And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women-if you doubt, then their period is three months, and those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah-He will make for him of this matter ease.” (Qur’an 65:4)
“Test the orphans, until they reach balaghu; then, if you perceive in them the right judgment, deliver to them their property; consume it not wastefully and hastily ere they are grown. If any man is rich, let him be abstinent; if poor, let him consume in reason. And when you deliver their property to them, take witnesses over them; Allah suffices for a reckoner.”(Qur’an 4:6)
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)
﷽
A very interesting exchange happened recently between leading Roman Catholic apologist, Trent Horn and Protestant that believes in a 66 book canon, Kelly Powers.
Trent Horn got the Protestant to admit:
“ But is there a verse that directly says a 30-year-old can’t marry? There’s no verse that says that. But our conscience, your conscience knows that’s wrong.” -Kelly Powers.
The basis for a 30 year old not marrying a 10 year old is one’s conscience in the year 2026. Not a universal moral law for all times and places but a person living in 2026.
The key take away is that there is no clear biblical text that gives the age for marriage.
@17:32 minutes: “What was a couple examples? One of them was, “Well, can can a can a Christian can a person marry their first cousin?” Now, off the top of my head, when you’re doing something live, many of you probably have done, you know, if you do a live stream, sometimes you don’t remember something right off the cuff, right? I mean, if I asked all of you out there, where where is the scripture that says directly that you are to be marrying your close relatives? Some of you might get it right off the cuff. Some of you might have to go Google it, right? I forgot about Leviticus 18. I forgot about Leviticus chapter 20 that actually addresses that you are instructed not to marry your close relatives. Well, that would also include your cousins. That’s relatives, right? So, this is what you know the Bible does talk about that, right? Now, the issue of a 30year-old marrying a 10year-old, right? Well, if you look historically, even you going back to around the 12th century or so or early back in the day, the Roman Catholic Church actually approved of children who were 12 years girls and 14 years of age boys that were actually being married back in those days as early as young as 12. Right? So even the Catholic Church historically has given um the acceptance of young children being married at a certain age, right? But now is this morally acceptable? Right? Like in our day and age, you look historically with culture thousands of years ago, different ages, different people would be married, younger ages, right? But we live in a very different society today, right? We also got to follow what the government according what uh Romans 13 also instructs for us today.” -Kelly Powers.
@2:03:36 minutes: “I did not expect the conversation to go the way that it really did. I didn’t expect I expected Trent to come to defend his views of what he believed and what he has said, but I didn’t expect the disrespect for the authority of the word of God. I didn’t expect the attacks on Sola Scriptura and he was using these shock questions to try to attack Sola Scriptura and I addressed those questions earlier. About you know, what can you be married to your your first cousin and the bible says no. Uh Leviticus 18 Leviticus 20 actually warns about that; so that’s the answer is no. What about the issue of marrying ya know a 10-year-old can a 30year-old year-old marry a 10-year-old, right? And I said, well, my conscience, right, would say no, right? But he’s like, well, what what about the age? Who who are we to say? Right? And what I highlighted earlier is if you look, you can just do a Google search on this. I don’t want to, you know, waste. You can do your grok chat GPT, Google search, whatever. thousand plus years ago, thousand something years ago, 1,200 something AD, the Catholic Church actually approved of girls at the age of 12 being married to 14year-old boys? That was okay. Right? Now, the question is, well, could a 12-year-old be married to a 30-year-old? Well, what’s the difference? Right? So culturally we see historically different cultures have different ages throughout time. Governments impose their laws. We also have to render to Caesar what’s Caesar’s as well. Right? But is there a verse that directly says a 30-year-old can’t marry? There’s no verse that says that. But our conscience, your conscience knows that’s wrong.” -Kelly Powers.
This was the exchange between Trent Horn and Kelly Powers here:
@44:05 minutes:
Trent Horn: Where does the Bible say?
Kelly Powers: It doesn’t say. We’ve already went round and round on this, Trent. We’ve already went over this.
Trent Horn: So, some things are gravely sinful that aren’t in the Bible.
Kelly Powers: There’s some things that our conscience will tell us, yes, that are not right. That God has given us a conscience, right? Obviously, a 10-year-old is a child. Number one, a 10-year-old can’t produce proper babies. Number two,
Trent Horn: I said precocious puberty.
Kelly Powers: So you’re making a false excuse to try to justify your means there. Point here is we know adults get married when they’re adults, right? That’s how it normally works.
Trent Horn: Can a 16 year old get married?
Kelly Powers: So you’ve been not able to prove your assertion. Number two, you can’t prove this is a sin. And number three, you’re still justifying your language. And then you smile about it, which is hilarious.
Trent Horn: Language. What inappropriate language did I use? I asked about a particular act, a particular kind of marriage. And I just wanted you to tell me if it was sinful. You said it is sinful. I agree with you.But the problem is,
Kelly Powers: What did I say was sinful?
Trent Horn: Being married to a 10-year-old. You said that was sinful.
Kelly Powers: Okay. To be clear, yeah, I don’t think that would be right. Correct. That’s my problem. I don’t see any chapter and verse. I don’t believe that would be appropriate. Yes.
Trent Horn: And you believe, well, look, God told me in my conscience this is wrong, and that’s why you believe it’s wrong.
Kelly Powers: Well, when I look at scripture, it talks about a husband and wife being one. They leave their father and mother. There’s a certain kind of guidelines that give this indication that they’re going to be a young adult, not a child.
Trent Horn: Okay. So, could it be a 14-year-old wife,
Kelly Powers: Like Mary when she was young? Is that what you’re trying to say?
Trent Horn: Yeah, sure. 13 or 14.
Kelly Powers:Sure.
Trent Horn: How about 12?
Kelly Powers: Again, come on, Trent.
Trent Horn: 12. Just a 12-year-old.
Kelly Powers: We’ve already went through that. I don’t know the actual age, but we’re talking a young adult, not a child, right?
Trent Horn: You’re saying where does the Bible say all this stuff? This is just your opinion.
Kelly Powers: Of course. Now, well, not necessarily. According to, if I understand correctly, Jewish culture and law, a young man is at the age of 13 or 14, right? When does a woman become a young woman?
Trent Horn: I don’t know. It probably changes.
Kelly Powers: I believe around the age of 14 as well. This is going by memory.
Prima Qur’an comments: Dear brothers and sisters do you know how revealing all of this is? Christians are also having a meltdown over this. What Trent Horn said is correct. He knows that the Bible gives no explicit text stating the correct age (number of solar rotations) to get married. Kelly Powers has argued with many opposing Christian groups. You saw clear as day he did not run to a particular verse. He even agreed with Trent who posed: “13 or 14” to which Kelly replied: “Sure”.
It was only when Trent pressed further with the age of 12 that Kelly somehow felt that went to far. But by what measure? Even if he (Kelly Powers) argues that he finds it an objection in his conscience. So what about 1 day shy of 13?
See how arbitrary this is.
In fact, one Christian who had a melt down had to do a three hour video in response to it! Clean up on Aisle 9.
For those interested you may wish to see our other articles here:
“You are the best nation that ever existed among humanity. You command people to good and prohibit them from evil, and you believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book accepted the faith (Islam), it would certainly have been better for them. Some of them have faith, but most of them are evil doers.” (Qur’an 3:110)
﷽
Christians are in full on metldown over Islam.
On the one hand we keep hearing about this mass apostasy from Islam. They feel if they keep telling themselves that or keep saying it that it somehow becomes a reality.
These are the same Christians that tell your average every day American and Englishman that those 2% of Muslims in the U.S are somehow going to force Shariah law upon the 98% of the U.S.
Mind you that 23% of the United States 330 million population are evangelical Christians and they have yet to implement theonomy. Yet, somehow those 2% of Muslims are going to force shariah law upon the American population.
Even though the Christianity Today article mentions that Burkina Faso, a population with 65% of Muslims is not going to be implementing Shariah law.
Here is a map of Burkina Faso. (Highlighted in Red).
So which is it honey child? Are Muslims all over the world leaving Islam in mass or are the 2% of Muslims in the United States and the 6% in the United Kingdom going to enforce Shariah law upon everyone?
Every small town in the United States has no less than 50 different Christian denominations all arguing over thier particular flavour of Christianity. Yet, somehow they (these Christians) think that Muslims are all united, on the same page, have the same goals and idealogical bent?
Just look at the Islamic Republican of Iran. Where they have totally crushed their entire Christian population!!
Or have they?
Below is the Saint Sarkis Cathedral of the Armenian Orthodox Church. Pictured below is a recent mass.
That is unless Trump and the U.S intelligence and Elon Musk are all lying to us about the status of these churches.
Here is the problem. While on the one hand the United States has Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Stanford and Yale. All of which have produced some brilliant ideas and brilliant minds it also has a population that believes NASA never went to the moon. A huge segment of the population really does believe that the Earth is flat. That there is an ice wall that prevents anyone from traveling beyond. That you can reach Africa from the Grand Canyon in Arizona. That the moon is hollow, or even possibly a sattelite ‘spying’ on us.
You would think that such views are held among the poorly educated. However, you may be quite suprised to find well educated and articulate U.S Americans holdings such views and things even more extreme.
This is what the Muslim is dealing with.
Muslims are just not assimiliating!
Caucasians of European descent can celebrate their heritage days. However, when Shi’i Muslims remember Karbala or African Americans want to celebrate Kwanza we start talking about assimilation.
So we can have St. Patrick’s Day (March 17th) and have massive parades in cities like New York and Boston. The Midwest can have their Octoberfest (September-October) which is rooted in Bavarian tradition. We can have Mardis Gras (Shrove Tuesday/Feb-Mar) which was brought by French settlers and celebrated in New Orleans, Louisiana and Mobile Alabama. We can have Colombus Day/Italian Heritage Day (October) which marks Italian-American culture and has parades in New York. We can have Lief Erikson Day (Ocotber 9th) which celebrates Noridic American heritage and European exploration of North America. You can attend the Polish Fest in Milwaukee) Wisconsin which is held annually in June at Henry Maier Festival Park and all of that is fine.
The people who talk about assimilation wear T-shirts of the American flag complete with hot dog juice and mustard stains and wear the American flag like a cape.
Imagine the cognitive dissonance of a Christian who post a picture of a woman in a bikini eating a hot dog (presumably pork) with the caption. “Islam hates this.”
Did Jesus love pork?
Did Jesus love scantly clad women?
Christian apologetic/polemic scene.
The Christian apolgetic/polemic scene is in absolute disarray. They have thrown everything they have had Islam and Muslims and nothing seems to stick.
Trying to prove that Christianity which came 700 years before Islam is historically more verifable then a religion (Islam) that came 700 years after it.
This type of attack usually focuses on trying to show the disconnect between the Hebrew Scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament and the narratives found in the Qur’an.
The Assumption is that the Old Testament which was compiled and edited and redacted during the The Babylonian Exile (6th Century BCE) -600 years before the advent of Jesus, and gives us information about Moses who came approximately 1,300 years before Jesus is an accurate recollection and account of the past events.
The Old Testament also frequently gives information about events which it could not have been witness to, or in which there were no eye witnesses. Examples being the narrative about the garden of Eden. Hence, the information has to come from what is claimed to be revelation.
In fact, reflect on the following information:
The history of the Old Testament
“The first five books of the Old Testament are the foundations of the Jewish faith and central to Christianity. It’s thought that the main author was Moses, a significant leader of the Jewish people who brought them out of slavery in Egypt. He wrote down the laws given to the Jewish people by God – including the Ten Commandments. A later book of the Old Testament, Joshua, refers to ‘the Book of the Law of Moses’. Other writings gathered together the oral stories passed down for centuries, which make up the first few chapters of the Bible.”
“Some of the books of the Old Testament took many years to come together because they documented events over centuries.”
This approach is most likely the brain child of Christian missionary Jay Smith.
Jay Smith after getting routinely destroyed in his debates with Shabir Ally; where Christianity and Islam were compared/contrasted, Smith decided the best thing to do was to not bring Christianity up at all!
Btw Jay Smith’s colleague is a guy named ‘Al Fadi’ who claimed he went to an Islamic University and he memorized “half the Qur’an” by age 12. The man is a total fraud. Just like Ergun Caner. A Christian apologist who was removed from Liberty University after the lies caught up to him. That man Ergun Caner unfortunately his own son committed suicide!
Christian mission tactics are extremely deceptive.
“What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice.” (Philippians 1:18)
Paul rejoices that Christ is proclaimed, regardless of the method or motive. Paul gives no moral qualification. He does not condemn the bad motives. He simply rejoices in the outcome.
In Somalia they were caught distributing books with the title ‘Al Kitab’ in Arabic and you opened it and it Al Fatiha in the first chapter followed by the rest as the Bible in Arabic!
In West Africa Masjids there were missionaries who attended Masjids with the Muslims and prayed with them! When they would get people alone and isolate them and press them on certain text of the Qur’an. Examples: Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary, or Jesus making the birds out of clay. These are called ‘insider movements’.
“Secret Christians“
“C6 is the ‘secret’ or ‘underground’ group who still remain active in the life of the Muslim community. These people see themselves as Muslim followers of Isa; the local community sees them only as Muslim. It is in connection with the missiological/indigenous church practices derived from the C5/C6 end of the spectrum that the controversy gets heated! Are those individuals who make up such congregations truly converted, or are they in reality still Muslim? Now, we must be careful how from a safe, comfortable Western perspective we critique C5/C6 followers of Jesus. In many Islamic countries and communities, confessing faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Saviour can result in severe persecution — the loss of educational privileges, occupation, family and even life. We perhaps need also to keep in mind Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea! An even more extreme application of the C6 principle is known as the ‘Insider Movement’. The Insider Movement encourages Muslims who have ‘accepted’ Jesus to stay within their Muslim family and communities.”
You even have the ‘honey trap’ Christians active in Indonesia where they talk to women online and try to get compromosing photos of said individuals and then use manipulative tactics to get these women to convert to Christianity! Truly disgusting.
Even you can frequently see Christian missionaries and apologist say ‘Praise Allah’ or ‘Al hamdulillah’ now of course they say such things sarcastically. However, the discerning Christian should ask themselves if Allah (swt) is really a demon as they claim why given praise to Allah sarcastically?
No Muslim is going to say All praise be to Shiva or all praise be to Baal. Even sarcastically. These are serious matters that Christians take in jest.
A famous Roman Catholic channel dropped a bombshell on his timeline. The greatest miracle of the Eastern Orthodox Church is a lie! Want to know what is exceedingly interesting about this? These same Eastern Orthodox Christians who usually come in packs anytime Eastern Othodox Christianity is challenged were quite as church mice on this particular post. The best any of them had to bring was ‘whatabouism’. But your Church (The Catholic Church) has this and this.
After the clash of historical narratives arguments the second biggest canon the Christian missionaries feel they have in their arsenal is the so called, ‘Islamic Dilemma’.
Even Christian missionary David Wood called it ‘the biggest apostasy maker‘. Now what is intersting by this statement is that David Wood did not call the so called, ‘Islamic Dilemma’ the biggest maker of Christians.
This argument was designed by Christians to take the heat of the Bible and take the conversation away from the Bible.
What is likely in this scenario is that you create an agnostic who has gone from a conservative world view to one that is very open to a very liberal world view.
As regard, the David Wood apologist a Christian magazine had the following to report about him.
The reason this information came out was not as David Wood claimed to ‘clear the air’ David Wood acted premeptively against another Christian Apologist, Hassamo ‘Sam Shamoun’ to prevent Sam from using the above information against him (David Wood).
David Wood then release a photo of Hassamo ‘Sam Shamoun’s ex-wife with a black eye. Yet, another Christian apologist website called ‘Reasoned Answers’ released the following video:
This video absolutely destroyed Shamoun’s credibility as he is caught in several contradictions.
By the way, Sam Shamoun was (not sure if he still is) one of the premier writers for answeringislam.org < the website Christians use to debunk Islam.
You have to wonder if Sam Shamoun’s ex-wife thought it was an ‘accident’ what motivated her to share a picture of herself with a black eye to David Wood?
This prompted Sam Shamoun to retaliate against ‘Reasoned Answers’ -another Christian apologist website that focuses on attacking Islam. Sam Shamoun had discovered that ‘Reasoned Answers’ has a son who identifies as a transgender. A member of the LGBTQ community.
He (Sam) also pointed out that the man behind ‘Reasoned Answers’ his own wife was involved in LGBTQ activity.
Sam who goes by the moniker ‘Bruce Lee’ @BruceSaiFun posted the following. He posted pictures of ‘Reasoned Answers’ wife -where she posted a pic of herself with breast (covered by her hair). Why anyone would post such pictures on Facebook is anyone’s guess.
Imagine! This ‘Reasoned Answers’ individual has a wife doing all this and he is calling Muslims to become Christians? No thank you.
However, look at Sam’s language. This is what Christians are calling us to.
This of course prompted ‘Reasoned Answers’ to release the following video:
In the above video ‘Reasoned Answers’ explains he is not happy with his son’s choice to be a transexual.
If you hear his explanation this is enough evidence for anyone in Muslim majority countries to NOT want their socities moddled after the the degenerate Christiain culture of the 21st century.
The one verse in the New Testament that Christians hate more than Islam.
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.” (1 John 3:9)
If you saw the way that Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestants) try and run from this verse it would leave you shocked. The point of the verse is that man is in sin and is sinful. However, once you are born of God this means you are born of the Holy Spirit.
This means that real true Christians cannot sin, not even once! But we all know how this ends up don’t we?
Atheist should become Christians to stop the tide of Islam?!
If you want anymore proof that Christianity is in full on meltdown mode watch this video insh’Allah.
Ayaan Hirsi is basically pleading to Richard Dawkins (and all Atheist and Freethinkers) basically to become ‘cultural Christians’. This may mean to do a public announcement or baptism to outwardly appease Christians. The argument that Ayaan basically gives is that there is a spiritual vaccum in Western Nations. That Islam will fill that gap. So she is making her case to Dawkins for Christianity.
What is interesting is why Ayaan thinks that Islam in particular will fill this vacuum. Not Buddhism, not New Age Spirituality, not Wicca, not Hinduism or anything else but Islam!
Ayaan is actually not trying to persuade Atheist on rather or not Islam is true but rather or not Christianity is a political necessity as a ‘bulwark’ against Islam.
That is exactly where we are. From Mark Zuckerbergs Facebook where one is hard pressed to log on and not get their timeline flooded with Anti-Islamic post; to Elon Musk, changing the algorithm on X to prevent engagement from Pro Palestine and Pro Islam post. Yet changing the algortihm to ramping up engagement on Anti-Islam post.
Christians are in full on meltdown over Islam.
They need not be. We the Muslims welcome them home. To their true home with us.
May Allah guide the Christians out of the darkness that they are in into the light of Islam.
“But My mercy encompasses everything. I will ordain mercy for those who shun evil, pay alms-tax, and believe in Our revelations.” (Qur’an 7:156)
“And He is the All-Forgiving, All-Loving.” (Qur’an 85:14)
“Do you not love to be forgiven by Allah? And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 24:22)
﷽
I will begin this article by sharing a perspective that may seem counter intuitive to the very article that I am writing.
For me one of the biggest signs of Allah’s Love and Mercy is the Creation of Hellfire and the Creation of the Worst Possible Planets for any life to exist.
I was reading this article on the worst possible planet and it certainly made me very thankful to be on Earth!
“Leah Crane: The planet I think is the worst also happens to be my least favourite planet, which is Mercury. It’s really close to the sun, and when we think about a planet being bad for life, a lot of the time we think about it either being very hot or very cold. Mercury is both. It is tidally locked, so one side always faces the sun, and that side, which we call the day side, is about 800° Fahrenheit, which is 430° Celsius, all the time – absolutely awful.”
Leah Crane: A little too hot. Also, you’d get a lot of cancers from all of the radiation. And then there’s the other side which always faces away from the sun, which is -290° Fahrenheit or -180° Celsius, equally unpleasant.
From the diversity and beauty of the animal kingdom to the various landscapes on Earth the first thought that certainly does not come to my mind is: “This Creator wants the absolute worst for us.”
From left to right: Kirkjufell Mountain located in Iceland. Credit to David Stanfield. Moraine Lake Banff National Park Canada. Credit to Nicole Seidl. Maya Bay Phi Phi Leh Thailand. Credit to Silent Sightseer. All photos taken from pexels.com
One of the means of knowing something is through contrast.
We know when something is unpleasant and thus we know what is pleasant. We know what it is to not to love and not to receive love. We know what it is not to be merciful or to receive mercy. We know what it is not to forgive or to be forgiven.
So in order to truly know Allah’s love, mercy and forgiveness we are shown its opposite.
“If Allah should take men to task for their injustice, He would not leave on the earth one single living creature; but He is deferring them to a term stated; and when their term is come they shall not put it back by a single hour nor put it forward.” (Qur’an 16:61)
This is to be contrasted with the Biblical characterization of the Creator.
“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” (Exodus 32:14)
“The Lord regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved. So the Lord said: I will wipe out from the earth the human beings I have created, and not only the human beings, but also the animals and the crawling things and the birds of the air, for I regret that I made them.” (Genesis 6:6-7)
The clear distinction here is that in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) is simply telling us that if he were to give us our just desserts (what we really deserve) the extent of his wrath would essentially be scorched earth.
