The World of the Jinn and Devils, Al-Basheer Company for Publications and Translations 1998, p.16)

For this reason, we can understand that any translation of verse 2:34 (and similar verses) into english should use the phrase "not so Iblis" or "but not Iblis" as oppose to "except Iblis", in order to retain the correct meaning of the verse.

The reason why Iblis was expected to bow down, even though the command was given to the angels, is explained by many scholars. Moiz Amjad writes about why Iblis was expected to prostrate:

In my opinion, the answer to this question is that according to the Qur'an, although it was primarily the angels who were directed to prostrate before Adam, it was, nevertheless, expected of the jinn who were in the court at that time to follow suit. In other words, by directing the angels to bow down before Adam, God had directed a higher cadre of His creation to submit to a command, the lower cadre creations like jinn and any others that may have been present at the time, were expected to do the same. This style of speech is used in almost all human languages. For instance, when someone says: "When the Chief Justice enters the hall all the parliamentarians shall pay their respects by standing up for him", he generally implies that all those present in the hall (personnel of the press, the foreign diplomats, the media personnel and guests of the members) should stand to pay their respects to the Chief Justice. The word 'parliamentarians' in such a sentence is not to signify that the directive is given only to those who are members of the parliament, but is a generalization in which a higher cadre of personnel is given a directive with the implication that others are also expected to follow suit. (SOURCE)

Mufti Muhammad Shafi, the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan, writes a similar explanation in his monumental commentary:

If we go by the words of the Holy Qur'an, the command was given to the angels alone, but, in excepting Iblis from those who obeyed, the text also suggests that the command was given to all the created beings that existed at that time and possessed understanding, including the Jinn as well as the angels. But the Holy Qur'an mentions the angels alone, because when superior beings like the angels were required to show their respect for Adam (peace be upon him), inferior creatures like the Jinns must, it goes without saying, have been ordered to do the same. (Shafi, Ma'ariful Qur'an, Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, Karachi 2003, vol. 1, p. 171)

And Mohammed Fareeduddin Siddique offers some more analogies:

Satan is not an angel; rather he is of the Jinn as stated in Al-Kahf (18):50. Why then did he need to obey the command which was directed to the angels [specially when men and Jinns have the right to choose]? This is because; he was raised with them and required to obey the laws applied to them while in their [Angels] company. This is similar to requiring that a foster son obey the rules of his foster father while living within his house. It is not necessary for the foster father, whenever he commands his sons to do something, to follow up with an explicit "and my foster son too must do this," rather, it is implicitly understood that so long as the foster son lives in this house he shall follow the same rules and commands as apply to the other sons.

If a politician declares that "any American who drinks and drives shall be thrown in jail," then does this mean that any non-American who is visiting the USA then drinks and drives shall be immune to this law? No. The law includes him by default; however, they are the minority so the command is issued to the majority with the implication being that anyone in their company is implicitly included. (SOURCE)

From the above discussion we have established the following points:
a) Iblis was a Jinn, distinct from angels
b) Iblis was expected to bow down as well, when the command was given to the angels
c) The phrase "they (the angels) bowed down, except Iblis" should be properly translated as "they (the angels) bowed down, but not Iblis" because according to the arabic syntax, the phrase does not necessitate that Iblis is an angel, and indeed we know that he is not from other verses in the Qur'an, ahadith, and authentic explanations of the early muslims.

3. Muslims have also raised another important point in response to this allegation. If Iblis truly believed that that the command to bow down was solely directed towards the angels, he should have said so when God asked him "why did you not bow down?". Instead, we find that he made claims that he was superior to Adam because of the nature of his creation. (Cf. Al-Hijr 15: 30 - 33, Al-A`raaf: 7: 11 - 12, Sa'd 39: 73 - 76)

4. Critics intend to confuse readers by quoting narrations of the early Muslims, especially those from the collection known as Tarikh At-Tabari which states that the Jinn were from amongst the angels. There are several errors with this method.

a) First of all, At-Tabari is a collection that contains many narrations that were not authenticated, intended to be recorded for future investigation. It contains many weak and fabricated narrations in addition to some authentic ones. Imaam Ibn Jarir At-Tabari (d. 923CE), himself, mentioned this in his work:

Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us. (bû Jacfar Muhammad bin Jarîr al-Tabarî, Târîkh al-Tabarî: Târîkh al-Umam wal-Mulûk, 1997, Volume I, Dâr al-Kutub al-cIlmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), pp. 13.)

