Surah Al-Anbiyaa 21:95-96 - Imran Hossein opinion correct or in-correct?

R

Rizzykhan

sunniport user
Asalaam u Alaikum brothers.
Looking for some clarity and if anyone has any contact with Shaykh Asrar is there anyway you can ask him this question please as I know Shaykh has done an in-depth talk on the end of times over the last few years.
I have heard the lectures but don't recall finding the answer I was looking for.
If anyone else can assist please let me know your thoughts.

Im sure by now everyone is aware of Imran Hossein and his interpretations to the end of times specifically to Dajjal and Gog and Magog.

In some of IH's works he mentions the quran ayah..

“But there is a ban on a town which We have destroyed: that they (the people of the town) shall not return (to reclaim that town as their own); until Gog and Magog are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly spread out in every direction (replicating themselves amongst all the peoples of the world).” [Surah Al-Anbiyaa 21:95-96].

His interpretation loosely is that the town in question is Jerusalem and that Gog and Magog have been let loose etc.

Questions I have is;

- What is the classical tafsir of this ayah?
- Is IH correct in his view?
- Have any of the ulammah stated what town this is?
- If IH is incorrect in his opinion what are the grounds for this?

JazakAllah
 
21_95.png

21_96.png



95. it is impossible for a place that We destroyed, that they will [not] return.

96. until gog and magog are let loose,* and they, from every elevated place will [descend and] advance swiftly.

*the barrier that is holding them back is opened [this is implicit, according to most tafasir].

----
it may mean that "it is impossible for a people of a dwelling that We have destroyed [or we have Decreed to annihilate] that they will return from their polytheism and their disbelief [i.e., return to islam]. or it may mean that they will never return to this world from the hereafter.

-------------
paraphrased from baHr al-madid of ibn ajibah 3/498:

"it is impossible for a people of the place that We destroyed [or whose annihilation We have ordained], that they will not be resurrected; rather, it is inevitable that they will be certainly resurrected and return to Us, and certainly get a just recompense for their deeds."

this "impossibility of not returning" is mentioned specially [takhSiS] for a group which denies resurrection and return; this is in addition to the general impossibility [mentioned earlier] that includes everyone: "everyone shall return to us" [surah anbiya'a v93].

21_93.png


it is also said that: "the people of that place whose annihilation We have ordained, will not return to repentance [tawbah]" or "the people of that place which We have annihilated will not return to this world." this is a refutation of those heretical belief-systems [madh'hab] of some rafidis and others that believe in transmigration of souls and reincarnation [raj`ah, tanasukh]."

zajjaj said: "it is impossible for the community [place, qariyah] whose destruction We have Willed, that their deeds will be accepted; because, they will not return. that is, they will not repent..."​

---
if this is joined with the next aayah, it means:

[they will not return. that is, they will not repent]..."until gog and magog are let loose"[verse 96] and the Trumpet will be blown, and when Judgement Day has come - they will return. but their return will not be of any benefit to them.​


================================================================

baHr al-muHit, 6/313, abu Hayyan:

it means: "it is impossible [Haram] for the people of the dwelling [qariyah] whose annihilation We have ordained, that in this world, they will return to faith until Judgement Day [qiyamah]."​

aH: in other words, they will never return to faith until Judgement come; [and it is no use when they eventually do on the Final Day]

Allah ta'ala knows best.
 
Last edited:
jalalayn:

{place} that is the people of that place
{that they will not} laa here is superfluous
{return} meaning it is "impossible that they will ever return to this world."
​
[aH:after they perished when the place was destroyed]

{until} the farthest extent of the impossibility of their return​
 
the same:

---
in madarik al-tanzil of imam nasafi, same as below.

---
in baHr al-ulum of samarqandi, after the same explanation, he also says that gog and magog will come AFTER dajjal according to abdullah ibn mas'ud raDiyallahu anhu; and even though some have said that they will come before dajjal, the aSaHH opinion is that of sayyiduna ibn mas'ud.

---
in waHidi's al-basiT:

zajjaj said: after Allah ta'ala informed in the previous ayah that the good deeds of believers will not go waste [or good deeds will not be in vain], this was said meaning, the deeds of disbelievers [kuffar] will not be accepted. [the ayah] means: it is impossible for the [people] of the community whom We annihilated, that their deeds will be accepted, because they do not return; that is, they do not repent as Allah ta'ala has said: "Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing" [baqarah, v7]. here He informs us that they will never repent, hence "that they will not return"; meaning: Allah ta'ala knows about them that they will not repent.​

aH: there is a discussion about the laa, whether it is superfluous or not; almost all mufassirin discuss this but in either case, the meaning itself is not altered drastically. overall it is consistent with our aqidah - that neither will the deeds of kuffar be accepted, nor will they be allowed to return to the world, or that they will not return to faith etc.
 
- What is the classical tafsir of this ayah?
Click to expand...
as mentioned below.

- Is IH correct in his view?
Click to expand...
no, as is obvious.