Where as in the Bible we are presented with a being who thinks to do evil to his creation, and even regrets making them.
Another huge difference between the portrayal of the divine in the two faiths is that in Christianity God is never sated or satiated unless there is pain or suffering. The running of a blade across the throat of an animal satiates God’s wrath.
“And without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)
Where as in Islam a contrite human heart is what is needed before a Loving and Merciful Creator.
“The Day when neither wealth will be of any use nor sons, except to one who will come to Allah with a sound heart.” (Qur’an 26:88-89)
The blueprint for forgiveness was initiated by our Creator let us not forget this!
In Islam Allah forgives the first human being who erred and it was Allah who initiated the reproach between Creator and created!
Allah did not wait for Adam to approach him, in fact Allah inspired and taught him the words to seek forgiveness.
“Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.” (Qur’an 2: 37)
a) Allah taught Adam the very words to seek reconciliation with him.
b) He accepted those words; because they are from him to begin with.
c) Allah accepts repentance.
Allah loves those who repent and purify themselves.
“Surely Allah loves those who always turn to Him in repentance and those who purify themselves.” (Qur’an 2:222)
Seeking forgiveness for our sins is an act of obedience and worship itself!
“Turn to Allah in repentance all together, O believers, so that you may be successful.” (Qur’an 24:31)
“O you who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! You have power over all things.” (Qur’an 66:8)
Allah (swt) has promised that he will forgive your sins.
“And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:110)
“The Forgiver of sin and Accepter of repentance, the Severe in punishment, and Infinite in bounty. There is no god except Him. To Him is the final return.” (Qur’an 40:3)
Your sins are not greater than Allah’s mercy.
Disbelieving in Allah’s mercy and/or willingness to forgive sins is a major sin. A trap of Shaitan.
“He said, “And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except for those astray?” (Qur’an 15:56)
“”O my sons! go and enquire about Joseph and his brother, and never give up hope of Allah’s Soothing Mercy: truly no one despairs of Allah’s Soothing Mercy, except those who ungrateful disbelievers.” (Qur’an 12:87)
“Say, ˹O Prophet, that Allah says,˺ “O My servants who have exceeded the limits against their souls! Do not lose hope in Allah’s mercy, for Allah certainly forgives all sins. He is indeed the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 39:53)
“O believers! Do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Whoever follows Satan’s footsteps, then he surely bids immorality and wickedness. Had it not been for Allah’s grace and mercy upon you, none of you would have ever been purified. But Allah purifies whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.” (Qur’an 24:21)
Allah (swt) forgives all sins via repentance. This includes shirk as shirk is a sin.
Please see our article here that explains this. Al hamduillah our school is upon the haqq concerning this matter. May Allah (swt) guide the ummah to the truth.
We have no one else to turn to or efface our sins except Allah. Only Allah forgives Sins.
“Those who, upon committing an evil deed or wronging themselves, remember Allah and seek forgiveness for their sins—and who forgives sins except Allah?—and they do not knowingly persist in wrongdoing?” (Qur’an 3:135)
“Once you make a decision, put your trust in Allah. Surely Allah loves those who trust in Him.” (Qur’an 3:159)
Allah (swt) loves those who trust and rely upon him. Are we not trusting and relying upon Allah -alone when we ask him and him alone to forgive us? The answer is yes. Therefore in that condition we are among those who Allah (swt) loves!
How do I know that my repentance is sincere?
“O you who have believed, repent to Allah with sincere repentance.” (Qur’an 66:8)
“And whoever repents and does good has truly turned to Allah properly.” (Qur’an 25:71)
The fact that you desired to repent in and of itself is an act of sincerity. Second that you follow up your incorrect conduct with correct conduct.
Remorse is repentance.
Leaving the sin
Having remorse after committing the sin, which can only happen if our nature is not sinful to begin with.
Resolve to not return to the sin
If you sinned against Allah ask Allah to forgive you.
If you sinned against another person return their rights or seek reconciliation.
If you sinned against yourself, forgive yourself.
How do we know that our repentance is accepted?
“But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:39)
“As for those who repent, mend their ways, and let the truth be known, they are the ones to whom I will turn tofor I am the Accepter of Repentance, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:160)
“But I am truly Most Forgiving to whoever repents, believes, and does good, then persists on guidance.” (Qur’an 20:82)
“As for those who repent, believe, and do good, it is they who will be admitted into Paradise, never being denied any reward.” (Qur’an 19:60)
“Only for those who do wrong. But if they later mend evil with good, then I am certainly All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 27:11)
The act of repentance in and of itself is a good. Than you follow up your repentance by continuing to do good deeds and trusting in Allah (Qur’an 3:159) by doing such is a sign that you have truly repented. It is also a sign that Allah has forgiven you.
Allah actually wants to accept our repentance!
“Allah wants to make clear to you [the lawful from the unlawful] and guide you to the [good] practices of those before you and to accept your repentance. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (Qur’an 4:26)
“Allah wants to accept your repentance, but those who follow their passions want you to digress into a great deviation.” (Qur’an 4:27)
“And it is He who accepts repentance from his servants and pardons misdeeds, and He knows what you do.” (Qur’an 42:25)
When we do a sin repent and start on the course of good we can know that Allah (swt) loves us.
“And do good, for Allah certainly loves the good-doers.” (Qur’an 2:195)
“And Allah loves the good-doers.” (Qur’an 3:134)
Allah loves those who are a doers of good.
Repentance is an act of worship and obedience.
Repentance is an act of good.
Therefore Allah loves us.
The angels keep a record of all our actions. For those who die upon faith and die upon Islam all the good is kept. The minor sins they are turned into good.
“This, Our record, speaks about you in truth. Indeed, We were having transcribed whatever you used to do.” (Qur’an 45:29)
A HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING. ALLAH’S FORGIVENESS IS NOT ARBITRARY.
To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He forgives whoever (liman) He wills, and punishes whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Qur’an 3:129)
First of all. If you take this verse in isolation of other verses it means that those people who sincerely repent Allah (swt) may not forgive them. Then those people whom Allah (swt) says he would not forgive it means Allah (swt) would might them. Far above Allah (swt) to ascribe to him a capricious nature.
Second of all. There is no such thing as Allah can forgive your sins but not 100% otherwise it would be vain. Allah is far above this!
What is the benefit of Allah forgiving a servant of some of his sins and then leaving them alone? We accuse Allah (swt) of fooling around, while Allah Almighty is far above this.
You will often note that those verses that have the phrase: “He forgives whoever (liman) He wills, and punishes whoever He wills.” are in connection to asserting Allah’s authority over the claim of Jews or Christians who claim salvation is solely for them. Or, even in the context of Allah (swt) asserting authority over that of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Some examples:
“The Jews and the Christians each say, “We are the children of Allah and His most beloved!” Say, “Why then does He punish you for your sins? No! You are only humans like others of His Own making. He forgives whoever He wills and punishes whoever He wills. To Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and everything in between. And to Him is the final return.” (Qur’an 5:18)
“You ˹O Prophet˺ have no say in the matter. It is up to Allah to turn to them in mercy or punish them, for indeed they are wrongdoers. To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He forgives whoever He wills, and punishes whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:128-129)
Allah (swt) put conditions on receiving forgiveness.
“But indeed, I am the Perpetual Forgiver of whoever (liman) repents and believes and does righteousness and then continues in guidance.” (Qur’an 20:82)
Whoever dies without repenting from shirk, unlawful sexual intercourse, killing a soul without right. Allah will not forgive them.
“And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated -Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:68-70)
Anyone who sincerely repents will be like one who did not do any sins. This is correct. However, will that person recover and repent before the Angel of Death surprises him? This is a huge risk!
“Say, “What would my Lord care for you if not for your supplication?” For you have denied, so your denial is going to be adherent.” (Qur’an 25:77)
SINS CAN BE FORGIVEN FOR YOUR AFTERLIFE YET HAVE EFFECTS FELT IN THIS LIFE.
Another point is that there are effects of the sins and transgressions that we have done. For example if we sincerely repent this means that Allah (swt) has forgiven us in the afterlife. However, you will suffer from the effects of your sins in this world. May Allah (swt) forgive us in this life and the afterlife. So let us not take risk!
In other words Allah (swt) may hasten your punishment in this life and forgive you in the afterlife if you are sincere in your repentance.
This does not necessarily apply to every time you sin or every type of sin and Allah knows best. Some of the scholars mention that Allah (swt) says he is Forgiving and Forgiving. Why did he simply not say Forgiving? They say that forgiveness means pardoning you for the effects of this sin in this world and forgiveness means erasing the sin itself!
This is seen in Allah’s name: Al-Afuww -The one who not only forgives sins but also eliminates their negative impact, as if they never occurred.
Two examples:
Example A: Person is forgiven but the effects of sin are felt.
A person commits illicit sexual intercourse. This person is very remorseful and turns in sincere repentance to Allah. Allah (swt) forgives them. No punishment awaits them in the next life. However, the person finds out they have contracted HIV. This will impact the person for the rest of his/her life. Even knowingly being intimate with a person whom is unaware of your HIV status can lead to criminal charges, such as attempted murder.
Example B: Person is forgiven but the effects of sin are not felt.
A person was in a rush and was negligent in their wudhu. Not having a proper wudhu nullifies and invalidates the prayer. The person then realizes this. They do their wudhu with care and consideration and pray with devotion and sincerity. They ask Allah (swt) to forgive them. They are forgiven. No punishment awaits them in the next life nor are there any negative effects felt from the sin.
“As for those who repent, believe, and do good deeds, they are the ones whose evil deeds Allah will change into good deeds. For Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:70)
“Surely good deeds wipe out evil deeds. That is a reminder for the mindful.” (Qur’an 11:114) -how you know your sins are forgiven.
“IF (but) eschew the evilest of the things which you are forbidden to do, We shall expel out of (Saiyiatikum) YOU ALL THE EVIL IN YOU, and admit you to a gate of great honor.” (Qur’an 4:31)
Allah loves those who purify themselves.
“Surely Allah loves those who always turn to Him in repentance and those who purify themselves.” (Qur’an 2:222)
Repentance itself is an act of purification. It is the initial process to cleanse the heart and soul of the sin committed and therefore Allah loves those who initiate this process.
Allah loves those who are just.
“And whoever does evil or acts unjustly to his soul, then asks forgiveness of Allah, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:110)
“Surely Allah loves those who uphold justice.” (Qur’an 49:9)
When you sin you act unjustly to your soul -you are condemning yourself to possible damnation. Therefore when you seek forgiveness to Allah (swt) you are doing justice to yourself, to your own soul and as you are upholding justice via your repentance your among those beloved to Allah (swt).
The Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) is to seek forgiveness as instructed by Allah (swt).
“And seek Allah’s forgiveness. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 73:20)
“So be patient ˹O Prophet˺, ˹for˺ Allah’s promise is certainly true. Seek forgiveness for your sin. And glorify the praises of your Lord morning and evening.” (Qur’an 40:55)
“We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by Allah’s leave. And if, when they had wronged themselves, they had but come to you and asked forgiveness of Allah, and asked forgiveness of the messenger, they would find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:64)
“If you should love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 3:31)
The Blessed Messenger (saw) used to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him. That is part of his Sunnah. It is a major part of his Sunnah to ask Allah (swt) to forgive him, have mercy and compassion upon him.
By doing this we to follow and emulate the Blessed Messenger (saw) thus becoming the people mentioned in (Qur’an 3:31). Allah will love us and forgive us -1) for following the sunnah in general. 2) especially for following the sunnah of asking for forgiveness.
Allah responds to our prayers!
This simple fact is above all else. It in and of itself is the cause for the elation of the soul and the hope for the penitent.
When My servants ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about Me: I am truly near. I respond to one’s prayer when they call upon Me. So let them respond ˹with obedience˺ to Me and believe in Me, perhaps they will be guided ˹to the Right Way˺ (Qur’an 2:186)
“Your Lord has proclaimed, “Call upon Me, I will respond to you. Surely those who are too proud to worship Me will enter Hell, fully humbled.” (Qur’an 40:60)
“To the tribe of Thamud We sent their brother Salih. He said, “My people, worship God. You have no God other than Him. He created you out of the earth and made you inhabit it. Ask Him to forgive your sins, and turn towards Him in repentance. My Lord is near, and ready to answer.” (Qur’an 11:61)
Holy Angels That Are Beings of Pure Light Pray Constantly and Continuously for your Forgiveness and Guidance!
“Those (angels) who carry the Throne and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, have faith in Him, and seek forgiveness for the believers, (praying) “Our Lord! You encompass everything in (your) mercy and knowledge. So forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and protect them from the torment of Hellfire. Our Lord! Admit them into the Gardens of Eternity which You have promised them, along with the righteous among their parents, spouses, and descendants. You (alone) are truly the Almighty, All-Wise. And protect them from (the consequences of their) evil deeds. For whoever You protect from the evil of their deeds on that Day will have been shown Your mercy. That is the ultimate triumph.” (Qur’an 40:7-9)
Prima Qur’an comments:
Imagine that Allah (swt) created a group of angels that specifically are tasked with praying for the forgiveness and protection of the believers. Those who follow the way of Allah. Not only are they praying for you specifically, they are praying for your parents , and the wife or husband that you have not even met or married yet! The one who is currently your parent and for the children you have not even had born yet! As well as those who currently are your children!
There is tremendous amount of love and mercy that is directed towards the believers! That is why those who reject all this love and mercy are kafir (ingrates) -(ungrateful) such a people are without question and without doubt deserving of the hellfire because it is the path they pro actively choose.
NOT TO MENTION THE MONTH OF RAMADAN.
This can be a whole entry in and of itself. However, in particular this is to the Muslim reader. You know the amount of mercy and forgiveness and spiritual upliftment that is contained with in the month of Ramadan! It is an entire month that comes every year that is a means of spiritual training and gaining proximity and closeness to Allah (swt).
Imagine if in Ramadan you were to continuously pray to Allah (swt) for forgiveness and protection from the hellfire. Imagine even if you prayed that du’a with sincerity even once and it was granted!
A WARNING TO THE BELIEVERS.
Dear brothers and sisters, respected ummah of Muhammed (saw). All that has gone before is to show you that the deck has not been stacked against us. Quite the opposite. The fact that we are have been commanded to pray five times a day. That those five daily prayers are a continuous means for us to draw night and ask forgiveness from the Supreme Sovereign of this Universe. The gift of the month of Ramadan. Angelic beings of light praying for us and our spouses and children that we ourselves potentially haven’t even met! This is supreme love, supreme grace, supreme care and supreme mercy.
That being said we have to want this mercy and this love and this grace. In light of all that has been said those who end up going to hellfire are those among us who are actively participating in our own self destruction. You actually have to want to go to hellfire. How does one want this? By disobeying Allah (swt), by avoiding the commands of a Sovereign Creator and indulging in that which The Creator has prohibited. Most of all by shunning repentance
Ask Allah to forgive you quickly.
“Allah only accepts the repentance of those who commit evil ignorantly ˹or recklessly˺ then repent soon after Allah will pardon them. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:17)
“And hasten towards forgiveness from your Lord and a Paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth, prepared for those mindful ˹of Allah˺” (Qur’an 3:133)
Delaying repentance is a sign of arrogance and ingratitude. Here you have a Lord that wants to forgive you and you shun this forgiveness. It is an act of disobedience. It is a sign that you are not recalcitrant and that you deem your action or style of living as something of light consequence.
Very sobering verse from the Qur’an.
Why should we not delay repentance?
“However, repentance is not accepted from those who knowingly persist in sin until they start dying, and then cry, “Now I repent!” nor those who die as disbelievers. For them We have prepared a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 4:18)
Are you guaranteed to live after reading this very sentence? Are you guaranteed to live the next few minutes or even the next hour? So considering that repentance is not accepted by the one who waits to be besieged by the angel of death when is the best time to repent?
Now!
“Indeed, whoever commits misdeeds, and becomes besieged by his iniquities—these are the inmates of the Fire, wherein they will dwell forever.” (Qur’an 2:81)
Any Muslim who sins it is the duty of the believing Muslim to admonish his brother/sister in a good way. Help them to save face. Do not humiliate them. Advise them in a good manner.
However, if a Muslim continues to persist in sin that person is to be shunned. To continue to walk in fellowship with them is walking in fellowship to the one who insults Allah (swt) , shuns his mercy and forgiveness and guidance.
“Cooperate with one another in goodness and righteousness, and do not cooperate in sin and transgression. And be mindful of Allah. Surely Allah is severe in punishment.” (Qur’an 5:2)
Remember that Allah (swt) only accepts from those of us who do our level best to live a righteous a life.
“Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him]” (Qur’an 5:27)
If any person Muslim or not dies as a fasiq (a person committing major sins), does not repent, is unjust Allah will refuse his/her all his deeds and that one will be in hell.
“That is because they followed what angered Allah and disliked [what earns] His pleasure, so He rendered worthless their deeds.” (Qur’an 47:28)
“Those who disbelieved, and prevented (others) from Allah’s way, He (Allah) has rendered their deeds vain.” (Qur’an 47:1)
“And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated –Except for those who repent, believe and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 25:70)
The question has been put forward to you dear brothers and sisters and sincere truth seekers.
“Will, they not turn with repentance to Allah and ask His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Qur’an 5:74)
“And He is the All-Forgiving, All-Loving (Qur’an 85:14)
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali.
﷽
(Pictured above is Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h) in a light moment.)
The following is a transcript of the respected Shaykh, Ahmed Al Khalili (h).
“The baptism of Allah” and who is better than Allah in baptism? And we are His worshippers. There is much disagreement concerning the meaning of “ṣibghah ” here; however, we find this disagreement expressed in two main views.
The first view is held by those who say that what is meant by “ṣibghah ” here is whatAllah may He be exalted and glorified has instilled in the hearts of His believing servants of loyalty to Him, obedience to Him, faith in Him and in the prophets, faith in what was revealed to them, and action in accordance with that faith. This view indicates that Allah may He be exalted has planted the meanings of faith in the believers, and its effects have appeared in their conduct. These effects are like an outward, visible dye, by which they are distinguished from all other people.
The terms ṣibghah and ṣibgh are also used to refer to character, dispositions, and the upbringing that a father gives his children. An example is the poet’s saying: “Every people have their own dye/character, and the dye/character of Hamdan is the best of dyes; we raise our children upon that, so how excellent is our dye among dyers!” For what is meant by ṣibghah here is the psychological upbringing whose psychological effects manifest in behavior.
To this view reverts the interpretation of those who explain ṣibghah as religion, those who explain it as innate nature (fiṭrah), those who explain it as sacred law (sharī’ah), and those who explain it as the seal/stamp for those who interpret ṣibghah as the seal have understood the concept of ṣibghah in this sense.
The second view is that ṣibghah is mentioned by way of literary parallelism (mushākalah) specifically, confirmatory parallelism because some of the Jews, in ages past, used to perform a bath of repentance. This practice continued until it resulted in what came to be called baptism (ta’mīd) and the sacrament of baptism (ma’mūdiyyah) among some of the Christians. The origin of this was that when one of their priests offered a sacrifice of repentance for a sin he had committed, or for a sin committed by his household, as well as during festivals the festivals of repentance for the general sins of the Children of Israel they would bathe. They continued this practice.
It was said that when John son of Zechariah (peace be upon him) would call people to repentance and remorse, just as they used to repent, and he would command them to bathe in the Jordan River. This was called in Aramaic ma’mūdhā or ma’mūthā, meaning purification. When Jesus (peace be upon him) received the revelation, he had first bathed and washed. The Arabs rendered the word ma’mūdh as ma’mūl and derived from it the terms al-ta’mīd and al-ta’mud (baptism). Thus, one who converted to Christianity was said to have been “baptized” (ta’mada) if he performed that washing which is followed by entering Christianity. And they said of those priests of the Christians who administer this rite in bringing someone into Christianity that he “baptizes” (‘ammada) or is “a baptizer” (mu’ammid).
It was said that when severe disagreement arose between John son of Zechariah and Jesus (peace be upon them both) on one side, and the Jews on the other, the Jews abandoned this washing, so it remained among the Christians and they continued it. Some of them began baptizing their children on the seventh day, saying to the one they baptized on that day: “Today you have truly become an Israelite” that is, on the seventh day after his birth, they wash him in water. This water is kept in basins in the churches, and they claim that in this water there are remnants of the water with which Jesus (peace be upon him) bathed and which dripped from his body. Whenever the water is about to run out, they add new water to it, so that those drops which they claim remain would continue to exist in that water. This water is what is called “the water of baptism” (mā’ al-ma’mūliyyah).
Based on this based on this view the noble verse contains a parallelism, meaning: If you are immersing yourselves in this water by which you enter into your religion, or by which you bring people into your religion, or by which you bring your children into your religion, then we have been dyed with Allah’s baptism.
It is also said that this water the Jews used to call ghimās in the bath from ṣaba’a yaṣba’u meaning “to immerse” in the Hebrew language. When the Arabs Arabized that, they disliked using the root ṣ-b-‘_ because it does not convey this meaning in Arabic. So they rendered this word using the root ṣ-b-gh instead. That is why it was called ṣibgh, ṣibghah, and ṣibghah.