And Dr. M.S.M. Saifullah comments by stating:

Thus, al-Tabarî faithfully displayed the accounts in the exact manner through which he received them. Can he then be held liable or attributed if any objectionable accounts should arise? To translate this into laymen's terms, al-Tabarî has simply refused accountability by avoiding the task of historical as well as hadîth criticism. Therefore, any spurious/objectional accounts are not to be attributed to him. He only faithfully transmitted what he received, whether authentic or spurious. To say that al-Tabarî said such-and-such about "fallen angels" and Iblîs (and claiming it to be authentic!) simply shows one inability to grasp the fundamentals of al-Tabarî's book Tarîkh al-Tabarî: Tarîkh al-Umam wal-Mulûk. (SOURCE)

It is amazing to note that these critics simply cite the narrations and then immediately accept them as valid without any thought to authenticity. As Shahid bin Waheed mentions:

In brief, readers must know that narrations of all sorts, sound and weak have found a place in his commentary, because of this not every narration presented by al-Tabarî can be relied upon. In reality, Al-Tabarî was aiming through his commentary to collect and compile all narrations that could become available to him, so that this collected material could be put to use later on. Conceded is the fact that he has given the chain of reporters along with each narration so that whoever wished to investigate into the chain of narrators could do so and decide for himself if the narrations are true of false. (SOURCE)

We challenge such critics to provide evidence that scholars of hadith have accepted the narrations, which they have quoted from At-Tabari, as authentic. It should be noted that the only collections of narrations that Muslims accept as fully authentic are Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

b) The same critics attempt to defend their use of narrations from At-Tabari by citing evidence which demonstrates that Imaam At-Tabari could distinguish between weak and authentic narrations. Of course, their evidence only demonstrates that Imaam At-Tabari authenticated and examined some specific narrations, not that he authenticated his entire collection! No Muslim scholar would accept such a claim. Moreover, there is a narration mentioned in Ibn Kathir that completely falsifies the view that Imaam At-Tabari believed the Jinn (or Iblis) to be from the Angels. Ibn Kathir cites a narration from a renowned scholar amongst the early Muslims (tabi'een), Imaam Hasan Al-Basri:

Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "Iblis was not one of the angels, not even for a second. He was the origin of the Jinn just as Adam, upon him be peace, was the origin of mankind.'' This was narrated by Ibn Jarir with a Sahih chain. (ftn. At-Tabari 18:506) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 6, p. 171)

Thus, not only do we have an authentic narration from one of the early Muslims stating that Iblis was a Jinn, distinguished from the angels, but we also have Imaam Ibn Jarir At-Tabari affirming this narration in his collection! Therefore, since Imaam At-Tabari narrates one authentic narration stating that Iblis was not an angel, and he also narrates some unauthentic narrations stating that Iblis was an angel, it is obvious which narration takes precedence. The narrations cited by critics have never been labeled as authentic by scholars, whereas the above narration clearly has. It is safe to conclude that this authentic narration properly describes the Islamic belief that Iblis was a Jinn, not an angel.

c) One last point should be made about the usage of narrations from At-Tabari. It is obviously fallacious to use such narrations to prove a contradiction in the Qur'an since the Qur'an supercedes all narrations in any case.

Shaykh Mustafa Ashour, an Egyptian Islamic scholar, also explains the origin of the view that Iblis was an angel:

...the books of Qur'anic commentary and history have transmitted to us statements from a group of scholars who mention that Iblis was one of the angels. These scholars say that he was a guardian of the Garden or the lower heaven and that he was one of the noblest tribe among them, etc.
Ibn Kathir, however, points out that the early scholars related many traditions about this point. Most of them came from Jewish sources which were quoted so that they could be investigated. (Ashour, The Jinn in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. 1989, p. 12)

He then goes on to cite the evidence quotes earlier which demonstrates that Iblis was a Jinn and not an Angel.
The narrations of Judaic influence found in commentaries are classifed as Israeliyyat. Mufti Muhammad Shafi describes the Israeliyyat as follows:

Judaica or Isra'iliyyat are narratives which have reached us through Jews and Christians. It may be noted that the early commentators used to write down all sorts of narrations which reached them from an identified source. Many of these narrations were straight from Judaica. (Shafi, Ma'ariful Qur'an, Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, Karachi 2003, vol. 1, p. 411)

The above explanation should clarify that narrations claiming that Iblis was an angel have no solid origin in Islam, while those that state that he was a Jinn are confirmed through many authentic channels.