- Have any of the ulammah stated what town this is?
Click to expand...
so far, i have checked about 30. none mention the name of the 'town'. actually, they all say that 'town' is a metaphor for the "people of the town"; that is the 'community' - and it can be any place. this is a generic verse and can mean [people from] any town or place who disbelieve [commit kufr].

- If IH is incorrect in his opinion what are the grounds for this?
Click to expand...
if you are asking what are the grounds for considering him incorrect: it is because none of the tafsirs, i have seen so far fix a town. . this is about ANY town, the people of which were annihilated on account of their kufr. wAllahu a'alam.


durr al-maSun, tafsir of samin al-Halabi [d.756 AH], 8/198

there are four explanations [ta'awilat] of this verse:

1. the laa is superfluous. the meaning would be: it is forbidden [or impossible] for the [people] of the town [qariyah] whose annihilation We ordained, because of their disbelief [kufr], to return to faith until Judgement day.

2. that laa is not superfluous. the meaning would be: that they will never return from their sinning and their disbelief [kufr]

3. Haram means obligatory [wajib] as said in the ayah: "Tell them: come, I will recite to you that which your Lord has made obligatory - that you will not ascribe partners to Him" [surah an'am, v151]; here forsaking idolatry, polytheism [shirk] is obligatory [wajib].
the meaning [third would be] as Hasan and suddi said: they will not forsake and return from polytheism, idolatry, shirk. qatadah said: they will not return to this world [dunya].

4. abu muslim ibn baHr said: Haram means forbidden, impossible [mumtaniy]. "that they will not return": is a negation of returning to akhirah. when the negation is impossible* the return becomes imperative.

* being a double negative: it is impossible that they will not return = certainly, they will return. like Tibi says in his hashiyah on kash'shaf, 10/404: "negation of a negative (double negative) is an affirmative".​

------
- If IH is incorrect in his opinion what are the grounds for this?
Click to expand...
but if you are asking why did he make such an incorrect statement, and on what grounds, the best person to answer that would be imran hossein himself.

but if were to hazard a guess, he must have picked up the hadith of sayyiduna hudhayfah about ya'juj-ma'juj in tafsir tabari (and others), that "eventually they will come to jerusalem". he might have added it up with the previous aayah and said: 'okay, they will 'return' to jerusalem...

madness, anyway.

----

Allah ta'ala knows best.
 
Last edited:
Hyperthetically is it possible (forgive me for my lack of knowledge) that because an event has not taken place yet the Ulammmah of tafsir would translate and give an explanation which is generic but then over time the interpretation can be re-looked into to find different answers?
I don't mean Islam needs to be re-interpretated not talking about Fiqh rulings or issues of Aqeedah etc but general interpratations and meanings?
I.e when all the classical tafsirs were written the jews had not returned to Jerusalem so after that incident happened (less than 60 years ago) but now that incident has taken place is it possible to say maybe thats what the ayah could be referring to a specific town?
For example science talks about the big bang theory and then the muslims said oh yea we already know about that it's been in the Quran for 1400 years.

Im not one of these modernists (I am an orthodox sunni hanafi/maturidi) generally asking about the above?
 
Rizzykhan said:
were written the jews had not returned to Jerusalem
Click to expand...
what is the return of jews to do with gog and magog?

Rizzykhan said:
because an event has not taken place yet the Ulammmah of tafsir would translate and give an explanation which is generic but then over time the interpretation can be re-looked into to find different answers?
Click to expand...
that is fine, but it has to be consistent with all other things and should not contradict established principles nor sound absurd from a classical arabic perspective. in other words 'plausible'.

Rizzykhan said:
For example science talks about the big bang theory and then the muslims said oh yea we already know about that it's been in the Quran for 1400 years.
Click to expand...
we have to take such things with caution. you don't know when they will make a u-turn and say, that it was nonsense.

Rizzykhan said:
maybe thats what the ayah could be referring to a specific town?
Click to expand...
why should it not refer to london or stalingrad? why jerusalem? when was the last time when jerusalem was completely "destroyed" after Islam?
 
Points acknowledged :) Thanks again.

The reason behind this thread is so I can have some knowledge because there is a vast amount of people in my inner circle and further afield who follow IH blindly and becuase it makes sense and 'fits in with Quran and Hadith' I remember many years ago when i first came across IH i too was taken in by it but after several years of learning I stopped thinking about his opinions and followed that which was transmitted by teachers with sanad.

It's been a while since ive listened to IH lectures so cant provide any further info to your points below but from what i remember he did give convincing arguements (at the time when i heard them).
I've heard a few scholars in their lectures including Shaykh Asrar indirectly making refrences to IH's opinions whilst talking on the topics at hand.
 
i may be wrong but i think imran hossein believes that dajjal is "a system" or a world order that will grip the world (something that according to him has begun, led by the west) while unsuspecting people will imagine a one eyed man in a literal sense (only to be consumed by the said system/world order without even realizing it); the descriptions in hadith being metaphorical (according to him).

again, i may be wrong but that's what i've seen being propagated by some of his fanboys, ironically belonging to the same evil world order started by the west.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top