As for ṣibghah it is either a verbal noun indicating a state or manner, like jilsah (a sitting posture), or it is a passive participle, because the passive participle can come on the pattern fi’l and fi’lah as in ṭiḥn meaning “ground flour,” wid meaning “found,” ḥib meaning “beloved” and likewise it comes on the pattern fi’lah when one intends femininity, like ṣibghah and wishqah for something split/cracked.
There is much disagreement regarding the grammatical declension of ṣibghah here. Some say that ṣibghah is a substitute (badal) for “the religion of Abraham” (millat Ibrāhīm) so whoever reads millata Ibrāhīma in the accusative, reads ṣibghata in the accusative; and whoever reads it in the nominative, reads ṣibghatu in the nominative. Others say it is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid) that emphasizes the meaning in Allah’s saying: “Say: We believe in Allah and what was revealed to us…” i.e., faith as Allah’s baptism; this faith is the baptism. Some say it is an emphasis for the entire preceding sentence, as in Allah’s saying may He be exalted “And on that day the believers will rejoice in Allah’s help; He helps whom He wills, and He is the Mighty, the Merciful. [This is] Allah’s promise” so the verbal noun “Allah’s promise” emphasizes the entire preceding sentence, not a previously implied verbal noun. Similarly, “The baptism of Allah” “And who is better than Allah in baptism?” i.e., we are baptized/immersed in Allah’s baptism, or the religion of Abraham is Allah’s baptism, or faith is Allah’s baptism, or adherence to Allah’s baptism. “And who is better than Allah in baptism?” — i.e., who is there whose baptism is better than Allah’s baptism? The interrogative here is rhetorical, meaning negation, indicating denial.
“And we are His worshippers” i.e., we are submissive to Him, or we are obedient to Him, or we are humbly devoted to Him, or we are submissive to Him. All of this has been mentioned in the interpretation of worship (‘ibādah) and servitude (u’būdah), as previously explained in Sūrat al-Fātiḥah that it is absolute humility that emanates from the soul with a consciousness inspired by correct belief in the Creator, may He be exalted and glorified. This is the correct worship required of man.
“And we are His” i.e., for Allah alone, not for any other i.e., we do not associate any partner with Him “worshippers.” Therefore, the related element (the prepositional phrase) is placed before the predicate (‘ābidūn) to indicate exclusivity. In this there is a subtle allusion to the Jews and Christians who worshipped other than Allah, may He be exalted and glorified.
We will now conclude at this point, asking Allah may He be exalted for success and right guidance. He is the One who grants success. And may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon our master Muḥammed, and upon his family and all his companions. Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. And peace be upon the messengers. And praise be to Allah, Lord of all worlds.
The following is from Dr. Ahmed bin Jabir Al Miskiri (h). May Allah (swt) reward him for this. It is a more precise and technical understanding of the above discussion.
baptism/colouring] of Allah. And who is better than Allah in baptism? And we are worshippers of Him.” There has been much disagreement regarding the sibghah, yet we restrict this disagreement to two opinions: The first is the view of those who said that what is meant by the sibghah here is what Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, has infused into the hearts of His believing servants of their loyalty and obedience to Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, their belief in Him, in the prophets, and in what was sent down to them, and their acting in accordance with this faith. For this opinion indicates that Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, implanted in the believers the matters of faith, so their effects appeared upon their conduct, making these effects akin to a clear, manifest dye, by which they were distinguished from all other people.
The Arabs apply the term sibghah to morals, natural dispositions, and the upbringing with which a father raises his sons. From that is the poet’s saying: “And every people have a sibghah, and the sibghah of Hamdan is the best of sibgh; we have dyed our sons upon that, so how noble is our sibghah in the sibgh!” Indeed, what is meant by sibghah here is the upbringing whose psychological effects appear in conduct. And to this opinion returns the view of whoever interpreted sibghah as religion, whoever interpreted sibghah as the natural disposition (fitrah), whoever interpreted sibghah as the divine law (sharia), and whoever interpreted sibghah as circumcision. By my life, indeed whoever interpreted sibghah as circumcision has certainly narrowed the concept of sibghah!
The second opinion is that sibghah was mentioned by way of estimated matching (mushākalah); becauses some of the Jews, in bygone ages, used to perform the ritual bath of repentance, and this ritual bath continued until it resulted in what came to be called baptism and baptismal practices among some of the Christians. And the origin of that: that the priests one of them, when presenting a sacrifice of repentance for a sin he committed or a sin committed by the people of his household, and likewise during the feasts of repentance for the general sins of the Children of Israel used to bathe, and they continued to do so.
It was said that when John the son of Zechariah, peace be upon him, was calling the people to repentance, and whenever they repented, he would command them to bathe from the stream of the Jordan. And this was called in the Aramaic language (ma’mūdhut or ma’mūdhutā) meaning purification. And Jesus, peace be upon him, when he received the revelation, had first taken a bath and washed. The Arabs arabized the word (ma’mūdhut) into the word (ma’mūd), and they derived from it baptism (ta’mīd) and being baptized (ta’amud). So it was said of one who Christianized: “He was baptized” when he performed that bath which is followed by his embracing of Christianity. And they said of whoever performs that from among the Christian priests in admitting someone into Christianity: “He baptizes” or “he is a baptizer.”
It was said that when the severe disagreement arose between John the son of Zechariah and Jesus, peace be upon them, on the one hand, and the Jews on the other hand, the Jews abandoned this ritual bath, so it remained among some of the Christians and they persisted in it. And some of them when they began to baptize their children on the seventh day, and they say to the one for whom they baptized: “Today you have truly become a Christian.” The child on the seventh day of his birth is washed by them in water. This water is prepared in basins in the churches, and they claim that in this water are remnants of the water with which Jesus, peace be upon him, washed and which dripped from his body.
Whenever the water was on the verge of running out, they added new water to it so that those droplets which they claim remain present in that water might persist; this water is what is called the water of baptism. Based on this opinion, there is in the noble verse a matching (mushākalah); meaning: If you dye yourselves with this water with which you enter your religion, or with which you bring people into your religion, or with which you bring your children into your religion, then we have indeed dyed ourselves with the sibghah of Allah, the Exalted.
It is said that this water the Jews used to call the act of dipping into it (al-sab’-) from (saba’a, yasba’u) meaning to plunge in the Hebrew language. When the Arabs arabized that, they found it distasteful to use the root (saba’a) because it is a root that does not indicate this meaning in the Arabic language, so they arabized this word by dotting the ghayn (changing it to sabagha). Therefore, that was called sabghan, sibghan, and sibghah.
And sibghah is either an infinitive noun indicating state/manner like al-jilsah, or it is a passive participle, because the passive participle is brought in the measure of fi’l and fi’lah, like tihlun meaning ground, jaddun meaning existing, and hibbun meaning beloved. Likewise, the measure of fi’lah is brought when feminine intent is intended, like sibghah and shiqfah for a broken piece.
There has been much disagreement regarding the parsing (i’rāb) of al-sibghah here: some of them said that al-sibghah is in apposition (badal) to millata Ibrahima. Therefore, whoever recited millata Ibrahima in the accusative in recitation recited sibghata in the accusative, and whoever raised it raised it. And it was said: It is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar mu’akkid); it emphasizes the meaning in His saying, the Most High: {Say, “We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us”} meaning: as faith, the sibghah of Allah. This faith is the sibghah of Allah.
Some of them said that it is an affirmation for the entire sentence, as in his saying: It is an emphatic verbal noun for the entire preceding sentence, not an emphasis for a prior estimated verbal noun. Similar to this is the saying of Allah, the Glorified and Exalted: {And that Day the believers will rejoice * in the victory of Allah. He gives victory to whom He wills, and He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful * The promise of Allah}. The verbal noun is wa’da Allah meaning: Allah promised you that, His promise. This verbal noun emphasizes the entire preceding sentence: Sibghata Allah wa man ahsana min Allahi sibghah meaning: We are dyed with the sibghah of Allah, or the religion of Abraham is the sibghah of Allah, or as faith, the sibghah of Allah, or adhere to the sibghah of Allah.
And wa man ahsana min Allahi sibghah? Meaning: Which person is better in sibghah than Allah? And the intent is: Which sibghah from any person is better than the sibghah of Allah? The interrogation here is in the meaning of negation, indicating negation.
And wa nahnu lahu ‘ābidaūn; meaning: and we are submissive to Him, or and we are humbly submissive to Him, or and we are obedient to Him all of that has been said in the exegesis of worship (‘ibādah). Worship, as previously explained in Surah Al-Fatihah, is: absolute submission that stems from the soul with a feeling inspired by the correct belief in the Creator, the Glorified and Exalted; this is the correct worship required from man.
And nahnu lahu meaning to Allah alone, not to anyone else. Meaning: we do not associate anyone else with Him as worshippers (‘ābidūn). Therefore, the dependent element which is the preposition and its genitive was advanced over the dependent element which is ‘ābidūn for the sake of conferring restriction (ḥasr). And in this is an insinuation against the Jews and the Christians who worshipped other than Allah, the Glorified and Exalted.”
What are the key points from all of this?
The Two Main Interpretations
First Opinion: Metaphorical / Spiritual
Ṣibghah refers to the inward imprint of faith that Allah places in the hearts of believers.
It manifests in loyalty, obedience, belief in Allah and His prophets, and righteous action.
This faith becomes like a visible dye that distinguishes believers from others in their character and conduct.
The term is also linked to morals, natural disposition (fiṭrah), religion (dīn), divine law (sharī’ah), and even upbringing as in the poet’s example where a father “dyes” his children with his tribe’s noble values.
One interpreter even said it means circumcision, though Dr. Ahmed bin Jabir Al Miskiri (h) alternative translation adds a critical note that this narrows the concept too much.
Second Opinion: Historical / Ritual (Parallelism with some strands of Judaism and/or some strrands of Christian Baptism)
The word ṣibghah is used here as literary parallelism (mushākalah)—a rhetorical device where the Quran uses a term familiar to its audience to make a point, without adopting their literal meaning.
Background: Some Jews practiced ritual washing for repentance a practice that continued and evolved into Christian baptism (ma’mūdiyyah).
It was said that John the Baptist called people to repent and wash in the Jordan; Jesus also washed before receiving revelation.
The Aramaic term for this was ma’mūdhā (purification), which the Arabs Arabized into ma’mūd and derived ta’mīd (baptism).
It was noted that some Christian groups later baptized infants on the seventh day, using “holy water” kept in church basins. Water they believed contained remnants of the water Jesus used.
The Quranic twist: The verse is saying: “If you (Jews/Christians) dye/immerse yourselves in your ritual water, we (Muslims) have been dyed with Allah’s own baptism far superior.” It’s a rhetorical rebuttal, not an endorsement of the ritual.
3. Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis
Ṣibghah can be:
A verbal noun indicating manner/state (like jilsah = posture).
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
﷽
INTRODUCTION AND FRAMEWORK
I. Introduction: The Silence of the Apologists
If you were to tune into the Christian apologetic scene, they really seem to be on a tare about how Islam somehow is not in continuity with the Bible. At least that is their claim. Yet, they are awfully quiet about the biggest ritual in all of Christianity, namely the rite of baptism.
This fundamental ritual has been a matter of dispute among Christians until today. Does one get baptized in the name of Jesus only or in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
At what age does one get baptized? Can babies get baptized or not? Does a Church less Christian have authority to baptize? Can any self-professed Christian baptize any other self-professed Christian?
Is baptism required for salvation? What happens when there is no water available? Is it enough to be baptized in water? What is baptism by the Holy Spirit?
In our view this is not discussed enough in apologetic spaces.
Baptism. That quirky ritual found neither in Judaism or Islam.
The Qur’an addresses this matter directly:
“(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We are His worshippers.” (Qur’an 2:138) -Pickthall
“(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah? And it is He Whom we worship.” (Qur’an 2:138)-Yusuf Ali
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah – Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
This article argues that Christian baptism, the central rite of Christianity, has no foundation in the Hebrew Bible, no clear authorization from Jesus, and no consistent theological meaning across Christian traditions. In contrast, the Qur’anic concept of “the dye of Allah” (ṣib’ghat Allāh) offers a superior framework for spiritual purification rooted in the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity.
II. The Qur’anic Framework: Understanding “The Dye of Allah”
We have two English translations of Qur’an 2:138 as seen above. They are both sound in their meaning.
The Word sib’ghata: Literally translates to “dye” or “color”
The great scholar of tafsir Shaykh Muḥammed b. Yūsuf Aṭfayyish (r) has the following to say:
“{The dye of Allah (ṣibghat Allāh)} is the fiṭra of Allah, the primordial constitution upon which He created mankind. It is Islam, or divine enabling (tawfīq), or the conclusive proof (ḥujja); or it is the purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. It is likened to a dye in that it is outwardly manifest. As a dye is manifest. And an ornament; and in that it permeates the very depths of what is dyed, being firmly rooted therein; and in that by it man is set apart from all other animate creatures, and from the unbelievers, as a dyed garment is set apart. This is an explicit metaphor (istiʿāra taṣrīḥiyya), original (aṣliyya) and realized (taḥqīqiyya).”
“Alternatively, it was termed a “dye” by way of mushākala (assimilative phrasing) since it occurs adjacent to an elided expression, namely the Christians’ dyeing of their children in the water of baptism so that their Christianity might be confirmed. This is a yellow water, originally the water with which Jesus (peace be upon him) was washed on the third day after his birth; whenever it is depleted they add water to it, and they hold it to be a purification. It is said to be an Arabized rendering of maʿmūdhīnā. With a dotted dhāl. Meaning purity: water sanctified by what is recited over it from the Gospel, in which pregnant women then bathe.”
“Allah commanded the believers to say to the Christians: Say, we have believed in Allah, and Allah has dyed us with faith. A dye unlike the dye of baptism. {And who is better than Allah in dyeing?}. None is better than the dye of Allah, nor is any its equal, for it is Islam, which delivers from disgrace in this world and the next and bequeaths the good of both. {And we are His}. His alone, and no other’s, unlike your associating others with Him in worship, O company of Jews and Christian.”
Key Understanding: The “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. This stands in direct contrast to human-invented rituals like baptism. Shaykh Aṭfayyish’s commentary illuminates that the “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but an internal purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. This presents a profound critique. While Christians debate the mechanics of baptism, the Qur’an directs attention to the spiritual transformation itself.
THE ETYMOLOGY AND ORIGINS OF BAPTISM
III. What is the Etymology of Baptism?
[B-1,Verb,G907, baptizo] “to baptize,” primarily a frequentative form of bapto, “to dip,” was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vessel into another, etc. Plutarchus uses it of the drawing of wine by dipping the cup into the bowl (Alexis, 67) and Plato, metaphorically, of being overwhelmed with questions (Euthydemus, 277 D).
βάπτω to dip in water Dodson: βάπτω I dip, dye (a) I dip, (b) I dye. Strong’s: βάπτω to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye)
This linguistic connection is significant. The Greek word from which “baptism” derives is fundamentally about dyeing, or immersing something in a liquid to change its color. This connects directly to the Qur’anic concept of ṣib’ghat Allāh (the dye/color of Allah). What the Qur’an presents as a spiritual metaphor, the New Testament makes into a physical ritual, and even its linguistic roots betray this connection to the very concept the Qur’an uses.
IV. The Historical Problem: Baptism’s Absence from the Hebrew Bible
The first place baptism is ever mentioned in the New Testament is as follows:
“In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.’ ” Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Matthew 3:1-6).
There are a number of issues with this text.
It quotes from Isaiah 40:3. It is a quote mine. There is nothing anywhere in Isaiah that talks about the ritual of baptism. This brings us to our most devastating observation.
There is no mention of a baptism ritual anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. None of the Prophets ever preached it or practiced it or participated in it. None.
With this information in mind the following text is highly unlikely:
“Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins”
In fact, this whole issue is unresolved in the New Testament. It leads to a showdown between Jesus and the Jewish scholars with the matter apparently being unresolved.
“They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?” Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’…” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.) So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.” Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” (Mark 11:27-33).
You can find the same in Matthew 21:23-32 and Luke 20:1-8.
John’s baptism: Was it from heaven, or of human origin? <<< This is the smoking gun.
If the ritual of baptism was practiced, preached or participated in by any of the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible we would not have this type of confrontation. Now, we are reading what is claimed to be the thoughts of the Jewish leadership.
“They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin’…” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)
This begs the question. If the people really thought that John was a prophet then how can they flock to a person who is introducing a practice that is clearly not in continuity with Judaism?
How do we square these confrontations with the Jewish learned people when Jesus himself says the following:
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (Matthew 23:1-3)
So then what happens when they go to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees and ask them about baptism?
Matthew 21:23-32 has some additional information that Luke 20:1-8 and Mark 11:27-33 do not have.
Apparently not happy with the stalemate the writer of Matthew has Jesus try to one up the Jewish leadership.
“Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things. “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.” (Matthew 21:28–32)
However, this is nothing remarkable about what Jesus says here at all. It is not a rejoinder to the issue of where John got the authority to baptize.
Summary: No prophet in the Hebrew Bible ever preached, practiced, or participated in baptism. This is devastating to claims of continuity. This is not a minor detail. If baptism were essential for salvation, why would none of the prophets mention it or participate in it?
The Torah contains extensive legislation about purification rituals, sacrifices, and cleansing. Yet nothing resembling Christian baptism. The prophets called for repentance and turning to God, not ritual immersion in water for the forgiveness of sins.
V. Facts About John’s Baptism
Jesus replied:
“I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”
Facts about John’s baptism:
Jesus claims what John is doing has heavenly approval.
John wasn’t baptizing anyone in the name of Jesus.
John wasn’t baptizing anyone in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
John was baptizing people for the forgiveness of sins.
John’s baptizing involved no sacrifice or blood ritual.
Point 4 is explicitly stated in the following:
“And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4)
“He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)
VI. The Disconnect Between John’s Baptism and Christian Baptism
The question that has to be asked in regard to John’s baptism.
For Christians today the ritual of baptism carries the following significance:
Death and Resurrection.
Going under water: Represents dying with Christ and being buried.
Coming up from water: Signifies rising to a new life, mirroring Jesus’ resurrection.
The baptism of John could not possibly have meant those things to him or his followers as John was not even aware of Jesus (in fact he-John had to inquire about him-Jesus) and Jesus at that point hasn’t even died on a cross. So it is not possible that baptism has that theologically loaded understanding.
THE PROBLEM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
VII. The Tension Between Jesus and John the Baptist
What the New Testament text reveal is that there is a tension between Jesus and John the Baptist. In many places the New Testament writers go out of their way to belittle John the Baptist. As if he was a rival to Jesus.
The New Testament has Jesus have a dig at John the Baptist.
“Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Matthew 11:11)
“I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Luke 7:28)
In fact, this is a dig at all the Old Testament Prophets. That among all born among women there is none greater than John the Baptist. However, even the one who has the status of the ‘least’ in the kingdom of God/heaven is greater than John!
“Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Luke 3:16)
What do you mean untie his sandals? You are not even worthy to carry them much less untie them!
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
So whether John said he was unworthy to carry Jesus’ sandals or untie the straps of his sandals is beside the point. The point is that Jesus is greater than John the Baptist.
VIII. John’s Uncertainty: The Decisive Problem
The New Testament records a very difficult and strange interaction between prophet Jesus and prophet John.
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:15)
“After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee. When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.” (Matthew 11:1-5)
There are lots of issues with this:
John is a Prophet. He is filled with the Holy Spirit (even before he is born). Why does the Holy Spirit not know who Jesus is? How can a Prophet from God not recognize another Prophet from God?
Why does Jesus inform John about things he (John) already heard?
It is like this: John was informed Jesus performed a light show. So John wants to know if Jesus is a Prophet of God. So Jesus says, ‘Tell him I performed a light show’. Isn’t John already aware of this?
“When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah.”
“Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.”
Basically go back and inform John about things John is already informed about! What?
Why does Jesus give information to John that could also be true of a false messiah?
“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)
How does Jesus feel that this information would be convincing to John?
Jesus is essentially saying to John: “I am the Messiah because I perform miracles.” But Jesus also warns that false messiahs will perform miracles. Therefore, miracles are not a reliable test of prophetic authenticity. John, being a prophet, should have known this. Why would Jesus offer a test that even Jesus himself says is unreliable?
It is very obvious that much to keen eyes that much of the information in the New Testament is convoluted.
John dies without ever knowing or declaring that Jesus is the Messiah.
There is not a single text anywhere in the New Testament that records John the Baptist explicitly uttering a statement of final, settled belief in Jesus before he (John) dies.
His final recorded words or actions regarding Jesus are a question of intense uncertainty from a prison cell, followed shortly by his sudden execution. Source: (Matthew 11:2-3) & (Matthew 14:10)
Since the Holy Spirit never guided John concerning Jesus how will he guide in the future?
“Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.” (Luke 1:11-15)
Question: How can the Holy Spirit be expected to guide into ‘all truth’ in the future if we have demonstrable evidence he hasn’t done so in the past?