Can Angels Disobey? - The case of Harut and Marut

The thirty-first allegation:
Verses in question:

16:49-50 And to Allâh prostate all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, of the live moving creatures and the angels, and they are not proud [i.e. they worship their Lord (Allâh) with humility]. They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded.

2:102 They followed what the devils gave out (falsely) against the power of Solomon: the blasphemers Were, not Solomon, but the devils, teaching men Magic, and such things as came down at babylon to the angels Harut and Marut. But neither of these taught anyone (Such things) without saying: "We are only for trial; so do not blaspheme." They learned from them the means to sow discord between man and wife. But they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah's permission. And they learned what harmed them, not what profited them. And they knew that the buyers of (magic) would have no share in the happiness of the Hereafter. And vile was the price for which they did sell their souls, if they but knew!

1. The allegation is based on a misunderstanding of verse 2:102 and the story given of Harut and Marut. Many false interpretations of the above verse arise from Christian/Jewsish myths and legends that have been recorded in some books of Tafsir. These narrations are known called Iraeliyyat which Mufti Muhammad Shafi describes as follows:

Judaica or Isra'iliyyat are narratives which have reached us through Jews and Christians. It may be noted that the early commentators used to write down all sorts of narrations which reached them from an identified source. Many of these narrations were straight from Judaica.(Shafi, Ma'ariful Qur'an, Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, Karachi 2003, vol. 1, p. 411)

The scholars who wrote these books of tafsir recorded such narrations in order to provide a comprehensive record of narrations on a certain verse, which were intended to be investigated and scrutinised later to determine their authenticity. For more information please refer to our previous response on Can Angels Disobey?. We shall proceed, God willingly, by discussing the false interpretation of the verses based on weak and fabricated reports and then we shall present the true interpretation of the verses based on authoritative sources.

2. There are numerous absurd tales that have been transmitted about these verses, yet they all center around the same basic story. To summarise the (false) story, the angels had become astonished at the acts of disobedience committed by the human beings on earth. They began to curse the humans and could not understand how they could be so sinful. According to the story, God informed the angels that they would have also sinned if they were in the position of human beings. So the angels elected Harut and Marut from amongst themselves and God gave tem human attributes and sent them to earth after commanding them to avoid wine, idolatry, fornication and murder. However, Harut and Marut eventually succumbed to their human lusts and fell into all of these sins. Consequently, God punished them for their transgressions.

Such ridiculous tales have been rejected by all knowledgable scholars of Islam as fabrications which have no place in the religion. Shaykh Abdul Hamid Kishk discusses these narrations and tales in detail in his book on Angels:

All this is part of myths and lies of the tribe of Israel and is not corroborated either by intellect or transmission or Shari'a. Some of the transmitters of this false fiction even go so far as to ascribe its transmission to some of the Companions and Followers but in doing so they enter the arena of sin and shameful crime and at the same time connect this lie to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, by taking it back to him. Glory be to You, my Lord, above and beyond this terrible lie!

Imam Abu'l-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi gave a judgement about this story, and ash-Shihab al-'Iraqi writes that anyone who believes that Harut and Marut were angels who are being punished for their sin has disbelieved in Allah Almighty.
Qadi 'Iyad said in Ash-Shifa', "What is said in the reports and commentaries about the story of Harut and Marut does not relate to anything, either sound or weak, from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) himself, and there is nothing which is taken by analogy." A similar judgement was made by Ibn Kathir in respect of tracing the material in this story back to the Prophet.
As for what does not go back to the Prophet, it is clear that it originates in the transmissions of the Judaica taken from Ka'b and others. It is the heretics of the People of the Book who connected them to Islam. Thus accurate commentators, who are skilful in recognising the sources of the deen (religion), refute them. Their intellects refuse to accept these myths, as do those of others such as Imam ar-Razi, Abu Hayyan, Abu's-Su'ud, al-Alusi, and others.
Furthermore, even from a rational point of view these transmissions are unsound. The angels are protected from all wrong action let alone these things which would not even issue from an evil human being. Allah informs us that the angels "do not disobey Allah in anything He commands them and they do everything they are commanded to," as is related in some transmissions which I indicated previously and in the words of Allah Himself.(Kishk, The World of The Angels, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 1994, pp.39-40)