Question: How can Muslims fault Christians for not seeing the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures when John the Baptist (a Prophet filled with the Holy Spirit) who saw Jesus, touched Jesus (he baptized him) and witnessed a voice from heaven STILL didn’t know that Jesus was the Messiah?
Are we Muslims being harsh with the Christians in light of this evidence?
According to the New Testament and the witness of John the Baptist, the title ‘Son of God’ had no special meaning that marked out Jesus from others.
Think about this. John the Baptist himself baptized Jesus. John the Baptist hears the voice from heaven saying:
“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” – Matthew’s version the voice addresses other than Jesus.
“You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” – Mark’s version the voice addresses Jesus.
John the Baptist, a Prophet, filled with the Holy Spirit was sitting in prison and asked about Jesus:
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”
This is devastating. This shows us clear as day that this title ‘Son of God’ addressed from heaven itself was not enough to deter John from further inquiry!
This proves that the appellation, ‘Son of God‘ was nothing remarkable to John.
We discussed the idea that the Bible never presents God has having ‘only one son’ here:
IX. John the Baptist Does Not Quote a Single Reference in the Hebrew Bible to Validate Jesus
John the Baptist does not quote a single reference in the Hebrew Bible to validate Jesus. He is uncertain about who Jesus is.
The only reference that Christian apologist can think of is the following:
Then they said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” He said: “I am ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” (John 1:22-23)
If someone reads the above text, the name “Jesus” is nowhere to be found.
John is quoting Isaiah 40:3, which talks about preparing the way for “the Lord” (Yahweh in the original Hebrew). The connection to Jesus is an inference made by the author of the Gospel and later Christian theology, not a literal statement by John in that verse.
X. Jesus Validates John by Misquoting the Hebrew Bible
Jesus validates John by quoting references in the Hebrew Bible that he (Jesus) says is about John.
What is interesting about the gospels having Jesus testify to John is that this is actually a self-serving agenda. It is well known at this point that John precedes Jesus. So the Gospel writers have Jesus mention John being in the Hebrew scriptures because all the text that Jesus does quote end up quickly brushing John aside to point to Jesus.
“This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” (Matthew 11:10)
“This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” (Luke 7:27)
These are actually misquotes of Malachi 3:1
“Behold, I am sending My messenger to clear the way before Me, and the Sovereign you seek shall come to the temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming.” (Malachi 3:1) – Source: (https://www.sefaria.org/Malachi.3.1)
“Behold I send My angel, and he will clear a way before Me. And suddenly, the Lord Whom you seek will come to His Temple. And behold! The angel of the covenant, whom you desire, is coming, says the Lord of Hosts.” Source: (https://www.chabad.org/ Translation of Malachi 3:1)
The New Testament misquotations are a shift in pronouns.
When Matthew and Luke quote this verse (Matthew 11:10 and Luke 7:27), they make a significant change: they render the pronouns in the second-person.
“Behold, I send My messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.”
The “your” here refers to Jesus. The New Testament authors are not citing the LXX or MT directly but are adapting the text to apply it to Jesus as the Messiah.
The infamous misattribution of Mark 1:2-3:
Mark’s use of this passage has a unique, and more famous, textual issue. Mark 1:2-3 is a composite quotation, weaving together Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.
“as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,’ ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,'” (Mark 1:2-3).
The problem is that the first quotation is from Malachi, while only the second is from Isaiah. This raises a question: why is the entire quotation attributed to Isaiah?
A Well-Attested Reading: The phrase “in Isaiah the prophet” has the support of the earliest and most important manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and others). This is almost certainly Mark’s original wording.
A Later “Correction”: Some later manuscripts change the wording to “in the prophets” (as seen in the King James Version). This is widely considered a scribal correction to resolve the apparent conflict of attributing a Malachi quote to Isaiah.
“And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.” (Matthew 11:14)
So here Jesus validates John by claiming he is the return of Elijah and is thought to be a reference to the following text:
“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” (Malachi 4:5).
THE TIMING PROBLEM
XI. John in Prison Before Jesus’s Baptism
Look at the following text.
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them. But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison. When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”” (Luke 3:16–22)
“At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, and he said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered John a prophet. On Herod’s birthday the daughter of Herodias danced for the guests and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought in on a platter and given to the girl, who carried it to her mother. John’s disciples came and took his body and buried it. Then they went and told Jesus.” (Matthew 14:12)
“But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison.”
This happens before Jesus is baptized.
This is a problem because it never says that John was released from prison. According to Matthew, John is beheaded in prison. However, Matthew has it that John has already baptized Jesus.
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.“” (Matthew 3:11-17)
Now, Christian apologists will point to the following text in Luke:
“When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized.”
It uses a passive participle. This specific grammatical structure can describe an action that happened prior.
To which we reply: “Yes, correct this is what the text indicates. However, it can still read that way and appear before Luke 3:19-20.”
Especially if this is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it is preserved and passed down to us unadulterated.
Notice that Mark mentions John being in prison immediately after the baptism.
“John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”” (Mark 1:6-15)
All of the previous texts lead the sincere Christian truth seeker into some very uncomfortable conclusions.
JESUS AND BAPTISM
XII. Jesus Never Baptized Anyone (Or Did He?)
“After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.” (John 3:22)
ἐβάπτιζεν the verb ebaptizen (was baptizing) is imperfect active, meaning it was a continuous, ongoing action physically attributed to Jesus.
“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John. (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.) So he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.” (John 4:1-3)
Notice the parenthetical clarification: “although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.” This is unique to John’s Gospel.
The text says that it was not Jesus who baptized but his disciples. This raises the curious question: Who baptized Jesus’ disciples? The New Testament does not record a single instance of any of Jesus’ disciples getting baptized. It is simply assumed.
If Jesus gave this command to his disciples we wouldn’t have the following controversy:
“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.” (Acts 10:44-48)
Why would people object to gentiles being baptized if Jesus instructed his 12 disciples to do exactly that?
If Jesus instructed elders and hierarchy for his church how could people question Peter and what he was doing?
Also note that these people received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.
XIII. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11)
“John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”” (Luke 3:16)
Jesus never did any such thing. That is why the Christians say this ‘baptism’ is symbolic or spiritual. It refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The “baptism of the Holy Spirit” becomes a spiritualized concept that cannot be empirically verified. Insh’Allah we will revisit this later in the article.
XIV. The So-Called Great Commission is a Forgery and a Contradiction
Note that in Mark 16:15-16 there is no baptismal formula given.
“And he said unto them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
Notice the baptism formula given.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)
How are the unbaptized going to go and baptize others?
A missed opportunity: What the New Testament should have done is had Jesus rise from the dead and then in his glorified body baptize all his disciples and baptize them with fire.
Most critical scholars acknowledge that Mark 16:9-20 is not original to the Gospel of Mark. It is absent from the earliest and most important manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that it was absent from most Greek manuscripts. This is widely considered a later addition to resolve the abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 with ‘for they were afraid.'”
“Other ancient authorities omit verses 9–20. Some ancient authorities conclude Mark instead with the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
“This passage is regarded as inspired and canonical scripture even if not written by Mark. As it is missing from some important manuscripts, it is possible that Mark did not write it. On the other hand, he would hardly have left his Gospel unfinished at verse 8. Many think that the original ending was lost at a very early date and that this ending was composed at the end of the apostolic period to take its place.”
1. The ancient authorities had no problem with Jesus sending out his disciples with no mention of baptism.
2. The Church is the authority. Even if Mark did not write it. The Church has already read it as authoritative.
3. The Church admits that the original ending may have been lost, and this ending was composed. It does not say by whom.
BAPTISM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN PRACTICE
XV. The Evidence from Acts: Contradictions and Developments
“Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.” (Acts 18:24-26)
Look at what Paul does when Apollos is away.
“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.” (Acts 19:1-7)
The above text is striking.
These people who were baptized by John apparently never heard that there is a Holy Spirit. You have to wonder what type of teaching they actually received.
Also note that the above text says they received the Holy Spirit after being baptized. This is contrasted with (Acts 10:44-48) where they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized.
Here this text blatantly shows that John’s baptism is inadequate. Paul had them all baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus!
THE MANDAEAN CONNECTION
XVII. Enter the Mandeans: The Other Religion That Practices Baptism
“Indeed, those who have believed (amanu) and those who were Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and all those who associated (ashraku) with Allah. Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
In Arabic, the Mandaeans are commonly known as aṣ-Ṣābiʾūn (الصابئون) or colloquially as al-Ṣubba (صُبَّة)
The Mandaean book of John also hints at historical tensions with other religions of the region. Specifically Christianity and Judaism. Parts of the book try to discredit both of these traditions. Mandaeans believe the mother of Jesus was Mandaean and became pregnant by witchcraft or some other source other than her husband. The book portrays her son Jesus as a deceiver who abandons his Mandaean heritage.
Ruha, the mother of darkness is sometimes called the holy spirit, a possible dig against the Christian holy spirit. The book of John (Draša d-Yaḥyā) also refers to the Jewish god as Adonai, called ‘Adunay’ in Mandaean. It characterizes him as an evil figure as well as his book, the Torah as a book of falsehoods.
In the Mandaean book of John when Jesus is baptized the voice/letter from heaven informs John: “You baptize the deceiver” and then the ruha, or the spirit makes an appearance. This spirit is a malevolent figure according to the Mandaeans.
For John the Baptist and for the Mandaeans baptism is not a death and resurrection ritual!
The Mandaean Parallel is Illuminating:
The Mandaeans also practice baptism as a central ritual.
They view Jesus as a deceiver and John the Baptist as their true prophet.
Their rituals and understanding of baptism differ radically from Christian theology.
This demonstrates that baptism was a contested practice in the ancient Near East, not a clear, divinely-mandated ritual unique to Christianity.
XVI. The “Evil Jesus” Problem
There could be some truth to what the Mandaeans say.
The New Testament itself mentions an evil Jesus.
“And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:” (Acts 13:6)
There is no power in the name Jesus. Jesus was a common name at that time. It could refer to an evil doer. This is why it is quite possible that the New Testament is talking about a Jesus entirely different from what we as Muslims believe.
“For if a person comes and preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit, which you had not received, or a different gospel, which you had not accepted, you put up with it splendidly!” (2 Corinthians 11:4)
Just so Christians could be clear that they were not being baptized in the name of evil Jesus there was always a modifier.
Observe!
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38)
“(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts 8:16)
“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.” (Acts 10:48)
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)
In Acts 19:5, a number of “Western” textual witnesses add Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. translated as: ‘Christ for the forgiveness of sins’.
All of this to prevent Christians from being baptized into generic Jesus or evil Jesus.
Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.
‘Lord’ and ‘Christ’ are identifiers and modifiers so the people are not confused about which Jesus they are being baptized in. (Good Jesus or Evil Jesus).
THE THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM
XVIII. For the Christians the Meaning Behind Baptism
For the Christians the meaning behind baptism is spelled out for them.
“Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:3–4)
As we mentioned earlier in this article the baptism of John could not possibly have meant those things to him or his followers as John was not even aware of Jesus (in fact he-John had to inquire about him-Jesus) and Jesus at that point hasn’t even died on a cross. So it is not possible that baptism has that theologically loaded understanding.
With the Mandaeans recognizing Jesus as a deceiver and a disciple who betrayed John the Baptist, then their frequent baptisms also cannot have the theologically loaded understanding that Christians have.
XIX. Baptism by the Holy Spirit and Other Christian Disputes Over Baptism
Recall that in our article earlier we mentioned: The “baptism of the Holy Spirit” becomes a spiritualized concept that cannot be empirically verified.
“Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'” (Acts 2:38)
This is a promise, not a suggestion. It is addressed to everyone. Not just apostles, not just first-century believers. It is unconditional: repent → be baptized → receive the Spirit.
The question is: do we take this promise seriously? If so, then:
Every believer should expect to receive the Holy Spirit in a real, experiential way
The Spirit’s presence should be discernible. Whether through tongues, prophecy, healing, or other manifestations
The historic churches’ lack of these manifestations is not a sign of faithfulness, but a sign of loss or quenching of the Spirit
A Hard Question For the Historic Churches:
If the Holy Spirit is given to every believer at baptism (or confirmation/chrismation), then:
Why do believers in those traditions not consistently experience the Spirit’s power?
Why are the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 (tongues, prophecy, healing, miracles) not active in their congregations?
Why did the Pentecostal movement have to emerge in the 20th century to recover what the New Testament presents as normal?
The honest answer, from many within those traditions, is:
Cessationism – the belief that the miraculous gifts ceased with the apostles.
Sacramentalism – the belief that the Spirit is given through the ritual itself, regardless of experience.
Loss of expectation – generations of Christians have not been taught to expect the Spirit’s manifest presence.
But the New Testament does not teach cessationism. It does not separate the Spirit from experience. And it does not promise a Spirit whose presence is invisible and undetectable.
XX. Charismatic-Pentecostal-Holy Roller Churches Don’t Get the Full Hot Dog
Even those who argue that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is alive and well are very selective on what aspects of the Holy Spirit are seen and heard.
Examples.
“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” (Acts 2:1-4)
Who hears this rushing violent wind from heaven these days? Who witnesses tongues of fire upon the heads of Christians?
XXI. Baptism – Full Water Immersion and Christians Being Overly Ritualistic
How do these Christians deal with people who suffer from ablutophobia?
One Christian mentions that his seminary professor instructed him that if the one being baptized came up out of the water with their head dry, then they would need to be immersed again!
One Christian retells a story about a member in their church who was disabled and could not go under water. So after discussion the elders arranged for this person to be lifted into a hot tub where the baptism was given by pouring water over their head.
What about situations in the desert when you have no water? The person is dying and they want to convert and be baptized?
These practical problems expose the human origin of the ritual.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
XXII. Summary of Findings
1. Baptism Has No Hebrew Bible Foundation
No prophet preached, practiced, or participated in baptism.
The Torah is silent on this ritual.
The Isaiah 40:3 quotation is a “quote mine” about preparation, not baptism.
2. John’s Baptism Was Novel and Unresolved
The Mark 11:27-33 confrontation proves this.
Jewish religious leaders could not determine its source.
Jesus refused to answer the question.
If it had scriptural basis, the leaders would have known.
3. The Timing and Chronology Problems
John was apparently in prison before Jesus’s baptism.
A beheaded John cannot baptize Jesus.
The passive participle in Luke doesn’t resolve the problem.
4. John’s Baptism Could Not Mean What Christians Claim
John baptized before Jesus’s death/resurrection.
No death/resurrection symbolism was possible.
John’s baptism was merely for repentance and forgiveness.
This contradicts Paul’s theology of baptism.
5. Jesus Never Baptized Anyone
John 4:1-3 explicitly says Jesus didn’t baptize.
His disciples baptized, but we never learn who baptized them.
This raises serious questions about the ritual’s importance.
6. Jesus Failed to Baptize with the Holy Spirit
John prophesied this (Matthew 3:11).
It never happened as described.
It becomes a spiritualized, unverifiable concept.
7. The Great Commission Has Textual Problems
Two different versions (Mark and Matthew).
Mark’s version has no baptismal formula.
The Trinitarian formula appears only in Matthew 28:19.
The longer ending of Mark is a later addition.
8. The “Evil Jesus” Problem
Acts mentions Bar-Jesus (a sorcerer).
Paul warns about “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4).
Christians use modifiers to distinguish (“Lord Jesus,” “Jesus Christ”).
This suggests confusion about which Jesus was being preached.
9. Mandaeans Provide Historical Parallels
They practice baptism but view Jesus as a deceiver.
Their Book of John calls Jesus a “deceiver” at baptism.
This shows baptism was a contested practice.
10. John’s Uncertainty Is the Decisive Argument
John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth.
He witnessed the heavens open and heard the divine voice.
Yet he still asked: “Are you the one who is to come?”
If John could be uncertain, why trust Christian interpretations?
Muslims are not being harsh with Christians; John’s failure proves the point.
XXIII. The Qur’anic Alternative
The opening verse (Qur’an 22:17) highlights that Allah alone will judge between the various religious communities. This is a reminder that ultimate authority rests with Allah, not human traditions.
“The dye of Allah (ṣib’ghata Allāh)” is a powerful metaphor for the natural constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. This stands in direct contrast to human-invented rituals like baptism.
Shaykh Aṭfayyish’s commentary illuminates: the “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but an internal purification of the heart from unbelief and disobedience. This presents a profound critique. While Christians debate the mechanics of baptism, the Qur’an directs attention to the spiritual transformation itself.
XXIV. Conclusion: The Crux of the Matter
Our analysis demonstrates that baptism is a ritual without clear biblical foundation, differently understood across Christian and Mandaean traditions, and historically disconnected from the practice of the Hebrew prophets.
The most powerful observation is this: If the Jewish religious leaders, who sat in Moses’ seat and were experts in the Torah, could not determine the source of John’s baptism, how can Christians today be certain of its divine origin?
The most profound observation concerns John the Baptist’s lack of certainty about Jesus:
“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matthew 11:2-3)
John who is filled with the Holy Spirit even before birth (Luke 1:15) could be uncertain despite:
Being Jesus’s cousin
Baptizing Jesus
Witnessing the heavens open
Hearing the divine voice declaring Jesus as the Son
Are we Muslims too harsh on Christians?
How can we Muslims be overly critical with Christians for not finding Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures when John himself, who had direct experience of Jesus, remained uncertain as to who Jesus was?
If John the Baptist who was the greatest man born of a woman according to Jesus himself (Matthew 11:11), could have direct contact with Jesus and still not be certain of his identity, then how can we as Muslims think that Christians will recognize Muhammed (saw) in their scriptures?
If the Holy Spirit who was supposed to guide into all truth left John in a state of confusion about Jesus, then:
Why should Christians believe the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth regarding their own scriptures?
Why should Muslims accept Christian interpretations of ambiguous Old Testament prophecies when the very prophet who baptized Jesus couldn’t figure out who Jesus was?
XXV. Final Appeal
The Qur’an offers a superior alternative. The “dye of Allah” is not an external ritual but the primordial constitution (fiṭra) upon which Allah created humanity. True purification comes from turning to Allah, not from immersion in water, regardless of who performs it or with what formula.
As the Qur’an states:
“Indeed Allah is, over all things, Witness.” (Qur’an 22:17)
Allah alone knows the hearts. It is He who will judge between the communities, not just on the basis of their rituals, but on the basis of their sincerity, intentions, faith and actions.
“Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner. Surely your Lord knows best who has strayed from His Way and who is guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
“And it is not for the believers to go forth [to battle] all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group [remaining] to obtain understanding in the religion and warn their people when they return to them that they might be cautious.” (Qur’an 9:122)
“And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, “Indeed, I am of the Muslims.” (Qur’an 41:33)
﷽
Let us tell you what Da’wah is not. Da’wah is not posting pictures of the wives of Christian apologist in bikini and other inappropriate clothing. This is an act of kufr. Those who are pleased with it are pleased with acts of kufr. If The person who post this dies without repenting from it they upon something other than Islam. Yes! It is that serious.
Da’wah is not saying that you will start telling people that a self proclaimed ex-Muslim girl took ‘backshots’ in the desert simply becuase she spreads lies about the Blessed Prophet (saw). Her lies do not justify your lies. This too is an act of kufr. Those who are pleased with it are pleased with acts of kufr. If the person dies without repenting from this they die upon something other than Islam.
Da’wah is not ‘dunking’ on others. No one’s goal should be to ‘destroy’ someone. We don’t ‘own’ others. Allah is the one who owns us all! We are all of us broken and needy before Allah.
Can you imagine the atheist, the agnostic, the undecided seeker? They see this very nasty discourse between Muslims and Christians. Why would they choose to become either? They may reason to themselves, that if religion causes me to be an angry hateful and vicious individual what is the point of religion?!
Da’wah is not argument or claims of superiority. It’s an authentic, genuine and sincere invitation to Allah with dignity. What da’wah really is, what’s it’s obligation, who should speak (and within what knowledge), and the Qur’anic method of wisdom, gentle counsel and best manner. It closes with the core truth: you invite, but Allah ultimately is the guide.
We strongly encourage everyone to listen to this wonderful and beneficial talk on the Call to Islam (Da’wah) by Shaykh Hatim Al Abdisalam and Shaykh Muhanna Al Harthy. It offers valuable insights, practical guidance, and inspiration for anyone interested in conveying the message of Islam with wisdom and compassion.
So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammed], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude and harsh in heart, they would have fled from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely upon Him. (Qur’an 3:159)
The example of da’wah to Pharaoh.
“O eminent ones, I have not known you to have a god other than me.” (Qur’an 28:38)
“Go to Pharaoh. Indeed, he has transgressed.” (Qur’an 20:24)
So we can see that Pharaoh has committed the highest form of sin against Allah (swt) namely the claim of divinity! Allah (swt) also says that he was a transgressor!
Nonetheless look at the way in which Allah (swt) ask Moses and Aaron (peace be upon them both) to conduct themselves while speaking with him.