As Shaykh Kishk has pointed out, these myths are rejected outright by the scholars of Islam and are not even entertained as a possibility. As Imaam Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273CE) mentions in his tafsir, Al-Jaami` le Ahkaam al-Qur'an:

We say [Qurtubi]: This is all very weak and far from Ibn 'Umar's words and others, none of it has been authenticated. It is a saying which contradicts the fundemental understanding of the angels who are Allah's trustworthy messengers and the ambassadors of Allah to His prophet's and Messengers, Allah says "They do not disobey Allah in what He commands them, and do as they are commanded" [Surat at-Tahrim, verse 6] Evenmore, Allah says, "Nay! they are honored servants. They speak not before He speaks, and they act (in all things) by His Command" [Surat al-Anbiyaa, verses 26-27] However, if we were to leave the Intellect to judge, it wouldn't object to the possibility of angel's being prone to disobedience and of them may be those who oppose what they have been created to do, and it can believe that the temptation is an innate characteristic in them since Allah is capable of creating what the mind cannot imagine. Similarly, we know that even Prophets, the friends of Allah [awliyaa], and the the scholar's worry of falling into temptations. Yet, for this occurence [the claim against Harut and Marut falling into sin] cannot be deemed possible unless there is sound evidence [transmission through listening or chain of narration] and there isn't anything that has been authenticated....And we have shown them to be upright [the angels] and they are indeed upright against all that has been said from the [false] Interpreters .(Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, ARABIC SOURCE)

As Imaam Al-Qurtubi mentions, there is not a single authentic narration whic supports this story, hence it is unanimously rejected by Muslim scholars as false.

3. Critics quote narrations from At-Tabari in order to lend support to this false tale about Harut and Marut. They also project this story as the view of Imaam Ibn Jarir At-Tabari (d. 923CE) himself. Yet this is evidently false, as Ibn Kathir quotes the following on Ibn Jarir At-Tabari:

Ibn Jarir continued; "If someone asks about explaining this Ayah in this manner, we say that,
(They followed what the Shayatin (devils) gave out (falsely) in the lifetime of Sulayman.) means, magic. Solomon neither disbelieved nor did Allah send magic with the two angels. However, the devils disbelieved and taught magic to the people in the Babylon of Harut and Marut, meaning Gabriel and Michael, for Jewish sorcerers claimed that Allah sent magic by the words of Gabriel and Michael to Solomon, son of David. Allah denied this false claim and stated to His Prophet Muhammad that Gabriel and Michael were not sent with magic. Allah also exonerated Solomon from practicing magic, which the devils taught to the people of Babylon by the hands of two men, Harut and Marut. Hence, Harut and Marut were two ordinary men (not angels or Gabriel or Michael).'' (fn. At-Tabari 2:419) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 1, p.315

Thus, Imaam At-Tabari did not believe that Harut and Marut were angels who sinned, but that they were ordinary humans who taught magic. This also resolves the alleged contradiction as it is known that human beings are prone to sin while angels are not. However, Ibn Kathir and other scholars have mentioned that the view of At-Tabari is weaker than the most common interpretation (explained under #4). Nevertheless, it demonstrates that Imaam At-Tabari did not support the view which critics falsely attribute to him. Therefore, we find that no scholars support this erroneous myth that two angels came down to earth and sinned. There are some other scholars who share Imaam At-Tabari's view that Harut and Marut were two ordinary humans. As Shaykh Abdul Aziz Al-Harbi, Professor at Umm Al-Qura University, explains the viewpoint of At-Tabari in the following words:

Another saying tells that [Harut and Marut] were ordinary men who pretended to be pious in the city of Bâbil. They used to teach people sorcery. People thought they were angels descent from the Heavens because of the piousness they observed from them.

Their cunning was so clever that when they noticed what people thought about them of piety, they used to tell everyone who wants to learn from them: "Surely we are only a trial, therefore do not be a disbeliever.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 102]

They did that to show people that their knowledge is divinely inspired knowledge and that they only sought goodness, just as liars claim in every era.

They were called as angels because people called them that. In another reading by al-Hasan they were called kings.

Muhammad Asad also gives a similar explanation in his commentary of the Qur'an:

As regards the designation of Harut and Marut, most of the readings of the Qurlan give the spelling malakayn ("the two angels"); but it is authentically recorded (see Tabari, Zamakhshari, Baghawi, Razi, etc.) that the great Companion of the Prophet, Ibn `Abbas, as well as several learned men of the next generation - e.g., Al-Hasan al-Basri, Abu '1-Aswad and AdDahhak-read it as malikayn ("the two kings"). I myself incline to the latter reading; but since the other is more generally accepted, I have adopted it here. Some of the commentators are of the opinion that, whichever of the two readings is followed, it ought to be taken in a metaphorical sense, namely, "the two kingly persons", or "the two angelic persons": in this they rely on a saying of Ibn'Abbas to the effect that Harut and Marut were "two men who practiced sorcery in Babylon" (Baghawi; see also Manar I, 402). At any rate, it is certain that from very ancient times Babylon was reputed to be the home of magic arts, symbolized in the legendary persons - perhaps kings - Harut and Marut; and it is to this legend that the Qur'an refers with a view to condemning every attempt at magic and sorcery, as well as all preoccupation with occult sciences in general.

(Asad, Message of the Qur'an, The Book Foundation 2003)

So even the scholars who supported this interpretation did not view Harut and Marut as fallen angels but ordinary people who taught magic and may have claimed to be angels.

4. As for the strongest and most widely-accepted interpretation of this verse, then scholars have agreed on some aspects yet differed on the minor details. The scholars have agreed that Harut and Marut were two angels sent by Allah to test the people of Babylon with magic, and these angels were only acting upon the order of Allah and commited no sin, nor even the slightest error. However, they differ as to the nature of the test. As Syed Qutb (d. 1966CE) mentions in his famous tafsir, Fi Dhilalil Qur'an:

[The Qur'an] further refutes the allegation that the two Babylonian angels Harut and Marut, were sorcerors or taught witchcraft. It confirms that they were testing people's faith, for a purpose that has not been identified. Again, associating sorcery, black magic and witchcraft with disbelief in God, the Qur'an exonerates the two angels, confirming that they had explained the nature of their work to the people and given them fair warning, neverhteless, some people persisted with learning and practising sorcery, thus falling to temptation and causing harm. (Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur'an, The Islamic Foundation 1999, p.99)

And Shaykh Saalih Al-Fawzaan explains in his response to the following question:

[Question]:How is it that angels taught magic when teaching magic is a form of disbelief?

[Answer]: This was a trial and a test for the people to see who was going to believe and who was going to disbelieve. So Allah sent these two angels to teach the people magic to test them and see who was going to believe and who was going to disbelieve, Accordingly, they did not teach any of the people, as Allah the Exalted has said:
'Except that they said: "Verily we are only a trial, so do not disbelieve."' (2:102)
So they would advise the student to abandon the learning of magic, while clarifying that it is disbelief. They were not just teaching people and remaining quite (about the disbelief of magic), rather they were advising them that it was disbelief. So when someone came forth by his own choice he disbelieved.

Allah had the two angels teaching people magic as a test for them, not that magic is acceptable or that it is permissable. It was only to distinguish those who were going to disbelieve from those who were going to believe and accept the advice. (Al-Fawzaan, Duroos fee Sharh Nawaaqidh Al-Islaam, p.145)

So when the angels began to teach magic, the devils spread the teachings to others and encouraged them to partake in this evil practice. As Shaykh Abdur-Rahman As-Sa'di (d. 1956CE) comments in his authoritative commentary on the Qur'an:

[the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind magic] by their misguidance and keenness to deviate the son of adam and It was the Jews who followed/pursued this magic which Allah brought down with his two angels [Harut and Marut] in the lands of Babil in Iraq. Magic was brought down upon them as a test and a trial from Allah to his slaves.(Tayseeru al-Karim Ar-Rahman fee tafseer kalamil manan)