“And speak to him with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear Allah.” (Qur’an 20:44)
Christians and Atheist can say some very dispicable and vile things about our faith. This does not mean that we respond to them in kind. It can be frustraing. Especially for us as Muslims. When engaging with Christians, especially the low hanging fruiti among them, they insult the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) but we cannot turn around and insult Jesus (as).
“Do not insult what they invoke besides Allah or they will insult Allah spitefully out of ignorance. This is how We have made each people’s deeds appealing to them. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them of what they used to do.” (Qur’an 6:108)
The majority of the companions and indeed the majority of people you will meet in your life who become Muslims did so because of the good conduct and charachter of Muslims.
“Virtue and evil are not equal. If you replace evil habits with virtuous ones, you will certainly find that your enemies will become your intimate friends.” (Qur’an 41:34)
We are human and at times we may slip. Allah (swt) reminds us in such occasions.
“But if you forget, then remember your Lord, and say, “I trust my Lord will guide me to what is more right than this.” (Qur’an 18:24)
We should ask ourselves if we embody the following verse:
“And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, “Indeed, I am of the Muslims.” (Qur’an 41:33)
1. What is Da’wah?
Da’wah literally means “invitation” or “calling.” It is inviting people to know Allah and understand Islam. It is not about winning debates or pressuring people to accept Islam.
2. The Purpose of Da’wah
The goal is to:
Help people know the truth about Islam.
Remove misconceptions.
Guide people to worship Allah alone.
Earn Allah’s pleasure by conveying His message.
A Muslim is responsible for conveying the message, not for making someone accept it.
3. Qualities of a Good Da’ee (Caller to Islam)
The discussion emphasizes that a da’ee should have:
Knowledge: Speaking based on authentic Islamic teachings.
Wisdom: Choosing the right words and the right time.
Patience: Accepting rejection without anger.
Good manners: Being humble, truthful, gentle, and respectful.
4. The Best Method of Da’wah
The most effective invitation is often through:
Good character.
Helping others.
Being honest in business and daily life.
Showing kindness and mercy.
Listening before speaking.
People are often attracted to Islam by the behavior of Muslims before they are convinced by arguments.
5. Common Mistakes in Da’wah
The discussion warns against:
Arguing aggressively.
Speaking without knowledge.
Insulting other religions.
Trying to force people to accept Islam.
Becoming impatient when someone does not accept the message.
6. The Prophet Muhammed’s Example
The Prophet ﷺ is presented as the greatest example of da’wah because he:
Treated everyone with mercy.
Forgave those who harmed him.
Answered questions calmly.
Never forced anyone to become Muslim.
Continued inviting people despite years of hardship.
7. Responsibility of Every Muslim
Da’wah is not limited to scholars. Every Muslim can participate by:
Being a good example.
Sharing authentic Islamic knowledge.
Helping neighbors and colleagues.
Answering questions honestly.
Referring difficult questions to knowledgeable scholars.
8. Guidance Belongs to Allah
One of the main lessons is that success in da’wah is not measured by the number of converts. Success is delivering the message sincerely and correctly. Guidance is in Allah’s hands.
Key Takeaway
The discussion presents da’wah as a lifelong act of worship built on sincerity, knowledge, wisdom, patience, and excellent character. It reminds Muslims that their conduct is often the strongest invitation to Islam, and that their duty is simply to convey the message faithfully while leaving the outcome to Allah.
A remeinder to us at PrimaQur’an and our team.
We, the Ibāḍīs, are distinguished from other sects and schools by our noble character and refined conduct. We rise above those who slander us and we are not people of insults, and this has been the way of our forefathers, whose footsteps we follow. That is why everyone who visits Ibadi communities in Oman, Zanzibar, Algeria, Libya etc does not hear foul or offensive words.
Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “The Prophet ﷺ was never insulting, nor obscene, nor one who cursed.”
Therefore, regardless of what has been said about us or what will be said, we remain committed to the manners of the Prophet, the manners of true believers.
“And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah” (Qur’an 6:93)
﷽
“The hadith reported by Al-Bukhari that Adam’s height was sixty yards, has been criticized by Ibn Hajar on the basis of the measurement of the homes and dwellings of some of the ancient nations, which do not show that their inhabitants were enormously tall.”
Source: (A Textbook of Hadith Studies, Authenticity, Compilation, Classification, and Criticism of Hadith pg. 204)
“The hadith, reported by al-Bukhari, that Adam’s height was sixty yards, has been criticized by Ibn Hajar on the basis of the measurement of the homesteads of some of the ancient nations which do not show that their inhabitants were of an enormous height.” (SB, Kitab al-Anbiya, bab khalq Adam; Fb (Egypt, 1320 A.H), vi,230)
Source: (Hadith Literature Its Origin, Development, Special Features, and Criticism pg 202.)
The following hadiths in Bukhari are thought to be taken into account here:
“Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. When He created him, He said to him, “Go and greet that group of angels, and listen to their reply, for it will be your greeting (salutation) and the greeting (salutations of your offspring.” So, Adam said (to the angels), As-Salamu Alaikum (i.e. Peace be upon you). The angels said, “As-salamu Alaika wa Rahmatu-l-lahi” (i.e. Peace and Allah’s Mercy be upon you). Thus the angels added to Adam’s salutation the expression, ‘Wa Rahmatu-l-lahi,’ Any person who will enter Paradise will resemble Adam (in appearance and figure). People have been decreasing in stature since Adam’s creation. “
“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The first group of people who will enter Paradise, will be glittering like the full moon and those who will follow them, will glitter like the most brilliant star in the sky. They will not urinate, relieve nature, spit, or have any nasal secretions. Their combs will be of gold, and their sweat will smell like musk. The aloes-wood will be used in their centers. Their wives will be houris. All of them will look alike and will resemble their father Adam (in statute), sixty cubits tall.“
Someone has claimed that Ibn Hajar (rh) rejected the hadith that stated that Adam (as) was 60 cubits tall in his book Fath ul Bari and that the reasoning was archaeological evidence which didn’t conform to the hadith?
Shaykh Haddad’s response:
“Ibn Hajar did not reject the hadith but said that there was an apparent contradiction between its wording of sixty cubits and the archaeological findings of the people of Thamud whose distance from the time of Adam (as), he said, “is less than the time elapsed between them and the beginning of this Umma.” This is phrased as just a thought that causes the explanation of the hadith to be problematic, not a rejection of the basis of the hadith. Further, one might see a problem in the objection itself.”
In sum, (1) the assumption that Ibn Hajar “rejected” the hadith of the sixty cubits is inaccurate even if thus forwarded by M. Zubair Siddiqi in his ‘Hadith Literature’ and (2) the problem raised by Ibn Hajar is open to question.
Question 2) Surely the archaeological information would be subservient to the knowledge of hadith?
Shaykh Haddad’s response
“The knowledge imparted by hadith is assumptive (zanni) and becomes categorically binding only with the mutawatir.”
“Further, is there true conflicting information here, i.e. correctly interpreted and dated findings?”
What Shaykh Gibril mentions here is that Ibn Hajar questions the ‘matn’-text of the hadith because it contradicts known archaeological evidence.
He also makes an interesting plea that the hadith is (zanni) which he translates as ‘assumptive’. The word (zanni) can also be translated as ‘speculative’. This means it has the probability of being true and the probability of not being true.
However, the point here is that if these hadith are sound and then many people would take that to mean that the Messenger of Allah (saw) definitely said it.
The creation of Adam (as) was miraculous creation.
Indeed all of creation is a miracle.
A possible challenge some would have with accepting Adam (as) being 90 feet tall is that the hadith seems to be silent on the height of Eve (as). In Arabic the companion of Adam (as) is known as Hawwāʾ(as).
One would also have to point to a time in the archaeological/historic records in which the offspring of Adam (as) and Eve (as), including subsequent generations, ceased being so tall.
Lastly, many of these hadith have as their source Abu Huraira -a problematic transmitter when it comes to Israʼiliyyat hadith. As they would mix up his reports from the Blessed Messenger (saw) with those of his reports from the Israʼiliyyat.
عن بسر بن سعيد ، قال : اتقوا الله ، وتحفظوا من الحديث ; فوالله لقد رأيتنا نجالس أبا هريرة ; فيحدث عن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم- ويحدثنا عن كعب ثم يقوم ، فأسمع بعض من كان معنا يجعل حديث رسول الله عن كعب ، ويجعل حديث كعب عن رسول الله ،
صلى الله عليه وسلم .
“On the authority of Busr ibn Sa’id , said: Fear God, and be careful with hadith; for by God, I saw us sitting with Abu Hurayrah ; and he would narrate on the authority of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) and he would narrate to us on the authority of Ka’b , then he would get up, and I would hear some of those who were with us attributing the hadith of the Messenger of God to Ka’b , and attributing the hadith of Ka’b to the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him).”
In other words people were mixing up what was being narrated from Ka’b (ra) and what was being narrated from the Blessed Messenger (saw)!
This is from Imam al-Dhahabi in his ‘Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ under the section talking about Abu Huraira.
This is one of many reasons why we in the Ibadi school are very careful when it comes to narrations from Abu Huraira concerning the Israʼiliyyat. However we take from him in matters of jurisprudence.
Lastly, even though there are among our Muslim brothers who will cling fast to these hadith we would like to make the following plea to them.
Please stop circulating e-mails and pictures like the following:
We remember receiving such an e-mail of the ‘giant human’ found in the deserts of Saudi Arabia. Even then we kept wondering why the government would want to keep such a tight lid on something that would support a cherished hadith.
It is things like this that canbe a source of embarrassment, and truly tarnishes the image of Islam in the eyes of others. In the end, Ibn Hajar Al Asqlani did not reject this hadith. Ibn Hajar Al Asqlani also did not reject Bukhari. However, it is very obvious that he did not think that Bukhari was not above being critiqued.
“And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah” (Qur’an 6:93)
The second group are the Sunni Muslims (in general). There have always been dissenting voices. In fact, in our article above. Ibn Hazm mentions that there has been no consensus among the Muslims in regard to this issue.
First and foremost try and understand something if you can. When we have established from the Qur’an that there is no text that mentions the coming of Jesus (as). That the consistent exegesis and interpretation of the term Tawaffā which appears in twenty-five passages in the Qur’an, and twice in relation to Christ Jesus (Q 5:117 and Q 3.55) means to die.
Secondly any reading of the Qur’an that even remotely suggest that Jesus (as) went up into heaven body and soul would flatly contradict the following verse.
“or until you have a house of gold, or you ascend into heaven and even then we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book that we can read.” Say, “Glory be to my Lord! Am I not only a human messenger?” (Qur’an 17:93)
When this is established the obligation is not upon us to deal with the hadith. The obligation is upon those who assert these hadith and how they make sense of them in light of the above information.
Qur’an 5:116–117 decisively closes the case
“And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah, he will say: Glory be to You, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, You would indeed have known it; You know what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in your mind, surely you are the great Knower of the unseen things. I did not say anything to them except what you commanded me with: That worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die (Arabic: Tawafaytani), you were the watcher to them, and you are witness of all things.”(Qur’an 5:116-117)
There are several things to take from the above passage:
1) This dialogue takes place on the Day of Judgment, where Prophet Jesus (as) suggests that he has no knowledge of what has happened since his demise on Earth and after his ministry ended. “I was a witness to them as long as I was among them.”
2) From the discussion, it is clear that Prophet Jesus only came to Earth once, acting as a witness to his people. If indeed there was a ‘second coming’ before the Day of Judgment, he would have full knowledge of what had happened since his first departure. After all, he abolished the Jizya and forced the Christians and Jews to convert to Islam. This conversation with Allah (swt) would make little to no sense.
3) For the sake of the argument, let us imagine that those hadith that are claimed to have been spoken by the Blessed Prophet (saw) were true for a moment. So now Jesus (as) comes back and everyone becomes a Muslim. The Dajjal is defeated. Jesus (as) gets married. Then Allah (swt) causes Jesus (as) to die.
Then we have Jesus (as) saying after he dies to Allah (swt) “I was a witness to them as long as I was among them, but when you caused me to die, you were the watcher over them, and you are witness of all things.”
A rather bizarre understanding, it seems.
Especially, if we take the following text into consideration: “And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159)
A rather bizarre situation the ‘traditional‘ and ‘dominant‘ position leaves us in.”
Jesus says on the Day of Judgment:
“I was a witness to them as long as I was among them, but when You caused me to die (tawaffaytanī), You were the Watcher over them.”
This statement is incompatible with:
A second earthly mission
A global enforcement of Islam
A forty-year reign
If such events occurred, Jesus could not truthfully say this.
The verse only works if:
Jesus lived once
Died once
And never returned
Here are the facts.
The idea of the Messiah coming a second time has produced for the Jews and the fundamentalist Christians the state of Israel for them, while our belief in the return of the Messiah has produced backwardness, injustice, and poverty for us.
This leads to the nullification of action. It means that we cannot change evil, rebel against injustice, or advance unless Messiah or the awaited Mahdi (according to the Sunni & Shi’i) comes to save us from that.
Imagine the rhetoric in the United Kingdom and the United States they fear that Islam will be implemented in those lands! What?! Even when Islam has not been implemented in the lands where Muslims are an overwhelming majority? How will we implement Islam in lands where we are 2 or 3% of the population?!
Now we come to the hadiths, upon which they rely heavily. All these hadiths are ahad (solitary) reports, and we know that ahad hadiths are not used in matters of creed.
Volumes have been written on the hadiths about the return of the Messiah and the awaited Mahdi. By Allah, can a hadith like this occupy Muslims so much that volumes are written about it, while not a single verse, explicitly or implicitly, mentions it? Unfortunately, Muslims busied themselves with this and became passive, abandoning action and every attempt at reform and advancement, waiting for the Messiah to come.
As mentioned these hadith about the return of Jesus (as) are ahad. For us they do not come under the category of mutawatir.
Abu Huraira reported
Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying, “In the last days there will be lying dajjals who will bring you traditions of which neither you nor your fathers have heard, so beware of them. They will neither lead you astray nor seduce you.” Muslim transmitted it.
This above is an interesting hadith from Abu Huraira.
Many of these hadith have as their source Abu Huraira (ra). The hadith from him in regard to the Israʼiliyyat are problematic. Those who transmitted from him would mix up his reports from the Blessed Messenger (saw) with those of his reports from the Israʼiliyyat.
عن بسر بن سعيد ، قال : اتقوا الله ، وتحفظوا من الحديث ; فوالله لقد رأيتنا نجالس أبا هريرة ; فيحدث عن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم- ويحدثنا عن كعب ثم يقوم ، فأسمع بعض من كان معنا يجعل حديث رسول الله عن كعب ، ويجعل حديث كعب عن رسول الله ،
صلى الله عليه وسلم .
“On the authority of Busr ibn Sa’id , said: Fear God, and be careful with hadith; for by God, I saw us sitting with Abu Hurayrah ; and he would narrate on the authority of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) and he would narrate to us on the authority of Ka’b , then he would get up, and I would hear some of those who were with us attributing the hadith of the Messenger of God to Ka’b , and attributing the hadith of Ka’b to the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him).”
In other words people were mixing up what was being narrated from Ka’b (ra) and what was being narrated from the Blessed Messenger (saw)!
This is from Imam al-Dhahabi in his ‘Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ under the section talking about Abu Huraira.
This is one of many reasons why we in the Ibadi school are very careful when it comes to narrations from Abu Huraira concerning the Israʼiliyyat.
However we take from him in matters of jurisprudence.
What you the reader need to know and understand from the very beginning is that these lone narrator reports are distributed throughout hadith collections. When you often hear from your Shaykh and/or teacher is a narrative about Jesus (as) coming back and the rise of this figure known as the Mahdi. They will than give you a narrative that seems like a sequence of events. They will inform you that this happens and than this will happen followed by this.
The truth is for much of what they say they are piecing together a narrative because the information is scattered and often contradictory.
The other issue that is problematic and causes people to stop thinking about what is being reported is that once the label ‘sahih’ is given to a report people are mistaken to think that the Blessed Messenger (saw) definitely said this. The word ‘sahih’ has been translated into English as ‘authentic’. However, a better translation would be ‘sound’. This means that it has met the rigorous scrutiny of hadith masters; however, there is still the possibility of an error.
Think for a moment about assembly line production in a factory. Have you ever received a product or an item and found that it was faulty or had a defect in it? This is even after rigorous criteria are applied to ensure that the item reach you without defects.
Often times elaborate interpretations are offered to save what apparently looks like conflicting data. So this is up to you the truth seeker to weigh the information and see if the explanations given to you are sensible and rather or not the data adds up.
“When would the Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (saw) kept quiet for a while. Then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanu’a and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till the Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days.”
Interpretations of this hadith say that “the Hour” here means the hour of these people, but the hadith is clear. The question is about the Hour, and the Prophet (saw) does not know it, while Allah Almighty says the Hour will come suddenly and says to the Prophet: “You have no knowledge of it.” This hadith contradicts these verses, telling them that the age of this young boy will not reach senility before the Hour comes. This boy lived and Allah knows best when he died but the Hour did not come.
“People ask you about the Hour. Say, “That knowledge is only with Allah. You never know, perhaps the Hour is near.” (Qur’an 33:64)
“They ask you regarding the Hour, “When will it be?” But it is not for you to tell its time. That knowledge rest with your Lord.” (Qur’an 79:42-44)
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — ‘And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e Jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them.” (4.159)
The most famous hadith about breaking the cross killing the swine and abolishing the jizya.
“I swear by Allah that the son of Mary will certainly descend as a just judge and he would definitely break the cross, and kill swine and abolish Jizya and would leave the young she-camel and no one would endeavor to (collect Zakat on it). Spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another will certainly disappear and when he summons people to accept wealth, not even one would do so.”
Even though this hadith has been given a grading of ‘sahih’ it is problematic for many reasons.
A) The first type of issue is that this hadith has is that the riwayat-the narration comes down to us through different wordings and some of it has additional or missing information that others do not have.
B) The second issue and more serious issue is that this particular hadith has information that contradicts what Allah (swt) revealed in the Qur’an.
“Spite, mutual hatred and jealousy against one another will certainly disappear.”
“And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. ” (Qur’an 5:64)
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
C) The phrase: “Break the Cross” is problematic as it is indefinite. It is not specific. Christians do not have ‘A’ Cross, rather they have crosses. And some Christians -like the Jehovah’s Witness do even hold it to be sacred at all.
D) The phrase: “Kill swine” is problematic as it too is indefinite. It is not specific. Most of the Muslims we speak to on this matter understand that Jesus (as) will kill all the species of Sus scrofa, family Suidae (pigs, swine, hogs, wild boars).
These animals are creations of Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) has simply ordered us not to eat them (unless dire need). What is the reason to kill them?
They cover a wide geographical range and they play a beneficial role in the spreading of seeds in nature. Jesus (as) if it is to be believed that he will literally kill the pigs such adventures would take him to Guam, Samoa Islands, the Caribbean, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, and various diverse geographical regions.
Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said that Isa ibn Maryam encountered a pig on the road. He said to it, “Go in peace.” Somebody asked, “Do you say this to a pig?” Isa said, “I fear lest I accustom my tongue to evil speech.”
*note* that this chain above does not go beyond Malik and thus it is not sure how he obtained this information.
E) The phrase: “abolish Jizya” is problematic as discussed in other articles. This is not a problematic issue for most Sunni Muslims as they do believe in concepts of abrogation.
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (saw) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (as). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
Look at this part of the hadith: Here is the specific clause from the hadith that addresses this:
“وَيُهْلِكُ اللَّهُ فِي زَمَانِهِ الْمِلَلَ كُلَّهَا إِلاَّ الإِسْلاَمَ” “And Allah will cause all other religions to perish during his time except Islam.”
The Arabic word used here is “الْمِلَلَ” (al-milal), which means “all creeds, faiths, or religious communities.” This is a sweeping, all-encompassing term that explicitly includes Christianity and Judaism alongside every other religion.
Yet what did Allah (swt) says?
“And the Jews say, “The hand of Allah is chained.” Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. ” (Qur’an 5:64)
“And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
The above hadith says: and abolish jizyah
This goes against the Qur’an.
“There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in exceeding the limits and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 2:256)
There are three interpretations of ”abolish Jizya”
The first is more believable and less of an interpretation. It is the view that outright people will be asked to become a Muslim and if they refuse they will be killed.
The second one is that it actually means he will enforce the Jizya. Yet that interpretation seems strange considering the very same hadith claims that Judaism and Christianity will cease to exist as faiths.
The last interpretation is that their is such an abundance of wealth that the Jizya need to be enforced. Yet, the amount of wealth has nothing to do with rather or not a Jizya is enforced as per the Qur’an.
In fact, many Muslims have tried a half and half approach to this hadith. What do we mean by this? They offer interpretations of parts of it but others are to be taken literal. You can see that in the video we are posting here:
Listen to the brief exegesis of the hadith about Jesus returning breaking the cross, killing pigs and abolishing the Jizya with Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali in his discussion with Paul Williams of Blogging Theology.
Now you listen to this and come up with your own conclusions.
Prima-Qur’an comments: *Note* the above hadith states: ”He summons people to accept wealth, not even one would do so.”
Please compare this with another hadith:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).
There is another religion that broke away from Sunni Muslims they too believe in a Prophet after Muhammed (saw). Also, like the Sunni they use often bizarre and fanciful interpretations of the hadith to get themselves out of embarrassing situations. So because this particular religion claims that Jesus (as) has already came back how on earth do we understand “Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it.”
So, sincere apologies for the hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ghana, the United States, and other places you will have to settle for: “and he will spread insightful pearls through his teachings and writings, so much so that no one will accept them.”
What slippery evasion! What an absolute abandonment of the text!
Well, one of the things the so called “Khilafa” of this religion does is that he himself pays property taxes to the British government for a house he has there! Can any Muslim imagine Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Ali paying property taxes to a Non Muslim polity?
So back to the point. They interpret or abandon the text in the same way that many Sunni Muslims do as well.
“abolish Jizya” itself goes against the idea of Jesus (as) coming back. The very idea of Jesus (as) abolishing the Jizya and giving people the choice of the sword or Islam in and of itself refutes the idea of him coming back and uniting the Jews and Christians upon haqq (truth).
Why? The very presence of Jesus (as) should be enough to convince the Jews and Christians that Jesus (as) is who the Muslims say he is. The fact he abolishes the jizya and gives them the choice of Islam or the sword belies that point.
Think about it like this. Your mother is put in a room with four other women and you are told you need to recognize your mother from a group of women as they come out of a room. Your mother is the 4th woman out of the room and you immediately recognize her. However, would it not be strange that your mother comes to you with a sword and presses the issue? “Accept that I am your mother or die.”
If this is some attempt to fulfil some misguided understanding of the verse: “Every one of the People of the Book will definitely believe in him before his death.” (Qur’an 4:159) it is not necessary for Jesus (as) to come back.
In fact, imposing such an ultimatum (Islam or death) could be done by the so called “Mahdi” or even the Amir of the Muslims. That is if they wanted to go against the Qur’an 2:256 as quoted above.
Everyone will all believe in Islam?
Another Sahih hadith about the end of times that contradict flatly contradict the Qur’an.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The Hour will not be established (1) till two big groups fight each other whereupon there will be a great number of casualties on both sides and they will be following one and the same religious doctrine, (2) till about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger (saw), (3) till the religious knowledge is taken away (by the death of Religious scholars) (4) earthquakes will increase in number (5) time will pass quickly, (6) afflictions will appear, (7) Al-Harj, (i.e., killing) will increase, (8) till wealth will be in abundance —- so abundant that a wealthy person will worry lest nobody should accept his Zakat, and whenever he will present it to someone, that person (to whom it will be offered) will say, ‘I am not in need of it, (9) till the people compete with one another in constructing high buildings, (10) till a man when passing by a grave of someone will say, ‘Would that I were in his place (11) and till the sun rises from the West. So when the sun will rise and the people will see it (rising from the West) they will all believe (embrace Islam)but that will be the time when: (As Allah said,) ‘No good will it do to a soul to believe then, if it believed not before, nor earned good (by deeds of righteousness) through its Faith.’ (Qur’an 6.158) And the Hour will be established while two men spreading a garment in front of them but they will not be able to sell it, nor fold it up; and the Hour will be established when a man has milked his she-camel and has taken away the milk but he will not be able to drink it; and the Hour will be established before a man repairing a tank (for his livestock) is able to water (his animals) in it; and the Hour will be established when a person has raised a morsel (of food) to his mouth but will not be able to eat it.”
There will never come a time in the future when the Jews as a whole will enter Islam in mass.
“We have stirred among them hostility and hatred until the Day of Judgment.” (Qur’an 5:64)
” So We caused among them (Christians) animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.” (Qur’an 5:14)
The Jews and Christians remain divided until the day of judgement/resurrection.
What is the point of Jews and Christians embracing Islam if it doesn’t benefit them?
Read the above hadith again.
“but that will be the time when: (As Allah said,) ‘No good will it do to a soul to believe then, if it believed not before, nor earned good (by deeds of righteousness) through its Faith.” (Qur’an 6.158)
“On the Day your Lord’s signs arrive, belief will not benefit those who did not believe earlier or those who did no good through their faith.1 Say, “Keep waiting! We too are waiting.” (Qur’an 6:158)
If everyone embraces Islam where do all the evil wicked people come from after realizing the haqq (truth)?
Also, even if all the people from the Earth did embrace Islam after very obvious signs and a continuation of very obvious signs the return of Jesus narrative leaves us with something very anticlimactic; namely, that huge swaths of Muslims totally apostate from Islam and become the worst of people and the last on the face of the Earth!
“and at that time Allah would send a pleasant wind which would soothe (people) even under their armpits, and would take the life of every Muslim and only the wicked would survive who would commit adultery like donkeys and the Last Hour would come to them.”
The return of Jesus (as) doesn’t even benefit the Ahl Kitab!
As we have already mentioned.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
That the Prophet (saw) said: “There are three, for which when they appear, a soul will not benefit by its faith, if it did not believe before the Signs: Ad-Dajjal, the Beast, and the rising of the sun from its setting place” – or “from the west.”
So those converts (forced or not) get nada, zip, zilch, nothing. They get absolutely jack!
Imagine, if someone had access to a tome that they possessed that said rather or not you accept what they propose you still perish.
Couldn’t that person who had access to that information reject your proposal on the grounds that they didn’t want to be disingenuous?
Remember that according to the hadith that Jesus (as) comes after the Dajjal has appeared.
Al-nawwas b. Sim’an al-Kilabi said:
The Messenger of Allah (saw) mentioned the Dajjal (Antichrist) saying: If he comes forth while I am among you I shall be the one who will dispute with him on your behalf, but if he comes forth when I am not among you, a man must dispute on his own behalf, and Allah will take my place in looking after every Muslim. Those of you who live up to his time should recite over him the opening verses of Surat al – Kahf, for they are your protection from his trial. We asked: How long will he remain on the earth ? He replied : Forty days, one like a year, one like a month, one like a week, and rest of his days like yours. We asked : Messenger of Allah, will one day’s prayer suffice us in this day which will be like a year ? He replied : No, you must make an estimate of its extent. Then Jesus son of Marry will descend at the white minaret to the east of Damascus. He will then catch him up at the date of Ludd and kill him.
“Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “The Hour will not be established (1) till two big groups fight each other whereupon there will be a great number of casualties on both sides and they will be following one and the same religious doctrine, (2) till about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger (saw), (3) till the religious knowledge is taken away (by the death of Religious scholars) (4) earthquakes will increase in number (5) time will pass quickly, (6) afflictions will appear, (7) Al-Harj, (i.e., killing) will increase, (8) till wealth will be in abundance —- so abundant that a wealthy person will worry lest nobody should accept his Zakat, and whenever he will present it to someone, that person (to whom it will be offered) will say, ‘I am not in need of it, (9) till the people compete with one another in constructing high buildings, (10) till a man when passing by a grave of someone will say, ‘Would that I were in his place (11) and till the sun rises from the West. So when the sun will rise and the people will see it (rising from the West) they will all believe (embrace Islam) but that will be the time when: (As Allah said,) ‘No good will it do to a soul to believe then, if it believed not before, nor earned good (by deeds of righteousness) through its Faith.’ (Qur’an 6.158) And the Hour will be established while two men spreading a garment in front of them but they will not be able to sell it, nor fold it up; and the Hour will be established when a man has milked his she-camel and has taken away the milk but he will not be able to drink it; and the Hour will be established before a man repairing a tank (for his livestock) is able to water (his animals) in it; and the Hour will be established when a person has raised a morsel (of food) to his mouth but will not be able to eat it.”
Who actually leads the people in prayer when Jesus (as) descends? Is it Jesus (as) or someone else?
Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) say: A section of my people will not cease fighting for the Truth and will prevail till the Day of Resurrection. He said: Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their (Muslims’) commander would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some (amongst you). This is the honour from Allah for this Ummah.
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army) which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).
Jesus (as) from the children of Israel totally eclipses the Mahdi -the descendant of the Prophet (saw).
Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu’minin:
The Prophet (saw) said: The Mahdi will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatimah. Abdullah ibn Ja’far said: I heard AbulMalih praising Ali ibn Nufayl and describing his good qualities.
When one compares what Jesus (as) is going to accomplish as compared/contrasted to what a Syed, a descendant of the Prophet (saw) is supposed to accomplish the Mahdi’s resume is a bit thin. Jesus (as) a descendant of Isaac (as) absolutely outshines, outclasses, and outperforms the Mahdi a descendant of Ishmael (as).
Seriously do yourself a favour. Go and read those two handfuls of hadith that mention the Mahdi. Look at those that specifically mention “Mahdi” not allusions, or interpretations but the very word “Mahdi”. Go and look at them. That is right go and take a look. Don’t go and read some lengthy commentaries about things he is suppose to do that are not explicitly stated in the hadith but read the hadith themselves. It is certainly underwhelming.
According Jesus (as). Whom has been alive for 2000+ years descends upon the Earth and kills the Dajjal, he informs people of their ranks in paradise, he rules as a just ruler, he fights the Gog and Magog and performs supplication that sends plagues upon them (gog and magog) and vanquishes them. He converts all the Jews and Christians to Islam, He lives among the Muslims for 40 years and gets married. Mahdi is basically background noise at this point.
Are Jesus (Isa) and this “Mahdi” one and the same or are they two different individuals?
It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Adhering to religion will only become harder and worldly affairs will only become more difficult, and people will only become more stingy, and the Hour will only come upon the worst of people, and the only Mahdi (after Muhammed (saw)) is Isa bin Maryam.”
“Even if this hadeeth were saheeh – but it is not saheeh – the meaning would be that there is no one who is perfectly guided (mahdi) or protected from sin and error except Isa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him). This was stated by al-Qurtubi, Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Katheer. ”
Now earlier we mentioned this other religion that broke away from Islam and believes that Jesus (as) has already come and he was born in India. They want their cake and eat it to. Thus, they take a rather straight forward hadith speaking highly of the faith among future Muslims, from among the Persians ,they blatantly ignore the text of the Qur’an, as well as the hadith itself.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
“We were with the Messenger of Allah (saw) when Surat Al-Jumu’ah was revealed, so he recited it until he reached: ‘And others among them who have not yet joined them (62:3).’ A man said to him: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Who are these people who have not yet joined us?’ But he did not say anything to him.” He said: “Salman Al-Farisi was among us.” He said: “So the Messenger of Allah (saw) placed his hand upon Salman and said: ‘By the One Whose Hand is my soul! If faith were on Pleiades then men among these people would reach it.'”
Even though in that particular text of the Qur’an 62:3 nor in the above hadith do we have the word “Mahdi” or “Messiah” or “Jesus” at all. Yet some people will be desperate to try to prove the unprovable.
Even if the idea of a coming Mahdi was true (which it is not) the hadith declare that the Mahdi will be a descendant of the Blessed Messenger (saw). This is proven through well kept and documented lineages and not through private dreams. Some are absolutely desperate.
Dajjal the biggest fitna? Hardly!
‘Imran bin Hussain reported:
“I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying, “Between time of the creation of Adam and the Resurrection Day, there is nothing greater than the mischief of Dajjal (the Antichrist).”
“No one asked the Messenger of Allah (saw) more about Dajjal than I asked him. He said to me, “He will not harm you.” I said: “O Messenger of Allah, it is reported that he will have with him a mountain of bread and a river full of water.” Thereupon he said, “He (Dajjal) is far too worthless and insignificant near Allah (to let him deceive the believers).“
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) came out to us when we were discussing Dajjal (False Christ) and said: ‘Shall I not tell you of that which I fear more for you than Dajjal?’ We said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Hidden polytheism, when a man stands to pray and makes it look good because he sees a man looking at him.’”
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) mentioned Dajjal, one morning, as something despised but also alarming, until we thought that he was in the stand of date-palm trees. When we came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the evening, he saw that (fear) in us, and said: ‘What is the matter with you?’ We said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, you mentioned Dajjal this morning, and you spoke of him as something despised but also alarming, until we thought that he was in the stand of date-palm trees.’ He said: ‘There are things that I fear more for you than the Dajjal. If he appears while I am among you, I will contend with him on your behalf, and if he appears when I am not among you, then each man must fend for himself, and Allah will take care of every Muslim on my behalf.”
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) mentioned the Dajjal (Antichrist) saying: If he comes forth while I am among you I shall be the one who will dispute with him on your behalf, but if he comes forth when I am not among you, a man must dispute on his own behalf, and Allah will take my place in looking after every Muslim. Those of you who live up to his time should recite over him the opening verses of Surat al – Kahf, for they are your protection from his trial. We asked: How long will he remain on the earth ? He replied : Forty days, one like a year, one like a month, one like a week, and rest of his days like yours. We asked : Messenger of Allah, will one day’s prayer suffice us in this day which will be like a year ? He replied : No, you must make an estimate of its extent. Then Jesus son of Marry will descend at the white minaret to the east of Damascus. He will then catch him up at the date of Ludd and kill him.”
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
“And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Messiah has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).”
Prima-Qur’an comments: This hadith is both interesting and strange. It mentions that even if Jesus (as) did not kill the false Messiah even then he would dissolve like salt in water. That Allah (swt) would kill this Dajjal by his lance. Though in brackets above it says (the lance of Jesus Christ)
Jesus (as) confronts the Dajjal and how is Gog and Magog dispatched?
It was narrated that ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud said:
“On the night on which the Messenger of Allah (saw) was taken on the Night Journey (Isra’), he met Ibrahim, Musa and ‘Eisa, and they discussed the Hour. They started with Ibrahim, and asked him about it, but he did not have any knowledge of it. Then they asked Musa, and he did not have any knowledge of it. Then they asked ‘Eisa bin Maryam, and he said: ‘I have been assigned to some tasks before it happens.’ As for as when it will take place, no one knows that except Allah. Then he mentioned Dajjal and said: ‘I will descend and kill him, then the people will return to their own lands and will be confronted with Gog and Magog people, who will: “swoop down from every mound.”[21:96] They will not pass by any water but they will drink it, (and they will not pass) by anything but they will spoil it. They (the people) will beseech Allah, and I will pray to Allah to kill them. The earth will be filled with their stench and (the people) will beseech Allah and I will pray to Allah, then the sky will send down rain that will carry them and throw them in the sea. Then the mountains will turn to dust and the earth will be stretched out like a hide. I have been promised that when that happens, the Hour will come upon the people, like a pregnant woman whose family does not know when she will suddenly give birth.'” (One of the narrators) ‘Awwam said: “Confirmation of that is found in the Book of Allah, where Allah says: “Until, when Gog and Magog people are let loose (from their barrier), and they swoop down from every mound (21:96).”
So while he is doing that, ‘Eisa bin Mariam, peace be upon him, will descend in eastern Damascus at the white minaret, between two Mahrud, with his hands on the wings of two angels. When he lowers his head, drops fall, and when raises it, gems like pearls drop from him.’ He said: ‘His (the Dajjal’s) breath does not reach anyone but he dies, and his breath reaches as far as his sight.‘ He said: ‘So he pursues him(the Dajjal) and he catches up with him at the gate of Ludd where he kills him.’ He said: ‘So he remains there as long as Allah wills.’ He said: ‘Then Allah reveals to him: “Take my slaves to At-Tur, for I have sent down some creatures of Mine which no one shall be able to kill.'” He said: ‘Allah dispatches Ya’juj and Ma’juj, and they are as Allah said: They swoop down from every mount.’ “He said: ‘The first of them pass by the lake of Tiberias, drinking what is in it. Then the last of them pass by it saying: “There was water here at one time.” They travel until they reach a mountain at Bait Al-Maqdis. They will say: “We have killed whoever was in the earth. Come! Let us kill whoever is in the skies.” They will shoot their arrows into the Heavens, so Allah will return their arrows to them red with blood. Eisa bin Mariam and his Companions be surrounded, until the head of a bull on that day would be better to them than a hundred Dinar to one of you today.’ “He (s.a.w) said: “Eisa will beseech Allah, as will his companions.’ He said: ‘So Allah will send An-Naghaf down upon their necks. In the morning they will find that they have all died like the death of a single soul.’ He said: ” ‘Eisa and his companions will come down, and no spot nor hand-span can be found, except that it is filled with their stench, decay and blood. So ‘Eisa will beseech Allah, as will his companions.’ So Allah will send upon them birds like the necks of Bukht(milch)camels.’ They will carry them off and cast them into an abyss.
While they are like that, Allah will send ‘Eisa bin Maryam, who will come down at the white minaret in the east of Damascus, wearing two Mahrud[garment dyed with Wars and then Saffron], resting his hands on the wings of two angels. When he lowers his head, beads of perspiration will fall from it. Every disbeliever who smells the fragrance of his breath will die, and his breath will reach as far as his eye can see. Then he will set out and catch up with him (the Dajjal) at the gate of Ludd, and will kill him. Then the Prophet of Allah ‘Eisa will come to some people whom Allah has protected, and he will wipe their faces and tell them of their status in Paradise. While they are like that, Allah will reveal to him: “O ‘Eisa, I have brought forth some of My slaves whom no one will be able to kill, so take My slaves to Tur in safety.” Then Gog and Magog will emerge and they will, as Allah describes, “swoop down from every mound.”[21:96] The first of them will pass by lake Tiberias and drink from it, then the last of them will pass by it and will say: “There was water here once.” The Prophet of Allah, ‘Eisa and his companions will be besieged there until the head of an ox would be dearer to any one of them than one hundred Dinar are to any one of you today. Then, the Prophet of Allah, ‘Eisa and his companions will supplicate Allah. Then Allah will send a worm in their necks and the next morning they will all die as one. The Prophet of Allah ‘Eisa and his companions will come down and they will not find even the space of a hand span that is free of their stink, stench and blood. They will pray to Allah, and He will send birds with necks like the necks of Bactrian camels, which will pick them up and throw them wherever Allah wills.
Prima-Qur’an comments: It is very clear that this great fitna or trial of this so called “Dajjal” is treated by Jesus (as) as nothing more than an after thought. Sure there are other hadith that have vague mention of him having fire and water and doing this or that. Yet, when all is said and done Jesus (as) just kills him, the end.
The hadith transmitters are confused as to who has the ability to kill people with their breath
“Every disbeliever who smells the fragrance of his breath will die, and his breath will reach as far as his eye can see.” -The Breath of Jesus (as)
“ He said: ‘His (the Dajjal’s) breath does not reach anyone but he dies, and his breath reaches as far as his sight.“-The Breath of the Dajjal
Who/What dispatches Juj (Gog) and Majuj(Magog) and where are they dispatched to?
(Where does the Juj (Gog) and Majuj (Magog) end up?)
“They will pray to Allah, and He will send birds with necks like the necks of Bactrian camels, which will pick them up and throw them wherever Allah wills.”
“So Allah will send upon them birds like the necks of Bukht(milch)camels.’ They will carry them off and cast them into an abyss.”
“The earth will be filled with their stench and (the people) will beseech Allah and I will pray to Allah, then the sky will send down rain that will carry them and throw them in the sea.”
The very strange thing about these reports is that Jesus (as) sets out to kill the Dajjal seemingly of his own strength. Yet, when it comes to Gog (Juj) and Magog (Majuj) Jesus (as) needs to supplicate to Allah (swt) for divine intervention. It is odd given that the Dajjal is a foe we are told slays a man/child and brings him back to life.
Was the Prophet (saw) given a false dream in regards to Jesus (as) and the Dajjal in Mecca?
Narrated `Abdullah:
The Prophet (saw) mentioned the Masih Ad-Dajjal in front of the people saying, Allah is not one-eyed while Masih Ad-Dajjal is blind in the right eye and his eye looks like a bulging out grape. While sleeping near the Ka`ba last night, I saw in my dream a man of brown color the best one can see amongst brown color and his hair was long that it fell between his shoulders. His hair was lank and water was dribbling from his head and he was placing his hands on the shoulders of two men while circumambulating the Ka`ba. I asked, ‘Who is this?’ They replied, ‘This is Jesus, son of Mary.’ Behind him I saw a man who had very curly hair and was blind in the right eye, resembling Ibn Qatan (i.e. an infidel) in appearance. He was placing his hands on the shoulders of a person while performing Tawaf around the Ka`ba. I asked, ‘Who is this? ‘They replied, ‘The Masih, Ad-Dajjal.‘ “
Allah’s Messenger (saw) said. “While I was sleeping, I saw myself (in a dream) performing Tawaf around the Ka`ba. Behold, I saw a reddish-white man with lank hair, and water was dropping from his head. I asked, “Who is this?’ They replied, ‘The son of Mary.’Then I turned my face to see another man with a huge body, red complexion and curly hair and blind in one eye. His eye looked like a protruding out grape. They said (to me), He is Ad-Dajjal.” The Prophet (saw) added, “The man he resembled most is Ibn Qatan, a man from the tribe of Khuza`a. “
The Prophet (saw) said, “Ad-Dajjal will come to Medina and find the angels guarding it. So Allah willing, neither Ad-Dajjal, nor plague will be able to come near it.”
An-Nawwas b. Sam`an reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) made a mention of the Dajjal one day in the morning.
He (Dajjal) would be a young man with twisted, contracted hair, and a blind eye. I compare him to `Abd-ul-`Uzza b. Qatan. He who amongst you would survive to see him should recite over him the opening verses of Sura Kahf (18). He would appear on the way between Syria and Iraq and would spread mischief right and left.