There are some who say that the angels were sent by God as a temptation for mankind, offering them lessons in black magic after warning them of God's wrath upon those who practiced it. Nevertheless, people didn't heed the warning and succumbed to their desires to practice the magic. Other scholars say that the angels were sent, disguised as men, offering to teach magic and catching those who accepted their offer. Shaykh Abul 'Ala Maududi (d. 1979CE) gives the following conclusion on this verse:

...at the time when the whole Israelite nation was chained in slavery and captivity in Babylonia, God sent two angels in human form to test the Jews...These angels at once began working their magical wonders but they warned the people that their presence among them was designed to test their faith, and that they ought not to jeopardize their After-life by the practice of magic. Despite the warning it seems that the Israelites had become so fond of their magical artifices that they continued to resort to talismans and sorcery.
...One might also wonder why angels would teach people magic, which is after all intrinsically evil. In order to understand this we must remember that the nature of their tasks was no different from that of an undercover policeman who hands over marked currency notes to a corrupt official as a bribe with the aim of ensuring that he is caught red-handed.(Maududi, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, The Islamic Foundation 1995, vol. 1, p.97 ftn. 105)

Other scholars feel that it is more likely that Harut and Marut were teaching magic for educational purposes, so that the people could recognize its symptoms, properties and effects and avoid it. As Shaykh Abdul Hamid Kishk explains:

By "what had been sent down" He means the science of magic, which was sent down so that they could teach it to people and warn them against it. The reason the two of them were sent down was to teach people what magic was so that they would know the difference between magic and prophethood, and therefore that Sulayman was not a magician. It was to ensure complete understanding.

They did not, in any case, teach anyone magic until they had first cautioned him saying to him, "We are merely a temptation and a trial and a test, so do not become unbelievers by teaching it and using it." Part of the point of the teacing was to warn people against it and to teach them the difference between it and and prophethood and prophetic miracles.(Kishk, The World of The Angels, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 1994, p. 41)

And Shariq Khan writes:

Imam Laqani mentions in his primer in Islamic beliefs, Jawharat al-Tawhid ('Jewel of Divine Oneness'), that both prophets and angels are protected from sin. As such, it is sinful to believe that angels sin.

Harut and Marut were two angels that taught people magic. Their story is mentioned in verse 102 of Sura Baqara. Jewish scholars call these the sinful Angels (see the Midrash). We believe that they were commanded by Allah to teach people magic, and so not sinful in doing so. There are two opinions about why the angels were sent.

The first opinion, mentioned in the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, is that they were sent as a temptation and trial from Allah. Those who learned magic from them disbelieved, and those who did not, believed. This is why the angels warned the people before teaching them magic. The angels said, "We are only a trial; so do not disbelieve." (Quran 2:102)

The second opinion about why the angels were sent is explained by Shaykh Sabuni in his Safwat al-Tafasir. He says that during their time there were many magicians claiming Prophethood, and people needed to be able to distinguish between the miracles of Prophets and the magic of magicians. The magic they taught could have been used to do this, or, it could have been used for evil.

(SOURCE)

Similarly, Mufti Muhammad Shafi gives the following comments:

Allah sent down to Babylon two angels, Harut and Marut, for informing the people as to the true nature of magic and as to its different forms, so that they should distinguish it from the miracles of prophets, and keep away from obeying magicians and practising magic themselves.
...In short, the two angels came down to Babylon, and started the work assigned to them -- that is to say, they used to explain the basic principles of magic, its different forms and the specific formulas, and then used to dissuade the people from getting themselves involved in these activities or with the magicians. Their work was exactly like that of a scholar who, finding that illiterate people sometimes fall into uttering heretical words or phrases on account of their ignorance, should collect in his speeches or writings all such phrases that have gained currency, and inform them as to what they must carefully avoid.
Now, all sorts of people started coming to the angels for seeking information about the nature and the specific formulas of magic lest ignorance should lead them into error, in the matter of doctrines or that of deeds. In order to provide the correct teaching on this subject and to protect the people from error, the angels were scrupulous enough to make it a point to warn them of possible dangers in giving them the information. They insisted on making it quite clear that in allowing them to provide this kind of information to the people, Allah intended to put His servants through a trial, for He would see who uses this knowledge for protecting his 'iman (faith) by recognizing evil and avoiding it, and who falls into misguidance by adopting evil that he has come to recognize as evil -- a choice which can easily lead one into kufr (infidelity) in the matter of deeds or in that of doctrines. The angels repeatedly advised them to seek this dangerous information only with a good intent and to remain steadfast in this good intent, and not to misuse the knowledge so as to earn perpetual ****ation.
The angels could not be more honest and forthright. So, they explained the basic principles of magic and even the subsidiary details to all those who were ready to take the pledge to remain steadfast in their faith. Of course, if anyone broke the pledge and fell into transgression or infedility, it was his on business, and the angels could not be held responsible for it. Some were true to their promise, while many did not fulfill the pledge, and made their knowledge of magic a means of doing harms to people -- this in itself is a sin and transgression, while some modes of magic actually involve infidelity (kufr). Thus, through a misuse of their knowledge of magic, some turned into sinners and others into infidels.
Let us repeat that the angels had taught magic for the purpose of reforming the people and helping them to the straight path. but those who misused this teaching did so out of their own perversity.(Shafi, Ma'ariful Qur'an, Maktaba-e-Darul-Uloom, Karachi 2003, vol. 1, pp. 266-268)

This lengthy quote demonstrates several points. First of all, it explains the idea of angels teaching magic for the purpose of educating the public about this evil so that they would avoid it. It also mentions that the angels were sent as a test for the people to distinguish those who would succumb to the temptation of using magic from those who restrained themselves from such evils. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the angels may have been sent for all the purposes mentioned by scholars, including as a temptation to catch those who practiced sorcery, as a test for the people, and for educational purposes to distinguish good from evil.

From the above discussion it becomes clear that the angels were acting as servants of Allah and were only carrying out their mission as commanded by Allah. The question of disobedience doesn't even arise, and consequently there is no contradiction between this verse and the verse which states that all angels are obedient.

________
The author would like to thank Abu Abdullah Al-Kuwaitee for his contributions to the article, May Allah bless him.

Angel Gabriel and the 'Holy Spirit'

Concerning the thirty-second alleged contradiction:
Verses in question:
2:97 Say: "Whoever is an enemy to Jibrael (Gabriel), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'ân) down to your heart by Allâh's Permission, confirming what came before it and guidance and glad tidings for the believers.

16:102. Say, Ruh-ul-Qudus (the Holy Spirit) has brought it (the Qur'an) down from your Lord with truth, that it may make firm and strengthen (the Faith of) those who believe and as a guidance and glad tidings to those who have submitted (to Allâh as Muslims)

1. The obvious point that the critic is missing is that the 'Holy Spirit' is simply another title of Angel Jibreel (Gabriel), peace be upon him. This is unanimously agreed upon by all Muslim scholars and there is no difference of opinion on this matter due to what has been narrated. Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqee (d. 1372CE) cites the narrations which demonstrate that this was the understanding of the earliest Muslim generation, those who learnt directly from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

Jibril is Ruh Al-Qudus

The proof that Jibril is the Ruh Al-Qudus is the statement of Ibn Mas`ud in explanation of this Ayah (fn. Ibn Abi Hatim 1:269). This is also the view of Ibn `Abbas, Muhammad bin Ka`b, Isma`il bin Khalid, As-Suddi, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, `Atiyah Al-`Awfi and Qatadah (fn. Ibn Abi Hatim 1:270). Additionally, Allah said,
(Which the trustworthy Ruh (Jibril) has brought down. Upon your heart (O Muhammad ) that you may be (one) of the warners) (26:193-194).

Al-Bukhari recorded `A'ishah saying that the Messenger of Allah erected a Minbar in the Masjid on which Hassan bin Thabit (the renowned poet) used to defend the Messenger of Allah (with his poems). The Messenger of Allah said, "O Allah! Aid Hassan with Ruh Al-Qudus, for he defended Your Prophet."(fn. Fath Al-Bari 10:562).

Abu Dawud recorded this Hadith in his Sunan (fn. Abu Dawud 5:279) as did At-Tirmidhi who graded it Hasan Sahih (fn. Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi 8:137). Further, Ibn Hibban recorded in his Sahih that Ibn Mas`ud said that the Prophet said, "Ruh Al-Qudus informed me that no soul shall die until it finishes its set provisions and term limit. Therefore, have Taqwa of Allah and seek your sustenance in the most suitable way."(fn. See As-Sunnah 14:304).(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 1, pp. 288-289)

These narrations demonstrate that the correct understanding of the title "Ruh Al-Qudus" (Holy Spirit) is that it was a title of Angel Jibreel. In another place, Allah refers to him as Ruh Al-Ameen (the Trustworthy Spirit). Concerning this, Ibn Kathir records:

(Which the trustworthy Ruh has brought down.) This refers to Jibril, peace be upon him. This was the view of more than one of the Salaf: Ibn `Abbas, Muhammad bin Ka`b, Qatadah, `Atiyyah Al-`Awfi, As-Suddi, Ad-Dahhak, Az-Zuhri and Ibn Jurayj. (fn. At-Tabari 19:396). This is an issue concerning which there is no dispute.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 7, pp. 275-276)

Hence, it becomes clear that those who are close to Allah are honored by Him with numerous titles, and so of the titles of Angel Jibreel is Ruh Al-Qudus and Ruh Al-Ameen.

2. Critics attempt to prove that the spirit does not refer to Jibreel by quoting verses of the Qur'an that contain the word Ruh (spirit) but could not possibly be referring to Angel Jibreel because of the context. In these cases, the critics fail to realize that the word Ruh has several different usages in the Qur'an with a wide range of meanings. The word Ruh most commonly refers to the human soul in religious literature, especially the Qur'an and the Sunnah. However, it sometimes refers to other than the human soul as Shaykh Abu Bilal Mustafa Al-Kanadi explains:

Just as the term "nafs" has several different connotations, so does the term "ruh." It is never used to refer to the physical body (badan) alone or to the soul when it is inside the body. Rather, it has various other usages in the Arabic language and in religious literature. (fn. See al-Tahawiyyah, pp. 444-445 and Kitab al-Ruh, pp.295-296). In the following words of Allah to His Messenger (saws), it is used to mean revelation, specifically the Qur'an:

"And thus We revealed to you a spirit [i.e., the Qur'an] by Our command." (Surah al-Shura, 42:52)

In other places in the Qur'an the word "ruh" is used to designate the Angel Jibreel, whom Allah entrusted with the conveyance of divine revelation. For example:

"Verily, this [Qur'an] is a revelation of the Lord of the Worlds brought down by the trustworthy spirit [i.e., Jibril]." (Surah al-Shu'ara; 26:192-193)

The various forces and senses contained in the human body are also spoken of as "spirits." Thus, it is said "al-ruh al-basir" ("the seeing spirit") and "al-ruh al-sami'" ("the hearing spirit") and so on. However, these are called "spirits" only by convention. These senses are extinguished upon the death of the physical body, and they are different than the ruh, which does not die or disintegrate.

Finally, the term "ruh" is sometimes used in an extremely restricted sense - to designate the spirit of faith which results from one's knowledge of Allah, from turning to him in repentance and from seeking Him with love and aspiration. This is the spirit (i.e. consciousness of God) with which Allah strengthens His obedient, chosen servants as stated in the following Qur'anic verse:

"For those, Allah has written faith upon their hearts and strengthened them with a spirit from Him." (Surah al-Mujadilah, 58:22)

In this manner, knowledge is a "ruh" ("spiritual force"), as is sincerity, truthfulness, repentance, love of Allah and complete dependence upon Him. People differ in respect to these types of spiritual forces. Some are so overcome by them that they become "spiritual" beings. Thus it is said, "So and so has spirit." Others lose the power of such spiritual forces, or the greater portion thereof, and thus become earthly, bestial beings. (fn. For more details, see Lawami' al-Anwar, pp. 31-32; al-Tahawiyyah, p. 445 and Kitab al-Ruh, p. 297). About them it may be said, "So and so has no spirit; he's empty like a hollow reed," and so on. (Mustafa Al-Kanadi, Mysteries of the Soul Expounded, Al-Hidaayah Publishing & Distribution 2003, pp.21-23)

Thus, when the term Ruh appears in the Qur'an, it may refer to the human soul