Does he come from the same place as Mahdi and his armies -aka-Khorasan?
It was narrated that Abu Bakr Siddiq said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) told us: ‘Dajjal will emerge in a land in the east called Khorasan, and will be followed by people with faces like hammered shields.'”
Other issues surrounding Gog & Magog (Juj & Majuj)
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Gog and Magog people dig every day until, when they can almost see the rays of the sun, the one in charge of them says: “Go back and we will dig it tomorrow.” Then Allah puts it back, stronger than it was before. (This will continue) until, when their time has come, and Allah wants to send them against the people, they will dig until they can almost see the rays of the sun, then the one who is in charge of them will say: “Go back, and we will dig it tomorrow if Allah wills.’ So they will say: “If Allah wills.” Then they will come back to it and it will be as they left it. So they will dig and will come out to the people, and they will drink all the water. The people will fortify themselves against them in their fortresses. They will shoot their arrows towards the sky and they will come back with blood on them, and they will say: “We have defeated the people of earth and dominated the people of heaven.” Then Allah will send a worm in the napes of their necks and will kill them thereby.'” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, the beasts of the earth will grow fat on their flesh.”
“Until he reached ˹a pass˺ between two mountains. He found in front of them a people (qawman) who could hardly understand ˹his˺ language.” (Qur’an 18:93)
“They pleaded, “O Ⱬul-Qarnain! Surely Gog and Magog are spreading corruption throughout the land. Should we pay you tribute, provided that you build a wall between us and them?”(Qur’an 18:94)
“He said: “(The power) in which my Lord has established me is better (than tribute): Help me therefore with strength (and labour): I will erect a strong barrier between you and them.” (Qur’an 18:95)
The Qur’an is referencing the Gog and Magog a qawm (people) that could be stopped by a well fortified barrier (at least for a time). There is nothing extra-ordinary or mythical assigned to these Gog and Magog people. Now the hadith comes along and assigns to the Gog and Magog people such ferocious power that the dajjal is little more of an afterthought. Now the majority of Muslims believe that these Gog and Magog people are some where IN the earth. Yet, we do not have any records of people coming out from the Earth and laying seize to anyone in history. Nor, do we have any records of a people being sealed up. Unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the saddan (barrier) was erected over a passage that led dwellings IN the earth rather than a saddan (barrier) that stopped/halted passage from one area to the other OVER the earth; than this hadith remains problematic.
One well known Sunni Muslim scholar in the United States went so far as to interpret Gog (Juj) and Magog (Majuj) as zombies. However, after further reflection this is what his position seems to be now.
The Dajjal comes after Muslims conquer constantinople.
“Narrated Mu’adh ibn Jabal:
“The Prophet (saw) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu’adh ibn Jabal).”
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A’maq or in Dabiq. An army consisting of the best (soldiers) of the people of the earth at that time will come from Medina (to counteract them). When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans would say: Do not stand between us and those (Muslims) who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight with them; and the Muslims would say: Nay, by Allah, we would never get aside from you and from our brethren that you may fight them. They will then fight and a third (part) of the army would run away, whom Allah will never forgive. A third (part of the army) which would be constituted of excellent martyrs in Allah’s eye, would be killed and the third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerors of Constantinople. And as they would be busy in distributing the spoils of war (amongst themselves) after hanging their swords by the olive trees, the Satan would cry: The Dajjal has taken your place among your family. They would then come out, but it would be of no avail. And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely, but Allah would kill them by his hand and he would show them their blood on his lance (the lance of Jesus Christ).
Constantinople was conquered in 1453 CE, and we are now in 2026, which is about six centuries later. Why has Jesus (as) not descended, and why has the Dajjal not appeared, six centuries after the conquest of Constantinople?
Those who cling to this hadith after the conquest of Constantinople say: “No, because Constantinople will return to the Christians (Crusaders) and then be conquered again, and then Jesus will come.”
CONCLUSION: “Do not cloak Truth with falsehood nor hide the Truth while you realize it.” (Qur’an 2:42)
Many of you may walk away with the conclusion that those of us in the Ibadi school do not believe any signs of the day of judgement or end of times and nothing can be further from the truth. The Qur’an makes mention of signs. Just because we find problematic the idea of the coming of a Mahdi, or Jesus (as), it does not mean we discount all the information that has been transmitted. Such as people competing to build high buildings, more death and dishonesty. Parents becoming the slaves of their children. Earthquakes and more. Or that we do not make du’a seeking protection any and all types of Dajjals-which in reality means deceivers and liars. The biggest Dajjal for us is one who lies about religious truth.
The idea of Jesus (as) coming back is highly problematic even from the hadith that are given in this article. We can see from hadith that:
“And if he (Jesus) were not to confront them at all, even then it would dissolve completely.” Thus, Jesus(as) is not a necessity to fight some entity known as “Dajjal” We find that Jesus (as) is not even necessary to convert the Jews and Christians to Islam via abolishment of the Jizya. It is something anyone could do (provided they wanted to violate the teachings of the Qur’an.) We find out that it doesn’t even matter if Jesus (as) manages to convert the Jews and Christians as their faith will be for nothing. So you have to ask yourself what really is the reason/purpose for Jesus (as) to come again?
If people say it is to give the Jews and Christians yaqin (certainty) again it is soo problematic from so many angles.
1. As mentioned their faith amounts to nothing anyway as it is already too late.
2. Many Jews and Christians have been convinced of the veracity of Islam and what Allah (swt) informed us about the truth concerning Jesus (as) without Jesus (as) being present. What is deficient about the Qur’an and the Sunnah that Jesus (as) provides?
3. What is so special about that group of Christians/Jews that they get to recognize Jesus (as) -which benefits them nothing in the end as opposed to the Christians/Jews who have lived for the last 2000 plus years?!
So, dear truth seekers all these hadiths, as you have seen, are highly contradictory, and they are ahad narrations that cannot be used in matters of creed. Of course, we should not be discussing this, but when Muslims rely on and become passive, waiting for the return of the Messiah, not moving a finger, not changing evil, not rebelling against injustice, waiting for the Messiah then this is the greatest tragedy.
The return of the Messiah among the Jews and among the fundamentalist Christians produced Israel for them, while our belief in the return of Messiah produced backwardness, injustice, poverty, and ignorance for us. All nations exploit us and our resources, while we remain waiting for the savior the Messiah who will come and save us — and he will never come. And peace be upon you.
In the end Allah (swt) knows the truth about such matters and he will judge between us where in we differ. We ask Allah (swt) to guide us to that which is beloved to Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) empower us to stand with our brothers in Palestine and all suffering Muslims world wide in Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Libya, Rohingya in Myanmar, the Uigurs in China, the increasing hostility towards the believers in India.
We have scholars telling us to just wait for the Messiah. They tell us that Imamate did not stop the conquest of Andalusia. They tell us that Imamate did not stop the Mongol destruction of Baghdad. While all this is true it does not mean that Muslims do not have an obligation to restore the Imamate.
May Allah (swt) grant us all strong eman and resolute determination.
“And each one hath a goal toward which he turns; so contend with one another in good works. Wheresoever you may be, Allah will bring you all together. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.” (Qur’an 2:148)
“Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 22:69)
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
﷽
Insh’Allah the following section in the future will be found under the section above: Ahl Al-Qibla/Ahl Al-Khilaf.
Those of you who are used to seeing these people all over the internet and present on every social media platform available may come to the conclusion that their dawah is dominant. However, those of you who have access to the Arabic language, speak, read and write it will see that in the Arabic sphere these people (Wahhabis and Madkhalis) get absolutely pummelled by the Ibadi school. You will almost pity them (Wahhabis & Madkhalis). Though one should pity them and pray for their deliverance from the corruption and misguidance that they are upon.
The success of those who call themselves Salafi, Athari or those upon the Salafi Manhaj lies primarily in their ability into duping the masses to think that what they are upon is the view of the first three generation of Muslims.
They also feign the idea of taking the text by what they claim is the apparent meaning of a particular text. In fact, they apply ta’wil (interpretation) as do their opponents. Their opponents among Sunni Muslims (The Ash’ari & Maturidi) make the colossal mistake by granting a ‘default meaning’ to said words. Then turn around and say that they apply taʾwīl (interpretation). Whereas we (The Ibadi)say that if a word has a range of meanings and the context determines the meaning, then it becomes dishonest to claim the word can only have one possible meaning. The context based upon use of the Arabic language itself, and the culture that the revelation was revealed in.
Understand that not everyone who goes by the title of Salafi, Athari is adversarial or antagonistic to the Ibadi school. Many of them we can cooperate with on many issues of concern to our communities and respective countries that we live in. Cooperation is always a good thing for the Muslim Ummah.
The inconsistency and flawed theology can readily be seen by the inconsistency that it deploys. Examples abound but the following should suffice:
Demanding a default location for Allah (swt). Where neither the Qur’an or Sunnah give a ‘default’ location for Allah (swt). If one was to follow their literalist approach the Qur’an and Sunnah ascribe to Allah (swt) many locations. The Muslims believe that Allah exist without a place.
Using kalaam to speculate that Allah (swt) has two real eyes when we have no firm text on the matter.
The inconsistency in denying a gender for Allah (swt) when the apparent text clearly states: “There is nothing like Him, for He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11) They say the language determines the characteristic without realizing that Allah (swt) is the one that chose the rules for the language to begin with. The Muslims believe Allah has no gender.
Their bidʿah disclaimer when referencing what they claim are attributes of Allah (swt) with their bid’ah disclaimer “in a way that befits his majesty” as if there would be anything un-majestic about Allah (swt) having this or that to begin with!
The inconsistency in telling the people to believe in the attributes of Allah (swt) without asking ‘how’ and then the same people saying that the attributes of Allah (swt), are neither identical to the essence of Allah and yet not other than Allah! A deep dive into kalaam to speculate about the Creator what they have no evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
The inconsistency in affirming Allah as the All-Hearing(Qur’an 42:11) without having to have ears; while simultaneously demanding that if Allah exist it must be in a place.
Allah (swt) himself gave mankind the faculty of reasoning and the ability to understand majaaz (metaphor) when He (swt) says:
so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
But these people would have us to believe that the text is taken by the apparent and Allah (swt) does in some way becomes our hearing, our sight, our hand and our leg!
We have exposed the corruption in their misguided mis-understanding of the primary and secondary sources here:
Since they call us Ibadi as “Khawarij” let us see what Ibn Taymiyya has to say about the so called “Khawarij”.
“No one among the people who follow their desire, the more truthful and more just than the Khawarij. They do not intend to invent lies, indeed they are very famous for truthfulness to the extent that it has been said that the traditions narrated by them are the most authentic of all.”
Source: (Ibn Taymiyya Minhaj Al Sunnah Vol 3. p 3. Dr. Al-Sib’i Al-Sunna Wal Makanatuha Fii Al-Tashrii Al-Islami p. 99-101)
“No one of them has ever been known for lying.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Al Tafsiru Al Kabir Vol. 1, p. 124)
“Their religion is more correct because they do not say lies.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyya Mukhtasar Minhaji Al-Sunna Vol.2, p. 197)
“The Khawarij never says lies, indeed they are more truthful braver and more promise-keeping then the (Shi’ia)” Source: (Ibid Vol. 1 p. 393)
“The Khawarij are truthful, so their accounts are among the most correct ones.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Al Furqan p. 227)
“And what indicates that the Companions did not consider the Khawarij to be disbelievers is that they used to pray behind them. Abdullah ibn Umar -RA- and others[companions] used to pray behind Najda al-Haruri. They also used to engage in debates with them, as the Muslim would debate with a Muslim, as Abdullah ibn Abbas debated with Najda al-Haruri when he was sent to him to ask about certain issues, and his hadith is in Al-Bukhari. Likewise, Nafi’ ibn Al-Azraq debated on famous issues. Nafi’ used to debate on matters in the Quran, as any two Muslims would debate among themselves”
Source: (The Path of the Prophetic Sunnah-In Refutation of the Shiite Qadariyyah Doctrine By Ibn Taymiyya Abu Al Abbas Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim.-Edited by Dr. Muhammed Rashad Salim Volume 5)
This entry will be split into three sections:
Section one: This will be aimed at refuting the lies, deception and outright propaganda that they aim at Ahl al-Haqq wal-l istiqama (The Ibadi school).
Section two: This will be the Ibadi school exposing the bizarre beliefs and strange views of those who call themselves: Salafi, Athari etc..
Section three: Those who may loosely identify as Salafi, Athari etc that have had and do have cordial relations with our school. Because they simply see us as Muslims. Muslims perhaps they disagree with but Muslims none the less. Articles in relation to them will be posted under section three.
THE MORE ONE LEARNS SALAFI AQIDAH THE MORE CHRISTIANITY MAKES SENSE.
SALAFI-SAUDI SHAYKH DR. SAAD AL-HUMID PROFESSOR OF HADITH SCIENCES IN MEDINA FLEES FROM DEBATE WITH SHAYKH SAEED AL QANOUBI: IBADI HADITH MASTER, ON THE CREATION OF THE QUR’AN
MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IBADIS AND SALAFIS/ATHAIRS: IBADIS BELIEVE WE HAVE THE ENTIRE QUR’AN. SALAFIS/ATHARIS BELIEVE WE ONLY HAVE THE QUR’AN ALLAH INTENDED FOR US TO HAVE.
THE CLAIM THAT THE IBADIS CURSE AND REVILE THE COMPANIONS.THIS FALSE ALLEGATION IS TURNED ON IT’S HEAD! THE WAHHABI/MADHKALI/SALAFIYYA RELY UPON THOSE WHO SAY VILE THINGS ABOUT ALI
HADITHS THE SALAFIYYA AND AHL SUNNAH IN GENERAL RELY UPON TO CALL HUGE SWATHES OF THE PROPHET’S COMPANIONS DOGS OF HELLFIRE! (THE IBADIS RIP APART THESE CHAINS)
SECTION THREE: THOSE WHO MAY LOOSELY IDENTIFY AS SALAFI, ATHARI ETC THAT HAVE HAD AND DO HAVE CORDIAL RELATIONS WITH OUR SCHOOL. ARTICLES IN RELATION TO THEM WILL BE POSTED UNDER HERE.
MY EXPERIENCE WITH SALAFIS AND SUFIS (NOT ALWAYS CHALK AND CHEESE)
“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:111)
﷽
This above verse encapsulates the Qur’anic approach to interfaith debate, which is not limited to textual proofs, but reasoned proof. This is sensible considering huge swathes of the population were illiterate. Illiteracy does not mean one could not reason or one could not think.
What is striking and deeply ironic is that the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not merely a Protestant argument against Islam. It is a veiled attack on traditional Christianity itself. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Christians who adopt this argument are unwittingly fighting on Protestant ground, using Protestant weapons, against their own ecclesial principles.
The “Islamic Dilemma” is a very specific form of argument. It is a logical, text-based trap: if it is assumed that the Qur’an says the Bible is true, and the Bible contraditcts Islam, then Islam is false. However, If the Bible is unreliable and corrupted, then it is assumed that Islam is still false because of the claim that the Qur’an repeatedly affirms the divine authority, inspiration, and preservation of the very same scriptures.
The trap is clever, but it rests on a fatal assumption: that the Qur’an is referring to the Protestant canon, and that it commands the laity to consult it directly. Neither assumption is true.
For the Protestant this is a debate about the accuracy and authority of written texts.
For a Catholic, Orthodox, or Assyrian Christian, this framing is a false start as well as a betrayal of their own tradition. The ‘dilemma’ demands that the Bible be treated the way Protestants imagine Muslims treat the Qur’an: as a direct, self-interpreting, accessible text for the laity. Yet this is a caricature of both traditions.
Muslims have always had direct access to the Qur’an through recitation and prayer. It is memorized, recited, and heard. Yet like Christians before the Reformation, they have never approached it as a text for private interpretation. The Shi’i have their Imams; the Sunni and Ibadi have their scholars and jurists. The Church, not the text, is the pillar of truth for traditional Christians. And the community of scholars, not the individual, is the pillar of interpretation for Muslims. Both traditions are built on communal, mediated authority. Only Protestantism is built on the chaos of the individual.
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is demonstrablyhistorically fallacious.
It posits that Christians in the 7th century engaged with their scriptures rather than defer to Church authority.
It posits that Muslims in the 7th century accept books that Protestants themselves today do not accept.
It posits that Muslims and Christians engaged in cross referencing Bible canons with the Qur’an.
It posits that people in the 7th century have a high degree of literacy.
It posits that Bible canons were widely availabe to every Christian household.
The Qur’an engages communities and their learned.
“We did not send before you except as men to whom We revealed. Ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.” (Qur’an 16:43)
(And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men whom We inspired…) [16:43]. This verse was revealed about the idolaters of Mecca who denied the prophethood of Muhammed, Allah bless him and give him peace. They said: “Allah is too great to have a human being as His messenger; could He not have sent an angel?”
Notice that the people are being told to ask the people. They are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.
“So “if you are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, then ask those who are reciting the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).” (Qur’an 10:94)
Notice it says ask those who are reciting the book. The one(s) being addressed are not being told to consult the gospel or the torah.
As regard the ‘if’ Arabic grammar has conditionals that are similar to what we find in English.
The zero conditional is used for universal truths or general facts. Example: If water reaches 100°C, it boils.
The second conditional is used for unlikely or hypothetical scenarios. Example: If I won a million dollars, I would travel the world.
So the example used above is the conditional used for universal truths and general facts.
The zero conditional in Arabic (as in English) is not a genuine hypothetical. When the Qur’an says ‘If you are in doubt…’ it is not suggesting that doubt is possible. Rather, it is establishing a universal principle: when in doubt (and the Prophet -peace be upon him, was not), the remedy is to ask the learned. The ‘if’ is rhetorical. To make a point, not to suggest a real possibility.
Examples in the Qur’an:
“Say, “If The Most Merciful had a son, I would certainly have been the first one to worship him.” Exalted is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.”(Qur’an 43:81-82)
The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. Allah does not have a son.
“Say, “If there had been with Him gods, as they say, then they would have sought to the Owner of the Throne a way.” (Qur’an 17:42)
The if here is not one of a hypothetical but rather a universal truth. There are no other gods.
Also, let us take a look at a key part of the text. “Ask those who are reciting the book.” It doesn’t say ask the Jews or Samaritans. It doesn’t say ask the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christian, or the Eastern Orthodox. It says, ‘those who are reciting the book‘. So, if Muhammed (saw) asked ‘those who are reciting the book, he would receive some common themes but also a cacophony of discordant voices.
This confirms the following:
“Do not be like those who became divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them.” (Qur’an 3:105)
“The Jews and Christians each claim that none will enter Paradise except those of their own faith. These are their desires. Reply, “Produce your proof if what you say is true.” (Qur’an 2:1111)
Notice the text says ‘produce your proof’ it does not say ‘let us consult the torah and the gospel’.
Another example.
“Or have they taken gods besides Him? Say, “Produce your proof. This is the message for those with me and the message of those before me.” But most of them do not know the truth, so they are turning away.” (Qur’an 21:24)
In both examples with the idolaters of mecca, the jews and the christians all are being told to ‘produce their proofs’ what are your arguments.
Why do the rabbis (l-rabaniyuna) and religious scholars (ahbaru) not forbid them from saying what is sinful and devouring what is unlawful? How wretched is what they have been practicing.” (Qur’an 5:63)
This is a clear appeal to authority. The rabbis and scholars could only be faulted if it was known that they had authority over thier people. The verse presupposes that the religious leaders have authority and that they are failing in their duty. This is a direct parallel to the traditional Christian model, where bishops and councils, not laypeople, are the authority.
This is not accidental. The Protestant project has always sought to undermine ecclesiastical authority. By recruiting traditional Christians to fight the ‘Islamic Dilemma,’ Protestants are achieving what centuries of polemics could not: getting Catholics and Orthodox to abandon their own ecclesial principles and adopt the Protestant method of direct textual engagement.
It is bad enough that Protestant Evangelicals are ignorant of the context of 7th century Arabia, as well as the reality of the Pagan Arabs, as well as the Jewish and Christian communities.
What is extremely shocking is that representatives of traditional churches are willingy to drink from the same cup of ignorance.
Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) has never been the position of any traditional church.
Jesus claims that neither he nor the Bible guide you into all truth.
“I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when HE, the Spirit (Pneuma)Πνεῦμα of truth comes HE will guide you into all truth: (HOW?) For HE shall not speak of HIMSELF; But whatsoever HE shall hear (from God) that shall HE speak: and HE will show you things to come.” (John 16:12-13)
The problem for the Protestant: If the Spirit guides into all truth, then the Scripture can’t be the only infallible authority. This means The Bible alone does not contain all truth. It is only a partial revelation at bests and awaiting the Spirit of Truth and his guidance.
The problem for Catholics/Orthodox: If the Church (tradition) is the vehicle of the Spirit’s guidance, then the Church’s authority is self-referential and circular.
This is circular because:
The Church’s authority depends on the Bible The Bible’s authority depends on the Church Neither can independently validate the other.
So here we are. The real issue is we were promised someone who would SPEAK but in reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.
The problem for the Catholics/Orthodox is that Protestants have unwittingly recruited them into an argument that undermines them and their authority.
The layman did not go directly to the text in the 7th century Arabia.
There are number of reasons historically why this is not the case.
1) Literacy, one cannot assume that the average person could read and write, Arabic, Amharic, Ge’ez, Aramaic, Greek. For example the reference in Qur’an 10:94. This has to obviously be a reference to those who can read. This brings us to the next point.
2) Not only does Qur’an 10:94 have to be a reference to those who can read but those who would have access to a text. So this brings us to the lack of accessibility to the text. Today a Bible can be found in your average hotel. In that time people were not walking around with full canons.
3) It is a Protestant approach to go direct to the scripture and not a Traditional Church perspective. If one was Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East, it was not the habit of laypeople to go directly to the text.
Thus, the Qur’anic command to ‘judge by what Allah has revealed’ cannot mean ‘read the Bible for yourself.’ It would have been historically impossible for the vast majority of Christians to comply. The command must mean something else entirely something consistent with both the traditional model of authority and the lived reality on the ground.
The Protestant use of the Islamic Dilemma is actually a full frontal attack on traditional Christianity (be it Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East). Imagine Protestants telling Muslims to go direct to the Torah or the Injeel without the medium of the Holy Spirit or the guidance of the Church!! This is very mischievous and very cunning proposition propagated by the Protestants (esp evangelicals).
There were no Protestant churches nor a Protestant canon in the 7th century.
*Note*
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church did not split until 1054. Therefore the above graph should have them united as: Orthodox Catholic Church.
The following verse is often used by Protestant Christians.
“Do you believe in some of the book and reject the rest? Is there any reward for those who do so among you other than disgrace in this worldly life and being subjected to the harshest punishment on the Day of Judgment? For Allah is never unaware of what you do.” (Qur’an 2:285)
For the sake of argument let us say that Muslims understand this verse in the way that Protestants do.
What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is part of the book and what is not?
What objective basis do the Protestants have for determing what is scripture and what is not?
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular the tribes of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh what would the Samaritans advise in regard to following which scriptures?
The Muslim would find that the Samaritans reject all parts of the Bible except what they consider the Torah. That is to say they only accept Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. They reject the rest.
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to listen to the children of Israel, in particular those who are called Jews, what would be the advise in terms of scripture?
The Muslims would find that the bulk of Jews follow more than the five books that the Samaritans follow. They also follow an oral torah.
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that accepted the following books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees.
The Protestant canon of 66 books did not exist in the 7th century. It was a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an could not possibly be endorsing a canon that did not yet exist. This alone destroys the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.
If a Muslim in the 7th or 8th century were to embrace Christianity they would join any number of traditional churches that differ on the canon of the New Testament as well.
“By the beginning of the 5th century, or slightly earlier, the Syrian Church’s version of the Bible, the Peshitta (‘simple’ translation) was formed. For the New Testament it represented an accommodation of the Syrian canon with that of the Greeks. It contains 22 books – all of the present New Testament except:
II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John.”
“For the eastern part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) the East Syrians separated themselves as the Nestorians. There are many surviving manuscripts of the Peshitta, the oldest of which bears the date 442. For much more on Peshitta history, see the article at The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. It is noteworthy that exactly these 22 books are cited by John Chrystosom (~347-407) and Theodoret(393-466) from the School of Antioch. For a visual summary of these 22 books see the Cross Reference Table.”
Thus, even if we assume the Qur’an is endorsing the Peshitta canon, it would be endorsing a Bible that lacks five books the Protestant considers canonical. Which canon did the Qur’an endorse? The answer: none. The Qur’an does not endorse any canon. It endorses the original revelation, which is now lost or corrupted.
The Protestants imagine that the Qur’an is somehow endorsing a tangible canon.
What tangible canon would that be? Especially seeing that the Christians themselves were/are in dispute over it?
This is the same question that Christians who follow a traditional Church pose to those who espouse ‘anti-Islamianity’. That is why their whole preaching is against Islam, but they don’t have anywhere for Muslims to go after they apostate from Islam. It’s just anti-Islam teaching, but they (those preachers) do not reveal which church they are affiliated with. That is if they are affiliated with one at all.
This is also known as ‘churchless apologetic’.
This is why the ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is promoted primarily by ‘churchless apologists’. Grifters and independent evangelicals with no affiliation to any traditional Church. They have no stake in defending a particular ecclesiastical tradition. They simply want to tear down Islam, with no thought to where the Muslim convert would go. They are a law unto themselves, accountable to no one but their own whims and private interpretations. And this, ironically, is precisely what the traditional Churches have always warned against i.e The chaos of sola scriptura without the anchor of ecclesiastical authority.
Let us reflect on what Pope Benedict XVI said in his ‘What Is Christianity?’
“All of this means that the Christian faith is not a religion of the Book (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 108 and the Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini of 2008). Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. There is a double exchange here, a relationship of subordination and superordination. On the one hand, the Church clearly submits to the Word of God, always having to let itself be guided and judged by it, on the other hand, however, Scripture, starting from its whole, can only be adequately interpreted in the living Church. This position, adopted by the whole Church until the 16th century, was rejected in the Reformation with the principle of sola scriptura . Christianity now appears as a religion of the Book.
Source: (Benedetto XVI Che Cos’e il Cristianesimo quasi un testamento spirituale).
Here we have the Pope himself affirming that the Catholic Church does not treat the Bible as a self-interpreting text. The Qur’an says the same thing: ‘Ask the People of the Reminder.’ The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is not just unhistorical it is anti-Catholic, anti-Orthodox, and anti-Assyrian.
Holy Scripture speaks only in the living community of the Church. -Pope Benedict.
Example.
The doctrine of Invincible Ignorance.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that not everyone necessarily needs to confess Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour simply becuase not everyone is able to do so.
“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
“But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-9)
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” (John 3:18)
These text seem very clear that one needs to confess their faith in Jesus to be saved. However, the Roman Catholic Church via it’s doctrine of ‘Invincible Ignorance’ says not so fast.
The concept of invincible ignorance allows for the salvation of young children, the mentally disabled, and others who never heard the gospel.
St Augustine has a whole chapter title called: Chapter 2 [II.]— Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life.
He states:
“Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ’s divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh. 1 Timonty 3:16 For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Romans 10:17-18. Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth — because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few)”
The doctrine of invincible ignorance even allows for pagans who persecuted and killed Christians to enter heaven if the Pope prays for their deliverance. There is no need for the person to confess Christ even if they are able.
John of Damascus said that God freed Trajan from Hell after the prayers of Saint Gregory the Great.
“Further, the Damascene in the same sermon relates that Gregory, while praying for Trajan, heard a voice from heaven saying to him: “I have heard thy voice, and I pardon Trajan; : and of this fact the Damascene adds in the same sermon, “the whole East and West are witnesses. ” Yet it is clear that Trajan was in hell, since “he put many martyrs to a cruel death” [De his qui fide dormierunt]. Therefore the suffrages of the Church avail even for those who are in hell.”
The Roman Catholic Church can appeal to scripture but it is not necessay.
“And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)
“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)
So Catholics argue that God cannot issue commands that people can’t obey.
If the Catholic Church can interpret away the seemingly clear words of Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:9, then on what basis do Protestants claim that the Bible is self-iexplanatory? The very existence of the doctrine of invincible ignorance proves that the Church and not the text is the final authority.
Catholics like Sam Shamoun and Cameron Bertuzzi stand ready to debate Protestants like Anthony Rogers and Samuel Green on Invincible Ignorance.
The Protestant project has always sought to undermine church authority.
In Mainz, Germany, in the mid-1450s, Johann Gutenberg and his partner Johann Fust published more than 150 large-format copies of the Bible in Latin. This is the book known today as the Gutenberg Bible. That was in the 1450s, and there were 150 copies.
Up until that point, imagine all the Christian souls scattered throughout the Earth; they lived and died without once having or holding an individual Bible in their possession. Hopefully, some Christians will be more appreciative of this fact.
For over a millennium, Christians had no personal Bibles. They relied on the Church. They relied upon its liturgy, its priests, its bishops, its councils. The Protestant idea that the Bible is for the laity is a 16th-century invention. The Qur’an, revealed in the 7th century, could not have been commanding Christians to do what was historically impossible.
Books in those times were luxury items reserved exclusively for the ultra-wealthy, ruling elites, and church communities.
Ordinary Christians experienced the scriptures orally. They would gather together at church services to hear a literate priest or bishop read the letters and gospels aloud.
That Christian laity did not rely upon the Bible to receive their guidance. They relied upon their respective church, whether it was the Latin Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church, Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church, and not scripture, was the source of guidance and inspiration for the average Christian.
We can clearly see that the Qur’an has never endorsed the entirety of any Biblical canon or text.
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ has two horns both of which rest on an assumption. The assumption is that the Qur’an claims the Bible is true.
Does the Qur’an claim the Bible is true?
The word Bible has its etymological root in the Greek ta biblia, which means “small books”.
Possibly the closest equivalent would be the following:
“The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They believe in Allah, His angels, His Books (kutubihi), and His messengers.” (Qur’an 2:285)
This particular verse does not clarify which books are to be believed. Only that Muslims are to believe in ‘His Books’.
As we have demonstrated that historically speaking, Protestants cannot prove that the Qur’an 2:285 is identical to a 66 book canon.
One thing is certain. The Gospel is not included in the text of Qur’an 2:285. Hoever, Jesus is included in Qur’an 2:285.
The Qur’an never describes the Gospel as a book given to Jesus.
“And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.” (Qur’an 3:48)
An interesting note on the above. If the Torah was intact there would be no need for Allah to teach the Torah to Jesus.
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus , the son of Mary, (ma bayna yadayhi) having authority over the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and having authority over that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Qur’an 5:46)
“So let the people of the Gospel judgeby what Allah has revealed in it. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are the rebellious.” (Qur’an 5:47)
If the Gospel was in pristine condition the verse would have simply stated:
“And let the Christians judge by the Gospel.”
Yet, it is drawing attention to the ‘People of the Gospel’ (ahlul l’injili) to judge by what Allah has revealed therein.
The people who have the nomenclature ‘People of the Gospel’ are to judge.
Again keep in mind this is not a call for Christian laity to engage directly with their text.
Recall that we have already established two unassailable points. 1. Literacy was not widespread among all people. 2. Even it were not everyone had access to a text.
“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them(ʿindahum).” (Qur’an 7:157)
If a person possesses a heavily edited or condensed version of a historical document, it is still legally and conversationally “with them” (ʿindahum).
Example.
“And those who disbelieve say, ‘Why was the Qur’an not revealed to him all at once?” (Qur’an 25:32)
This is a reference to the Qur’an but the entirety of the Qur’an was not revealed at this time. Yet the text is still calling it the Qur’an.
The Qur’an debunks the Protestant claim of preservation.
“There are some among them who distort what is in the Book(bil-kitabi) with their tongues to make you think this is from (l-kitabi) the Book but it is not what the (l-kitabi) Book says. They say, “It is from Allah”—but it is not from Allah. And they attribute lies to Allah knowingly.” (Qur’an 3:78)
The Protestants sweep this accusation aside by affirming that the text doesn’t say anything about textual corruption. It is about people who twist the words and meanings of their sacred text. However, as pointed out in a society where illiteracy was common place, the laity did not go directly to the text and many of them did not have the requisite language skills to acces it. This was already quite poisonous.
However, the next text are not so easily swept aside.
“Have you any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen(yasma’una) to the word of Allah, then used to (yuharrifunahu)change it, after they had understood(‘aqaluhu) it, knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:75)
This verse is quite explicit in the damnation of these people. That they actually would listen to the words of Allah (auditory hearing), they understood it, confirmed it and knowingly changed it during the oral transmission process!
Received the revelation from Allah.
Understood it.
Knowingly distorted it during the oral transmission process.
One would have to be extremely vile to do such a thing.
‘Then woe to those who write the Book (l-kitaba) with their own hands, and then say: “This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.’ (Qur’an 2:79)
This is what we find “with them” (ʿindahum).
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the (תּוֹרַת יְהֹוָהTorat YHWH) law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (Jeremiah 8:8)
Notice the text of Qur’an 2:79 says they make gain by what they wrote.
The following says that Jews can give interest to non-Jews but not to one another.
“Unto a foreigner you may lend interest; but not unto your brother you shall not lend interest, that Jehovah your God may bless you in all that you put your hand on, in the land wherever you go into possess it. When you shall vow a vow unto Jehovah your God, you shall not be slack to pay it: For Jehovah your God will surely require it of you; and it would be sin in you.” (Deuteronomy 23:20-21)
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ uno verse card.
The Qur’an claims that the Gospel, Zabur and Torah are revelation from Allah. If one claims they have the Gospel, Zabur or Torah and those contents do not claim it is from Allah then it should be rejected.
For example, let us imagine that the Gospel is equivalent to any number of competing New Tesatament canons (35 books, 22 books or 27 books) this in and of itself raises questions how one objectively comes to the correct number of books.
However, is there anywhere where the New Testament claims that it is from God?
Many Christians will point to 2 Timothy 3:16.
Let us examine the text.
“Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.”
Well, this doesn’t say much. Every writing (graphé)inspired by God is profitable. This begs the question. On what objective basis does the Protestant determine which writings are inspired by God?
Predicative: All scripture (as a category) is inspired
ASV / RSV / NEB
“Every writing inspired by God is also profitable…”
Restrictive: Only inspired scripture is profitable
The Grammatical Issue
The Greek construction πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (pasa graphē theopneustos) is ambiguous:
Predicative Reading: “All writing is God-breathed” (the adjective describes the entire category)
Restrictive Reading: “Every writing that is God-breathed” (the adjective limits the category)
The Critical Point:
The absence of the verb “is” (ἐστιν – estin) in the Greek makes the translation a matter of interpretation. There is no explicit “is” in the text. The translator must decide whether to supply it as a predicative or a restrictive statement.
By the way, most of your translations will translate graphé as ‘scripture’ to give you the indication that it is somehow sacred.
Look how the various translations render the Greek into English.
The restrictive reading makes the most sense. That is because there is no Christian on Earth that believes that every writing is God -breathed. That would also make the Qur’an God-breathed and we would not be having this conversation.
The problem for the Protestant. (Every Christian must ask this in reality).
If only some writings are God-breathed, then:
Who determines which writings are inspired?
What is the criterion for inspiration?
How do we know which graphē are God-breathed?
This leads to the question of canon.
The Circular Problem:
Protestant Claim: 2 Timothy 3:16 proves that all Scripture is inspired.
Problem: The verse does not tell us which writings are Scripture.
Result: We must have a canon to know which writings are inspired.
But: The canon is determined different competing apostolic Churches, not by the text itself.
This is circular because:
The Church’s authority depends on the Bible. The Bible’s authority depends on the Church. Neither can independently validate the other.
So here we are. In reality all we have are church councils (EO/Catholic) or private interpretations (1001 Protestant denominations). Stalemate.
The Protestant ‘Islamic Dilemma’ undermines Jesus teachings and becomes a Satanic Dilemma for themselves.
“If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. “How then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:26)
The context of Matthew 12:26 is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees, who accused him of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul (Satan). Jesus used logical reasoning to expose the flaw in their claim, explaining that a divided kingdom or household cannot survive. Therefore, it would make no sense for Satan to cast out his own demons, as that would mean working against himself and destroying his own kingdom
The Protestant claim is that the spiritual force behind the Qur’an is none other than Satan.
If Satan inspired the Qur’an, why would he command people to follow the Torah and Gospel?
The Bible says Satan is the father of lies.
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44).
If he is the father of lies, he would not inspire a book that tells people to follow the truth (the Bible).
Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be from Satan. It must be from God.
The Christian cannot escape this without admitting that the Qur’an is either:
A) From God (which they deny), or
B) A bizarre, self-defeating satanic book that commands people to follow the very scripture that would lead them to Jesus and save them from Satan. This ultimately debunks Jesus logic given in Matthew 12:26.
C) The Christian must admit that the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what Jews call the Torah. This would mean the Qur’an’s confirmation is selective, conditional, and discriminatory. But this undermines the entire foundation of the ‘Islamic Dilemma’.
The Christian cannot say the Qur’an is entirely false (because it commands people to follow the Bible) and cannot say it’s entirely true (because that would mean accepting Islam). The only logical exits are:
Admit the Qur’an is from God (conversion).
Admit that Satan sometimes commands people to follow God (which is theologically absurd)
Admit the Muslim position is true (the Qur’an does not confirm the totality of what Christians call the Gospel and what the Jews call the Torah -which undermines both faiths.) < This would be what Satan would do. Satan would obfuscate a matter not lead people to God.
This is why traditional Christian Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East did not use these type of arguments against Islam.
They recognized the logical fallacy of such arguments. However, many catechumens of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition have fallen for the Protestant approach. They have brought shame and disrepute towards their respective churches.
The ‘Islamic Dilemma’ is a Protestant invention. It is historically ignorant, theologically shallow, and logically self-defeating. It betrays the very traditions it purports to defend. Traditional Christians who embrace it are unwittingly abandoning their own principles and fighting a battle on Protestant ground. The Qur’an invites a different approach: reasoned argument, consultation with the learned, and a return to the original revelation that it confirms and clarifies. The question is not ‘Which text is true?’ but ‘Where is the truth?’ And the Qur’an answers: it is in the Reminder that Allah has sent down. It is clear, preserved, and accessible to all who seek it.
To fully appreciate the Qur’anic message, we must imagine the religious landscape of the 7th century. it was a world of competing factions, warring sects, and conflicting claims to truth.
Consider the scene. The Jews and Samaritans were at odds with one another. The Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, rejected the Prophets and Writings, and worshipped on Mount Gerizim. The Jews accepted the entire Tanakh and worshipped in Jerusalem. Both claimed to be the true heirs of Abraham. Both anathematized the other neither accepting Jesus as the Messiah, each claiming to possess the true Torah. The Samaritans had their own version of the Torah, their own Mount Gerizim, their own priesthood. The Jews had their own Torah, their own Temple Mount, their own rabbinic traditions.
Then you had the Christians. But which Christians? The Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Christians, the Eastern Orthodox all arguing with one another over the nature of Christ, the number of his natures, the proper way to calculate Easter, the veneration of icons. Each claimed to be the true Church. Each claimed to have the true faith. Each anathematized the others.
These Christians practiced baptism as a death and resurrection ritual.
Then you had the Sabeans, also known as the Mandeans. They accepted John the Baptist but not Jesus. They practiced ritual baptism, but it carried a different meaning than what the Christians claimed. They had their own scriptures, their own prophets, their own traditions. They were a living witness to the fact that baptism was not the exclusive property of Christianity.
And among all these groups, there was no unified voice. The Pope in Rome claimed authority over the West. The Patriarch of Constantinople claimed authority over the East. The Patriarch of Alexandria claimed authority over Egypt and Ethiopia. The Patriarch of Antioch claimed authority over Syria and beyond. Each claimed to be the successor of Peter, the guardian of the true faith.
There was no single Bible. There were multiple canons: the 27-book canon of the West, the 22-book canon of the Syrian Church, the longer canons of the Ethiopian and Coptic Churches. There were multiple languages: Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Ge’ez, Armenian. There were multiple traditions: the Latin Rite, the Byzantine Rite, the Syriac Rite, the Alexandrian Rite.
Into this chaos came Muhammed, peace be upon him, with a single, powerful, unifying voice. He did not claim to bring a new religion. He came to restore the ancient faith of Abraham. The faith that all the prophets had taught. He did not speak from his own authority. He recited what was revealed to him by Allah, through the Angel Gabriel. He did not claim to be a new pope or patriarch. He claimed to be the final Messenger, confirming what was true in the previous revelations and correcting what had been corrupted.
The message was simple, clear, and cohesive:
There is no god but Allah, and Muhammed (saw) is His Messenger.
Allah is One. Not three, not incarnate.
All the prophets from Adam to Jesus (upon them be peace) taught the same message: submission to the One God.
The Qur’an is the final, preserved, and clarifying revelation.
Judgment is coming. Believe and do good. Or reject it and face the consequences.
For a truth-seeker in the 7th century, the choice was clear. On one side, a cacophony of competing sects, conflicting canons, and anathematizing councils. On the other side, a single, powerful, unifying voice calling all people to submit to the One God. Which message was more cohesive? Which message was more compelling? Which message would you follow?
Allah/God addresses this very scene:
‘So He has made the religion straight and simple. And do not be divided over it.’ (Qur’an 42:13)
‘And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided.’ (Qur’an 3:103)
‘And those who have been given the Book did not differ except after knowledge had come to them—out of jealousy among themselves.’ (Qur’an 42:14)
The Qur’anic message of unity was not just theological it was a lived reality. It offered clarity in a world of confusion. It offered authority in a world of division. It offered access to revelation in a world where the layperson was excluded from the text. And it offered a single, unified community in a world of warring sects.
“O humanity! What has emboldened you against your Lord, the Most Generous?” (Qur’an 82:6)
May Allah guide the sincere Christians who are longing for the truth. Those who have a hunger in their heart for guidance.
Prima Quran 